May 10, 2018
How restructuring Facebook lets Mark Zuckerberg make one of his favorite business moves
Zameena Mejia
Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer and founder of Facebook Inc., waits to begin a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees in Washington, D.C. Facebook announces major reorganization
Facebook announced its biggest executive restructure in its 15-year history on Tuesday as part of CEO Mark Zuckerberg's mission to "fix" the company. The change-up will move longtime Facebook executives from their current roles into new positions.
Zuckerberg seems to be employing a tactic he has endorsed in the past: promoting from within the company.
"Everyone who's going to be a VP or product group lead here really needs to earn that," Zuckerberg told LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman in an interview for the Masters of Scale podcast. "That, I think, ends up being really powerful for the culture."
Recode
✔
@Recode
Facebook is making its biggest executive shuffle in company history: https://www.recode.net/2018/5/8/17330226/facebook-reorg-mark-zuckerberg-whatsapp-messenger-ceo-blockchain?utm_campaign=recode.social&utm_content=recode&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter …
9:00 PM - May 9, 2018
Facebook's reorganization is meant to address privacy concerns as well as support its latest efforts to focus on blockchain.
Zuckerberg told Hoffman that drawing on internal talent has been an effective, long-held strategy for Facebook. "Making sure that people have opportunities to grow," he said, is one of his top priorities.
Chief product officer Chris Cox first started out at Facebook as a software engineer, for example. Cox's new role, one of the more notable shifts, will give him more responsibility over the product teams.
Vice president of social good Naomi Gleit started out as a marketing associate and is now among Facebook's most influential female executives. And former Paypal CEO and Facebook Messenger executive David Marcus will switch to the company's new blockchain team.
Friday, May 11, 2018
U.S. readies secret weapon in trade fight with China - CBS News
By RACHEL LAYNE MONEYWATCH May 11, 2018, 5:30 AM
U.S. readies secret weapon in trade fight with China
Fears of a U.S. trade war with China have focused on the threat of $150 billion in tariffs, risk to American industries like farming and potentially higher prices on a wide range of products.
But with U.S. and Chinese officials concluding trade talks in Beijing in early May without a major breakthrough, a broader effort with bipartisan support is gaining steam in Congress that could have a far bigger impact on relations — and on the American economy. The push involves increasing the authority of a government panel, little known to the public, that oversees foreign acquisitions of American companies.
Legislation in both the House and Senate seeks to stem China's access to U.S. intellectual property gained by acquiring and investing in domestic companies. Proponents of the measures say limiting Chinese control over U.S. players, especially in key sectors like technology and telecommunications, is a matter of national security.
"There is now strong support among both parties for curbing Chinese investment in the U.S., and for slowing or reversing the pace of technological integration between the two countries," Arthur Kroeber, head of research for Gavekal Research, said in a research note, adding that "the battle over investment has only just begun."
At the same time, President Trump has asked the Treasury Department to offer recommendations on tariffs by May 21, and that report may also include ways to limit foreign investment in the U.S. Combined, the initiatives represent the most aggressive government effort in decades to blunt the influence of a foreign power: China.
"Serious concerns"
In one stark example of unconventional steps the U.S. can take to target Chinese businesses, the Commerce Department in April imposed a seven-year sales ban on Beijing-based ZTE after finding that it had violated sanctions on doing business with Iran and North Korea. The telecom said Thursday that it has halted its main operations because of the move, which cut off access to key components, like microchips, made in the U.S.
Yet the bills wending their way through Congress -- both called the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017, or FIRRMA -- could give the government far more firepower to disrupt foreign businesses seeing to operate in the U.S. The measures aim to strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, a panel created by President Gerald Ford in 1975.
CFIUS, which includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, State, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, reviews individual acquisitions by foreign entities in the U.S.. And historically, the panel has blocked relatively few such purchases. That reticence is consistent with the long-held view of most American political leaders and economic officials that free trade, including investment from around the globe, makes for a more dynamic economy.
The legislation aims to better protect U.S. intellectual property in artificial intelligence, robotics and other domains by giving CFIUS broader authority to block foreign acquisitions.
"The acquisition of a Silicon Valley startup or even a health care provider may raise just as serious concerns from a national security perspective as the acquisition of some defense or aerospace companies, CFIUS's traditional area of focus," Heath Tarbert, an assistant secretary of the Treasury, said in April in written testimony before a House subcommittee.
CFIUS has already stepped up restrictions on foreign-based transactions, most notably recommending in March that Mr. Trump block a proposed $117 billion deal by Singapore's Broadcom for U.S. telecom parts manufacturer Qualcomm.
China is often accused, including by Mr. Trump, of swiping inventions covered by U.S. patents, trademarks and copyrights for everything from aviation equipment to software as it turbocharges its economy. Yet it's status as the world's second-biggest economy makes it an obvious market for U.S.corporations.
"It's tricky business," said Matt Gold, an adjunct professor of law at Fordham University and a former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative for North America. "You can't stop all American capital from creating jobs overseas. And you don't want to stop all foreign capital from creating jobs here."
Jobs from Chinese money
Indeed, experts fear that tightening the spigot on Chinese investment could deprive American companies of an ample source of capital — funding needed to drive growth and employment.
Some 2.6 million U.S. jobs rely on the U.S.-China trade relationship, according to Oxford Economics, with at least 43,000 tied to direct Chinese investment. At their peak in 2016, Chinese companies spent $62.8 billion on buying U.S. firms, a roughly 100-fold rise from 2000, according to Dealogic.
Between 2000 and 2017, more than 1,500 deals have involved Chinese companies investing in the U.S., according to Rhodium Group. Chinese companies have made direct acquisitions in most U.S. states.
The U.S. companies in which Chinese firms hold large stakes run the gamut. They include technology giants such as IBM and Tesla; automaker General Motors; agriculture giant Smithfield Foods; and fast-growing startups such as Uber, Lyft, Snap, Grindr and Airbnb.
That tide of funding may soon slow to a trickle. With Treasury set to outline a plan to curb outside investment, the Senate bill has been fast-tracked. Analysts speculate it could reach the floor by August.
U.S. readies secret weapon in trade fight with China
Fears of a U.S. trade war with China have focused on the threat of $150 billion in tariffs, risk to American industries like farming and potentially higher prices on a wide range of products.
But with U.S. and Chinese officials concluding trade talks in Beijing in early May without a major breakthrough, a broader effort with bipartisan support is gaining steam in Congress that could have a far bigger impact on relations — and on the American economy. The push involves increasing the authority of a government panel, little known to the public, that oversees foreign acquisitions of American companies.
Legislation in both the House and Senate seeks to stem China's access to U.S. intellectual property gained by acquiring and investing in domestic companies. Proponents of the measures say limiting Chinese control over U.S. players, especially in key sectors like technology and telecommunications, is a matter of national security.
"There is now strong support among both parties for curbing Chinese investment in the U.S., and for slowing or reversing the pace of technological integration between the two countries," Arthur Kroeber, head of research for Gavekal Research, said in a research note, adding that "the battle over investment has only just begun."
At the same time, President Trump has asked the Treasury Department to offer recommendations on tariffs by May 21, and that report may also include ways to limit foreign investment in the U.S. Combined, the initiatives represent the most aggressive government effort in decades to blunt the influence of a foreign power: China.
"Serious concerns"
In one stark example of unconventional steps the U.S. can take to target Chinese businesses, the Commerce Department in April imposed a seven-year sales ban on Beijing-based ZTE after finding that it had violated sanctions on doing business with Iran and North Korea. The telecom said Thursday that it has halted its main operations because of the move, which cut off access to key components, like microchips, made in the U.S.
Yet the bills wending their way through Congress -- both called the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017, or FIRRMA -- could give the government far more firepower to disrupt foreign businesses seeing to operate in the U.S. The measures aim to strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, a panel created by President Gerald Ford in 1975.
CFIUS, which includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, State, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, reviews individual acquisitions by foreign entities in the U.S.. And historically, the panel has blocked relatively few such purchases. That reticence is consistent with the long-held view of most American political leaders and economic officials that free trade, including investment from around the globe, makes for a more dynamic economy.
The legislation aims to better protect U.S. intellectual property in artificial intelligence, robotics and other domains by giving CFIUS broader authority to block foreign acquisitions.
"The acquisition of a Silicon Valley startup or even a health care provider may raise just as serious concerns from a national security perspective as the acquisition of some defense or aerospace companies, CFIUS's traditional area of focus," Heath Tarbert, an assistant secretary of the Treasury, said in April in written testimony before a House subcommittee.
CFIUS has already stepped up restrictions on foreign-based transactions, most notably recommending in March that Mr. Trump block a proposed $117 billion deal by Singapore's Broadcom for U.S. telecom parts manufacturer Qualcomm.
China is often accused, including by Mr. Trump, of swiping inventions covered by U.S. patents, trademarks and copyrights for everything from aviation equipment to software as it turbocharges its economy. Yet it's status as the world's second-biggest economy makes it an obvious market for U.S.corporations.
"It's tricky business," said Matt Gold, an adjunct professor of law at Fordham University and a former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative for North America. "You can't stop all American capital from creating jobs overseas. And you don't want to stop all foreign capital from creating jobs here."
Jobs from Chinese money
Indeed, experts fear that tightening the spigot on Chinese investment could deprive American companies of an ample source of capital — funding needed to drive growth and employment.
Some 2.6 million U.S. jobs rely on the U.S.-China trade relationship, according to Oxford Economics, with at least 43,000 tied to direct Chinese investment. At their peak in 2016, Chinese companies spent $62.8 billion on buying U.S. firms, a roughly 100-fold rise from 2000, according to Dealogic.
Between 2000 and 2017, more than 1,500 deals have involved Chinese companies investing in the U.S., according to Rhodium Group. Chinese companies have made direct acquisitions in most U.S. states.
The U.S. companies in which Chinese firms hold large stakes run the gamut. They include technology giants such as IBM and Tesla; automaker General Motors; agriculture giant Smithfield Foods; and fast-growing startups such as Uber, Lyft, Snap, Grindr and Airbnb.
That tide of funding may soon slow to a trickle. With Treasury set to outline a plan to curb outside investment, the Senate bill has been fast-tracked. Analysts speculate it could reach the floor by August.
Trump blasts "sleeping," "swamp person" Joe Donnelly in Indiana, as GOP hopes to scoop up Senate seat - CBS News
May 10, 2018, 6:48 PM
Trump blasts "sleeping," "swamp person" Joe Donnelly in Indiana, as GOP hopes to scoop up Senate seat
Last Updated May 10, 2018 9:42 PM EDT
With the heated GOP Senate primary over in Indiana, Republicans are launching into general election mode. On Thursday night, President Trump — accompanied by a laudatory Vice President Mike Pence — highlighted his administration's accomplishments, and made the case for more Republicans in the Senate.
The GOP is hoping to tap into Mr. Trump's popularity in the state — and into Pence's home court advantage — as it looks to scoop up the seat from Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly in November. Mike Braun, a businessman and former state representative who cast himself as an outsider in the GOP primaries, will face Donnelly in November, after winning Tuesday's primary. Mr. Trump spent at least as much time hitting Donnelly as praising Braun. Mr. Trump's audience — some of whom had been waiting in line since as early as 4 p.m. Wednesday, according to the local CBS station — was more than happy to boo Donnelly. Mr. Trump cast Braun as "winner" and Donnelly as "sleeping Joe."
"This November, Indiana will face an important choice. You can send a really incredible swamp person back to the Senate, like Joe Donnelly. Or you can send Republicans like Mike Braun to drain the swamp," Mr. Trump said, prompting a "drain the swamp" chant from his supporters.
Thursday night's speech was initially billed as a tax event, but Mr. Trump, as he has in previous tax events, veered off that topic. The president addressed recent news, like the return of the American hostages kept in North Korea.
But he also mentioned his election victory, and the campaign leading up to it. Mr. Trump, in mentioning historic low rates of black unemployment, recalled his 2016 comments in Michigan when he told black voters, "What the hell do you have to lose?" in voting for him. Mr. Trump also touted the unemployment rates for women.
"So you have African-Americans, Hispanics, women," Mr. Trump said in discussing the unemployment rates. "Women. Do we love women. Women."
The president also set his sights on his reelection campaign.
"Our new slogan for 2020, you know what it is? 'Keep America Great!'" Mr. Trump said.
He also took credit for stores saying "Merry Christmas" again.
"They weren't saying Merry Christmas. Now they're saying Merry Christmas again," he said.
Pence, who introduced Mr. Trump, mentioned the president repeatedly as he touted his accomplishments. The vice president called it the greatest honor of his life to serve Mr. Trump.
"He's a man of his word. He's a man of action. And how 'bout all the action this week?" Pence said.
Elkhart, Indiana, is Trump country. Nearly two-thirds of votes in the county, 64 percent, went to Mr. Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016. It also heavily relies on manufacturing -- a sector Mr. Trump often praises, and says the U.S. is bringing back to life.
Trump blasts "sleeping," "swamp person" Joe Donnelly in Indiana, as GOP hopes to scoop up Senate seat
Last Updated May 10, 2018 9:42 PM EDT
With the heated GOP Senate primary over in Indiana, Republicans are launching into general election mode. On Thursday night, President Trump — accompanied by a laudatory Vice President Mike Pence — highlighted his administration's accomplishments, and made the case for more Republicans in the Senate.
The GOP is hoping to tap into Mr. Trump's popularity in the state — and into Pence's home court advantage — as it looks to scoop up the seat from Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly in November. Mike Braun, a businessman and former state representative who cast himself as an outsider in the GOP primaries, will face Donnelly in November, after winning Tuesday's primary. Mr. Trump spent at least as much time hitting Donnelly as praising Braun. Mr. Trump's audience — some of whom had been waiting in line since as early as 4 p.m. Wednesday, according to the local CBS station — was more than happy to boo Donnelly. Mr. Trump cast Braun as "winner" and Donnelly as "sleeping Joe."
"This November, Indiana will face an important choice. You can send a really incredible swamp person back to the Senate, like Joe Donnelly. Or you can send Republicans like Mike Braun to drain the swamp," Mr. Trump said, prompting a "drain the swamp" chant from his supporters.
Thursday night's speech was initially billed as a tax event, but Mr. Trump, as he has in previous tax events, veered off that topic. The president addressed recent news, like the return of the American hostages kept in North Korea.
But he also mentioned his election victory, and the campaign leading up to it. Mr. Trump, in mentioning historic low rates of black unemployment, recalled his 2016 comments in Michigan when he told black voters, "What the hell do you have to lose?" in voting for him. Mr. Trump also touted the unemployment rates for women.
"So you have African-Americans, Hispanics, women," Mr. Trump said in discussing the unemployment rates. "Women. Do we love women. Women."
The president also set his sights on his reelection campaign.
"Our new slogan for 2020, you know what it is? 'Keep America Great!'" Mr. Trump said.
He also took credit for stores saying "Merry Christmas" again.
"They weren't saying Merry Christmas. Now they're saying Merry Christmas again," he said.
Pence, who introduced Mr. Trump, mentioned the president repeatedly as he touted his accomplishments. The vice president called it the greatest honor of his life to serve Mr. Trump.
"He's a man of his word. He's a man of action. And how 'bout all the action this week?" Pence said.
Elkhart, Indiana, is Trump country. Nearly two-thirds of votes in the county, 64 percent, went to Mr. Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016. It also heavily relies on manufacturing -- a sector Mr. Trump often praises, and says the U.S. is bringing back to life.
Margaret River shooting: Seven dead including four children in Australia's worst gun attack in decades - Independent
May 11, 2018
Margaret River shooting: Seven dead including four children in Australia's worst gun attack in decades
'This devastating tragedy will no doubt have a lasting impact on the families concerned, the whole community and, in particular, the local communities in our southwest'
Shehab Khan @shehabkhan
Four children are among seven people found dead at a rural property Katrina Miles/Facebook
Seven people have died, including four children, in what is being described as the worst mass shooting in Australia in 24 years.
Katrina Miles, her four children, aged eight to 13, and their grandparents, were found at a property at the rural village of Osmington, Western Australia state Police Commissioner Chris Dawson said.
Two guns were also found at the property, but police declined to comment on the possibility of murder-suicide.
Four children among seven dead in ‘mass shooting’ at home in Australia
Policeman shoots groundhog dead as it tries to cross busy road
13-year-boy shot while walking along London road with parents
Four children among seven dead in ‘mass shooting’ at home in Australia
Ms Miles and her children had apparently moved to the property, owned by her parents Cynda and Peter Miles, about three years ago.
She had home-schooled her three boys and her daughter at their farm.
Ms Miles has been described by friends as a devoted mother and someone who “worked tirelessly to provide them with everything they needed”.
“I always admired her for her strength. The kids were kind, gentle, smart and beautiful children,” a friend told The Australian.
Authorities have said they are not looking for a suspect.
“Police are currently responding to what I can only describe as a horrific incident,” Mr Dawson said.
“This devastating tragedy will no doubt have a lasting impact on the families concerned, the whole community and, in particular, the local communities in our southwest.”
Police were attempting to make contact with victims’ relatives, and have not released the names or ages of the dead.
Philip Alpers, a Sydney University gun policy analyst, said the tragedy appeared to be the worst mass shooting in Australia since a lone gunman killed 35 in Tasmania state in 1996, prompting the nation to introduce tough gun controls.
Australia’s gun laws are widely acclaimed as a success, with supporters including former US president Barack Obama saying Australia has not had a single mass shooting since they were implemented.
The generally accepted definition of a mass shooting – four deaths excluding the shooter in a single event – has been met only once in Australia since then, when a farmer shot his wife and three children before killing himself in 2014.
Farmers are allowed to own guns under Australian law because they have a legitimate need to use them to kill feral pests and predators or sick or injured livestock.
But automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are banned.
Osmington is a collection of a few streets, farms, horse studs, vacation accommodation and vineyards supplying the premium winemaking district known as Margaret River.
Samantha Lee, chair of the Gun Control Australia lobby group, said rural areas were over-represented in Australian gun deaths, including suicides.
“Regional and rural areas are particularly vulnerable to these sorts of tragedies, because of the combination of isolation, sometimes mental or financial hardship and easy access to firearms,” Ms Less said in a statement.
“Although the details of this tragedy are yet to come to light, Australia has a tragic history of higher rate of gun deaths in rural areas,” she added.
Agencies contributed to this report
Margaret River shooting: Seven dead including four children in Australia's worst gun attack in decades
'This devastating tragedy will no doubt have a lasting impact on the families concerned, the whole community and, in particular, the local communities in our southwest'
Shehab Khan @shehabkhan
Four children are among seven people found dead at a rural property Katrina Miles/Facebook
Seven people have died, including four children, in what is being described as the worst mass shooting in Australia in 24 years.
Katrina Miles, her four children, aged eight to 13, and their grandparents, were found at a property at the rural village of Osmington, Western Australia state Police Commissioner Chris Dawson said.
Two guns were also found at the property, but police declined to comment on the possibility of murder-suicide.
Four children among seven dead in ‘mass shooting’ at home in Australia
Policeman shoots groundhog dead as it tries to cross busy road
13-year-boy shot while walking along London road with parents
Four children among seven dead in ‘mass shooting’ at home in Australia
Ms Miles and her children had apparently moved to the property, owned by her parents Cynda and Peter Miles, about three years ago.
She had home-schooled her three boys and her daughter at their farm.
Ms Miles has been described by friends as a devoted mother and someone who “worked tirelessly to provide them with everything they needed”.
“I always admired her for her strength. The kids were kind, gentle, smart and beautiful children,” a friend told The Australian.
Authorities have said they are not looking for a suspect.
“Police are currently responding to what I can only describe as a horrific incident,” Mr Dawson said.
“This devastating tragedy will no doubt have a lasting impact on the families concerned, the whole community and, in particular, the local communities in our southwest.”
Police were attempting to make contact with victims’ relatives, and have not released the names or ages of the dead.
Philip Alpers, a Sydney University gun policy analyst, said the tragedy appeared to be the worst mass shooting in Australia since a lone gunman killed 35 in Tasmania state in 1996, prompting the nation to introduce tough gun controls.
Australia’s gun laws are widely acclaimed as a success, with supporters including former US president Barack Obama saying Australia has not had a single mass shooting since they were implemented.
The generally accepted definition of a mass shooting – four deaths excluding the shooter in a single event – has been met only once in Australia since then, when a farmer shot his wife and three children before killing himself in 2014.
Farmers are allowed to own guns under Australian law because they have a legitimate need to use them to kill feral pests and predators or sick or injured livestock.
But automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are banned.
Osmington is a collection of a few streets, farms, horse studs, vacation accommodation and vineyards supplying the premium winemaking district known as Margaret River.
Samantha Lee, chair of the Gun Control Australia lobby group, said rural areas were over-represented in Australian gun deaths, including suicides.
“Regional and rural areas are particularly vulnerable to these sorts of tragedies, because of the combination of isolation, sometimes mental or financial hardship and easy access to firearms,” Ms Less said in a statement.
“Although the details of this tragedy are yet to come to light, Australia has a tragic history of higher rate of gun deaths in rural areas,” she added.
Agencies contributed to this report
France vows pushback against U.S. sanctions on Iran - Reuters
MAY 11, 2018 / 7:21 PM / UPDATED 3 HOURS AGO
France vows pushback against U.S. sanctions on Iran
Reuters Staff
PARIS (Reuters) - France pledged on Friday to push back against the threat of U.S. sanctions against French companies doing business with Iran, in the wake of Washington’s withdrawal from the international nuclear agreement with Tehran.
The French government is seeking waivers and longer transition periods from the United States for companies such as Renault and Total, Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said, while pressing for European Union measures to improve the bloc’s “economic sovereignty” in the longer term.
“It’s time that European countries opened their eyes,” Le Maire said on Europe 1 radio.
President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear deal risks exposing European countries that have since invested in Iran to renewed U.S. sanctions after “wind-down” periods of three to six months expire.
Europe needs new “financial instruments allowing it to be independent from the United States”, Le Maire said.
Germany plans to offer legal advice to help its firms continue to do business in Iran, Economy Minister Peter Altmaier also said on Friday.
France and Germany are among EU countries that had drawn up euro-denominated Iran export finance programs to resist U.S. sanctions. But the severity of Washington’s stance has raised doubts about their viability.
Le Maire said he had asked U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin for temporary or permanent exemptions for French companies, citing carmaker PSA, drug giant Sanofi and food group Danone among those affected - in addition to Renault and oil major Total.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian also toughened the government’s tone in an interview with Le Parisien.
“We’re telling the Americans that it’s their business what sanctions they impose, but we consider the extraterritoriality of these measures unacceptable,” Le Drian said. “Europeans should not have to pay for U.S. withdrawal from an agreement.”
Reporting by Laurence Frost; Additional reporting by Julie Carriat; Editing by Richard Lough
France vows pushback against U.S. sanctions on Iran
Reuters Staff
PARIS (Reuters) - France pledged on Friday to push back against the threat of U.S. sanctions against French companies doing business with Iran, in the wake of Washington’s withdrawal from the international nuclear agreement with Tehran.
The French government is seeking waivers and longer transition periods from the United States for companies such as Renault and Total, Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said, while pressing for European Union measures to improve the bloc’s “economic sovereignty” in the longer term.
“It’s time that European countries opened their eyes,” Le Maire said on Europe 1 radio.
President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear deal risks exposing European countries that have since invested in Iran to renewed U.S. sanctions after “wind-down” periods of three to six months expire.
Europe needs new “financial instruments allowing it to be independent from the United States”, Le Maire said.
Germany plans to offer legal advice to help its firms continue to do business in Iran, Economy Minister Peter Altmaier also said on Friday.
France and Germany are among EU countries that had drawn up euro-denominated Iran export finance programs to resist U.S. sanctions. But the severity of Washington’s stance has raised doubts about their viability.
Le Maire said he had asked U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin for temporary or permanent exemptions for French companies, citing carmaker PSA, drug giant Sanofi and food group Danone among those affected - in addition to Renault and oil major Total.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian also toughened the government’s tone in an interview with Le Parisien.
“We’re telling the Americans that it’s their business what sanctions they impose, but we consider the extraterritoriality of these measures unacceptable,” Le Drian said. “Europeans should not have to pay for U.S. withdrawal from an agreement.”
Reporting by Laurence Frost; Additional reporting by Julie Carriat; Editing by Richard Lough
White House aide mocks McCain's cancer: 'He's dying anyway' - the meanest and most heartless verbal attack anyone could utter - MSNBC News
White House aide mocks McCain's cancer: 'He's dying anyway'
The White House declined to deny the remarks made by communications aide Kelly Sadler.
by Kristen Welker, Ken Dilanian, Geoff Bennett and Alex Johnson / May.11.2018 / 11:46 AM ET / Updated 2:42 PM ET
Members of the media follow Senator John McCain following an Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on Nov. 30, 2017.Michael Reynolds / EPA
A top White House communications aide made fun of Sen. John McCain's brain cancer diagnosis on Thursday, sources with direct knowledge said — comments that enraged the senator's wife.
The comments, which were first reported by The Hill, a Washington political newspaper, came during a meeting a day after McCain, R-Ariz., announced that he was opposing the nomination of Gina Haspel to be permanent director of the CIA.
"He's dying anyway," said Kelly Sadler the White House's director of surrogate and coalitions outreach, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the meeting.
The White House didn't deny that Sadler made the remarks. Asked for comment, it said in a statement only: "We respect Senator McCain's service to our nation and he and his family are in our prayers during this difficult time."
The comments dismayed many Republicans on Capitol Hill, where McCain, who was first elected to the Senate in 1986, is a widely admired figure. Multiple Republican sources and aides told NBC News on Thursday night that they had been on the phone with colleagues expressing disbelief about what was said.
Multiple White House spokespeople didn't respond when asked about Sadler's future in the Trump administration.
McCain, 81, who was tortured by his North Vietnamese captors during the Vietnam War, said Wednesday that he opposed Haspel's nomination because of her role in the CIA's use of brutal "enhanced" interrogation techniques after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"Ms. Haspel's role in overseeing the use of torture by Americans is disturbing," McCain said. "Her refusal to acknowledge torture's immorality is disqualifying."
Haspel said in a statement Thursday: "I have the utmost respect for Senator McCain and I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which he has approached this nomination process."
Image: Kelly SadlerKelly Sadler moderates a Generation Next panel at the White House on March 22.White House
McCain's office had no comment. But his wife, Cindy McCain, responded sharply on Twitter in a post addressed to Sadler on Thursday, writing, "May I remind you my husband has a family, 7 children and 5 grandchildren."
McCain has remained at home in Arizona with glioblastoma, a form of brain cancer. He was also mocked Thursday on the Fox Business Network by retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney in a defense of harsh interrogation tactics.
"The fact is, is John McCain — it worked on John," McInerney said. "That's why they call him 'Songbird John.' "
No evidence has ever emerged that McCain revealed accurate information to the North Vietnamese. He wrote in his autobiography that he gave made-up information to mislead his captors.
In response to strong criticism, Charles Payne, a host of the program on which McInerney was a guest, acknowledged on air that "a guest made a very false and derogatory remark about Senator John McCain."
"As a proud military veteran and son of a Vietnam vet these words neither reflect my or the network's feelings about Senator McCain, or his remarkable service and sacrifice to this country," Payne said.
The White House declined to deny the remarks made by communications aide Kelly Sadler.
by Kristen Welker, Ken Dilanian, Geoff Bennett and Alex Johnson / May.11.2018 / 11:46 AM ET / Updated 2:42 PM ET
Members of the media follow Senator John McCain following an Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on Nov. 30, 2017.Michael Reynolds / EPA
A top White House communications aide made fun of Sen. John McCain's brain cancer diagnosis on Thursday, sources with direct knowledge said — comments that enraged the senator's wife.
The comments, which were first reported by The Hill, a Washington political newspaper, came during a meeting a day after McCain, R-Ariz., announced that he was opposing the nomination of Gina Haspel to be permanent director of the CIA.
"He's dying anyway," said Kelly Sadler the White House's director of surrogate and coalitions outreach, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the meeting.
The White House didn't deny that Sadler made the remarks. Asked for comment, it said in a statement only: "We respect Senator McCain's service to our nation and he and his family are in our prayers during this difficult time."
The comments dismayed many Republicans on Capitol Hill, where McCain, who was first elected to the Senate in 1986, is a widely admired figure. Multiple Republican sources and aides told NBC News on Thursday night that they had been on the phone with colleagues expressing disbelief about what was said.
Multiple White House spokespeople didn't respond when asked about Sadler's future in the Trump administration.
McCain, 81, who was tortured by his North Vietnamese captors during the Vietnam War, said Wednesday that he opposed Haspel's nomination because of her role in the CIA's use of brutal "enhanced" interrogation techniques after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"Ms. Haspel's role in overseeing the use of torture by Americans is disturbing," McCain said. "Her refusal to acknowledge torture's immorality is disqualifying."
Haspel said in a statement Thursday: "I have the utmost respect for Senator McCain and I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which he has approached this nomination process."
Image: Kelly SadlerKelly Sadler moderates a Generation Next panel at the White House on March 22.White House
McCain's office had no comment. But his wife, Cindy McCain, responded sharply on Twitter in a post addressed to Sadler on Thursday, writing, "May I remind you my husband has a family, 7 children and 5 grandchildren."
McCain has remained at home in Arizona with glioblastoma, a form of brain cancer. He was also mocked Thursday on the Fox Business Network by retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney in a defense of harsh interrogation tactics.
"The fact is, is John McCain — it worked on John," McInerney said. "That's why they call him 'Songbird John.' "
No evidence has ever emerged that McCain revealed accurate information to the North Vietnamese. He wrote in his autobiography that he gave made-up information to mislead his captors.
In response to strong criticism, Charles Payne, a host of the program on which McInerney was a guest, acknowledged on air that "a guest made a very false and derogatory remark about Senator John McCain."
"As a proud military veteran and son of a Vietnam vet these words neither reflect my or the network's feelings about Senator McCain, or his remarkable service and sacrifice to this country," Payne said.
Is this the world's most glamorous dog? Chinese man spends £28,000 pampering his beloved pooch - Daily Mail
Is this the world's most glamorous dog? Chinese man spends £28,000 pampering his beloved pooch to keep his floor-length locks luscious with extravagant grooming regime
Owner in Beijing has spent £11,600 on grooming equipment and another £525 per month on bathing products
The three-year-old Afghan Hound needs to be bathed every seven to 10 days, six to eight hours every time
The owner has bought a camera and taken up photography lessons to share his best shots on social media
By CATERS NEWS AGENCY and KELSEY CHENG FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 20:26 AEST, 11 May 2018 | UPDATED: 21:14 AEST, 11 May 2018
The Chinese owner of the world's most stylish dog has spent £28,000 on the pampered pooch's beauty regime.
With flowing locks a model would be proud of, Kevin Chan's glamourous three-year-old Afghan Hound AJ Nirvana Battle turns heads wherever he goes.
Mr Chan, who is a marketing director based in Beijing, has spent 100,000 yuan (£11,600) so far on grooming equipment and coughs up 4,500 yuan (£525) every month on bathing products to keep his pup's pristine floor-length mane perfectly preened.
Video playing bottom right...
Owner Kevin Chan has spent £28,000 on the grooming regime on his three-year-old Afghan Hound, AJ Nirvana Battle +13
Owner Kevin Chan has spent £28,000 on the grooming regime on his three-year-old Afghan Hound, AJ Nirvana Battle
Mr Chan said Battle is the most beautiful creature he has ever seen +13
Mr Chan has bought a camera and taken up photography lessons so he can share the best photos of his beloved pet online
Chilling moment a stranger 'attempts to abduct' a boy by...
Critic's jailing shows hushed dissent since '08 China quake
Nearly wiped out by quake, China's Qiang minority lives on
The Latest: Trump congratulates Mahathir after historic win
Hope, anger for relatives of S. Koreans kidnapped by North
Yaya Toure ready to turn down big-money offers from China...
The glamorous pooch is seen waving his smooth and shiny sliver locks back and forth in a video while strutting elegantly like a model.
The Hong Kong-born 29-year-old spends six to eight hours a week brushing the hairy hound and claims Battle is the most beautiful animal he has ever seen.
'The moment I decided to take Battle home, he was already the most beautiful dog in the world,' Mr Chan said.
'He is a family member now, so I don't mind spending time and money on him.'
Owner Kevin Chan said that Afghan hounds were born as models and have their own unique characters
Owner Kevin Chan said that Afghan hounds were born as models and have their own unique characters
Battle needs to be bathed regularly every seven to 10 days - it takes six to eight hours to bathe and groom him every time
Owner Kevin Chan said he does all the grooming himself
Battle needs to be bathed regularly every seven to 10 days - it takes six to eight hours to bathe and groom him every time
Battle needs to be bathed regularly every seven to 10 days - it takes six to eight hours to bathe and groom him every time.
'I do all the grooming myself and have spent about 100,000 yuan (£11,600) to date on grooming equipment. I spend another 4,000 yuan (£465) to 5,000 (£582) yuan on the best bathing products every month.'
Afghan hounds were born as models and have their own unique characters, Mr Chan added.
'I don't style him deliberately, I just follow my heart,' he said.
'I always tell people I didn't choose the dog - but he chose me. Therefore I have to try my best to give him the best treatment.'
Mr Chan adopted three-year-old Afghan Hound Battle almost three years ago, and has started the beauty routine since
Mr Chan adopted three-year-old Afghan Hound Battle almost three years ago, and has started the beauty routine since
Mr Chan adopted Battle almost three years ago, and has started the beauty routine since.
Every day, he sprays a nutritious solution on the pooch's fur to smooth it before letting it sink for about a minute.
Then, with a bristle brush, he gets rid of any knots in the mane by using talcum or baby powder to remove tangles.
'When Battle was younger, it would take me two hours every day to groom him, but now I only have to do this for an hour a time,' he said.
Owner Kevin Chan walks his dog in Beijing
Mr Chan coughs up £525 a month on bathing products to keep his pup's pristine floor-length mane perfectly preened +13
Mr Chan coughs up £525 a month on bathing products to keep his pup's pristine floor-length mane perfectly preened
Mr Chan has even bought a camera and taken up photography lessons so he can share the best photos of his pampered pet on social media.
He also said it takes him a couple of tries to comb Battle's coat properly for 'the nicest shots'.
'I began to film and shoot him from the first day I got him because I wanted to document every single moment,' he added.
He said that people have given interesting reaction when they see Battle.
'Some would ask: "Is it a dog or a sheep?"' he said. 'Others would say: "It must be very expensive to keep him."'
But most of the time, they would compliment how pretty Battle is and snap a photo with him.
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson cuts $30M check to GOP amid Dems' 'blue wave' fears - Fox News
May 10, 2018
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson cuts $30M check to GOP amid Dems' 'blue wave' fears
By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News
GOP leaders made big push for Sheldon Adelson donation: Gasparino
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson is making a big donation to a super PAC that is pushing to protect the Republicans' House majority. FBN's Charlie Gasparino with more.
Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has committed to a $30 million cash infusion for a House Republican group, a move that will boost GOP chances of fighting off energized Democrats in the midterm elections.
The donation to the House GOP-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund was sealed last week when Speaker Paul Ryan and his entourage met with the mogul at his hotel, where he explained the importance of his money in maintaining the Republicans' House control, Politico reported.
Due to laws guiding political contributions, Ryan, like any other federally elected official, couldn't solicit a donation as big as $30 million. Instead, Norm Coleman, the former Minnesota senator who chairs the Republican Jewish Coalition, was tasked with asking for the donation while Ryan left the room, the report said.
FBN's Charlie Gasparino discusses how billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Steve Cohen have pulled back on their donations to the Republican Party.
Republicans have long courted Adelson to make a donation in this election cycle. In February, multiple House Republicans paid Adelson their respects and attended an annual retreat hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition, which Adelson also supports.
The massive cash infusion comes six months before the midterm elections, in which Republicans are facing tough and well-funded Democratic challengers with a mobilized voting base in the wake of President Donald Trump's presidency.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said earlier this month that she's optimistic her party will regain control of the House.
According to an average of generic ballot polls, Democrats have a 7-point advantage over the GOP, though the lead has been significantly cut in recent months, with fears on the Democratic side as well that the so-called "blue wave" won't materialize on Election Day.
Adelson's donation is also three times bigger compared to his 2016 donation and came a lot earlier than in the previous election cycles, according to Politico.
Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson cuts $30M check to GOP amid Dems' 'blue wave' fears
By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News
GOP leaders made big push for Sheldon Adelson donation: Gasparino
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson is making a big donation to a super PAC that is pushing to protect the Republicans' House majority. FBN's Charlie Gasparino with more.
Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has committed to a $30 million cash infusion for a House Republican group, a move that will boost GOP chances of fighting off energized Democrats in the midterm elections.
The donation to the House GOP-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund was sealed last week when Speaker Paul Ryan and his entourage met with the mogul at his hotel, where he explained the importance of his money in maintaining the Republicans' House control, Politico reported.
Due to laws guiding political contributions, Ryan, like any other federally elected official, couldn't solicit a donation as big as $30 million. Instead, Norm Coleman, the former Minnesota senator who chairs the Republican Jewish Coalition, was tasked with asking for the donation while Ryan left the room, the report said.
FBN's Charlie Gasparino discusses how billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Steve Cohen have pulled back on their donations to the Republican Party.
Republicans have long courted Adelson to make a donation in this election cycle. In February, multiple House Republicans paid Adelson their respects and attended an annual retreat hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition, which Adelson also supports.
The massive cash infusion comes six months before the midterm elections, in which Republicans are facing tough and well-funded Democratic challengers with a mobilized voting base in the wake of President Donald Trump's presidency.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said earlier this month that she's optimistic her party will regain control of the House.
According to an average of generic ballot polls, Democrats have a 7-point advantage over the GOP, though the lead has been significantly cut in recent months, with fears on the Democratic side as well that the so-called "blue wave" won't materialize on Election Day.
Adelson's donation is also three times bigger compared to his 2016 donation and came a lot earlier than in the previous election cycles, according to Politico.
Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.
Australian federal budget 2018-2019 - Basic public finance principles to assess the budget's fairness and propriety - JKHC
To enable Australian citizens to assess the budget, I set out below the basic principles governing public finance for their reference ;-
( 6 ) Basic working principles of public or government finance
Governments spend a lot of taxpayers' money in recurrent expenses as well as capital or infrastructure projects. The government budget is of direct relevance to our financial position and that of society as a whole. Citizens are very often asked to pay their share of these spendings through the increase of personal income tax or other indirect taxes such as sales tax or GST ( goods & services tax ). Incorrect ways of spending public funds will both do great damages to the economy and will result in great injustice.
Just as in accounting there are some basic philosophies involved in this specialised branch of economics. Let us have a brief look a few more important ones. Before doing so, however, we need to learn about some special characteristics of public finance. The concepts of external economies and diseconomies very often come up in connection with government spending because the government is responsible for many branches of social services. Here the terms economies and diseconomies refer to conditions and effects and not systems as such. A particular economic activity is said to produce an external economy when it can create benefits for other people who are not the intended target of that activity. Take the radio air wave for example. If the government sets up a radio station for its military service everyone else can also enjoy its programs without extra costs on the government. Again, if the government constructs a freeway to make it more convenient for citizens in the outlying areas to get into the city the freeway will also benefit those living along its route. The improved convenience will also lead to the increase in the value of properties in its vicinity. These are extra benefits to be reaped by society.
On the other hand, some economic activities can create external diseconomies. For example, an electric power station that runs on coal will give rise to air pollution and will adversely affect the health of citizens living in its vicinity. Besides the moral issue the costs of the resultant long-term health care problems will be ultimately borne by society while the electric company simply makes the profit without bearing the full social costs. Nowadays, social accounting is becoming popular in some countries to find out the ultimate costs of to society. The fundamental lessons to be learned on these special characteristics of public projects are three fold. First, the decision to go ahead with such projects must be based not just on immediate or direct costs and benefits but on all external economies and diseconomies. Secondly, many projects with such special characteristics are very often more suited to public sector management because profit is not the sole consideration for the government. Thirdly, if it is decided that it is more efficient for private corporations to handle such projects strict control must be in place to ensure that costs of external diseconomies if any must be paid for by the private enterprise undertaking the project. Otherwise, corporate greed will again lead to some social costs being passed on by the private enterprise to the taxpayer. However, it must also be borne in mind that others things being equal first consideration should be given to allowing the private sector to take up the project under a market oriented economy to give priority to economic efficiency. The existing size of the public sector must also be considered so as to keep down government's share in the total economy to a reasonable proportion such as below 20 % of GDP ( gross domestic product ).
( 6 ) Basic working principles of public or government finance
Governments spend a lot of taxpayers' money in recurrent expenses as well as capital or infrastructure projects. The government budget is of direct relevance to our financial position and that of society as a whole. Citizens are very often asked to pay their share of these spendings through the increase of personal income tax or other indirect taxes such as sales tax or GST ( goods & services tax ). Incorrect ways of spending public funds will both do great damages to the economy and will result in great injustice.
Just as in accounting there are some basic philosophies involved in this specialised branch of economics. Let us have a brief look a few more important ones. Before doing so, however, we need to learn about some special characteristics of public finance. The concepts of external economies and diseconomies very often come up in connection with government spending because the government is responsible for many branches of social services. Here the terms economies and diseconomies refer to conditions and effects and not systems as such. A particular economic activity is said to produce an external economy when it can create benefits for other people who are not the intended target of that activity. Take the radio air wave for example. If the government sets up a radio station for its military service everyone else can also enjoy its programs without extra costs on the government. Again, if the government constructs a freeway to make it more convenient for citizens in the outlying areas to get into the city the freeway will also benefit those living along its route. The improved convenience will also lead to the increase in the value of properties in its vicinity. These are extra benefits to be reaped by society.
On the other hand, some economic activities can create external diseconomies. For example, an electric power station that runs on coal will give rise to air pollution and will adversely affect the health of citizens living in its vicinity. Besides the moral issue the costs of the resultant long-term health care problems will be ultimately borne by society while the electric company simply makes the profit without bearing the full social costs. Nowadays, social accounting is becoming popular in some countries to find out the ultimate costs of to society. The fundamental lessons to be learned on these special characteristics of public projects are three fold. First, the decision to go ahead with such projects must be based not just on immediate or direct costs and benefits but on all external economies and diseconomies. Secondly, many projects with such special characteristics are very often more suited to public sector management because profit is not the sole consideration for the government. Thirdly, if it is decided that it is more efficient for private corporations to handle such projects strict control must be in place to ensure that costs of external diseconomies if any must be paid for by the private enterprise undertaking the project. Otherwise, corporate greed will again lead to some social costs being passed on by the private enterprise to the taxpayer. However, it must also be borne in mind that others things being equal first consideration should be given to allowing the private sector to take up the project under a market oriented economy to give priority to economic efficiency. The existing size of the public sector must also be considered so as to keep down government's share in the total economy to a reasonable proportion such as below 20 % of GDP ( gross domestic product ).
Very often there is some dilemma facing government in connection with the operation of many public services such as health care and social welfare. How much should the government charge citizens for using such services. If they are completely free then such services may be abused by those who may not really need them. Thus, it will lead to a waste of precious economic resources. On the other hand, if the charges are too expensive it will be unfair to the the underprivileged sector of society who may not be able to afford them thus creating a burden on the poor. Due to the special characteristics of such essential services the strict rules of the price system ( or money vote and by supply and demand ) under capitalism cannot work properly. Here again we encounter situations that cannot be satisfactorily handled by a strict application of the price system ( prices to be determined freely by supply and demand ) which is considered to be a sacred institution under capitalism. So, economists have come up with two useful principles that are quite handy in such tricky situations. They are called the ability to pay and benefits received principles in public finance. These two principles are not mutually exclusive but can be used in a certain mix to achieve the optimum balance on fairness and efficent use of economic resources.
The “ ability to pay “ principle requires that due consideration must be given to any hardship that may affect the user's ability to pay for the essential services while the “ benefits received “ principles specifies that users have the basic obligation to pay for any services they receive unless special circumstances warrant otherwise. Applying the above principles to use of the emergency ward of public hospitals an appropriate way to
The “ ability to pay “ principle requires that due consideration must be given to any hardship that may affect the user's ability to pay for the essential services while the “ benefits received “ principles specifies that users have the basic obligation to pay for any services they receive unless special circumstances warrant otherwise. Applying the above principles to use of the emergency ward of public hospitals an appropriate way to
strike a balance between fairness and efficient use of the emergency facilities would be to charge a fee that will deter non-urgent users ( benefits received principle ) but the charge can be waived by the health authority or borne by the social welfare department in case of citizens already on the welfare system ( ability to pay principle ).
The government's budget can be used very effectively to achieve many economic goals such as creating employment ( through fiscal spending ), redistribution of income on a more equitable basis ( through taxation ), keeping down the inflation rate by a surplus budget ( withdrawing more resources from the economy than putting back into it ) and stimulating consumption in the private sector through a deficit budget ( injecting more into the economy than withdrawing from it ). There is usually no serious problem with a surplus budget except public criticism against the government for not taking better care of the underprivileged sector. However, if a surplus budget is called for to dampen an over heated economy by withdrawing resources from it the foregoing criticism will not stand. On the other hand, there can be a lot of controversey over a deficit budget ( spending more than the amount of revenue raised during a financial year ). This is because a deficit must be properly funded.
There are basically three way of funding a budget deficit. First, the government can simply print more money. This is the worst and most irresponsible way because putting more money into the economy without a corresponding increase in the production of goods and services will simply lead to a higher price inflation which is will lead to hardship for the fixed income earners and reduce the competitive edge of the country as compared to other trading partners. Unfortunately, irresponsible and dictatorial governments such as Zimbabwe are doing exactly that. It had led to a hyper inflation rate of over 231,000,000% in Zimbabwe in July 2008 as compared to the previous year. The same tragic scenario also occurred in Germany after the First World War. The second wayis to raise more taxes which will be a direct burden on the taxpayer and will be unpopular. The third way is to borrow from its citizens and outsiders ( other countries and international corporations ) by issuing government bonds ( national debt ).
There are some particularly tricky problems connected with the question of national debts. First and foremost, borrowing too much will subject the government to the influence of the creditors especially if these are foreign countries or international financing giant corporations. There is always the political consideration that these creditors can put undue pressure on the government to carry out policies to the advantage of the creditors. In extreme cases of excessive national debt the sovereignty of the national may be threatened. In the case of excessive national debt owed to its own citizens there will be a problem of adversely affecting a fair distribution of income. Those citizens who are most likely to buy government bonds are the rich people. Interest payment on bonds will ultimately be financed from taxation. This means that the rich will become richer at the expense of the poor. While only the rich receive interest payment on the government bonds they hold as investment every citizen ( even the less well off ) must be bear the tax burden in respect of that portion raised for the purpose of financing government bond interest payments. The rich are getting richer while the poor have less to spend due to a higher tax burden resulting from the need to pay interest on government bonds.
Then there is the problem with the intergeneration transfer of national debt burden. As many types of government bonds have very long maturity periods this will imply that a substantial amount of money raised by government bonds during the period of their issue will not be due for repayment until becades into thefuture. As mentioned above in section ( 4 ) in connection with the working of the financial market some US treasury bonds have up to 99 years before they are due for repayment. This created the situation of the national debt burden being transferred to future generations while the borrowed funds have been used in the current generation. Therefore, to be fair to future taxpayers long term government bonds should only be issued to finance long term infrastructure capital projects such as roads and bridges which have enduring benefits that will extend to future generations. This is the accounting principle of matching capital expenditure ( capital assets ) with long term loans ( or long term liability ) which is also applicable in social accounting to ensure fairness to all citizens. This treatment also reflects the benefits received principle in public finance. By the same token, short term government bonds should be issued to cover a short fall in revenue in a deficit budget for the increased current expenses of a revenue nature.
The government's budget can be used very effectively to achieve many economic goals such as creating employment ( through fiscal spending ), redistribution of income on a more equitable basis ( through taxation ), keeping down the inflation rate by a surplus budget ( withdrawing more resources from the economy than putting back into it ) and stimulating consumption in the private sector through a deficit budget ( injecting more into the economy than withdrawing from it ). There is usually no serious problem with a surplus budget except public criticism against the government for not taking better care of the underprivileged sector. However, if a surplus budget is called for to dampen an over heated economy by withdrawing resources from it the foregoing criticism will not stand. On the other hand, there can be a lot of controversey over a deficit budget ( spending more than the amount of revenue raised during a financial year ). This is because a deficit must be properly funded.
There are basically three way of funding a budget deficit. First, the government can simply print more money. This is the worst and most irresponsible way because putting more money into the economy without a corresponding increase in the production of goods and services will simply lead to a higher price inflation which is will lead to hardship for the fixed income earners and reduce the competitive edge of the country as compared to other trading partners. Unfortunately, irresponsible and dictatorial governments such as Zimbabwe are doing exactly that. It had led to a hyper inflation rate of over 231,000,000% in Zimbabwe in July 2008 as compared to the previous year. The same tragic scenario also occurred in Germany after the First World War. The second wayis to raise more taxes which will be a direct burden on the taxpayer and will be unpopular. The third way is to borrow from its citizens and outsiders ( other countries and international corporations ) by issuing government bonds ( national debt ).
There are some particularly tricky problems connected with the question of national debts. First and foremost, borrowing too much will subject the government to the influence of the creditors especially if these are foreign countries or international financing giant corporations. There is always the political consideration that these creditors can put undue pressure on the government to carry out policies to the advantage of the creditors. In extreme cases of excessive national debt the sovereignty of the national may be threatened. In the case of excessive national debt owed to its own citizens there will be a problem of adversely affecting a fair distribution of income. Those citizens who are most likely to buy government bonds are the rich people. Interest payment on bonds will ultimately be financed from taxation. This means that the rich will become richer at the expense of the poor. While only the rich receive interest payment on the government bonds they hold as investment every citizen ( even the less well off ) must be bear the tax burden in respect of that portion raised for the purpose of financing government bond interest payments. The rich are getting richer while the poor have less to spend due to a higher tax burden resulting from the need to pay interest on government bonds.
Then there is the problem with the intergeneration transfer of national debt burden. As many types of government bonds have very long maturity periods this will imply that a substantial amount of money raised by government bonds during the period of their issue will not be due for repayment until becades into thefuture. As mentioned above in section ( 4 ) in connection with the working of the financial market some US treasury bonds have up to 99 years before they are due for repayment. This created the situation of the national debt burden being transferred to future generations while the borrowed funds have been used in the current generation. Therefore, to be fair to future taxpayers long term government bonds should only be issued to finance long term infrastructure capital projects such as roads and bridges which have enduring benefits that will extend to future generations. This is the accounting principle of matching capital expenditure ( capital assets ) with long term loans ( or long term liability ) which is also applicable in social accounting to ensure fairness to all citizens. This treatment also reflects the benefits received principle in public finance. By the same token, short term government bonds should be issued to cover a short fall in revenue in a deficit budget for the increased current expenses of a revenue nature.
It will be recalled that there are four major economic goals for the government to achieve. To refresh the readers' memory, these are fullemployment, low flation, healthy economic growth ( i.e. increase in living standards over time ) and a fair distribution of national income ( a major proportion of the population being in the average income and wealth bracket ). There is now an urgent fifth goal of environmental protection. The most ideal conditions for the the economy is full employment with an acceptably low rate of inflation together with a healthy rate of growth, little disparity between the rich and poor plus a good and sustainable environment. Unfortunately, some of these economic objectives are not totally compatible. For example, an increase in fiscal spending can create more employment but it will also lead to a higher rate of inflation. Similarly, to achieve a higher rate of growth in a shorter period of time involves higher levels of spending ( both in the public and private sectors ) that will lead to a higher rate of inflation. Of course, the ideal way to achieve a higher rate of economic growth without too much addiional spending is to increase personal productivity ( working more efficiently ). Then, a more progressive rate of taxation will lead to a more equitable distribution of national income but it may sometimes reduce the incentive for more personal efforts. Political considerations will also come into play. For example, the best way for the world as a whole to achieve the most efficient use of resources is total free trade to promote competition and higher productivity or efficiency. However, tradeunions in many countries where a democratic political system is at work will dictate minimum wage levels and working conditions which can make the work force of that country less competitive. The result is that trade unions in that country will call for more protection ( such as quotas or import tariff ) against cheap labour producer countries. The conflict arises because of different working and remuneration standards between the advanced and developing countries. This is a major problem confronting members of the WTO ( World Trade Organisation ) which was formed to promote free trade on a global basis ( or more popularly known as Globalisation ). A skilful and fine balance must be struck by a capable government to achieve reasonable progress in all five economic goals the latest one of which is environmental protection.
Just one word of reminder regarding government spending in relation to the capitalistic rationale of “ big economy, small government “. In case it is necessary to support a declining economy this can be done fiscally by either increasing public spending or a reduction in taxes. Everything being equal the above capitalistic rationale warrants that cutting taxes should be given priority because the private section is supposed to be more efficient in deciding what to do with the extra money resulting from a tax cut. The public sector, on the other hand, is usually more wasteful because the government does not need to make a profit on its operations. Furthermore, a freedom of choice for the citizens to spend the extra cash from the tax cut in their own chosen way is consistent with the democratic principle.
Having acquainted themselves with the basic working principles of public finance the readers will now be more confident in assessing government policies
Just one word of reminder regarding government spending in relation to the capitalistic rationale of “ big economy, small government “. In case it is necessary to support a declining economy this can be done fiscally by either increasing public spending or a reduction in taxes. Everything being equal the above capitalistic rationale warrants that cutting taxes should be given priority because the private section is supposed to be more efficient in deciding what to do with the extra money resulting from a tax cut. The public sector, on the other hand, is usually more wasteful because the government does not need to make a profit on its operations. Furthermore, a freedom of choice for the citizens to spend the extra cash from the tax cut in their own chosen way is consistent with the democratic principle.
Having acquainted themselves with the basic working principles of public finance the readers will now be more confident in assessing government policies
proposed or taken to combat the the E&F T 2008. Hopefully, everyone will become an informed citizen to have a say in these public policies through the vote which all citizens of a democratic country posses to make a difference towards the recovery process.
The above is an extract from my economic essay which covers all aspects of basic principles in the proper and equitable running of an economy the link to which is set out below :- http://jkhcforum.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/the-2008-economic-financial-tsunami.html
JKHC
Why Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter rivals - BBC News
Why Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter rivals
By Jonathan Marcus
Defence and diplomatic correspondent
18 November 2017
Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (L) and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
Saudi Arabia and Iran are at loggerheads. They have long been rivals, but it's all recently got a lot more tense. Here's why.
How come Saudi Arabia and Iran don't get along?
Saudi Arabia and Iran - two powerful neighbours - are locked in a fierce struggle for regional dominance.
The decades-old feud between them is exacerbated by religious differences. They each follow one of the two main sects in Islam - Iran is largely Shia Muslim, while Saudi Arabia sees itself as the leading Sunni Muslim power.
This religious schism is reflected in the wider map of the Middle East, where other countries have Sunni or Shia majorities, some of whom look towards Iran or Saudi Arabia for support or guidance.
Historically Saudi Arabia, a monarchy and home to the birthplace of Islam, saw itself as the leader of the Muslim world. However this was challenged in 1979 by the Islamic revolution in Iran which created a new type of state in the region - a kind of theocracy - that had an explicit goal of exporting this model beyond its own borders.
In the past 15 years in particular, the differences between Saudi Arabia and Iran have been sharpened by a series of events.
The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq overthrew Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab who had been a major Iranian adversary. This removed a crucial military counter-weight to Iranian influence in Iraq, which has been rising since then.
By Jonathan Marcus
Defence and diplomatic correspondent
18 November 2017
Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (L) and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
Saudi Arabia and Iran are at loggerheads. They have long been rivals, but it's all recently got a lot more tense. Here's why.
How come Saudi Arabia and Iran don't get along?
Saudi Arabia and Iran - two powerful neighbours - are locked in a fierce struggle for regional dominance.
The decades-old feud between them is exacerbated by religious differences. They each follow one of the two main sects in Islam - Iran is largely Shia Muslim, while Saudi Arabia sees itself as the leading Sunni Muslim power.
This religious schism is reflected in the wider map of the Middle East, where other countries have Sunni or Shia majorities, some of whom look towards Iran or Saudi Arabia for support or guidance.
Historically Saudi Arabia, a monarchy and home to the birthplace of Islam, saw itself as the leader of the Muslim world. However this was challenged in 1979 by the Islamic revolution in Iran which created a new type of state in the region - a kind of theocracy - that had an explicit goal of exporting this model beyond its own borders.
In the past 15 years in particular, the differences between Saudi Arabia and Iran have been sharpened by a series of events.
The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq overthrew Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab who had been a major Iranian adversary. This removed a crucial military counter-weight to Iranian influence in Iraq, which has been rising since then.
Why are Israel and Iran fighting in Syria, in 300 words - BBC News
Why are Israel and Iran fighting in Syria, in 300 words
10 May 2018
These Iranian protesters prepared to burn an Israeli flag at a funeral of a senior officer killed in Syria in 2015
Israel has bombed Iranian targets inside Syria - leading to fears confrontations between the two powerful arch-foes could get worse. Here's the background to what is happening.
Why are Israel and Iran enemies?
Ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979, when religious hardliners came to power, Iran's leaders have called for Israel's elimination. Iran rejects Israel's right to exist, considering it an illegitimate occupier of Muslim land.
Israel sees Iran as a threat to its existence and has always said Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. Its leaders are worried by Iran's expansion in the Middle East.
What has Syria got to do with it?
Israel has watched anxiously as its neighbour Syria has been consumed by war since 2011.
Why is there a war in Syria?
Israel has stayed out of the fighting between the Syrian government and rebels.
The Israeli military defends the occupied Golan Heights, on the boundary with Syria
But Iran has played a bigger and bigger role backing Syria's government by sending thousands of fighters and military advisers.
Israel is also worried that Iran is trying to secretly send weapons to fighters in Lebanon - Israel's neighbour - who also threaten Israel.
What is Lebanon's Hezbollah movement?
The Golan Heights explained
Israel's prime minister has repeatedly said that his country would not let Iran create bases in Syria which could be used against Israel.
So as Iran has become stronger in Syria, Israel has intensified its strikes on Iranian targets there.
Have Iran and Israel ever actually been at war?
No. Iran has long backed groups which target Israel - such as Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant organisation Hamas.
But a direct war would be massively destructive for both sides.
Iran has an arsenal of long-range missiles and heavily armed allies on Israel's borders.
Israel has a very strong army and is said to have nuclear weapons. It is also solidly backed by the United States.
10 May 2018
These Iranian protesters prepared to burn an Israeli flag at a funeral of a senior officer killed in Syria in 2015
Israel has bombed Iranian targets inside Syria - leading to fears confrontations between the two powerful arch-foes could get worse. Here's the background to what is happening.
Why are Israel and Iran enemies?
Ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979, when religious hardliners came to power, Iran's leaders have called for Israel's elimination. Iran rejects Israel's right to exist, considering it an illegitimate occupier of Muslim land.
Israel sees Iran as a threat to its existence and has always said Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. Its leaders are worried by Iran's expansion in the Middle East.
What has Syria got to do with it?
Israel has watched anxiously as its neighbour Syria has been consumed by war since 2011.
Why is there a war in Syria?
Israel has stayed out of the fighting between the Syrian government and rebels.
The Israeli military defends the occupied Golan Heights, on the boundary with Syria
But Iran has played a bigger and bigger role backing Syria's government by sending thousands of fighters and military advisers.
Israel is also worried that Iran is trying to secretly send weapons to fighters in Lebanon - Israel's neighbour - who also threaten Israel.
What is Lebanon's Hezbollah movement?
The Golan Heights explained
Israel's prime minister has repeatedly said that his country would not let Iran create bases in Syria which could be used against Israel.
So as Iran has become stronger in Syria, Israel has intensified its strikes on Iranian targets there.
Have Iran and Israel ever actually been at war?
No. Iran has long backed groups which target Israel - such as Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant organisation Hamas.
But a direct war would be massively destructive for both sides.
Iran has an arsenal of long-range missiles and heavily armed allies on Israel's borders.
Israel has a very strong army and is said to have nuclear weapons. It is also solidly backed by the United States.
Iran condemns wave of Israeli air strikes in Syria - BBC News
May, 11, 2018
Iran condemns wave of Israeli air strikes in Syria
The Israel Defense Forces released video of an air strike on a Syrian missile launcher
Iran has backed Syria's "right to defend itself" after Israel launched strikes on what it said was Iranian military infrastructure inside Syria.
In the first comments by Iran since Thursday's wave of strikes, the foreign ministry condemned the "blatant violation of Syria's sovereignty".
The strikes were the heaviest carried out by Israel on Syria in decades.
They came after 20 rockets were fired at Israeli military positions in the occupied Golan Heights.
Israel said Iranian fighters had carried out that attack. Iran has neither directly confirmed or denied this but has said that Israel's attacks on Syria were founded "on self-proclaimed, baseless pretexts".
Iran has deployed hundreds of troops in Syria, ostensibly as military advisers to the Syrian military. Thousands of militiamen armed, trained and financed by Iran have also been battling rebel forces alongside Syrian soldiers.
Are Israel and Iran heading for a war?
Iran and Israel: Your questions answered
On Thursday, in response to the Golan Heights attack, Israel said its fighter jets had struck almost all of Iran's military infrastructure inside Syria - some 70 targets - in its biggest assault since Syria's civil war started in 2011.
Iran and Israel are enemies but have never fought a direct war.
How has Iran responded?
Foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi was quoted on Iranian state TV as saying: "Iran strongly condemns... [Israel's] attacks on Syria. The international community's silence encourages Israel's aggression. Syria has every right to defend itself."
Syrian state TV footage shows Israeli missiles over Damascus on Thursday
Mr Qasemi said Israel "cannot stand peace and stability in the region and sees its own safety in making the region all the more unstable".
He said Israel's "baseless pretexts amount to a blatant violation of Syria's sovereignty and goes against all international conventions".
He did not refer to Iran's military presence inside Syria.
Mr Qasemi said the attacks were an attempt by international supporters of rebel groups fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to shore them up after their "many failures" and to try to "tip the scales in their favour".
The Syrian government, backed by Iran and Russia, has made significant gains over the rebel groups in the past year.
What has Israel said?
A defiant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that Iran had "crossed a red line" and Israel's action "was a consequence" of that.
Why is there a war in Syria?
The Golan Heights explained
He said: "We will not allow Iran to entrench itself in Syria. I delivered a clear message to the Assad regime - our action is directed against Iranian targets in Syria. However, if the Syrian military acts against us, we will act against it."
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
The Golan Heights, which Israel has annexed
He added: "Whoever hurts us, we will hurt them sevenfold, and whoever is preparing to hurt us, we will act to hit them first."
Visiting the Golan Heights on Friday, Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman urged Mr Assad to "throw the Iranians out", saying "they are only hurting you".
Danny Danon, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, called for a UN condemnation of Iran's "acts of aggression" and for the Security Council to "demand that Iran remove its military presence from Syria".
What exactly happened on Thursday?
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said that early on Thursday morning 20 rockets had been launched at its forward posts in the Golan Heights by the Quds Force, the overseas operations arm of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.
The Golan Heights is a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, about 50km (30 miles) from the capital Damascus. Israel occupied most of the area in the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed it in a move not recognised internationally.
The IDF said four rockets were intercepted by the Israeli Iron Dome aerial defence system, while 16 fell short of their targets. No injuries or damage were reported.
The IDF has published satellite images of sites that it struck inside Syria in response. They include what it said were:
Installations at Tel Gharba, Tel Kleb, Nabi Yusha and Tel Maqdad
A Quds Force compound in al-Kiswah, south of Damascus
An "Iranian Logistics Compound", 10km north-west of the capital (pictured below)
Image copyrightISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES
What's behind the latest military action?
US President Donald Trump's abandonment on Tuesday of a landmark international deal to curb Iran's nuclear programme - an agreement fiercely opposed by Mr Netanyahu - has certainly raised tensions.
But Israel had already become increasingly worried about Iran's military support of Syria. Mr Netanyahu said the Revolutionary Guards had moved advanced weapons to Syria, including surface-to-surface missiles and anti-aircraft batteries that would threaten Israeli fighter jets.
Israel's military had been anticipating an attack by Iranian forces after reportedly carrying out a number of strikes on their facilities in Syria in recent months.
They included one on an airbase in April that killed seven Iranian troops.
Iran condemns wave of Israeli air strikes in Syria
The Israel Defense Forces released video of an air strike on a Syrian missile launcher
Iran has backed Syria's "right to defend itself" after Israel launched strikes on what it said was Iranian military infrastructure inside Syria.
In the first comments by Iran since Thursday's wave of strikes, the foreign ministry condemned the "blatant violation of Syria's sovereignty".
The strikes were the heaviest carried out by Israel on Syria in decades.
They came after 20 rockets were fired at Israeli military positions in the occupied Golan Heights.
Israel said Iranian fighters had carried out that attack. Iran has neither directly confirmed or denied this but has said that Israel's attacks on Syria were founded "on self-proclaimed, baseless pretexts".
Iran has deployed hundreds of troops in Syria, ostensibly as military advisers to the Syrian military. Thousands of militiamen armed, trained and financed by Iran have also been battling rebel forces alongside Syrian soldiers.
Are Israel and Iran heading for a war?
Iran and Israel: Your questions answered
On Thursday, in response to the Golan Heights attack, Israel said its fighter jets had struck almost all of Iran's military infrastructure inside Syria - some 70 targets - in its biggest assault since Syria's civil war started in 2011.
Iran and Israel are enemies but have never fought a direct war.
How has Iran responded?
Foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi was quoted on Iranian state TV as saying: "Iran strongly condemns... [Israel's] attacks on Syria. The international community's silence encourages Israel's aggression. Syria has every right to defend itself."
Syrian state TV footage shows Israeli missiles over Damascus on Thursday
Mr Qasemi said Israel "cannot stand peace and stability in the region and sees its own safety in making the region all the more unstable".
He said Israel's "baseless pretexts amount to a blatant violation of Syria's sovereignty and goes against all international conventions".
He did not refer to Iran's military presence inside Syria.
Mr Qasemi said the attacks were an attempt by international supporters of rebel groups fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to shore them up after their "many failures" and to try to "tip the scales in their favour".
The Syrian government, backed by Iran and Russia, has made significant gains over the rebel groups in the past year.
What has Israel said?
A defiant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that Iran had "crossed a red line" and Israel's action "was a consequence" of that.
Why is there a war in Syria?
The Golan Heights explained
He said: "We will not allow Iran to entrench itself in Syria. I delivered a clear message to the Assad regime - our action is directed against Iranian targets in Syria. However, if the Syrian military acts against us, we will act against it."
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
The Golan Heights, which Israel has annexed
He added: "Whoever hurts us, we will hurt them sevenfold, and whoever is preparing to hurt us, we will act to hit them first."
Visiting the Golan Heights on Friday, Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman urged Mr Assad to "throw the Iranians out", saying "they are only hurting you".
Danny Danon, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, called for a UN condemnation of Iran's "acts of aggression" and for the Security Council to "demand that Iran remove its military presence from Syria".
What exactly happened on Thursday?
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said that early on Thursday morning 20 rockets had been launched at its forward posts in the Golan Heights by the Quds Force, the overseas operations arm of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.
The Golan Heights is a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, about 50km (30 miles) from the capital Damascus. Israel occupied most of the area in the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed it in a move not recognised internationally.
The IDF said four rockets were intercepted by the Israeli Iron Dome aerial defence system, while 16 fell short of their targets. No injuries or damage were reported.
The IDF has published satellite images of sites that it struck inside Syria in response. They include what it said were:
Installations at Tel Gharba, Tel Kleb, Nabi Yusha and Tel Maqdad
A Quds Force compound in al-Kiswah, south of Damascus
An "Iranian Logistics Compound", 10km north-west of the capital (pictured below)
Image copyrightISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES
What's behind the latest military action?
US President Donald Trump's abandonment on Tuesday of a landmark international deal to curb Iran's nuclear programme - an agreement fiercely opposed by Mr Netanyahu - has certainly raised tensions.
But Israel had already become increasingly worried about Iran's military support of Syria. Mr Netanyahu said the Revolutionary Guards had moved advanced weapons to Syria, including surface-to-surface missiles and anti-aircraft batteries that would threaten Israeli fighter jets.
Israel's military had been anticipating an attack by Iranian forces after reportedly carrying out a number of strikes on their facilities in Syria in recent months.
They included one on an airbase in April that killed seven Iranian troops.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Are you really too busy to be mindful? - Telegraph
Are you really too busy to be mindful?
'Not only are the benefits of mindfulness obvious, the approach is also easy to learn'
'Not only are the benefits of mindfulness obvious, the approach is also easy to learn'
Linda Blair
10 MAY 2018 • 11:00AM
We often think our lives are too busy to be mindful – but there are good reasons why you should make time.
Since the early 1980s, when Jon Kabat-Zinn demonstrated its relieving properties for patients who endure severe chronic pain, mindfulness – a discipline that helps you achieve intentional, non-judgmental awareness of the present moment – has been applied in a vast range of settings.
Mark Williams and colleagues at Cambridge taught patients suffering from recurring bouts of depression to use MBCT (short for “Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy for Depression”), and found their chance of relapse was significantly reduced.
Promoted Stories
The new Jaguar E-Pace. Drive like everyone's watching
The new Jaguar E-Pace. Drive like everyone's watching
Jaguar
How to make this Mother's Day one to never forget!!
How to make this Mother's Day one to never forget!!
Lottoland Australia
Paul Grossman at the Freiburg Institute for Mindfulness Research reviewed the literature and concluded that mindfulness can help relieve symptoms across a wide range of health problems, both mental and physiological.
Sarah Bowen at the University of Washington used mindfulness to help prevent relapse in adults recovering from substance abuse. It has also been shown to help parents with autistic children cope more adaptively with their child’s challenging behaviour.
Even Martin Seligman, who, in his latest book The Hope Circuit, argues that the key to happiness is all about having an optimistic view of the future, rather than focusing on the present, would have to accept that it’s impossible to be realistically optimistic about what lies ahead until you first take a calm, non-judgmental look at what’s happening right now.
Not only are the benefits of mindfulness obvious, the approach is also easy to learn. There will almost certainly be a mindfulness course on offer near your home or workplace. In the rare circumstances where this isn’t the case, there’s always Mark Williams and Danny Penman’s excellent book, Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Finding Peace in a Frantic World; or my own, The Key to Calm.
It’s much better instead to think of mindfulness as a way of being; a way of doing what you already do
Why, then do so many of us believe it’s difficult to find time to be mindful? The reason is that too many practitioners teach it as a separate entity, as something you need to set aside special times to practice, an additional activity you have to fit into your already packed day. Most people, quite rightly, find this off-putting.
It’s much better instead to think of mindfulness as a way of being; a way of doing what you already do, but with focus and curious, open-minded, non-judgmental awareness. You can make that happen simply by starting each day feeling calm and balanced.
As soon as you wake, sit up in bed and begin by taking breath in through your nose slowly and evenly. Hold it for as long as you comfortably can, then exhale slowly and evenly through your nose. Do 10 of these mindful breaths, concentrating fully on your breathing throughout.
This will only take two minutes. Yet by starting your day like this, later on you’ll find it easy to become aware whenever negative thoughts or anxious feelings start to sabotage your inner calm. You can then rebalance by taking another 10 mindful breaths.
Once mindful breathing becomes an ingrained habit, you can use it anytime and anywhere. Then you really can live the life you want – only better.
Linda Blair is a clinical psychologist and author of Siblings: How to Handle Rivalry and Create Lifelong Loving Bonds. To order for £10.99, call 0844 871 1514 or visit books.telegraph.co.uk
'Not only are the benefits of mindfulness obvious, the approach is also easy to learn'
'Not only are the benefits of mindfulness obvious, the approach is also easy to learn'
Linda Blair
10 MAY 2018 • 11:00AM
We often think our lives are too busy to be mindful – but there are good reasons why you should make time.
Since the early 1980s, when Jon Kabat-Zinn demonstrated its relieving properties for patients who endure severe chronic pain, mindfulness – a discipline that helps you achieve intentional, non-judgmental awareness of the present moment – has been applied in a vast range of settings.
Mark Williams and colleagues at Cambridge taught patients suffering from recurring bouts of depression to use MBCT (short for “Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy for Depression”), and found their chance of relapse was significantly reduced.
Promoted Stories
The new Jaguar E-Pace. Drive like everyone's watching
The new Jaguar E-Pace. Drive like everyone's watching
Jaguar
How to make this Mother's Day one to never forget!!
How to make this Mother's Day one to never forget!!
Lottoland Australia
Paul Grossman at the Freiburg Institute for Mindfulness Research reviewed the literature and concluded that mindfulness can help relieve symptoms across a wide range of health problems, both mental and physiological.
Sarah Bowen at the University of Washington used mindfulness to help prevent relapse in adults recovering from substance abuse. It has also been shown to help parents with autistic children cope more adaptively with their child’s challenging behaviour.
Even Martin Seligman, who, in his latest book The Hope Circuit, argues that the key to happiness is all about having an optimistic view of the future, rather than focusing on the present, would have to accept that it’s impossible to be realistically optimistic about what lies ahead until you first take a calm, non-judgmental look at what’s happening right now.
Not only are the benefits of mindfulness obvious, the approach is also easy to learn. There will almost certainly be a mindfulness course on offer near your home or workplace. In the rare circumstances where this isn’t the case, there’s always Mark Williams and Danny Penman’s excellent book, Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Finding Peace in a Frantic World; or my own, The Key to Calm.
It’s much better instead to think of mindfulness as a way of being; a way of doing what you already do
Why, then do so many of us believe it’s difficult to find time to be mindful? The reason is that too many practitioners teach it as a separate entity, as something you need to set aside special times to practice, an additional activity you have to fit into your already packed day. Most people, quite rightly, find this off-putting.
It’s much better instead to think of mindfulness as a way of being; a way of doing what you already do, but with focus and curious, open-minded, non-judgmental awareness. You can make that happen simply by starting each day feeling calm and balanced.
As soon as you wake, sit up in bed and begin by taking breath in through your nose slowly and evenly. Hold it for as long as you comfortably can, then exhale slowly and evenly through your nose. Do 10 of these mindful breaths, concentrating fully on your breathing throughout.
This will only take two minutes. Yet by starting your day like this, later on you’ll find it easy to become aware whenever negative thoughts or anxious feelings start to sabotage your inner calm. You can then rebalance by taking another 10 mindful breaths.
Once mindful breathing becomes an ingrained habit, you can use it anytime and anywhere. Then you really can live the life you want – only better.
Linda Blair is a clinical psychologist and author of Siblings: How to Handle Rivalry and Create Lifelong Loving Bonds. To order for £10.99, call 0844 871 1514 or visit books.telegraph.co.uk
3 things Trump can do now to lower drug prices - CBS News
May 10, 2018, 5:15 AM
3 things Trump can do now to lower drug prices
Consumers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurers, middlemen, Wall Street analysts and others are waiting for and wondering about President Donald Trump's twice-postponed speech focusing on lowering prescription drug prices. It's now scheduled for Friday.
While much as been said about what the president may or may not propose -- on-script or off -- here's a look a three ways the government could help lower the cost of prescriptions, even in the face of opposition from various interested parties.
Direct government negotiation for Medicare-covered drugs
Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers routinely negotiate with drugmakers for big discounts on list prices. But the government, by law, cannot enter into such negotiations, even though Medicare Part D is a huge payer for all types of medicines.
That law didn't stop then-candidate Trump from pushing for government negotiations when he was on the campaign trail, when he said doing so could save some $300 billion a year.
Now it's a different story. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, a former drug company executive, and Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, are against direct government negotiation. They argue that robust negotiations are already taking place between the private insurers that provide Medicare Part D coverage and pharmaceutical companies.
It would be better, their thinking goes, to create an environment of more competition with more drugmakers providing alternative drugs so true price competition can exist, explained Ian Spatz, former pharmaceutical industry lobbyist and senior adviser at Manatt Health.
"There's no guarantee that direct government negotiation would lead to lower prices," said Spatz. "The government may not get the prices right. If it prices too low, there's no incentive to create new drugs we still need. And as we've seen in other areas of the government, prices could be set too high."
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump is expected to embrace incremental changes in government drug price intervention. For instance, the administration may be willing to negotiate Medicare prices for costly physician-administered drugs such as many expensive cancer drugs that doctors now purchase direct from wholesalers. And you may see some government intervention on extreme cases of price increases for common drugs such as various forms of insulin, said Spatz.
Import cheaper drugs from Canada
This is yet another point Mr. Trump made on the campaign trail, saying consumers should be allowed to buy less expensive drugs from Canada and other countries. But that has changed dramatically. Administration officials and health care experts have balked at this idea, citing safety concerns. They say it isn't always known where drugs imported from Canada came from originally and if they're authentic.
Nonetheless, the idea resonates with several states, including Utah, Oklahoma, Vermont and West Virginia, all of which have begun legislative efforts to allow the importation of less expensive Canadian drugs, which is currently illegal. Individual states would be responsible for making sure the drugs are safe and that patients are saving money.
In recent weeks the Trump administration has called out several trading partners that regulate drug prices, including many European countries, saying they're not paying their fair share for U.S. drug company innovation and are therefore increasing the cost of drugs in the U.S. This stance is adding to global trade tensions.
On the other side of the coin, some experts are pushing the idea of more open drug trade. One proposal: The FDA should allow foreign makers qualified to sell generic drugs in Canada, England, France and other countries to sell generics in the U.S. too.
Offer discounts directly to consumers
Earlier this year, Aetna (AET) and United Health (UNH) announced they would pass discounts they receive from drugmakers directly to some consumers. Pharmaceutical companies often offer rebates to insurers and pharmacy benefit managers to ensure their drugs are included in coverage. Traditionally, insurers have not passed these savings to consumers, instead claiming they use them to stabilize premiums. Along these same lines, President Trump announced he would like to see drug company rebates passed directly to seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D coverage.
The details of the Aetna and Humana announcements aren't yet clear, including how many consumers would be affected and how much they would save. But allowing consumers to gain more from industry discounts may be an important step in overall savings.
3 things Trump can do now to lower drug prices
Consumers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurers, middlemen, Wall Street analysts and others are waiting for and wondering about President Donald Trump's twice-postponed speech focusing on lowering prescription drug prices. It's now scheduled for Friday.
While much as been said about what the president may or may not propose -- on-script or off -- here's a look a three ways the government could help lower the cost of prescriptions, even in the face of opposition from various interested parties.
Direct government negotiation for Medicare-covered drugs
Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers routinely negotiate with drugmakers for big discounts on list prices. But the government, by law, cannot enter into such negotiations, even though Medicare Part D is a huge payer for all types of medicines.
That law didn't stop then-candidate Trump from pushing for government negotiations when he was on the campaign trail, when he said doing so could save some $300 billion a year.
Now it's a different story. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, a former drug company executive, and Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, are against direct government negotiation. They argue that robust negotiations are already taking place between the private insurers that provide Medicare Part D coverage and pharmaceutical companies.
It would be better, their thinking goes, to create an environment of more competition with more drugmakers providing alternative drugs so true price competition can exist, explained Ian Spatz, former pharmaceutical industry lobbyist and senior adviser at Manatt Health.
"There's no guarantee that direct government negotiation would lead to lower prices," said Spatz. "The government may not get the prices right. If it prices too low, there's no incentive to create new drugs we still need. And as we've seen in other areas of the government, prices could be set too high."
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump is expected to embrace incremental changes in government drug price intervention. For instance, the administration may be willing to negotiate Medicare prices for costly physician-administered drugs such as many expensive cancer drugs that doctors now purchase direct from wholesalers. And you may see some government intervention on extreme cases of price increases for common drugs such as various forms of insulin, said Spatz.
Import cheaper drugs from Canada
This is yet another point Mr. Trump made on the campaign trail, saying consumers should be allowed to buy less expensive drugs from Canada and other countries. But that has changed dramatically. Administration officials and health care experts have balked at this idea, citing safety concerns. They say it isn't always known where drugs imported from Canada came from originally and if they're authentic.
Nonetheless, the idea resonates with several states, including Utah, Oklahoma, Vermont and West Virginia, all of which have begun legislative efforts to allow the importation of less expensive Canadian drugs, which is currently illegal. Individual states would be responsible for making sure the drugs are safe and that patients are saving money.
In recent weeks the Trump administration has called out several trading partners that regulate drug prices, including many European countries, saying they're not paying their fair share for U.S. drug company innovation and are therefore increasing the cost of drugs in the U.S. This stance is adding to global trade tensions.
On the other side of the coin, some experts are pushing the idea of more open drug trade. One proposal: The FDA should allow foreign makers qualified to sell generic drugs in Canada, England, France and other countries to sell generics in the U.S. too.
Offer discounts directly to consumers
Earlier this year, Aetna (AET) and United Health (UNH) announced they would pass discounts they receive from drugmakers directly to some consumers. Pharmaceutical companies often offer rebates to insurers and pharmacy benefit managers to ensure their drugs are included in coverage. Traditionally, insurers have not passed these savings to consumers, instead claiming they use them to stabilize premiums. Along these same lines, President Trump announced he would like to see drug company rebates passed directly to seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D coverage.
The details of the Aetna and Humana announcements aren't yet clear, including how many consumers would be affected and how much they would save. But allowing consumers to gain more from industry discounts may be an important step in overall savings.
Pompeo's 13 hours in North Korea - CNN Politics
Pompeo's 13 hours in North Korea
By Nicole Gaouette, CNN
Updated 0349 GMT (1149 HKT) May 10, 2018
Trump: 'Honored' by release of US prisoners
Trump: 'Honored' by release of US prisoners 00:45
Washington (CNN)The modified Boeing 757 had taken off from Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington late Monday night, bound for North Korea, when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to the back of the plane.
He was headed to Pyongyang, he told the only two reporters allowed on the trip, to nail down the agenda that President Donald Trump and Korean leader Kim Jong Un would tackle when they convene for their historic summit. Pompeo didn't know exactly who he'd meet, he said.
But he added that he would raise the issue of three Americans detained in North Korea, cautioning that he had no commitment for their release.
I hope North Korea "will do the right thing," he said. "We've been asking for the release of these detainees for 17 months," he added. "We'll talk about it again. It'd be a great gesture if they'd agree to do so."
Over the next day and a half of long meetings, red wine toasts and negotiations in the isolated North Korean capital, the newly minted secretary of state would score the most dramatic foreign-policy victory of the Trump administration, securing the release of the three men and bringing them back to American soil.
Trump: Pompeo en route to North Korea
This account is based on pool reports by the reporters from The Associated Press and The Washington Post who accompanied Pompeo and were able to observe and report on events as they unfolded.
While the administration had been signaling the release of the prisoners for days beforehand, the trip had been a closely held secret until Trump announced during remarks from the White House Diplomatic Room on Tuesday that he'd dispatched his top diplomat.
Pompeo traveled with a small team that included Brian Hook, the State Department's head of policy planning; Matt Pottinger of the National Security Council; Lisa Kenna of the executive secretariat; and Heather Nauert, the State Department's acting undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs.
Pompeo's jet, a C-32A known as the "Big Plane," lifted off from Andrews at about 9:30 p.m. on Monday, then refueled at Ted Stevens International Airport in Anchorage, Alaska, before taking off again for Japan.
It was nearly 7 p.m. on Tuesday in Washington -- almost 24 hours after Pompeo had left Andrews -- when the former CIA director landed in Pyongyang.
Displays of power
On the tarmac, Pompeo was greeted by several officials, including the vice chairman of the Party Central Committee, Kim Yong Chol, the official in charge of relations between North and South Korea, and Foreign Minister Ri Su Yong.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is shakes hands by senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol, director of the United Front Department, which is responsible for North-South Korea affairs, upon his arrival to Pyongyang.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is shakes hands by senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol, director of the United Front Department, which is responsible for North-South Korea affairs, upon his arrival to Pyongyang.
Pompeo stepped into a black Mercedes limousine, and his team and the reporters piled into a bus and Chevrolet vans for the 23-kilometer ride -- a little over 14 miles -- to the capital city.
The American motorcade passed farmland, housing blocks and morning commuters, most of whom were walking or biking on a paved path on the side of the road. Matt Lee of The Associated Press, who had covered then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's trip to North Korea during the Clinton administration's attempt to negotiate with the isolated regime, noted that the city had been considerably built up since that visit in 2000.
The motorcade's winding route took the Americans past the city's largest and most prominent displays of power, including a library and research center famous for its huge statues of former leaders Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il and various monuments celebrating the glory of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, including Pyongyang's own version of Paris' Arc de Triomphe.
Their destination was the Koryo Hotel, the main lodging for foreigners, where portions of Albright's delegation had stayed 18 years ago.
Trump: 'Everyone thinks' I deserve Nobel Prize
Trump: 'Everyone thinks' I deserve Nobel Prize
Once they arrived, Pompeo met for about an hour with Kim Yong Chol, discussing the Trump-Kim summit and Pompeo's schedule, before Kim hosted a luncheon on the hotel's 39th floor, where he formally welcomed the Americans.
Over a table arrayed with dishes of poached fish and duck served with red wine, Kim raised the possibility of better relations and offered some pointed political remarks.
"You have visited Pyongyang at such a good time, at such a warm and lovely spring, and a good atmosphere has been established between North and South, so everything is going well in Pyongyang now," the North Korean official said.
Kim then told the Americans that "we have perfected our nuclear capability," adding that "this is not the result of sanctions that have been imposed from outside."
"It is our policy to concentrate all efforts into economic progress in country," Kim said before making an appeal laced with flattery.
"I hope the United States also will be happy with our success," he said. "I have high expectations the US will play a very big role in establishing peace on the Korean Peninsula."
'For decades, we have been adversaries'
He then toasted Pompeo, who stood and returned the salutation. The group with him, Pompeo said, was "equally committed to working with you to achieve exactly" that: peace on the peninsula.
"For decades, we have been adversaries," the top US diplomat continued. He said he hoped "that we can work together to resolve this conflict, take away threats to the world and make your country have all the opportunities your people so richly deserve."
"There are many challenges along the way," Pompeo allowed. "But you have been a great partner in working to make sure our two leaders will have a summit that is successful."
Not long afterward, Pompeo was given about an hour's notice that he would be granted an audience with Kim Jong Un. They met that afternoon for about 90 minutes to discuss plans for the summit.
A photo from the North Korean government, shows US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
A photo from the North Korean government, shows US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
The reporters were not allowed to attend, but on Pompeo's return to the hotel, they asked whether there was good news about the detainees.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, attends a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, second from left, at the Workers' Party of Korea headquarters in Pyongyang, North Korea.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, attends a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, second from left, at the Workers' Party of Korea headquarters in Pyongyang, North Korea.
The Americans, Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak-song and Kim Sang Duk, also known as Tony Kim, had been held in North Korea for at least a year.
Tony Kim and Kim Hak-song were arrested in April and May of 2017, accused of carrying out "hostile acts" against the regime. Both worked at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology, which bills itself as the only privately run university in the North Korean capital.
Kim Dong Chul had been in North Korean custody since before Trump was elected, arrested in 2015 and accused of spying for South Korea.
Why these Americans were held in North Korea
Why these Americans were held in North Korea 01:37
Pompeo responded to the reporters' question wordlessly, simply crossing his fingers.
Soon after his audience with the North Korean leader, though, an official arrived at the Koryo Hotel with news: Kim Jong Un was releasing the Americans.
"We're granting amnesty to the three detained Americans," the North Korean emissary told Pompeo, according to a US official. "We issued the order to grant immediate amnesty to the detainees."
"That's great," Pompeo replied.
Pompeo and Kim shake hands.
Pompeo and Kim shake hands.
'This was a hard decision'
"It should be a very brief ceremony," the North Korean said, noting that the "ceremony" was more like a legal process. "You should make care that they do not make the same mistakes again," the North Korean said in closing, according to the US official. "This was a hard decision."
The detainees would be released that night at 7 local time, Pompeo was told.
Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Carl Risch, accompanied by a doctor, went to another hotel to get the men. At 7:45 p.m. in Pyongyang -- 6:45 a.m. in Washington -- Risch, the doctor and the detainees walked out of the hotel and headed to Pyongyang International Airport.
Forty minutes later, the detainees and their escorts arrived at the airport, where they met with the secretary and his team and boarded Pompeo's plane. The three detainees walked without assistance from the van that had brought them from custody, and were seated with medical personnel in the middle section of the plane, which had been curtained off.
At 8:42 p.m. local time, just under an hour after the detainees were released from the hotel, Pompeo's C-32A lifted off from the North Korean runway bound for the US military's Yokota Air Base in Japan.
Pompeo, flush from the victory, came to the back of the plane to speak to the reporters. "It was a long day. It was a long day," he said as they flew back to Japan. "But there were no moments where I felt like we were going to be anything but successful in the day."
'A long day... but worth the time'
He noted that there were "no glitches, but we were on the -- what, 13 hours maybe on the ground, something like that from start to finish? So a long day. A long day for our counterparts, the North Korean team, as well. But worth the time and effort, and I think very productive."
Having the three Americans on the plane, he said, was "incredibly exciting." The men seemed to be in good health, Pompeo told the reporters: "All indications are at this point that their health is as good as could be given that they've been held."
Pompeo wouldn't share what the detainees' first words to him were. "I just want to respect their privacy," he said. But he confessed that when they noted they had left North Korean airspace, "we were all thrilled when we knew we were outside of that space."
The secretary told the reporters that once they were in Japan, they'd be met by another plane with "even more robust medical capabilities" in the event the detainees needed it. "Hopefully in the next couple of hours a more complete readout of their complete conditions," Pompeo said.
Pompeo returns to N. Korea to plan summit
Pompeo returns to N. Korea to plan summit 02:31
He touched briefly on his conversation with Kim Jong Un about preparing for the summit, saying it had been "good and lengthy." The White House would soon announce the date, time and location, he said.
"That part is behind us for sure, and we had a chance to talk substantively about what we intend to be on the agenda, and also how we're going to begin to coordinate in the days ahead. ... Both sides are confident that we will set the conditions for a successful meeting between the two leaders," Pompeo said.
He said he felt that Kim "is trying to set good conditions for the summit."
Shortly before Pompeo and his team landed in Japan, at 8:30 a.m. in Washington, Trump jubilantly tweeted that the secretary "is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting."
At Yokota Air Base in Japan, the detainees were transferred to a separate, waiting plane, and both planes took off for the 10-hour flight to Anchorage, where they would refuel. Many on Pompeo's plane, exhausted, were already asleep before it took off.
The prisoners' plane touched down in Anchorage at 1:21 p.m. local time Wednesday and took off within the hour, with an arrival time at Andrews set for the wee hours of Thursday morning. On the plane to Yokota, Pompeo told the reporters that Trump was planning to be at Andrews Air Force Base to meet the detainees when they arrived.
One of the reporters asked Pompeo if there had been a moment when he gave himself "a little pat on the back" for securing the Americans' release.
"Still have work to do," Pompeo answered. "I'm thrilled that we have them back. I'm happy that actually President Trump set the conditions for this to happen, and I'm thrilled with that. But there's still a lot of work to do to achieve our ultimate goal."
CNN's Zachary Cohen contributed to this article.
By Nicole Gaouette, CNN
Updated 0349 GMT (1149 HKT) May 10, 2018
Trump: 'Honored' by release of US prisoners
Trump: 'Honored' by release of US prisoners 00:45
Washington (CNN)The modified Boeing 757 had taken off from Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington late Monday night, bound for North Korea, when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to the back of the plane.
He was headed to Pyongyang, he told the only two reporters allowed on the trip, to nail down the agenda that President Donald Trump and Korean leader Kim Jong Un would tackle when they convene for their historic summit. Pompeo didn't know exactly who he'd meet, he said.
But he added that he would raise the issue of three Americans detained in North Korea, cautioning that he had no commitment for their release.
I hope North Korea "will do the right thing," he said. "We've been asking for the release of these detainees for 17 months," he added. "We'll talk about it again. It'd be a great gesture if they'd agree to do so."
Over the next day and a half of long meetings, red wine toasts and negotiations in the isolated North Korean capital, the newly minted secretary of state would score the most dramatic foreign-policy victory of the Trump administration, securing the release of the three men and bringing them back to American soil.
Trump: Pompeo en route to North Korea
This account is based on pool reports by the reporters from The Associated Press and The Washington Post who accompanied Pompeo and were able to observe and report on events as they unfolded.
While the administration had been signaling the release of the prisoners for days beforehand, the trip had been a closely held secret until Trump announced during remarks from the White House Diplomatic Room on Tuesday that he'd dispatched his top diplomat.
Pompeo traveled with a small team that included Brian Hook, the State Department's head of policy planning; Matt Pottinger of the National Security Council; Lisa Kenna of the executive secretariat; and Heather Nauert, the State Department's acting undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs.
Pompeo's jet, a C-32A known as the "Big Plane," lifted off from Andrews at about 9:30 p.m. on Monday, then refueled at Ted Stevens International Airport in Anchorage, Alaska, before taking off again for Japan.
It was nearly 7 p.m. on Tuesday in Washington -- almost 24 hours after Pompeo had left Andrews -- when the former CIA director landed in Pyongyang.
Displays of power
On the tarmac, Pompeo was greeted by several officials, including the vice chairman of the Party Central Committee, Kim Yong Chol, the official in charge of relations between North and South Korea, and Foreign Minister Ri Su Yong.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is shakes hands by senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol, director of the United Front Department, which is responsible for North-South Korea affairs, upon his arrival to Pyongyang.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is shakes hands by senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol, director of the United Front Department, which is responsible for North-South Korea affairs, upon his arrival to Pyongyang.
Pompeo stepped into a black Mercedes limousine, and his team and the reporters piled into a bus and Chevrolet vans for the 23-kilometer ride -- a little over 14 miles -- to the capital city.
The American motorcade passed farmland, housing blocks and morning commuters, most of whom were walking or biking on a paved path on the side of the road. Matt Lee of The Associated Press, who had covered then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's trip to North Korea during the Clinton administration's attempt to negotiate with the isolated regime, noted that the city had been considerably built up since that visit in 2000.
The motorcade's winding route took the Americans past the city's largest and most prominent displays of power, including a library and research center famous for its huge statues of former leaders Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il and various monuments celebrating the glory of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, including Pyongyang's own version of Paris' Arc de Triomphe.
Their destination was the Koryo Hotel, the main lodging for foreigners, where portions of Albright's delegation had stayed 18 years ago.
Trump: 'Everyone thinks' I deserve Nobel Prize
Trump: 'Everyone thinks' I deserve Nobel Prize
Once they arrived, Pompeo met for about an hour with Kim Yong Chol, discussing the Trump-Kim summit and Pompeo's schedule, before Kim hosted a luncheon on the hotel's 39th floor, where he formally welcomed the Americans.
Over a table arrayed with dishes of poached fish and duck served with red wine, Kim raised the possibility of better relations and offered some pointed political remarks.
"You have visited Pyongyang at such a good time, at such a warm and lovely spring, and a good atmosphere has been established between North and South, so everything is going well in Pyongyang now," the North Korean official said.
Kim then told the Americans that "we have perfected our nuclear capability," adding that "this is not the result of sanctions that have been imposed from outside."
"It is our policy to concentrate all efforts into economic progress in country," Kim said before making an appeal laced with flattery.
"I hope the United States also will be happy with our success," he said. "I have high expectations the US will play a very big role in establishing peace on the Korean Peninsula."
'For decades, we have been adversaries'
He then toasted Pompeo, who stood and returned the salutation. The group with him, Pompeo said, was "equally committed to working with you to achieve exactly" that: peace on the peninsula.
"For decades, we have been adversaries," the top US diplomat continued. He said he hoped "that we can work together to resolve this conflict, take away threats to the world and make your country have all the opportunities your people so richly deserve."
"There are many challenges along the way," Pompeo allowed. "But you have been a great partner in working to make sure our two leaders will have a summit that is successful."
Not long afterward, Pompeo was given about an hour's notice that he would be granted an audience with Kim Jong Un. They met that afternoon for about 90 minutes to discuss plans for the summit.
A photo from the North Korean government, shows US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
A photo from the North Korean government, shows US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
The reporters were not allowed to attend, but on Pompeo's return to the hotel, they asked whether there was good news about the detainees.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, attends a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, second from left, at the Workers' Party of Korea headquarters in Pyongyang, North Korea.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, attends a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, second from left, at the Workers' Party of Korea headquarters in Pyongyang, North Korea.
The Americans, Kim Dong Chul, Kim Hak-song and Kim Sang Duk, also known as Tony Kim, had been held in North Korea for at least a year.
Tony Kim and Kim Hak-song were arrested in April and May of 2017, accused of carrying out "hostile acts" against the regime. Both worked at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology, which bills itself as the only privately run university in the North Korean capital.
Kim Dong Chul had been in North Korean custody since before Trump was elected, arrested in 2015 and accused of spying for South Korea.
Why these Americans were held in North Korea
Why these Americans were held in North Korea 01:37
Pompeo responded to the reporters' question wordlessly, simply crossing his fingers.
Soon after his audience with the North Korean leader, though, an official arrived at the Koryo Hotel with news: Kim Jong Un was releasing the Americans.
"We're granting amnesty to the three detained Americans," the North Korean emissary told Pompeo, according to a US official. "We issued the order to grant immediate amnesty to the detainees."
"That's great," Pompeo replied.
Pompeo and Kim shake hands.
Pompeo and Kim shake hands.
'This was a hard decision'
"It should be a very brief ceremony," the North Korean said, noting that the "ceremony" was more like a legal process. "You should make care that they do not make the same mistakes again," the North Korean said in closing, according to the US official. "This was a hard decision."
The detainees would be released that night at 7 local time, Pompeo was told.
Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Carl Risch, accompanied by a doctor, went to another hotel to get the men. At 7:45 p.m. in Pyongyang -- 6:45 a.m. in Washington -- Risch, the doctor and the detainees walked out of the hotel and headed to Pyongyang International Airport.
Forty minutes later, the detainees and their escorts arrived at the airport, where they met with the secretary and his team and boarded Pompeo's plane. The three detainees walked without assistance from the van that had brought them from custody, and were seated with medical personnel in the middle section of the plane, which had been curtained off.
At 8:42 p.m. local time, just under an hour after the detainees were released from the hotel, Pompeo's C-32A lifted off from the North Korean runway bound for the US military's Yokota Air Base in Japan.
Pompeo, flush from the victory, came to the back of the plane to speak to the reporters. "It was a long day. It was a long day," he said as they flew back to Japan. "But there were no moments where I felt like we were going to be anything but successful in the day."
'A long day... but worth the time'
He noted that there were "no glitches, but we were on the -- what, 13 hours maybe on the ground, something like that from start to finish? So a long day. A long day for our counterparts, the North Korean team, as well. But worth the time and effort, and I think very productive."
Having the three Americans on the plane, he said, was "incredibly exciting." The men seemed to be in good health, Pompeo told the reporters: "All indications are at this point that their health is as good as could be given that they've been held."
Pompeo wouldn't share what the detainees' first words to him were. "I just want to respect their privacy," he said. But he confessed that when they noted they had left North Korean airspace, "we were all thrilled when we knew we were outside of that space."
The secretary told the reporters that once they were in Japan, they'd be met by another plane with "even more robust medical capabilities" in the event the detainees needed it. "Hopefully in the next couple of hours a more complete readout of their complete conditions," Pompeo said.
Pompeo returns to N. Korea to plan summit
Pompeo returns to N. Korea to plan summit 02:31
He touched briefly on his conversation with Kim Jong Un about preparing for the summit, saying it had been "good and lengthy." The White House would soon announce the date, time and location, he said.
"That part is behind us for sure, and we had a chance to talk substantively about what we intend to be on the agenda, and also how we're going to begin to coordinate in the days ahead. ... Both sides are confident that we will set the conditions for a successful meeting between the two leaders," Pompeo said.
He said he felt that Kim "is trying to set good conditions for the summit."
Shortly before Pompeo and his team landed in Japan, at 8:30 a.m. in Washington, Trump jubilantly tweeted that the secretary "is in the air and on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting."
At Yokota Air Base in Japan, the detainees were transferred to a separate, waiting plane, and both planes took off for the 10-hour flight to Anchorage, where they would refuel. Many on Pompeo's plane, exhausted, were already asleep before it took off.
The prisoners' plane touched down in Anchorage at 1:21 p.m. local time Wednesday and took off within the hour, with an arrival time at Andrews set for the wee hours of Thursday morning. On the plane to Yokota, Pompeo told the reporters that Trump was planning to be at Andrews Air Force Base to meet the detainees when they arrived.
One of the reporters asked Pompeo if there had been a moment when he gave himself "a little pat on the back" for securing the Americans' release.
"Still have work to do," Pompeo answered. "I'm thrilled that we have them back. I'm happy that actually President Trump set the conditions for this to happen, and I'm thrilled with that. But there's still a lot of work to do to achieve our ultimate goal."
CNN's Zachary Cohen contributed to this article.
Eurovision 2018: How does the voting system work? - Independent
Eurovision 2018: How does the voting system work?
Revised Song Contest scoring no longer permits competing nations to troll one another with brutal 'nil points' judgements
Joe Sommerlad @JoeSommerlad 9 hours ago0 comments
Broadcast live from Lisbon's Altice Arena on Saturday 12 May, the Grand Final will see Britain's SuRie taking on competitors from 42 rival countries in the annual spectacular.
A fixture of the British TV calendar, Eurovision is celebrated every spring with boozy house parties around the nation as friends and families gather to laugh at the preposterous costumes and crimes against hearing being cheerily enacted on the big stage.
When is Eurovision on TV this year and who is representing Britain?
With the show just a month away, you might want to brush up on the voting system, which was radically revised in 2016.
Each participating country has a professional jury whose job it is to rank its top 10 performances, awarding points of 12, 10, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two and one to its next favourites in descending order.
These scores will be revealed during the final by each nation's spokespeople as usual, at which point a second round of votes from members of the public watching live at home will be cast.
These in turn will establish a parallel top 10 on the same basis.
The two sets of scores will then be added together to give a final set of results from that country.
Finally, these are added to the overall league table, meaning the final winner will not be revealed until the very end of the show when all 43 competing countries have submitted their scores, ensuring the tension remains high until the very last moment.
The maximum score a performer could therefore receive, if all 42 judging countries were to award them a 12 from both professional and public votes, would be 1008.
Those keen to rake over the ashes afterwards in pursuit of the answer to where it all went wrong will be able to examine an extensive breakdown of the results on the contest's official website Eurovision.tv.
The revisions brought in in 2016 mean the spectacle of a country awarding "nil points" to a rival - Eurovision's signature diss - has been eradicated, a soothing thought for patriotic British viewers already bracing themselves for disappointment.
Revised Song Contest scoring no longer permits competing nations to troll one another with brutal 'nil points' judgements
Joe Sommerlad @JoeSommerlad 9 hours ago0 comments
Broadcast live from Lisbon's Altice Arena on Saturday 12 May, the Grand Final will see Britain's SuRie taking on competitors from 42 rival countries in the annual spectacular.
A fixture of the British TV calendar, Eurovision is celebrated every spring with boozy house parties around the nation as friends and families gather to laugh at the preposterous costumes and crimes against hearing being cheerily enacted on the big stage.
When is Eurovision on TV this year and who is representing Britain?
With the show just a month away, you might want to brush up on the voting system, which was radically revised in 2016.
Each participating country has a professional jury whose job it is to rank its top 10 performances, awarding points of 12, 10, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two and one to its next favourites in descending order.
These scores will be revealed during the final by each nation's spokespeople as usual, at which point a second round of votes from members of the public watching live at home will be cast.
These in turn will establish a parallel top 10 on the same basis.
The two sets of scores will then be added together to give a final set of results from that country.
Finally, these are added to the overall league table, meaning the final winner will not be revealed until the very end of the show when all 43 competing countries have submitted their scores, ensuring the tension remains high until the very last moment.
The maximum score a performer could therefore receive, if all 42 judging countries were to award them a 12 from both professional and public votes, would be 1008.
Those keen to rake over the ashes afterwards in pursuit of the answer to where it all went wrong will be able to examine an extensive breakdown of the results on the contest's official website Eurovision.tv.
The revisions brought in in 2016 mean the spectacle of a country awarding "nil points" to a rival - Eurovision's signature diss - has been eradicated, a soothing thought for patriotic British viewers already bracing themselves for disappointment.
Prime Minister Najib Razak defeated as opposition claims victory in Malaysia - CNN News
Prime Minister Najib Razak defeated as opposition claims victory in Malaysia
By Marc Lourdes, CNN
Updated 0316 GMT (1116 HKT) May 10, 2018
Stunning comeback for Malaysia's ex-leader
Stunning comeback for Malaysia's ex-leader 02:12
Marc Lourdes is a former Asia director of CNN Digital now based in Kuala Lumpur. Follow him on Twitter at @marclourdes.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (CNN)Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has suffered a stunning election loss to former leader Mahathir Mohamad, who at 92 is set to become the world's oldest leader.
Scandal-plagued Najib, 64, was thrashed at the polls by a coalition of parties led by Mahathir, who led the country for 22 years and came out of retirement to challenge Najib in the country's 14th general election.
The defeat is a humiliating fall from grace for Najib, the scion of one of Malaysia's most prominent political families, and his coalition party, Barisan Nasional, which had led the country since its independence 61 years ago.
Supporters of Mahathir Mohamad, cheer as they watch live televised result announcement of the 14th general elections on May 10, 2018 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Supporters of Mahathir Mohamad, cheer as they watch live televised result announcement of the 14th general elections on May 10, 2018 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
With all 222 seats in the country's Parliament accounted for, Mahathir's coalition had officially won 121 seats -- enough to form a simple majority and take control of the House. Barisan Nasional, in contrast, only had 79 seats -- a far cry from the 133 it won in the 2013 election.
The bloodbath did not end there -- Najib also saw several members of his Cabinet, ministers and deputy ministers, defeated at the polls, and crashed out of eight of the battles for control of 12 state legislatures contested in the election.
According to a statement by the country's Election Commission, over 76% of the 14.3 million eligible voters in the country turned out to cast their ballots, which opened at 8 a.m. local time and went on until 5 p.m. The turnout was lower than the 85% the country saw in 2013.
While the defeat surely spells the end of Najib's political career, for Mahathir, it represents the culmination of a stunning return to power, a decade-and-a-half after retirement.
Voters cast their ballots at a polling station during Malaysia's 14th general election on Wednesday. The country's Prime Minister Najib Razak suffered a stunning defeat at the polls.
Voters cast their ballots at a polling station during Malaysia's 14th general election on Wednesday. The country's Prime Minister Najib Razak suffered a stunning defeat at the polls.
Remarkable victory
Mahathir's victory is all the more remarkable considering he is 92 years old, and was fighting the very party he led for over two decades.
Bridget Welsh, a John Cabot University expert on Malaysian politics, said Barisan Nasional could have won the elections had it not been for Najib.
"Najib is a liability. His narcissism cost them the elections," she said, of a Barisan Nasional campaign that featured Najib and his election promises as a centrepiece.
Welsh added Najib's re-election campaign never really took off.
"He used racial politics and money, like he did in 2013, but it did not have the same traction.
"This was a Malaysian tsunami across races, generations and background."
Former Malaysian prime minister and opposition candidate Mahathir Mohamad (center) celebrates with his coalition leaders during a press conference in Kuala Lumpur on early May 10, 2018.
Former Malaysian prime minister and opposition candidate Mahathir Mohamad (center) celebrates with his coalition leaders during a press conference in Kuala Lumpur on early May 10, 2018.
James Chin, the director at the Asia Institute in the University of Tasmania, said Najib had "finally run out of tricks" and said Mahathir had pulled off a masterstroke in snatching the rural vote away from Najib.
He compared the campaign speeches given by the two men on Tuesday night, hours before voting began. "Najib was still playing the bribery game -- you give me your vote, I give you this or that. Mahathir, on the other hand, came across as a statesman and appealed to Malay dignity," he said.
Chin called out two things that helped turn the tide against Najib -- a high voter turnout and the swing in rural support.
"Even if the rural voters didn't understand 1MDB, they understood that some monkey business was happening. And so the Najib brand became toxic," he said.
Supporters of former Malaysian prime minister and opposition candidate Mahathir Mohamad celebrate in Kuala Lumpur on early May 10, 2018.
Supporters of former Malaysian prime minister and opposition candidate Mahathir Mohamad celebrate in Kuala Lumpur on early May 10, 2018.
Comeback for Anwar?
One of the twists of the election came in the form of Mahathir's embrace of Anwar Ibrahim, his former deputy and later political foe, whom he once jailed on sodomy and corruption charges critics said were politically motivated.
Anwar remains imprisoned after being found guilty of sodomy a second time in 2015 -- a charge he has also said is politically motivated. He's expected to be released in June, after serving the bulk of the sentence.
Prior to the election Mahathir pledged he would step aside for Anwar, after securing him a royal pardon. Mahathir has pledged only to serve two years before handing over to his former rival.
Calling it an "unprecedented" alliance in Malaysian politics, Welsh told CNN before the election the two former political enemies had "not only a strategic (alliance) but one based on an idea of statesmanship, of moving the country in a different direction.
"It speaks a lot to the character of both Mahathir and Anwar that they can come together," she said.
"I don't think it's been easy for either of them. For Mahathir he's had to face some of the things he's done, and to apologize. For Anwar, it's to go along with someone who's created a lot of harm to his family."
A contentious election
Najib had been under massive pressure in the run up to the elections, chiefly due to long-running allegations of corruption and misappropriation of money from a state fund, known as the 1Malaysia Development Berhad, but also because of deeply unpopular moves such as the introduction of a goods and services tax (GST), which many Malaysians feel has caused the cost of living to spike sharply.
The elections have been contentious. Najib came under fire from opposition parties and civil society groups for a redrawing of electoral lines that skewed constituencies heavily in favor of his ruling coalition, towards the rural ethnic Malay-Muslim voters that have traditionally formed Barisan Nasional's power base, and away from the urban voters that have largely abandoned his coalition.
Malaysia election: Opposition leader Mahathir facing fake news charge
Malaysia election: Opposition leader Mahathir facing fake news charge
Najib also rammed through a bill in Parliament, days before it was dissolved and elections were called, that was ostensibly targeted at curbing the spread of fake news, but which critics said was aimed at stifling free speech and dissenting voices. Mahathir has become one of the first people to be investigated under the law.
There was also deep unhappiness at the fact that the elections were held on a weekday -- only the fifth time in the country's history such a thing has happened, and the first time in the country's history it was held in midweek. Many believed that the choice to have it on a weekday was a deliberate attempt to suppress the number of votes cast.
The country's Election Commission also came under significant fire, with overseas voters furious about the length of time it took them to get their postal voting ballots. Malaysians in London staged a protest earlier this week excoriating the commission for the late arrival of their ballot papers.
A voter wearing shorts and flip-flops fills out a ballot at a polling station in the Desa Petaling area of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Wednesday. Some voters were turned away by officials citing dress restrictions -- despite assurances that would not happen.
A voter wearing shorts and flip-flops fills out a ballot at a polling station in the Desa Petaling area of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Wednesday. Some voters were turned away by officials citing dress restrictions -- despite assurances that would not happen.
Election day controversies
Polling day came with its own share of controversies. Voters in some areas were turned away by election officials for wearing shorts and flip-flops, despite a statement from the Electoral Commission's chairman the day before that there wouldn't be a dress code for voters.
There were also allegations of discrepancies in voting papers, with some voters who turned up to cast their ballots told that they had already voted.
Earlier in the day, opposition politicians claimed their phones and email accounts had been hacked and spammed, saying it was a deliberate attempt to disrupt their communications.
Vote counting by officials went on into the morning, with final results still pending. Najib and Prime Minister-elect Mahathir are expected to address the nation early Thursday. And for the rest of the country, the party has already begun -- May 10 and May 11 have already been declared public holidays in celebration of one of the most remarkable moments in Malaysia's modern history.
By Marc Lourdes, CNN
Updated 0316 GMT (1116 HKT) May 10, 2018
Stunning comeback for Malaysia's ex-leader
Stunning comeback for Malaysia's ex-leader 02:12
Marc Lourdes is a former Asia director of CNN Digital now based in Kuala Lumpur. Follow him on Twitter at @marclourdes.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (CNN)Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has suffered a stunning election loss to former leader Mahathir Mohamad, who at 92 is set to become the world's oldest leader.
Scandal-plagued Najib, 64, was thrashed at the polls by a coalition of parties led by Mahathir, who led the country for 22 years and came out of retirement to challenge Najib in the country's 14th general election.
The defeat is a humiliating fall from grace for Najib, the scion of one of Malaysia's most prominent political families, and his coalition party, Barisan Nasional, which had led the country since its independence 61 years ago.
Supporters of Mahathir Mohamad, cheer as they watch live televised result announcement of the 14th general elections on May 10, 2018 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Supporters of Mahathir Mohamad, cheer as they watch live televised result announcement of the 14th general elections on May 10, 2018 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
With all 222 seats in the country's Parliament accounted for, Mahathir's coalition had officially won 121 seats -- enough to form a simple majority and take control of the House. Barisan Nasional, in contrast, only had 79 seats -- a far cry from the 133 it won in the 2013 election.
The bloodbath did not end there -- Najib also saw several members of his Cabinet, ministers and deputy ministers, defeated at the polls, and crashed out of eight of the battles for control of 12 state legislatures contested in the election.
According to a statement by the country's Election Commission, over 76% of the 14.3 million eligible voters in the country turned out to cast their ballots, which opened at 8 a.m. local time and went on until 5 p.m. The turnout was lower than the 85% the country saw in 2013.
While the defeat surely spells the end of Najib's political career, for Mahathir, it represents the culmination of a stunning return to power, a decade-and-a-half after retirement.
Voters cast their ballots at a polling station during Malaysia's 14th general election on Wednesday. The country's Prime Minister Najib Razak suffered a stunning defeat at the polls.
Voters cast their ballots at a polling station during Malaysia's 14th general election on Wednesday. The country's Prime Minister Najib Razak suffered a stunning defeat at the polls.
Remarkable victory
Mahathir's victory is all the more remarkable considering he is 92 years old, and was fighting the very party he led for over two decades.
Bridget Welsh, a John Cabot University expert on Malaysian politics, said Barisan Nasional could have won the elections had it not been for Najib.
"Najib is a liability. His narcissism cost them the elections," she said, of a Barisan Nasional campaign that featured Najib and his election promises as a centrepiece.
Welsh added Najib's re-election campaign never really took off.
"He used racial politics and money, like he did in 2013, but it did not have the same traction.
"This was a Malaysian tsunami across races, generations and background."
Former Malaysian prime minister and opposition candidate Mahathir Mohamad (center) celebrates with his coalition leaders during a press conference in Kuala Lumpur on early May 10, 2018.
Former Malaysian prime minister and opposition candidate Mahathir Mohamad (center) celebrates with his coalition leaders during a press conference in Kuala Lumpur on early May 10, 2018.
James Chin, the director at the Asia Institute in the University of Tasmania, said Najib had "finally run out of tricks" and said Mahathir had pulled off a masterstroke in snatching the rural vote away from Najib.
He compared the campaign speeches given by the two men on Tuesday night, hours before voting began. "Najib was still playing the bribery game -- you give me your vote, I give you this or that. Mahathir, on the other hand, came across as a statesman and appealed to Malay dignity," he said.
Chin called out two things that helped turn the tide against Najib -- a high voter turnout and the swing in rural support.
"Even if the rural voters didn't understand 1MDB, they understood that some monkey business was happening. And so the Najib brand became toxic," he said.
Supporters of former Malaysian prime minister and opposition candidate Mahathir Mohamad celebrate in Kuala Lumpur on early May 10, 2018.
Supporters of former Malaysian prime minister and opposition candidate Mahathir Mohamad celebrate in Kuala Lumpur on early May 10, 2018.
Comeback for Anwar?
One of the twists of the election came in the form of Mahathir's embrace of Anwar Ibrahim, his former deputy and later political foe, whom he once jailed on sodomy and corruption charges critics said were politically motivated.
Anwar remains imprisoned after being found guilty of sodomy a second time in 2015 -- a charge he has also said is politically motivated. He's expected to be released in June, after serving the bulk of the sentence.
Prior to the election Mahathir pledged he would step aside for Anwar, after securing him a royal pardon. Mahathir has pledged only to serve two years before handing over to his former rival.
Calling it an "unprecedented" alliance in Malaysian politics, Welsh told CNN before the election the two former political enemies had "not only a strategic (alliance) but one based on an idea of statesmanship, of moving the country in a different direction.
"It speaks a lot to the character of both Mahathir and Anwar that they can come together," she said.
"I don't think it's been easy for either of them. For Mahathir he's had to face some of the things he's done, and to apologize. For Anwar, it's to go along with someone who's created a lot of harm to his family."
A contentious election
Najib had been under massive pressure in the run up to the elections, chiefly due to long-running allegations of corruption and misappropriation of money from a state fund, known as the 1Malaysia Development Berhad, but also because of deeply unpopular moves such as the introduction of a goods and services tax (GST), which many Malaysians feel has caused the cost of living to spike sharply.
The elections have been contentious. Najib came under fire from opposition parties and civil society groups for a redrawing of electoral lines that skewed constituencies heavily in favor of his ruling coalition, towards the rural ethnic Malay-Muslim voters that have traditionally formed Barisan Nasional's power base, and away from the urban voters that have largely abandoned his coalition.
Malaysia election: Opposition leader Mahathir facing fake news charge
Malaysia election: Opposition leader Mahathir facing fake news charge
Najib also rammed through a bill in Parliament, days before it was dissolved and elections were called, that was ostensibly targeted at curbing the spread of fake news, but which critics said was aimed at stifling free speech and dissenting voices. Mahathir has become one of the first people to be investigated under the law.
There was also deep unhappiness at the fact that the elections were held on a weekday -- only the fifth time in the country's history such a thing has happened, and the first time in the country's history it was held in midweek. Many believed that the choice to have it on a weekday was a deliberate attempt to suppress the number of votes cast.
The country's Election Commission also came under significant fire, with overseas voters furious about the length of time it took them to get their postal voting ballots. Malaysians in London staged a protest earlier this week excoriating the commission for the late arrival of their ballot papers.
A voter wearing shorts and flip-flops fills out a ballot at a polling station in the Desa Petaling area of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Wednesday. Some voters were turned away by officials citing dress restrictions -- despite assurances that would not happen.
A voter wearing shorts and flip-flops fills out a ballot at a polling station in the Desa Petaling area of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Wednesday. Some voters were turned away by officials citing dress restrictions -- despite assurances that would not happen.
Election day controversies
Polling day came with its own share of controversies. Voters in some areas were turned away by election officials for wearing shorts and flip-flops, despite a statement from the Electoral Commission's chairman the day before that there wouldn't be a dress code for voters.
There were also allegations of discrepancies in voting papers, with some voters who turned up to cast their ballots told that they had already voted.
Earlier in the day, opposition politicians claimed their phones and email accounts had been hacked and spammed, saying it was a deliberate attempt to disrupt their communications.
Vote counting by officials went on into the morning, with final results still pending. Najib and Prime Minister-elect Mahathir are expected to address the nation early Thursday. And for the rest of the country, the party has already begun -- May 10 and May 11 have already been declared public holidays in celebration of one of the most remarkable moments in Malaysia's modern history.
The secret of the Leaning Tower of Pisa: Study finds unique mix of soil helped it stay upright during four earthquakes - Daily Mail
May 10, 2018
The secret of the Leaning Tower of Pisa: Study finds unique mix of soil helped it stay upright during four earthquakes
58-metre tall tower leans precariously at a five-degree angle
This leads to an offset at the top of over five metres
Survived at least four strong earthquakes that have hit the region since 1280
By Mark Prigg For Dailymail.com
PUBLISHED: 03:29 AEST, 10 May 2018 | UPDATED: 03:44 AEST, 10 May 2018
The mystery of how the Leaning Tower of Pisa stays intact has long baffled scientists.
Despite leaning precariously at a five-degree angle, leading to an offset at the top of over five metres, the 58-metre tall tower has managed to survive, undamaged, at least four strong earthquakes that have hit the region since 1280.
Now, researchers they believe they have the answer - soil.
Despite leaning precariously at a five-degree angle, leading to an offset at the top of over five metres, the 58-metre tall Tower has managed to survive, undamaged, at least four strong earthquakes that have hit the region since 1280. +3
Despite leaning precariously at a five-degree angle, leading to an offset at the top of over five metres, the 58-metre tall Tower has managed to survive, undamaged, at least four strong earthquakes that have hit the region since 1280.
The research team concluded that the survival of the Tower can be attributed to a phenomenon known as dynamic soil-structure interaction (DSSI).
'Ironically, the very same soil that caused the leaning instability and brought the Tower to the verge of collapse, can be credited for helping it survive these seismic events,' said Professor Mylonakis, of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Bristol, who led the study.
The research team concluded that the survival of the Tower can be attributed to a phenomenon known as dynamic soil-structure interaction (DSSI). +3
The research team concluded that the survival of the Tower can be attributed to a phenomenon known as dynamic soil-structure interaction (DSSI).
The team say the considerable height and stiffness of the Tower combined with the softness of the foundation soil, causes the vibrational characteristics of the structure to be modified substantially, in such a way that the Tower does not resonate with earthquake ground motion.
This, they say, has been the key to its survival.
The unique combination of these characteristics gives the Tower of Pisa the world record in DSSI effects.
Professor Mylonakis, from Bristol's Department of Civil Engineering, was invited to join a 16-member research team, led by Professor Camillo Nuti at Roma Tre University, to explore this Leaning Tower of Pisa mystery that has puzzled engineers for many years.
Given the vulnerability of the structure, which barely manages to stand vertically, it was expected to sustain serious damage or even collapse because of moderate seismic activity.
THE BATTLE TO PRESERVE THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA
In 1987 the Tower of Pisa was declared a World Heritage Site by the United Nation's cultural organisation Unesco, but as fears grew that it would topple over it was closed to the public in 1990 and engineers worked to stabilise it for the next 11 years.
'The tower was on the verge of collapse, but we managed to stop the tilt and secure it,' said Giuseppe Bentivoglio, from the Opera Primaziale organisation that preserves the tower.
The tower was reopened to the public in 2001 and remained open throughout a restoration costing almost £6million - partly to keep tourists happy, but partly because the revenue from ticket sales helped pay for the upkeep. The tower attracts over one million visitors a year.
In 2010 restorers made the tower even more stable by removing soil from beneath one side of its foundations. Its angle was previously 5.5 degrees from the perpendicular, but is now only 3.99 degrees off straight.
Experts say the seven-storey bell tower should now be safe from further intervention for at least the next 200 years.
But how did the tower achieve its lean? The most respected theory suggests the tower began to sink after construction - which began in 1173 - had progressed to the third floor after five years.
The cause was a flawed design - it had a foundation that was only three-metres deep set in weak, unstable subsoil.
Landmark: In 1987 the Tower of Pisa was declared a World Heritage Site by the United Nation's cultural organisation Unesco, but as fears grew that it would topple over it was closed to the public in 1990 +3
Landmark: In 1987 the Tower of Pisa was declared a World Heritage Site by the United Nation's cultural organisation Unesco, but as fears grew that it would topple over it was closed to the public in 1990
Back then that area of Italy was very belligerent, with various local land-grabbing factions jostling for position.
Because of the battles between Pisa and nearby Genoa, Lucca and Florence, the construction of the tower was put on hold for almost a century.
Thankfully this allowed enough time for the soil to settle - had there not been that length of break, many believe the tower would have toppled over centuries ago.
When tools were picked up once more, under architect Giovanni di Simone (who had built the Camposanto Monumentale, the fourth and last building to be erected in Cathedral Square) in 1272, the engineers built upper floors with one side taller than the other, in an effort to compensate for the tilt.
Because of this, the tower is actually curved. Construction was halted again in 1284, when the Pisans were defeated by the Genoans in the Battle of Meloria, and the seventh floor was not completed until 1319. Its stewardship at that point had passed to Tommaso di Andrea Pisano.
Just seven miles from the Mediterranean Sea on the west coast of Italy, the tower, which weighs some 14,500 metric tonnes, is frequently battered by storms that have eroded and discoloured it.
The distinctive, yellowish stone came from the quarries of San Giuliano, visible from the top of the tower on the green hills behind Pisa.
Surprisingly this hasn't happened and until now this has mystified engineers for a long time.
Results from the study have been presented to international workshops and will be formally announced at the 16th European Conference in Earthquake Engineering taking place in Thessaloniki, Greece next month
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5710455/The-secret-Leaning-Tower-Pisa.html#ixzz5F5hxcUsD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The secret of the Leaning Tower of Pisa: Study finds unique mix of soil helped it stay upright during four earthquakes
58-metre tall tower leans precariously at a five-degree angle
This leads to an offset at the top of over five metres
Survived at least four strong earthquakes that have hit the region since 1280
By Mark Prigg For Dailymail.com
PUBLISHED: 03:29 AEST, 10 May 2018 | UPDATED: 03:44 AEST, 10 May 2018
The mystery of how the Leaning Tower of Pisa stays intact has long baffled scientists.
Despite leaning precariously at a five-degree angle, leading to an offset at the top of over five metres, the 58-metre tall tower has managed to survive, undamaged, at least four strong earthquakes that have hit the region since 1280.
Now, researchers they believe they have the answer - soil.
Despite leaning precariously at a five-degree angle, leading to an offset at the top of over five metres, the 58-metre tall Tower has managed to survive, undamaged, at least four strong earthquakes that have hit the region since 1280. +3
Despite leaning precariously at a five-degree angle, leading to an offset at the top of over five metres, the 58-metre tall Tower has managed to survive, undamaged, at least four strong earthquakes that have hit the region since 1280.
The research team concluded that the survival of the Tower can be attributed to a phenomenon known as dynamic soil-structure interaction (DSSI).
'Ironically, the very same soil that caused the leaning instability and brought the Tower to the verge of collapse, can be credited for helping it survive these seismic events,' said Professor Mylonakis, of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Bristol, who led the study.
The research team concluded that the survival of the Tower can be attributed to a phenomenon known as dynamic soil-structure interaction (DSSI). +3
The research team concluded that the survival of the Tower can be attributed to a phenomenon known as dynamic soil-structure interaction (DSSI).
The team say the considerable height and stiffness of the Tower combined with the softness of the foundation soil, causes the vibrational characteristics of the structure to be modified substantially, in such a way that the Tower does not resonate with earthquake ground motion.
This, they say, has been the key to its survival.
The unique combination of these characteristics gives the Tower of Pisa the world record in DSSI effects.
Professor Mylonakis, from Bristol's Department of Civil Engineering, was invited to join a 16-member research team, led by Professor Camillo Nuti at Roma Tre University, to explore this Leaning Tower of Pisa mystery that has puzzled engineers for many years.
Given the vulnerability of the structure, which barely manages to stand vertically, it was expected to sustain serious damage or even collapse because of moderate seismic activity.
THE BATTLE TO PRESERVE THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA
In 1987 the Tower of Pisa was declared a World Heritage Site by the United Nation's cultural organisation Unesco, but as fears grew that it would topple over it was closed to the public in 1990 and engineers worked to stabilise it for the next 11 years.
'The tower was on the verge of collapse, but we managed to stop the tilt and secure it,' said Giuseppe Bentivoglio, from the Opera Primaziale organisation that preserves the tower.
The tower was reopened to the public in 2001 and remained open throughout a restoration costing almost £6million - partly to keep tourists happy, but partly because the revenue from ticket sales helped pay for the upkeep. The tower attracts over one million visitors a year.
In 2010 restorers made the tower even more stable by removing soil from beneath one side of its foundations. Its angle was previously 5.5 degrees from the perpendicular, but is now only 3.99 degrees off straight.
Experts say the seven-storey bell tower should now be safe from further intervention for at least the next 200 years.
But how did the tower achieve its lean? The most respected theory suggests the tower began to sink after construction - which began in 1173 - had progressed to the third floor after five years.
The cause was a flawed design - it had a foundation that was only three-metres deep set in weak, unstable subsoil.
Landmark: In 1987 the Tower of Pisa was declared a World Heritage Site by the United Nation's cultural organisation Unesco, but as fears grew that it would topple over it was closed to the public in 1990 +3
Landmark: In 1987 the Tower of Pisa was declared a World Heritage Site by the United Nation's cultural organisation Unesco, but as fears grew that it would topple over it was closed to the public in 1990
Back then that area of Italy was very belligerent, with various local land-grabbing factions jostling for position.
Because of the battles between Pisa and nearby Genoa, Lucca and Florence, the construction of the tower was put on hold for almost a century.
Thankfully this allowed enough time for the soil to settle - had there not been that length of break, many believe the tower would have toppled over centuries ago.
When tools were picked up once more, under architect Giovanni di Simone (who had built the Camposanto Monumentale, the fourth and last building to be erected in Cathedral Square) in 1272, the engineers built upper floors with one side taller than the other, in an effort to compensate for the tilt.
Because of this, the tower is actually curved. Construction was halted again in 1284, when the Pisans were defeated by the Genoans in the Battle of Meloria, and the seventh floor was not completed until 1319. Its stewardship at that point had passed to Tommaso di Andrea Pisano.
Just seven miles from the Mediterranean Sea on the west coast of Italy, the tower, which weighs some 14,500 metric tonnes, is frequently battered by storms that have eroded and discoloured it.
The distinctive, yellowish stone came from the quarries of San Giuliano, visible from the top of the tower on the green hills behind Pisa.
Surprisingly this hasn't happened and until now this has mystified engineers for a long time.
Results from the study have been presented to international workshops and will be formally announced at the 16th European Conference in Earthquake Engineering taking place in Thessaloniki, Greece next month
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5710455/The-secret-Leaning-Tower-Pisa.html#ixzz5F5hxcUsD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
