Donald Trump's China Tariffs Don't Apply to Ivanka
EUROPE FIGHTS BACK AGAINST U.S. TARIFFS
THIS GIANT 'BABY TRUMP' BALLOON WILL FLY OVER LONDON DURING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S VISIT
DONALD TRUMP ANNOUNCES THE U.S. WILL ESTABLISH A SPACE FORCE
By MCKENNA MOORE July 9, 2018
Despite her father’s rallying cry to “buy American and hire American,” 100% of Ivanka Trump’s fashion products were made overseas—at least until early 2017.
And now her goods are avoiding the sweeping tariffs enacted by President Trump in his trade war with China. On Friday morning, Trump implemented $34 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods ranging from auto parts to medical devices, according to the Huffington Post.
Clothing and shoes, like those imported by Ivanka Trump’s company, were spared.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative explained that the goods to be levied with tariffs were chosen based on what would disrupt the U.S. economy the least and have the least impact on consumers. Snopes, the fact checking website, pointed out that imposing tariffs would have a large impact on American consumers because 35% of all apparel imported in 2016 came from China. And 72% of shoes sold in the U.S. are from China, according to the South China Morning Post, citing the American Apparel and Footwear Association.
Many others in the U.S. are already feeling the effects of the tariffs. Soybeans, which represent a huge slice of American agricultural exports, are being targeted as well as cigarettes and dairy products, among other products.
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
US prepares to impose new tariffs on additional $200B worth of Chinese goods - Fox News
July 11, 2018
US prepares to impose new tariffs on additional $200B worth of Chinese goods
Samuel Chamberlain By Samuel Chamberlain | Fox News
US begins process for tariffs on $200B in Chinese products
'Special Report' panel reacts to the strategy behind the Trump administration's new charges on Chinese products.
The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it has started the process of implementing fresh tariffs on $200 billion worth of imported Chinese goods.
The move marked the latest escalation of the ongoing trade war between Washington and Beijing. On Friday, the U.S. slapped 25 percent taxes on $34 billion in Chinese imports, most of them industrial goods that the Trump administration says receive subsidies or other unfair support from Beijing. China quickly responded by imposing tariffs on $34 billion in U.S. products.
In a statement, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said that the new 10-percent tariffs were in response to what he called China's "retaliation and failure to change its practices."
"This is an appropriate response under the authority of Section 301 to obtain the elimination of China’s harmful industrial policies," Lighthizer added.
More than 6,031 product lines are affected by the new proposed tariffs, including seafood, fruits and vegetables, grains, tobacco, car rearview mirrors and burglar alarms.
Lighthizer's office will hear public comments on the plan and will reach a decision after Aug. 31, according to a senior administration official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, responded to Lighthizer's announcement with dismay.
"Although I have supported the administration’s targeted efforts to combat China’s technology transfer regime, tonight’s announcement appears reckless and is not a targeted approach," Hatch said in a statement. "We cannot turn a blind eye to China’s mercantilist trade practices, but this action falls short of a strategy that will give the administration negotiating leverage with China while maintaining the long-term health and prosperity of the American economy."
All told, Trump has threatened eventually to slap tariffs on up to $550 billion in Chinese imports — more than China actually exported to the United States last year — if Beijing won't relent to U.S. pressure and continues to retaliate.
The White House has complained that China has used predatory practices in a relentless push to grant Chinese companies an unfair advantage in the industries of the future, including robotics, electric cars and biopharmaceuticals. These tactics include the outright theft of trade secrets, government subsidies to homegrown tech firms and demands that U.S. and other foreign companies hand over technology if they want access to China's vast market.
A senior administration official told Fox News that China has been "non-responsive" to U.S. actions and has insisted that Beijing does not see any way America has been hurt by Chinese policies. The official added that China has warned the U.S. that future actions would be met with "economic attacks" on American markets.
Fox Business Network's Andrew Lawrence, Fox News' Jason Donner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
US prepares to impose new tariffs on additional $200B worth of Chinese goods
Samuel Chamberlain By Samuel Chamberlain | Fox News
US begins process for tariffs on $200B in Chinese products
'Special Report' panel reacts to the strategy behind the Trump administration's new charges on Chinese products.
The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it has started the process of implementing fresh tariffs on $200 billion worth of imported Chinese goods.
The move marked the latest escalation of the ongoing trade war between Washington and Beijing. On Friday, the U.S. slapped 25 percent taxes on $34 billion in Chinese imports, most of them industrial goods that the Trump administration says receive subsidies or other unfair support from Beijing. China quickly responded by imposing tariffs on $34 billion in U.S. products.
In a statement, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said that the new 10-percent tariffs were in response to what he called China's "retaliation and failure to change its practices."
"This is an appropriate response under the authority of Section 301 to obtain the elimination of China’s harmful industrial policies," Lighthizer added.
More than 6,031 product lines are affected by the new proposed tariffs, including seafood, fruits and vegetables, grains, tobacco, car rearview mirrors and burglar alarms.
Lighthizer's office will hear public comments on the plan and will reach a decision after Aug. 31, according to a senior administration official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, responded to Lighthizer's announcement with dismay.
"Although I have supported the administration’s targeted efforts to combat China’s technology transfer regime, tonight’s announcement appears reckless and is not a targeted approach," Hatch said in a statement. "We cannot turn a blind eye to China’s mercantilist trade practices, but this action falls short of a strategy that will give the administration negotiating leverage with China while maintaining the long-term health and prosperity of the American economy."
All told, Trump has threatened eventually to slap tariffs on up to $550 billion in Chinese imports — more than China actually exported to the United States last year — if Beijing won't relent to U.S. pressure and continues to retaliate.
The White House has complained that China has used predatory practices in a relentless push to grant Chinese companies an unfair advantage in the industries of the future, including robotics, electric cars and biopharmaceuticals. These tactics include the outright theft of trade secrets, government subsidies to homegrown tech firms and demands that U.S. and other foreign companies hand over technology if they want access to China's vast market.
A senior administration official told Fox News that China has been "non-responsive" to U.S. actions and has insisted that Beijing does not see any way America has been hurt by Chinese policies. The official added that China has warned the U.S. that future actions would be met with "economic attacks" on American markets.
Fox Business Network's Andrew Lawrence, Fox News' Jason Donner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Will Donald Trump meet Boris Johnson? 'Not sure,' says U.S. ambassador - Reuters
JULY 11, 2018 / 5:44 PM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO
Will Donald Trump meet Boris Johnson? 'Not sure,' says U.S. ambassador
Reuters Staff
LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S. Ambassador to London on Wednesday said he was unsure whether President Donald Trump would meet Boris Johnson, who resigned from Prime Minister Theresa May’s government, during his upcoming trip Britain.
Trump on Tuesday said that his visit comes during a time of “turmoil” in Britain but added he might speak to former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, whose resignation deepened a crisis in May’s government, during the trip which begins on Thursday.
When asked directly if Trump would meet Boris, U.S. Ambassador Woody Johnson told BBC Radio: “Is he going to make time? I’m not sure. That’s not on the schedule, but the president makes his own schedule.”
“We’ll make everything possible. If the president wants to do something, we’ll make it possible.”
Boris Johnson’s decision to quit at the start of the week, along with Brexit minister David Davis and other officials, threatened to destabilize May’s government and her plans for a business-friendly Brexit, agreed with top ministers last week.
But Woody Johnson said May had shown strong leadership and that the trip would enhance the special relationship between the United States and Britain.
“We’re extremely confident in the ability of the UK to plough through this issue with Brexit and move on,” he said.
“She was the first foreign dignitary to visit the U.S. when he became president. So I think that symbolizes how he considers the importance of her leadership in this country right now.”
Reporting by Alistair Smout, editing by Guy Faulconbridge
Will Donald Trump meet Boris Johnson? 'Not sure,' says U.S. ambassador
Reuters Staff
LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S. Ambassador to London on Wednesday said he was unsure whether President Donald Trump would meet Boris Johnson, who resigned from Prime Minister Theresa May’s government, during his upcoming trip Britain.
Trump on Tuesday said that his visit comes during a time of “turmoil” in Britain but added he might speak to former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, whose resignation deepened a crisis in May’s government, during the trip which begins on Thursday.
When asked directly if Trump would meet Boris, U.S. Ambassador Woody Johnson told BBC Radio: “Is he going to make time? I’m not sure. That’s not on the schedule, but the president makes his own schedule.”
“We’ll make everything possible. If the president wants to do something, we’ll make it possible.”
Boris Johnson’s decision to quit at the start of the week, along with Brexit minister David Davis and other officials, threatened to destabilize May’s government and her plans for a business-friendly Brexit, agreed with top ministers last week.
But Woody Johnson said May had shown strong leadership and that the trip would enhance the special relationship between the United States and Britain.
“We’re extremely confident in the ability of the UK to plough through this issue with Brexit and move on,” he said.
“She was the first foreign dignitary to visit the U.S. when he became president. So I think that symbolizes how he considers the importance of her leadership in this country right now.”
Reporting by Alistair Smout, editing by Guy Faulconbridge
Ambulance: The Story of the 2014 War on Gaza - Al Jazeera
Ambulance: The Story of the 2014 War on Gaza
During the 2014 war on Gaza, a Palestinian filmmaker joins an ambulance crew as they try to save lives.
28 Jul 2016 13:25 GMT War & Conflict, Gaza, Palestine, Israel
Mohamed Jabaly, 24, aspires to make films in Gaza City, despite the lack of water and electricity, and closed borders that are part of every "normal" day under the seven-year Israeli blockade of Gaza. While many young people dream of leaving Gaza, Mohamed wants to help.
When he hears the news of a new Israeli offensive on Gaza in July 2014 he decides he cannot merely "wait for death" but must do something. He joins an ambulance crew to document the war. Mohamed comes of age among broken bodies, terrified families, and the constant risk of sudden death. He had never witnessed the effects of violence up close.
Within the first few days of war, he finds himself helping victims of a massacre. "It felt like being in the middle of a theatre play. I saw blood. I tasted the pain in the eyes of women, fear in the faces of children. To whom could I show these images that are not merely images?" he says.
The ambulance team is led by captain Abu Marzouq, who saved lives in many of Gaza's wars. At first, the captain is intense and a little intimidating, and each day Abu Marzouq and the crew are in the eye of the storm. When four nine-year old boys are hit by a missile on a Gaza beach, they are one of the first ambulance crews to arrive.
Mohamed cannot tell his family what he's going through. He begins to feel close to his crewmates, who joke and encourage one another despite the fear. Abu Marzouq takes Mohamed into his confidence, and Mohamed discovers a man full of life and love for his co-workers.
Mohamed Jabaly [Al Jazeera]
DIRECTOR'S VIEW
By Mohamed Jabaly
The film is a personal story, as seen through my own eyes and the people with whom I worked during the war. The film is about human connections and does not seek to campaign for any political party or policy, nor assign blame. This is not because I don't see the urgency of the political debate or the importance of accountability, but because I am a storyteller who believes that personal stories can open the way and show us what we have in common: human decency and human dignity.
My war experience was very hard and I am still trying to understand my feelings. The filmmaking process forces me to do this and this is a good thing. I travelled to Norway in October 2014 to participate in a conference and screen some of my short films. Actually, I should have been in Norway earlier but the war prevented me from going. I was supposed to stay for only one month but, after only one week, Egypt closed the border with Gaza. I went from being stuck inside Gaza to being stuck outside of Gaza. My Norwegian hosts and friends were very generous and understanding. They also helped me to come out of myself and urged me to make this film.
Abu Marzouq, captain of the ambulance team [Al Jazeera]
But I was thinking of home all the time. I was walking around with the burden of war inside of me. When I was filming the ambulance team, I knew how important it was to make this film - everybody knew that - but I didn't know when or how to do it. The ambulance crew asked me again and again, "When will you finish this film? We need to see ourselves. We need to see how we are working during the war".
It was a heavy responsibility but it also gave me a feeling of pride that I might be able to contribute something.
The people of Gaza know how hard is to live under constant attack, but not everyone sees the details up close. Few people are really on the front line, close to everything. Even though I myself had lived through two wars and two Intifadas before, nothing prepared me for my experience during the last war in 2014. Every phone call was bad news - one after the other. And it got worse and worse. It could have been my family or my neighbours. Our ambulance could be hit at any time. It was the first time in my life that I had been so close to a situation like this. I began to understand that each TV image was just a small part of a bigger story. Even though I had lived in Gaza all my life, I was shocked every day, moment after moment.
When people in Gaza see this film, I think they too will be shocked. They will be sad, remembering the war and everything they have lost. But I think they will also feel glad that this war will be remembered, that no one can say it never happened. No one can erase or deny our pain. The world must remember.
Both inside and outside of Gaza, people will see how we survive. The film must also remind people we are still alive; that we can still smile and that we remain hopeful. The best thing about the war was that I gained a new family in the ambulance crew. I learned what hard work and courage really looks like. And I felt and received real love.
During the 2014 war on Gaza, a Palestinian filmmaker joins an ambulance crew as they try to save lives.
28 Jul 2016 13:25 GMT War & Conflict, Gaza, Palestine, Israel
Mohamed Jabaly, 24, aspires to make films in Gaza City, despite the lack of water and electricity, and closed borders that are part of every "normal" day under the seven-year Israeli blockade of Gaza. While many young people dream of leaving Gaza, Mohamed wants to help.
When he hears the news of a new Israeli offensive on Gaza in July 2014 he decides he cannot merely "wait for death" but must do something. He joins an ambulance crew to document the war. Mohamed comes of age among broken bodies, terrified families, and the constant risk of sudden death. He had never witnessed the effects of violence up close.
Within the first few days of war, he finds himself helping victims of a massacre. "It felt like being in the middle of a theatre play. I saw blood. I tasted the pain in the eyes of women, fear in the faces of children. To whom could I show these images that are not merely images?" he says.
The ambulance team is led by captain Abu Marzouq, who saved lives in many of Gaza's wars. At first, the captain is intense and a little intimidating, and each day Abu Marzouq and the crew are in the eye of the storm. When four nine-year old boys are hit by a missile on a Gaza beach, they are one of the first ambulance crews to arrive.
Mohamed cannot tell his family what he's going through. He begins to feel close to his crewmates, who joke and encourage one another despite the fear. Abu Marzouq takes Mohamed into his confidence, and Mohamed discovers a man full of life and love for his co-workers.
Mohamed Jabaly [Al Jazeera]
DIRECTOR'S VIEW
By Mohamed Jabaly
The film is a personal story, as seen through my own eyes and the people with whom I worked during the war. The film is about human connections and does not seek to campaign for any political party or policy, nor assign blame. This is not because I don't see the urgency of the political debate or the importance of accountability, but because I am a storyteller who believes that personal stories can open the way and show us what we have in common: human decency and human dignity.
My war experience was very hard and I am still trying to understand my feelings. The filmmaking process forces me to do this and this is a good thing. I travelled to Norway in October 2014 to participate in a conference and screen some of my short films. Actually, I should have been in Norway earlier but the war prevented me from going. I was supposed to stay for only one month but, after only one week, Egypt closed the border with Gaza. I went from being stuck inside Gaza to being stuck outside of Gaza. My Norwegian hosts and friends were very generous and understanding. They also helped me to come out of myself and urged me to make this film.
Abu Marzouq, captain of the ambulance team [Al Jazeera]
But I was thinking of home all the time. I was walking around with the burden of war inside of me. When I was filming the ambulance team, I knew how important it was to make this film - everybody knew that - but I didn't know when or how to do it. The ambulance crew asked me again and again, "When will you finish this film? We need to see ourselves. We need to see how we are working during the war".
It was a heavy responsibility but it also gave me a feeling of pride that I might be able to contribute something.
The people of Gaza know how hard is to live under constant attack, but not everyone sees the details up close. Few people are really on the front line, close to everything. Even though I myself had lived through two wars and two Intifadas before, nothing prepared me for my experience during the last war in 2014. Every phone call was bad news - one after the other. And it got worse and worse. It could have been my family or my neighbours. Our ambulance could be hit at any time. It was the first time in my life that I had been so close to a situation like this. I began to understand that each TV image was just a small part of a bigger story. Even though I had lived in Gaza all my life, I was shocked every day, moment after moment.
When people in Gaza see this film, I think they too will be shocked. They will be sad, remembering the war and everything they have lost. But I think they will also feel glad that this war will be remembered, that no one can say it never happened. No one can erase or deny our pain. The world must remember.
Both inside and outside of Gaza, people will see how we survive. The film must also remind people we are still alive; that we can still smile and that we remain hopeful. The best thing about the war was that I gained a new family in the ambulance crew. I learned what hard work and courage really looks like. And I felt and received real love.
Cave rescue: The Australian diving doctor who stayed with the boys - BBC News
July 11, 2018
Cave rescue: The Australian diving doctor who stayed with the boys
Dr Richard Harris spent three days underground with the young Thais and their coach
It was his rare combination of talents that led Australian doctor Richard Harris deep into the Tham Luang cave in Thailand.
When the Wild Boars football team was located deep inside the cave, after being missing for a week, the Adelaide anaesthetist abandoned his holiday in Thailand and volunteered to help.
He went in to assess the boys' health and stayed with them for three days.
It was under his direction that the weakest boys were first led out with the others successfully following in the complex operation.
Dr Harris, known as Harry, is believed to have been one of the last rescuers out of the cave.
The heroes who saved the Wild Boars'
How the operation unfolded
The rescue in pictures
Seventeen days in darkness
But relief and celebration were suddenly cut short by personal tragedy - on Wednesday it emerged that Dr Harris's father had died shortly after the rescue's finish.
The Adelaide doctor is globally renowned for his cave-diving expertise
His employer, South Australia's ambulance service, said his family's grief had been "magnified" by the physical and emotional demands of the rescue operation.
"It has been a tumultuous week with highs and lows," Dr Andrew Pearce from MedSTAR said, asking for privacy.
"Harry is a quiet and kind man who did not think twice about offering his support on this mission."
'Integral part of the rescue'
Dr Harris was specifically identified by British divers and requested by the "highest levels" of the Thai government to join the rescue, according to the Australian government.
Divers stayed with the boys after they were found deep inside the cave
"He was an integral part of the rescue attempt," said Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop who added that the doctor was internationally renowned for his cave rescue expertise.
"[The Australians] have been a big help, especially the doctor," the leader of the rescue mission, acting Chiang Rai governor Narongsak Osotanakorn told an Australian Nine News reporter on Wednesday.
"Very good. The very best," he said in reference to Dr Harris.
Wife and father remember 'hero' Thai diver: "He loved helping others"
His friend Sue Crowe told the BBC the doctor was an unassuming and selfless family man, whose calm presence would have comforted the boys in the cave.
"He is brilliant with children, and he would have made sure that they were prepared in the best possible way from a cave-diving perspective," she said.
"He would have been the perfect person to support them."
Joy and relief as Thai cave boys rescued
The heroes who saved the Wild Boars'
On social media, there has been an outpouring of gratitude directed towards him.
Many have called for him to be made Australian of the Year - the nation's highest civic honour - while the government has indicated there will be some formal recognition.
Image Copyright @PeterGleeson63@PETERGLEESON63
Report
Image Copyright @dannybaxter27@DANNYBAXTER27
Report
Image Copyright @sophy_symonds@SOPHY_SYMONDS
Report
The experienced diver, also an underwater photographer, has completed several cave-diving expeditions in Australia, New Zealand, Christmas Island and China.
One tragic expedition in 2011, involved the retrieval of the body of his friend, Agnes Milowka, who ran out of air during a cave dive in South Australia.
Dr Harris had previously led cave rescue operations
Ms Bishop said the doctor is also known to authorities for his work on medical assistance teams in natural disasters in the Pacific region, and has taken part in Australian aid missions in Vanuatu.
"[He] is an extraordinary Australian and he has certainly made a big difference to the rescue effort here in Thailand," she said.
She also praised his diving partner, Craig Challen, a vet from Perth who accompanied Dr Harris into the caves.
The pair were part of a team of 20 Australians, including police and navy divers, who assisted in the operation.
Cave rescue: The Australian diving doctor who stayed with the boys
Dr Richard Harris spent three days underground with the young Thais and their coach
It was his rare combination of talents that led Australian doctor Richard Harris deep into the Tham Luang cave in Thailand.
When the Wild Boars football team was located deep inside the cave, after being missing for a week, the Adelaide anaesthetist abandoned his holiday in Thailand and volunteered to help.
He went in to assess the boys' health and stayed with them for three days.
It was under his direction that the weakest boys were first led out with the others successfully following in the complex operation.
Dr Harris, known as Harry, is believed to have been one of the last rescuers out of the cave.
The heroes who saved the Wild Boars'
How the operation unfolded
The rescue in pictures
Seventeen days in darkness
But relief and celebration were suddenly cut short by personal tragedy - on Wednesday it emerged that Dr Harris's father had died shortly after the rescue's finish.
The Adelaide doctor is globally renowned for his cave-diving expertise
His employer, South Australia's ambulance service, said his family's grief had been "magnified" by the physical and emotional demands of the rescue operation.
"It has been a tumultuous week with highs and lows," Dr Andrew Pearce from MedSTAR said, asking for privacy.
"Harry is a quiet and kind man who did not think twice about offering his support on this mission."
'Integral part of the rescue'
Dr Harris was specifically identified by British divers and requested by the "highest levels" of the Thai government to join the rescue, according to the Australian government.
Divers stayed with the boys after they were found deep inside the cave
"He was an integral part of the rescue attempt," said Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop who added that the doctor was internationally renowned for his cave rescue expertise.
"[The Australians] have been a big help, especially the doctor," the leader of the rescue mission, acting Chiang Rai governor Narongsak Osotanakorn told an Australian Nine News reporter on Wednesday.
"Very good. The very best," he said in reference to Dr Harris.
Wife and father remember 'hero' Thai diver: "He loved helping others"
His friend Sue Crowe told the BBC the doctor was an unassuming and selfless family man, whose calm presence would have comforted the boys in the cave.
"He is brilliant with children, and he would have made sure that they were prepared in the best possible way from a cave-diving perspective," she said.
"He would have been the perfect person to support them."
Joy and relief as Thai cave boys rescued
The heroes who saved the Wild Boars'
On social media, there has been an outpouring of gratitude directed towards him.
Many have called for him to be made Australian of the Year - the nation's highest civic honour - while the government has indicated there will be some formal recognition.
Image Copyright @PeterGleeson63@PETERGLEESON63
Report
Image Copyright @dannybaxter27@DANNYBAXTER27
Report
Image Copyright @sophy_symonds@SOPHY_SYMONDS
Report
The experienced diver, also an underwater photographer, has completed several cave-diving expeditions in Australia, New Zealand, Christmas Island and China.
One tragic expedition in 2011, involved the retrieval of the body of his friend, Agnes Milowka, who ran out of air during a cave dive in South Australia.
Dr Harris had previously led cave rescue operations
Ms Bishop said the doctor is also known to authorities for his work on medical assistance teams in natural disasters in the Pacific region, and has taken part in Australian aid missions in Vanuatu.
"[He] is an extraordinary Australian and he has certainly made a big difference to the rescue effort here in Thailand," she said.
She also praised his diving partner, Craig Challen, a vet from Perth who accompanied Dr Harris into the caves.
The pair were part of a team of 20 Australians, including police and navy divers, who assisted in the operation.
Trump Nato: Germany's defence spending attacked - BBC News
July 11, 2018
Trump Nato: Germany's defence spending attacked
Mr Trump was talking at a breakfast meeting
US President Donald Trump has suggested Germany's imports of Russian natural gas are a security concern, as he and other Nato leaders gather for a summit.
At talks in Brussels with Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg, he said it was a "very bad thing for Nato" that Germany was "totally controlled by Russia".
He suggested 70% of Germany's gas imports were Russian but the latest official figure was actually 50.75%.
He has accused Europeans of failing to pay enough for Nato operations.
The Brussels summit comes less than a week before Mr Trump is due to hold his first summit with Vladimir Putin, in Helsinki, reviving concerns among US allies over his proximity to the Russian president.
President Trump shocked some by quipping that the Nato summit might prove harder than next Monday's summit with Mr Putin.
Can Nato survive Donald Trump?
What does the US contribute to Nato?
Macedonia: The country waiting for Nato's invitation
US tariffs a dangerous game, says EU
European Council President Donald Tusk accused him of criticising Europe "almost daily", tweeting: "Dear America, appreciate your allies, after all you don't have that many."
Mr Tusk said the EU spent more than Russia on defence, and as much as China.
Media caption"Appreciate your allies... you don't have that many," Trump is warned
America, he added, did not and would not have a better ally than the EU, reminding Mr Trump that European troops had also fought and died in Afghanistan after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.
On the Putin summit, Mr Tusk said pointedly: "It is always worth knowing who is your strategic friend and who is your strategic problem."
What exactly did Trump say about Germany?
Germany has the EU's biggest economy and has long been accused by US administrations of failing to contribute its fair share to Nato operations but Mr Trump was particularly stinging.
"Ultimately Germany will have almost 70% of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas, so you tell me - is that appropriate?" he asked at Wednesday's breakfast meeting with Mr Stoltenberg.
"Germany is totally controlled by Russia because they will be getting from 60 to 70% of their energy from Russia, and a new pipeline, and you tell me if that's appropriate because I think it's not and I think it's a very bad thing for Nato."
He went on to accuse Germany of only spending "a little bit over 1%" of its economic output on defence compared to the 4.2% spent by the US "in actual numbers".
Germany actually spends 1.24% and the US 3.5%, according to the latest Nato estimate.
German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen rejected Mr Trump's accusations of Russian control, Reuters news agency reports.
"We have a lot of issues with Russia without any doubt," she was quoted as telling a side event at the Nato summit just after Mr Trump spoke.
"On the other hand, you should keep the communication line between countries or alliances and opponents without any question."
What is the spending row about?
President Trump has said the US is being "taken advantage of" by other members of the Nato alliance, which was set up in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union, of which Russia is the main successor state.
His main objection is that all but a handful of member states have still not increased their defence budgets to meet a goal of spending at least 2% of their annual economic output on defence by 2024.
Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump@REALDONALDTRUMP
Report
Of Nato's 29 members, just five meet that target this year: the US, Greece, Estonia, the UK and Latvia. However, several, such as Poland and France are close to the mark.
Why are Nato countries worried?
Some in Nato fear Mr Trump's repeated blunt demands could harm morale, furthering the agenda of President Putin whom they accuse of seeking to destabilise the West.
The Trumps flew into Belgium on Tuesday
Some have expressed fears for the future of Nato itself, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has indicated Europe may no longer be able to rely on its US ally.
Despite that, US officials told Reuters news agency the president was expected to reaffirm US support for Article 5 of the Nato treaty, which states that an attack against one ally is considered an attack on all members.
After the Nato summit on Wednesday, President Trump will spend four days in the UK before his summit with the Russian leader.
PM's new cabinet meets amid Brexit turmoil
What's the Nato row got to do with the EU?
Mr Trump has linked the issue of US military spending to the EU's trade surplus with the US, complaining that the bloc "makes it impossible for our farmers and workers and companies to do business in Europe" and then "want us to happily defend them through Nato".
The EU is America's biggest export market, taking $501bn (£378bn) in goods and services in 2016, the latest year recorded by the Office of the US Trade Representative.
The trade office's figures say US imports from the EU rang in at $592bn- leaving a $91bn goods and services trade deficit.
Trade wars, Trump tariffs and protectionism explained
Last month, the US raised fears of a trade war by slapping tariffs on steel and aluminium from the EU, Canada, Mexico and other US allies. The EU hit back with tariffs on products including motorcycles and orange juice.
Trump Nato: Germany's defence spending attacked
Mr Trump was talking at a breakfast meeting
US President Donald Trump has suggested Germany's imports of Russian natural gas are a security concern, as he and other Nato leaders gather for a summit.
At talks in Brussels with Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg, he said it was a "very bad thing for Nato" that Germany was "totally controlled by Russia".
He suggested 70% of Germany's gas imports were Russian but the latest official figure was actually 50.75%.
He has accused Europeans of failing to pay enough for Nato operations.
The Brussels summit comes less than a week before Mr Trump is due to hold his first summit with Vladimir Putin, in Helsinki, reviving concerns among US allies over his proximity to the Russian president.
President Trump shocked some by quipping that the Nato summit might prove harder than next Monday's summit with Mr Putin.
Can Nato survive Donald Trump?
What does the US contribute to Nato?
Macedonia: The country waiting for Nato's invitation
US tariffs a dangerous game, says EU
European Council President Donald Tusk accused him of criticising Europe "almost daily", tweeting: "Dear America, appreciate your allies, after all you don't have that many."
Mr Tusk said the EU spent more than Russia on defence, and as much as China.
Media caption"Appreciate your allies... you don't have that many," Trump is warned
America, he added, did not and would not have a better ally than the EU, reminding Mr Trump that European troops had also fought and died in Afghanistan after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.
On the Putin summit, Mr Tusk said pointedly: "It is always worth knowing who is your strategic friend and who is your strategic problem."
What exactly did Trump say about Germany?
Germany has the EU's biggest economy and has long been accused by US administrations of failing to contribute its fair share to Nato operations but Mr Trump was particularly stinging.
"Ultimately Germany will have almost 70% of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas, so you tell me - is that appropriate?" he asked at Wednesday's breakfast meeting with Mr Stoltenberg.
"Germany is totally controlled by Russia because they will be getting from 60 to 70% of their energy from Russia, and a new pipeline, and you tell me if that's appropriate because I think it's not and I think it's a very bad thing for Nato."
He went on to accuse Germany of only spending "a little bit over 1%" of its economic output on defence compared to the 4.2% spent by the US "in actual numbers".
Germany actually spends 1.24% and the US 3.5%, according to the latest Nato estimate.
German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen rejected Mr Trump's accusations of Russian control, Reuters news agency reports.
"We have a lot of issues with Russia without any doubt," she was quoted as telling a side event at the Nato summit just after Mr Trump spoke.
"On the other hand, you should keep the communication line between countries or alliances and opponents without any question."
What is the spending row about?
President Trump has said the US is being "taken advantage of" by other members of the Nato alliance, which was set up in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union, of which Russia is the main successor state.
His main objection is that all but a handful of member states have still not increased their defence budgets to meet a goal of spending at least 2% of their annual economic output on defence by 2024.
Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump@REALDONALDTRUMP
Report
Of Nato's 29 members, just five meet that target this year: the US, Greece, Estonia, the UK and Latvia. However, several, such as Poland and France are close to the mark.
Why are Nato countries worried?
Some in Nato fear Mr Trump's repeated blunt demands could harm morale, furthering the agenda of President Putin whom they accuse of seeking to destabilise the West.
The Trumps flew into Belgium on Tuesday
Some have expressed fears for the future of Nato itself, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has indicated Europe may no longer be able to rely on its US ally.
Despite that, US officials told Reuters news agency the president was expected to reaffirm US support for Article 5 of the Nato treaty, which states that an attack against one ally is considered an attack on all members.
After the Nato summit on Wednesday, President Trump will spend four days in the UK before his summit with the Russian leader.
PM's new cabinet meets amid Brexit turmoil
What's the Nato row got to do with the EU?
Mr Trump has linked the issue of US military spending to the EU's trade surplus with the US, complaining that the bloc "makes it impossible for our farmers and workers and companies to do business in Europe" and then "want us to happily defend them through Nato".
The EU is America's biggest export market, taking $501bn (£378bn) in goods and services in 2016, the latest year recorded by the Office of the US Trade Representative.
The trade office's figures say US imports from the EU rang in at $592bn- leaving a $91bn goods and services trade deficit.
Trade wars, Trump tariffs and protectionism explained
Last month, the US raised fears of a trade war by slapping tariffs on steel and aluminium from the EU, Canada, Mexico and other US allies. The EU hit back with tariffs on products including motorcycles and orange juice.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Trump Nominates Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court - Fortune
July 10, 2018
Trump Nominates Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court
President Donald Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court nominee Monday night, in a primetime televised event. Judge Kavanaugh, a U.S. Circuit Court judge for Washington, D.C., would fill the vacant seat left by retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his departure in late June.
Calling Trump’s Supreme Court nomination an “honor and privilege,” Kavanaugh addressed a crowd in the White House’s East Room alongside his wife and two daughters. “A judge must interpret the law, not make the law,” Kavanaugh said. If approved by the Senate, he would become the fifth conservative justice on the nation’s highest court.
On the issues, Kavanaugh seems to tick many of the boxes of interest to Trump, who included him on a list of potential Supreme Court picks published by the White House in November 2017.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Tonight, it was my honor and privilege to nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. #SCOTUS
12:54 PM - Jul 10, 2018
Age was an important factor in making Trump’s Supreme Court list; Kavanaugh is 53 years old, which would guarantee a measure of longevity on the court, if he is approved by Congress.
Kavanaugh’s views on impeachment could be controversial and of interest to Trump. The Supreme Court nominee argued in the past that President Bill Clinton could have been impeached for lying to and misleading both his staff and the public at large. But after working in the George W. Bush administration, Kavanaugh’s stance has softened, reports The Washington Post. Kavanaugh now reportedly believes court proceedings against a sitting president should be deferred until after he or she is out of office.
“The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas,” Kavanaugh wrote in a 2012 piece titled “Separation of Powers During the FortyFourth Presidency and Beyond” for the Minnesota Law Review.
In addition to opposing abortion rights, Kavanaugh is also reportedly against net neutrality, according to an article from Motherboard.
If confirmed, Kavanaugh will become Trump’s second Supreme Court appointment. Justice Neil Gorsuch was Trump’s Supreme Court pick in 2017.
Kavanaugh was among four potential nominees Trump interviewed for the lifetime appointment. The list also included Amy Coney Barrett, Amul Thapar and Raymond Kethledge. Thomas Hardiman, a runner up for Gorsuch’s seat, also reportedly met with Trump, reports TIME.
Trump Nominates Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court
President Donald Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court nominee Monday night, in a primetime televised event. Judge Kavanaugh, a U.S. Circuit Court judge for Washington, D.C., would fill the vacant seat left by retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his departure in late June.
Calling Trump’s Supreme Court nomination an “honor and privilege,” Kavanaugh addressed a crowd in the White House’s East Room alongside his wife and two daughters. “A judge must interpret the law, not make the law,” Kavanaugh said. If approved by the Senate, he would become the fifth conservative justice on the nation’s highest court.
On the issues, Kavanaugh seems to tick many of the boxes of interest to Trump, who included him on a list of potential Supreme Court picks published by the White House in November 2017.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Tonight, it was my honor and privilege to nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. #SCOTUS
12:54 PM - Jul 10, 2018
Age was an important factor in making Trump’s Supreme Court list; Kavanaugh is 53 years old, which would guarantee a measure of longevity on the court, if he is approved by Congress.
Kavanaugh’s views on impeachment could be controversial and of interest to Trump. The Supreme Court nominee argued in the past that President Bill Clinton could have been impeached for lying to and misleading both his staff and the public at large. But after working in the George W. Bush administration, Kavanaugh’s stance has softened, reports The Washington Post. Kavanaugh now reportedly believes court proceedings against a sitting president should be deferred until after he or she is out of office.
“The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas,” Kavanaugh wrote in a 2012 piece titled “Separation of Powers During the FortyFourth Presidency and Beyond” for the Minnesota Law Review.
In addition to opposing abortion rights, Kavanaugh is also reportedly against net neutrality, according to an article from Motherboard.
If confirmed, Kavanaugh will become Trump’s second Supreme Court appointment. Justice Neil Gorsuch was Trump’s Supreme Court pick in 2017.
Kavanaugh was among four potential nominees Trump interviewed for the lifetime appointment. The list also included Amy Coney Barrett, Amul Thapar and Raymond Kethledge. Thomas Hardiman, a runner up for Gorsuch’s seat, also reportedly met with Trump, reports TIME.
One Thing Trump Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Won't Change Is the Supreme Court's Harvard-Yale Monopoly - Fortune
One Thing Trump Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Won't Change Is the Supreme Court's Harvard-Yale Monopoly
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire
Effective July 31, 2018.
Brett Kavanaugh is officially President Trump’s Supreme Court Justice nominee, and he’s a fairly conventional pick for a very unconventional president.
Tather than pivoting away from the establishment as he has sought to do in other political matters, Trump has chosen a nominee that has Ivy League establishment credentials—like every other Justice currently on the bench.
Nine of the nine Justices, including outgoing Justice Kennedy, received their law degree from an Ivy League school. Five of the Justices went to Harvard, three to Yale, and Justice Ginsburg attended Harvard before transferring to and graduating from Columbia Law School. Kavanaugh, who received his degree from Yale Law, will continue this trend, albeit rebalancing the distribution between Harvard and Yale on the bench.
This is not simply a trend of the current Supreme Court bench: Every Supreme Court Justice appointed since the ‘80s has attended an Ivy League law school, and all of them went to Harvard or Yale—with the exception of Justice Ginsburg.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was appointed by then-President Reagan in 1981, received her law degree from Stanford University. She was the last Justice appointed who did not go to an Ivy League school, and was also the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. She retired in 2006.
Justice William Rehnquist who served on the Supreme Court from 1972 until his death in 2005, also received his law degree from Stanford University. And Justice John Paul Stevens, who served from 1975 until his retirement in 2010, graduated from Northwestern University School of Law.
Of the 114 Justices who have served on the Supreme Court to date, more than half have attended an Ivy League school at the undergraduate, graduate, or law school level. Between 1950 and 2009, 70% of the Justices fell into this category.
While Harvard and Yale (and Columbia) are undoubtedly some of the most well-regarded and prestigious universities in the country, many have expressed concern about the homogeneity of the Court’s makeup.
Dan Glickman, the Vice President of the Aspen Institute and a former Congressman and Secretary of Agriculture, summed up the critical view in a 2016 article:
“When an individual is able to, through force of intellect, matriculate and excel at Harvard or Yale Law they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt they are among the top minds in America’s legal community. However, there is a certain cloistered nature to joining this elite community. People of this pedigree often live in a world that does not necessarily parallel the life experiences of most Americans. And that is where more diversity is needed.”
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire
Effective July 31, 2018.
Brett Kavanaugh is officially President Trump’s Supreme Court Justice nominee, and he’s a fairly conventional pick for a very unconventional president.
Tather than pivoting away from the establishment as he has sought to do in other political matters, Trump has chosen a nominee that has Ivy League establishment credentials—like every other Justice currently on the bench.
Nine of the nine Justices, including outgoing Justice Kennedy, received their law degree from an Ivy League school. Five of the Justices went to Harvard, three to Yale, and Justice Ginsburg attended Harvard before transferring to and graduating from Columbia Law School. Kavanaugh, who received his degree from Yale Law, will continue this trend, albeit rebalancing the distribution between Harvard and Yale on the bench.
This is not simply a trend of the current Supreme Court bench: Every Supreme Court Justice appointed since the ‘80s has attended an Ivy League law school, and all of them went to Harvard or Yale—with the exception of Justice Ginsburg.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was appointed by then-President Reagan in 1981, received her law degree from Stanford University. She was the last Justice appointed who did not go to an Ivy League school, and was also the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. She retired in 2006.
Justice William Rehnquist who served on the Supreme Court from 1972 until his death in 2005, also received his law degree from Stanford University. And Justice John Paul Stevens, who served from 1975 until his retirement in 2010, graduated from Northwestern University School of Law.
Of the 114 Justices who have served on the Supreme Court to date, more than half have attended an Ivy League school at the undergraduate, graduate, or law school level. Between 1950 and 2009, 70% of the Justices fell into this category.
While Harvard and Yale (and Columbia) are undoubtedly some of the most well-regarded and prestigious universities in the country, many have expressed concern about the homogeneity of the Court’s makeup.
Dan Glickman, the Vice President of the Aspen Institute and a former Congressman and Secretary of Agriculture, summed up the critical view in a 2016 article:
“When an individual is able to, through force of intellect, matriculate and excel at Harvard or Yale Law they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt they are among the top minds in America’s legal community. However, there is a certain cloistered nature to joining this elite community. People of this pedigree often live in a world that does not necessarily parallel the life experiences of most Americans. And that is where more diversity is needed.”
Donald Trump's Personal Driver For 25 Years Sues For Unpaid Overtime - NDTV
Donald Trump's Personal Driver For 25 Years Sues For Unpaid Overtime
Noel Cintron, who is listed in public records as a registered Republican, sued the Trump Organization for about 3,300 hours of overtime that he says he worked in the past six years.
World | (c) 2018 Bloomberg | Christie Smythe and Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg | Updated: July 10, 2018 16:50 IST
by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored
Shark Tank Cancelled After This (Viral Bee)
Foreigner Wins Huge US Lottery, Americans Furious (theLotter.com)
Donald Trump's Personal Driver For 25 Years Sues For Unpaid Overtime
Noel Cintron said that Donald Trump hadn't given him a "meaningful raise" in 12 years (Reuters)
Donald Trump's personal driver for more than 25 years says the billionaire real estate developer didn't pay him overtime and raised his salary only twice in 15 years, clawing back the second raise by cutting off his health benefits.
Noel Cintron, who is listed in public records as a registered Republican, sued the Trump Organization for about 3,300 hours of overtime that he says he worked in the past six years. He's not allowed to sue for overtime prior to that due to the statute of limitations.
"In an utterly callous display of unwarranted privilege and entitlement and without even a minimal sense of noblesse oblige," Trump and his businesses exploited the driver, Cintron says in the complaint.
The driver's allegations echo those of other Trump employees or contractors who have sued the president or his businesses over the years claiming he has underpaid them or failed to honor promises to compensate them for their work. They have included mortgage brokers, landscapers and electricians who say they were stiffed on commissions or fees.
Last year, one of Trump's luxury golf resorts in Florida was ordered by an appeals court to pay more than $32,000 to a supply company that claimed it wasn't paid for paint that was used to spruce up the property.
"Mr. Cintron was at all times paid generously and in accordance with the law," Trump Organization spokeswoman Amanda Miller said in a statement. "Once the facts come out we expect to be fully vindicated in court."
DONALD TRUMP WILL SEE YOU IN COURT
Cintron says he was required to be on duty for Trump starting at 7 a.m. each day until whenever Trump, his family or business associates no longer required his services. He worked as long as 55 hours per week, but was paid a fixed salary of $62,700 in 2003, $68,000 in 2006, and $75,000 in 2010, according to the complaint.
The wage bump in 2010 came with a catch, Cintron said. He was induced to surrender his health insurance, saving Trump approximately $17,866 per year in premiums, according to the lawsuit.
"President Trump's further callousness and cupidity is further demonstrated by the fact that while he is purportedly a billionaire, he has not given his personal driver a meaningful raise in over 12 years!" Cintron said.
Cintron, 59, lives in Queens, New York, his lawyer, Larry Hutcher, said in a phone interview. The driver started working for the Trump Organization about 30 years ago, and worked his way up to chauffeuring the president-to-be. He declined to comment to reporters outside his home.
Cintron said he was Trump's personal driver until the Secret Service took over.
In addition to the unpaid overtime, Cintron claims the Trump Organization failed to provide annual wage notices as required by New York law. Cintron is seeking about $200,000 in damages, Hutcher said.
COMMENT
The case is Cintron v. Trump Organization LLC, Supreme Court, State of New York (Manhattan).
Noel Cintron, who is listed in public records as a registered Republican, sued the Trump Organization for about 3,300 hours of overtime that he says he worked in the past six years.
World | (c) 2018 Bloomberg | Christie Smythe and Chris Dolmetsch, Bloomberg | Updated: July 10, 2018 16:50 IST
by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored
Shark Tank Cancelled After This (Viral Bee)
Foreigner Wins Huge US Lottery, Americans Furious (theLotter.com)
Donald Trump's Personal Driver For 25 Years Sues For Unpaid Overtime
Noel Cintron said that Donald Trump hadn't given him a "meaningful raise" in 12 years (Reuters)
Donald Trump's personal driver for more than 25 years says the billionaire real estate developer didn't pay him overtime and raised his salary only twice in 15 years, clawing back the second raise by cutting off his health benefits.
Noel Cintron, who is listed in public records as a registered Republican, sued the Trump Organization for about 3,300 hours of overtime that he says he worked in the past six years. He's not allowed to sue for overtime prior to that due to the statute of limitations.
"In an utterly callous display of unwarranted privilege and entitlement and without even a minimal sense of noblesse oblige," Trump and his businesses exploited the driver, Cintron says in the complaint.
The driver's allegations echo those of other Trump employees or contractors who have sued the president or his businesses over the years claiming he has underpaid them or failed to honor promises to compensate them for their work. They have included mortgage brokers, landscapers and electricians who say they were stiffed on commissions or fees.
Last year, one of Trump's luxury golf resorts in Florida was ordered by an appeals court to pay more than $32,000 to a supply company that claimed it wasn't paid for paint that was used to spruce up the property.
"Mr. Cintron was at all times paid generously and in accordance with the law," Trump Organization spokeswoman Amanda Miller said in a statement. "Once the facts come out we expect to be fully vindicated in court."
DONALD TRUMP WILL SEE YOU IN COURT
Cintron says he was required to be on duty for Trump starting at 7 a.m. each day until whenever Trump, his family or business associates no longer required his services. He worked as long as 55 hours per week, but was paid a fixed salary of $62,700 in 2003, $68,000 in 2006, and $75,000 in 2010, according to the complaint.
The wage bump in 2010 came with a catch, Cintron said. He was induced to surrender his health insurance, saving Trump approximately $17,866 per year in premiums, according to the lawsuit.
"President Trump's further callousness and cupidity is further demonstrated by the fact that while he is purportedly a billionaire, he has not given his personal driver a meaningful raise in over 12 years!" Cintron said.
Cintron, 59, lives in Queens, New York, his lawyer, Larry Hutcher, said in a phone interview. The driver started working for the Trump Organization about 30 years ago, and worked his way up to chauffeuring the president-to-be. He declined to comment to reporters outside his home.
Cintron said he was Trump's personal driver until the Secret Service took over.
In addition to the unpaid overtime, Cintron claims the Trump Organization failed to provide annual wage notices as required by New York law. Cintron is seeking about $200,000 in damages, Hutcher said.
COMMENT
The case is Cintron v. Trump Organization LLC, Supreme Court, State of New York (Manhattan).
An Israeli shell killed Amr Samour in Gaza, even though he wasn't a protester - NBC News
An Israeli shell killed Amr Samour in Gaza, even though he wasn't a protester
The life and death of a Palestinian parsley farmer illustrates why so many in Gaza risk their lives to protest Israel's blockade.
by F. Brinley Bruton and Wajjeh Abu Zarifa / Jul.09.2018 / 5:44 PM ET / Updated Jul.09.2018 / 5:47 PM ET
Image: Dunya Samour
Dunya Samour's husband Amr Samour was killed on March 30, the first day of the Great March of Return protests in the Gaza Strip. She sits with daughters Seema, 3, and Rawya, 7 months.F. Brinley Bruton / NBC News
BANI SUHEILA, Gaza Strip — Bright green stained what was left of parsley farmer Amr Samour’s body: The Israeli tank shell that blew off much of his torso had embedded the plant onto his skin and guts, according to his father.
“I recognized him through one side of his face,” said Wahid Samour, covering the left side of his own face with the palm of his hand.
Image: Wahid SamourWahid Samour, father of Amr Samour — a farmer who was killed on March 30, the first day of the Great March of Return protests.David Copeland / NBC News
“I cried and cried — we all did,” Wahid said, sitting in his living room in the southern Gaza Strip.
Soon after his oldest son’s death on March 30, the 55-year-old Wahid was rushed to the hospital with dangerously high blood pressure.
Even though he wasn't a protester, Amr was the first Palestinian killed during the months-long Great March of Return demonstrations shaking the Gaza Strip and Israel. Demonstrations turned violent, and at least 142 protesters have been killed by Israeli troops, according to Gaza's health ministry. Israel has been widely criticized for using lethal force against largely unarmed protesters.
The rallies in Gaza are aimed in part at drawing attention to the Israeli-Egyptian blockade first imposed when Hamas, the militant group that governs the enclave and is sworn to Israel’s destruction, came to power in 2007. More than 13,000 protesters have been injured.
Israeli officials accuse Hamas of encouraging civilians to put themselves in harm’s way and then used them as cover to commit violence. Israel is also battling large fires caused by the flaming kites and arson balloons launched from Gaza that have destroyed forests, burned crops and killed wildlife and livestock.
Drones combat flaming kites launched from Gaza
JUN.09.201801:05
But the 27-year-old Amr's death in a field near the fence with Israel illustrates why tens of thousands of fellow Palestinians have for months risked bullets and tear gas to protest the blockade of the enclave. Israeli officials did not respond to requests for comment and information for this article.
Wahid said he believes soldiers guarding the 40-mile fence from what officials dubbed Palestinian “swarming attacks” should have known that his son was no threat.
“That area is very open area — they can see everything,” Wahid said. “They are shelling and shooting all the time, but this time it hit us.”
There is a growing sense that Israel and Hamas, which have fought three conflicts in the last 12 years, are headed toward another war. Meanwhile, the lives of ordinary Gazans are getting worse.
Gaza militants, Israel exchange fire as tensions increase
JUN.21.201801:16
Nearly half of the 2 million residents of the strip are out of work — 65 percent of those aged 30 and under. Some 70 percent of the population depends on humanitarian aid — similar to the proportion of those who are refugees or descendants of refugees driven from their homes after the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.
Almost none of the water is clean, raw sewage is pumped straight into the sea and worsening power shortages mean Gazans have electricity for only around four hours a day.
Amr’s death means his widow and two children, as well as his extended family, can no longer depend on around 150 shekels ($40) a week he used to earn as a contract farmer. Now the burden of supporting the family of ten has fallen entirely onto Wahid, who has seen his salary from the Palestinian Authority, Hamas’ rival in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, cut to around $300 a month. Some 60,000 fellow PA workers have had their salaries slashed in recent months.
Perversely, Amr’s death provided a lifeline for Wahid — a $3,000 payment from organizers of the March.
Despite his personal loss, Wahid said he supports the ongoing protests on the border fence, calling them “a good action.”
Recommended
Pompeo shrugs off North Korea’s ‘gangster’ comment, claims progress
Mike Pompeo visits North Korea seeking details on denuclearization
“Israel closed everything, the sea links and air links,” he said. “In your country, you can drive from area to area — nobody stops you. Here we are in a cage.”
Cages come in different sizes. The cage Amr's widow Dunya Samour inhabits is smaller, but no less restrictive.
“I cannot taste anything,” she said, sitting in her one-bedroom unfinished apartment above her father-in-law’s house. “I am hating my life.”
Dunya, the mother of a seven-month-old and a three-year-old, remembered Amr as a “good husband who wanted a simple life,” but he left her deeply in debt after buying doors, windows and a bed for the young family's apartment.
“He promised he would improve the house,” Dunya, 23, said as she sat surrounded by her mother, two sisters and a phalanx of children. “He promised he would buy us a refrigerator.”
Image: PalestineWomen wave Palestinian flags and flash the victory gesture during a protest near the fence with Israel in the Gaza Strip on March 30.Mohammed Abed / AFP - Getty Images file
Despite the hardship and grief that blanket the household, guests were served glasses of orange fizzy drink on a plastic tray covered in pink roses, hospitality being de rigueur in households here. Everybody sat on cushions on lined up on the sides of the room.
Dunya’s future is uncertain. As the widow of a martyr, or “shahid,” she is ostensibly honored. But she has no source of income aside from her father-in-law, and the “martyr payment” did not come to her. While Dunya could in theory remarry, this is difficult, as taking the widow of a shahid as a bride is widely seen as a dishonoring a martyr’s memory.
While Dunya spends a lot of time thinking about the bare basics — milk, diapers, rice and meat once a week — her eyes flashed in anger when she talked about Israeli soldiers encamped on the fence around Gaza.
“They never respect the law,” she said. “They kill people who don't have weapons.”
Why protesters put their lives on the line by approaching Gaza fence
An end to this violent impasse looks far off, as Israel and much of the world have refused to deal with Hamas. Meanwhile, long-term talks aimed at creating an independent Palestinian state, including Gaza, the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, which Israel captured in 1967, have stalled.
Unlike his daughter-in-law, Wahid said he does not blame soldiers themselves for the death that beset his family.
“They are soldiers, and young boys — they don’t understand,” he said. “They don’t know the story of the Palestinians. They tell them we are all terrorists.”
The life and death of a Palestinian parsley farmer illustrates why so many in Gaza risk their lives to protest Israel's blockade.
by F. Brinley Bruton and Wajjeh Abu Zarifa / Jul.09.2018 / 5:44 PM ET / Updated Jul.09.2018 / 5:47 PM ET
Image: Dunya Samour
Dunya Samour's husband Amr Samour was killed on March 30, the first day of the Great March of Return protests in the Gaza Strip. She sits with daughters Seema, 3, and Rawya, 7 months.F. Brinley Bruton / NBC News
BANI SUHEILA, Gaza Strip — Bright green stained what was left of parsley farmer Amr Samour’s body: The Israeli tank shell that blew off much of his torso had embedded the plant onto his skin and guts, according to his father.
“I recognized him through one side of his face,” said Wahid Samour, covering the left side of his own face with the palm of his hand.
Image: Wahid SamourWahid Samour, father of Amr Samour — a farmer who was killed on March 30, the first day of the Great March of Return protests.David Copeland / NBC News
“I cried and cried — we all did,” Wahid said, sitting in his living room in the southern Gaza Strip.
Soon after his oldest son’s death on March 30, the 55-year-old Wahid was rushed to the hospital with dangerously high blood pressure.
Even though he wasn't a protester, Amr was the first Palestinian killed during the months-long Great March of Return demonstrations shaking the Gaza Strip and Israel. Demonstrations turned violent, and at least 142 protesters have been killed by Israeli troops, according to Gaza's health ministry. Israel has been widely criticized for using lethal force against largely unarmed protesters.
The rallies in Gaza are aimed in part at drawing attention to the Israeli-Egyptian blockade first imposed when Hamas, the militant group that governs the enclave and is sworn to Israel’s destruction, came to power in 2007. More than 13,000 protesters have been injured.
Israeli officials accuse Hamas of encouraging civilians to put themselves in harm’s way and then used them as cover to commit violence. Israel is also battling large fires caused by the flaming kites and arson balloons launched from Gaza that have destroyed forests, burned crops and killed wildlife and livestock.
Drones combat flaming kites launched from Gaza
JUN.09.201801:05
But the 27-year-old Amr's death in a field near the fence with Israel illustrates why tens of thousands of fellow Palestinians have for months risked bullets and tear gas to protest the blockade of the enclave. Israeli officials did not respond to requests for comment and information for this article.
Wahid said he believes soldiers guarding the 40-mile fence from what officials dubbed Palestinian “swarming attacks” should have known that his son was no threat.
“That area is very open area — they can see everything,” Wahid said. “They are shelling and shooting all the time, but this time it hit us.”
There is a growing sense that Israel and Hamas, which have fought three conflicts in the last 12 years, are headed toward another war. Meanwhile, the lives of ordinary Gazans are getting worse.
Gaza militants, Israel exchange fire as tensions increase
JUN.21.201801:16
Nearly half of the 2 million residents of the strip are out of work — 65 percent of those aged 30 and under. Some 70 percent of the population depends on humanitarian aid — similar to the proportion of those who are refugees or descendants of refugees driven from their homes after the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.
Almost none of the water is clean, raw sewage is pumped straight into the sea and worsening power shortages mean Gazans have electricity for only around four hours a day.
Amr’s death means his widow and two children, as well as his extended family, can no longer depend on around 150 shekels ($40) a week he used to earn as a contract farmer. Now the burden of supporting the family of ten has fallen entirely onto Wahid, who has seen his salary from the Palestinian Authority, Hamas’ rival in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, cut to around $300 a month. Some 60,000 fellow PA workers have had their salaries slashed in recent months.
Perversely, Amr’s death provided a lifeline for Wahid — a $3,000 payment from organizers of the March.
Despite his personal loss, Wahid said he supports the ongoing protests on the border fence, calling them “a good action.”
Recommended
Pompeo shrugs off North Korea’s ‘gangster’ comment, claims progress
Mike Pompeo visits North Korea seeking details on denuclearization
“Israel closed everything, the sea links and air links,” he said. “In your country, you can drive from area to area — nobody stops you. Here we are in a cage.”
Cages come in different sizes. The cage Amr's widow Dunya Samour inhabits is smaller, but no less restrictive.
“I cannot taste anything,” she said, sitting in her one-bedroom unfinished apartment above her father-in-law’s house. “I am hating my life.”
Dunya, the mother of a seven-month-old and a three-year-old, remembered Amr as a “good husband who wanted a simple life,” but he left her deeply in debt after buying doors, windows and a bed for the young family's apartment.
“He promised he would improve the house,” Dunya, 23, said as she sat surrounded by her mother, two sisters and a phalanx of children. “He promised he would buy us a refrigerator.”
Image: PalestineWomen wave Palestinian flags and flash the victory gesture during a protest near the fence with Israel in the Gaza Strip on March 30.Mohammed Abed / AFP - Getty Images file
Despite the hardship and grief that blanket the household, guests were served glasses of orange fizzy drink on a plastic tray covered in pink roses, hospitality being de rigueur in households here. Everybody sat on cushions on lined up on the sides of the room.
Dunya’s future is uncertain. As the widow of a martyr, or “shahid,” she is ostensibly honored. But she has no source of income aside from her father-in-law, and the “martyr payment” did not come to her. While Dunya could in theory remarry, this is difficult, as taking the widow of a shahid as a bride is widely seen as a dishonoring a martyr’s memory.
While Dunya spends a lot of time thinking about the bare basics — milk, diapers, rice and meat once a week — her eyes flashed in anger when she talked about Israeli soldiers encamped on the fence around Gaza.
“They never respect the law,” she said. “They kill people who don't have weapons.”
Why protesters put their lives on the line by approaching Gaza fence
An end to this violent impasse looks far off, as Israel and much of the world have refused to deal with Hamas. Meanwhile, long-term talks aimed at creating an independent Palestinian state, including Gaza, the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, which Israel captured in 1967, have stalled.
Unlike his daughter-in-law, Wahid said he does not blame soldiers themselves for the death that beset his family.
“They are soldiers, and young boys — they don’t understand,” he said. “They don’t know the story of the Palestinians. They tell them we are all terrorists.”
Dissident Liu Xiaobo's widow Liu Xia 'allowed to leave China' - BBC News
July 10, 2018
Dissident Liu Xiaobo's widow Liu Xia 'allowed to leave China'
Liu Xia (right) with Liu Xiaobo in 2002
The widow of Chinese Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo has been allowed to leave the country, boarding a flight for Germany, reports say.
Liu Xia, who had been under house arrest since her husband won the prize in 2010, took a plane to Berlin, family friends told the BBC.
Her husband, a university professor turned human rights campaigner, was jailed in 2009 for inciting subversion.
He died of liver cancer last year and his ashes were scattered at sea.
Liu Xia, a poet, has never been charged with any crime but said in May she was ready to die in protest at her continued detention.
A love that survived a labour camp
Liu Xiaobo in his own words
Obituary: Liu Xiaobo
Missing lawyer's wife speaks out
She is said to have suffered from depression after spending years under heavy surveillance.
How did she leave?
She took a Finnair flight from Beijing to Berlin at 11:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on Tuesday, a friend, Ye Du, told news agencies.
While there was no immediate comment from its embassy, Germany had been urging China to allow Mrs Liu to leave.
Liu Xiaobo: China's most influential dissident
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang is in Germany this week.
Western diplomats reportedly tried to visit Mrs Liu at her Beijing flat in May but were refused entry.
News of her departure comes three days before the anniversary of her husband's death.
How desperate had her situation become?
In May, she told her friend Liao Yiwu by phone that it was "easier to die than live".
"I've got nothing to be afraid of," she was quoted as saying. "If I can't leave, I'll die in my home. Xiaobo is gone, and there's nothing in the world for me now."
Liu Xia with a picture of her husband last year
Mr Liao also uploaded a recording of a phone conversation he had had in April with Mrs Liu, where she can be heard crying and saying: "I'm ready to die here."
Chinese authorities had maintained the dissident's widow was a free citizen but she had faced restrictions on her movements and had been kept under surveillance.
Patrick Poon, China Researcher at the human rights groups Amnesty International, said it was "wonderful news that Liu Xia is finally free and that her persecution and illegal detention at the hands of the Chinese authorities has come to an end".
He added: "The Chinese authorities tried to silence her, but she stood tall for human rights."
Amnesty further called for an end to the harassment of Liu Xia's family who remained in China.
"It would be most callous of the Chinese authorities to use Liu Xia's relatives to put pressure on Liu Xia to prevent her from speaking out in future," its researcher added.
Dissident Liu Xiaobo's widow Liu Xia 'allowed to leave China'
Liu Xia (right) with Liu Xiaobo in 2002
The widow of Chinese Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo has been allowed to leave the country, boarding a flight for Germany, reports say.
Liu Xia, who had been under house arrest since her husband won the prize in 2010, took a plane to Berlin, family friends told the BBC.
Her husband, a university professor turned human rights campaigner, was jailed in 2009 for inciting subversion.
He died of liver cancer last year and his ashes were scattered at sea.
Liu Xia, a poet, has never been charged with any crime but said in May she was ready to die in protest at her continued detention.
A love that survived a labour camp
Liu Xiaobo in his own words
Obituary: Liu Xiaobo
Missing lawyer's wife speaks out
She is said to have suffered from depression after spending years under heavy surveillance.
How did she leave?
She took a Finnair flight from Beijing to Berlin at 11:00 local time (03:00 GMT) on Tuesday, a friend, Ye Du, told news agencies.
While there was no immediate comment from its embassy, Germany had been urging China to allow Mrs Liu to leave.
Liu Xiaobo: China's most influential dissident
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang is in Germany this week.
Western diplomats reportedly tried to visit Mrs Liu at her Beijing flat in May but were refused entry.
News of her departure comes three days before the anniversary of her husband's death.
How desperate had her situation become?
In May, she told her friend Liao Yiwu by phone that it was "easier to die than live".
"I've got nothing to be afraid of," she was quoted as saying. "If I can't leave, I'll die in my home. Xiaobo is gone, and there's nothing in the world for me now."
Liu Xia with a picture of her husband last year
Mr Liao also uploaded a recording of a phone conversation he had had in April with Mrs Liu, where she can be heard crying and saying: "I'm ready to die here."
Chinese authorities had maintained the dissident's widow was a free citizen but she had faced restrictions on her movements and had been kept under surveillance.
Patrick Poon, China Researcher at the human rights groups Amnesty International, said it was "wonderful news that Liu Xia is finally free and that her persecution and illegal detention at the hands of the Chinese authorities has come to an end".
He added: "The Chinese authorities tried to silence her, but she stood tall for human rights."
Amnesty further called for an end to the harassment of Liu Xia's family who remained in China.
"It would be most callous of the Chinese authorities to use Liu Xia's relatives to put pressure on Liu Xia to prevent her from speaking out in future," its researcher added.
World's 'oldest coloured molecules' are bright pink - BBC News
July 10, 2018
World's 'oldest coloured molecules' are bright pink
The pink pigments are the fossilised molecules of ancient sea organisms
Scientists have discovered what they say are the world's oldest surviving biological colours, from ancient rocks beneath the Sahara desert.
The 1.1 billion-year-old pigments have a bright pink hue, but range from blood red to deep purple in their concentrated form.
The pigments are fossilised molecules of chlorophyll produced by sea organisms, Australian scientists said.
Researchers ground shale rocks into powder to extract the pigment.
"Imagine you could find a fossilised dinosaur skin that still has its original colour, green or blue... that is exactly the type of discovery that we've made," Associate Prof Jochen Brocks from the Australian National University (ANU) told the BBC.
"These are actual molecules, the oldest coloured molecules in the world.
"When held against the sunlight, they are actually a neon pink."
'Amazing that colour can survive'
ANU PhD student, Dr Nur Gueneli, discovered the pigments after running an organic solvent through the powdered rock. Mr Brocks said the extraction process was "similar to a coffee machine".
Colours in nature - and how we see them
"I heard her screaming in the lab when it came out, and she ran into my office," Asst Prof Brocks said.
"At first I thought it had been contaminated. It is just amazing that something with a biological colour can survive for such a long time."
Scientists extracted the molecules from ancient shale rock
A mining company had found the rocks in a marine shale deposit in the Taoudeni Basin in Mauritania, West Africa about 10 years ago, after drilling a hole several hundred metres deep, he said.
An analysis of the pigments found they had been produced by cyanobacteria in the seas at the time. Prof Brocks said this contributed to understanding on the evolution of life forms on Earth.
The toxic colour from volcanoes
The pigment made of human remains
World's first colour film viewed
"Tiny cyanobacteria dominated the base of the food chain in the oceans a billion years ago, which helps to explain why animals did not exist at the time," he said.
"Life only became bigger about 600 million years ago because before that there was no sufficient food source."
The research, which also involved scientists in the US and Japan, has been published in journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America.
World's 'oldest coloured molecules' are bright pink
The pink pigments are the fossilised molecules of ancient sea organisms
Scientists have discovered what they say are the world's oldest surviving biological colours, from ancient rocks beneath the Sahara desert.
The 1.1 billion-year-old pigments have a bright pink hue, but range from blood red to deep purple in their concentrated form.
The pigments are fossilised molecules of chlorophyll produced by sea organisms, Australian scientists said.
Researchers ground shale rocks into powder to extract the pigment.
"Imagine you could find a fossilised dinosaur skin that still has its original colour, green or blue... that is exactly the type of discovery that we've made," Associate Prof Jochen Brocks from the Australian National University (ANU) told the BBC.
"These are actual molecules, the oldest coloured molecules in the world.
"When held against the sunlight, they are actually a neon pink."
'Amazing that colour can survive'
ANU PhD student, Dr Nur Gueneli, discovered the pigments after running an organic solvent through the powdered rock. Mr Brocks said the extraction process was "similar to a coffee machine".
Colours in nature - and how we see them
"I heard her screaming in the lab when it came out, and she ran into my office," Asst Prof Brocks said.
"At first I thought it had been contaminated. It is just amazing that something with a biological colour can survive for such a long time."
Scientists extracted the molecules from ancient shale rock
A mining company had found the rocks in a marine shale deposit in the Taoudeni Basin in Mauritania, West Africa about 10 years ago, after drilling a hole several hundred metres deep, he said.
An analysis of the pigments found they had been produced by cyanobacteria in the seas at the time. Prof Brocks said this contributed to understanding on the evolution of life forms on Earth.
The toxic colour from volcanoes
The pigment made of human remains
World's first colour film viewed
"Tiny cyanobacteria dominated the base of the food chain in the oceans a billion years ago, which helps to explain why animals did not exist at the time," he said.
"Life only became bigger about 600 million years ago because before that there was no sufficient food source."
The research, which also involved scientists in the US and Japan, has been published in journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America.
Monday, July 9, 2018
Politicians should listen to big business – but not too much - Independent
July 9, 2018.
Politicians should listen to big business – but not too much
Business has a right to a voice in politics. And sometimes that voice deserves a special hearing. But it should only ever be one voice among several
Ben Chu
@Benchu_
Businesses have been sounding a Brexit chorus of warning
In recent days Airbus, BMW, Siemens and Jaguar Land Rover have all raised their voices to highlight the severe economic damage that will be done to their operations if the cabinet’s hardline Brexiteers get their way and wrench Britain out of the EU’s customs union and single market. Some have even said the harm could be so grave that they would pull out of the UK altogether, costing jobs and investment.
Choruses need a conductor. And it’s more than likely that these interventions were coordinated to prepare the ground for Friday’s Chequers meeting to force a cabinet agreement on what proposal the UK government should submit for a post-transition Brexit trade deal with the rest of the European Union.
But not everyone in the audience has been appreciative.
Labour will not back May’s Brexit plan, Sir Keir Starmer says
Corbyn says May must call election if she can’t get Brexit deal passed
Business leaders back cabinet’s Brexit deal
“F*** business” was allegedly the concise review of one of those cabinet hardliners, Boris Johnson. The pro-Brexit Conservative internet entrepreneur Tim Montgomerie sought to present this four-letter reaction from the foreign secretary last week in the grand tradition of Adam Smith, citing the father of economics’ renowned alertness to firms’ tendency to anti-competitive behaviour.
Others have made the point that the voice of a handful of large pro-EU multinationals could be drowning out a different perspective from smaller firms.
It’s a curious consequence of Brexit that it has got “pro-business” right-wingers to pay attention to the dangers of monopolisation and lobbying by big firms. The fact that such concerns have surfaced now that businesses are warning about Brexit puts one in mind of the jailed dictator who suddenly becomes an advocate of prisoners’ human rights.
Yet even if the source of the argument is dubious, that doesn’t mean it’s an empty one. No serious person disputes that businesses often lobby in their own narrow interest. And it’s a fact of life that large firms with tens of thousands of employees usually have a degree of political access that smaller firms with only tens of workers lack. Even those who welcome big businesses’ interventions over Brexit would have to acknowledge these truths.
But that leaves us with a dilemma. When should politicians listen to big business? And when shouldn’t they? When should the public pay particular attention to their arguments? And when should we discount them? How can we distinguish relevant interventions from irrelevant special pleading?
One sound criterion would seem to be when a question of public policy directly impinges on a particular firm’s operations, giving them a special expertise.
That’s clearly the case with Brexit. No one is better placed to talk about the impact of customs delays than a car manufacturer which runs a “just in time” assembly plant.
When businesses write letters to newspapers supporting the Conservatives because of the general thrust of their tax policies the voice of business should command less reverence.
Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, has called Airbus and BMW’s airing of their perspective on the dangers of leaving the customs union “inappropriate”. He would be more credible if a record could be found of him telling businesses to pipe down in the past.
Yet proximity to the consequences of policy can’t be the sole criterion of when we should listen to businesses’ views.
Soft drink manufacturers know a great deal about how the soda tax is likely to affect the public’s consumption of their wares. Cigarette manufacturers know all about the impact of plain packaging rules. Banks are experts in how regulatory requirements to increase their capital safety buffers will impact their profits. And so on.
But as all those examples show, having a financial interest in a policy doesn’t necessarily equate to that interest aligning with the broad public interest.
Other criteria are necessary when it comes to evaluating lobbying.
Government urged to stop ‘squabbling’ and save UK car industry
The first is transparency. Private lobbying by big money is particularly insidious. If Jeremy Hunt wants to talk about inappropriate behaviour he might consider David Cameron’s non-disclosed “kitchen suppers” in Downing Street for Conservative Party donors.
Transparency relates to another vital criterion: equality of access. If a minister only listens to one section of business, such as large firms or finance, there is a danger that they start to see the world through the eyes of that section. We saw this clearly with Gordon Brown’s ultimately ruinous love affair with the City of London.
If ministers only hear from businesses and shut out other social stakeholders, such as trade unions and charities, that too is liable to be distorting and dangerous. Transparency about how often ministers meet various groups is a vital defence against this kind of capture.
But, in the end, there is no foolproof rule, or set of rules, that can reliably separate social useful business lobbying from the socially useless kind. It will always depend on a judgement about context.
Business has a right to a voice in politics. And sometimes that voice deserves a special hearing. But it should only ever be one voice among several.
Politicians should listen to big business – but not too much
Business has a right to a voice in politics. And sometimes that voice deserves a special hearing. But it should only ever be one voice among several
Ben Chu
@Benchu_
Businesses have been sounding a Brexit chorus of warning
In recent days Airbus, BMW, Siemens and Jaguar Land Rover have all raised their voices to highlight the severe economic damage that will be done to their operations if the cabinet’s hardline Brexiteers get their way and wrench Britain out of the EU’s customs union and single market. Some have even said the harm could be so grave that they would pull out of the UK altogether, costing jobs and investment.
Choruses need a conductor. And it’s more than likely that these interventions were coordinated to prepare the ground for Friday’s Chequers meeting to force a cabinet agreement on what proposal the UK government should submit for a post-transition Brexit trade deal with the rest of the European Union.
But not everyone in the audience has been appreciative.
Labour will not back May’s Brexit plan, Sir Keir Starmer says
Corbyn says May must call election if she can’t get Brexit deal passed
Business leaders back cabinet’s Brexit deal
“F*** business” was allegedly the concise review of one of those cabinet hardliners, Boris Johnson. The pro-Brexit Conservative internet entrepreneur Tim Montgomerie sought to present this four-letter reaction from the foreign secretary last week in the grand tradition of Adam Smith, citing the father of economics’ renowned alertness to firms’ tendency to anti-competitive behaviour.
Others have made the point that the voice of a handful of large pro-EU multinationals could be drowning out a different perspective from smaller firms.
It’s a curious consequence of Brexit that it has got “pro-business” right-wingers to pay attention to the dangers of monopolisation and lobbying by big firms. The fact that such concerns have surfaced now that businesses are warning about Brexit puts one in mind of the jailed dictator who suddenly becomes an advocate of prisoners’ human rights.
Yet even if the source of the argument is dubious, that doesn’t mean it’s an empty one. No serious person disputes that businesses often lobby in their own narrow interest. And it’s a fact of life that large firms with tens of thousands of employees usually have a degree of political access that smaller firms with only tens of workers lack. Even those who welcome big businesses’ interventions over Brexit would have to acknowledge these truths.
But that leaves us with a dilemma. When should politicians listen to big business? And when shouldn’t they? When should the public pay particular attention to their arguments? And when should we discount them? How can we distinguish relevant interventions from irrelevant special pleading?
One sound criterion would seem to be when a question of public policy directly impinges on a particular firm’s operations, giving them a special expertise.
That’s clearly the case with Brexit. No one is better placed to talk about the impact of customs delays than a car manufacturer which runs a “just in time” assembly plant.
When businesses write letters to newspapers supporting the Conservatives because of the general thrust of their tax policies the voice of business should command less reverence.
Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, has called Airbus and BMW’s airing of their perspective on the dangers of leaving the customs union “inappropriate”. He would be more credible if a record could be found of him telling businesses to pipe down in the past.
Yet proximity to the consequences of policy can’t be the sole criterion of when we should listen to businesses’ views.
Soft drink manufacturers know a great deal about how the soda tax is likely to affect the public’s consumption of their wares. Cigarette manufacturers know all about the impact of plain packaging rules. Banks are experts in how regulatory requirements to increase their capital safety buffers will impact their profits. And so on.
But as all those examples show, having a financial interest in a policy doesn’t necessarily equate to that interest aligning with the broad public interest.
Other criteria are necessary when it comes to evaluating lobbying.
Government urged to stop ‘squabbling’ and save UK car industry
The first is transparency. Private lobbying by big money is particularly insidious. If Jeremy Hunt wants to talk about inappropriate behaviour he might consider David Cameron’s non-disclosed “kitchen suppers” in Downing Street for Conservative Party donors.
Transparency relates to another vital criterion: equality of access. If a minister only listens to one section of business, such as large firms or finance, there is a danger that they start to see the world through the eyes of that section. We saw this clearly with Gordon Brown’s ultimately ruinous love affair with the City of London.
If ministers only hear from businesses and shut out other social stakeholders, such as trade unions and charities, that too is liable to be distorting and dangerous. Transparency about how often ministers meet various groups is a vital defence against this kind of capture.
But, in the end, there is no foolproof rule, or set of rules, that can reliably separate social useful business lobbying from the socially useless kind. It will always depend on a judgement about context.
Business has a right to a voice in politics. And sometimes that voice deserves a special hearing. But it should only ever be one voice among several.
Academics think they've figured out why people voted for Trump and Brexit - Independent
July 9, 2018.
Academics think they've figured out why people voted for Trump and Brexit
Posted 2 months ago by Louis Staples in news
UPVOTE
The election of Donald Trump and Britain’s Brexit vote came as a huge shock to most people, causing politicians, commentators and even scientists to search for answers.
After months of hot takes in newspapers and on TV, scientific studies have finally provided solid evidence of what made people vote for Trump and Brexit.
Two papers on the topic have now been released, the first of which focuses on Trump’s election.
After Trump's victory, pundits debated the influence of factors such as economic hardship and racial anxiety. With the absence of hard evidence, Professor Diana Mutz of the University of Pennsylvania questioned 1,200 voters.
She observed:
Candidate preferences in 2016 reflected increasing anxiety among high-status groups rather than complaints about past treatment among low-status groups.
Both growing domestic racial diversity and globalization contributed to a sense that white Americans are under siege by these engines of change.
Mutz concluded that the people most likely to vote for Trump, after either voting Democrat previously or not voting at all, were those who felt their place in the world was being threatened.
Trump voters perceived that America was having to share its status as the world's most powerful nation, and also feared the possibility of losing the benefits of being part of a dominant ethnic group.
But the corresponding study of Brexit voters, authored by PhD student Leor Zmigrod and collaborators at the University of Cambridge, proved even more controversial.
The team sampled 332 UK citizens and asked them how they voted in the referendum, as well as probing their attitudes to related issues regarding national identity and culture.
Brexit voters were found to have greater nationalism, conservatism, and support for authoritarian policies. The paper concludes that these reasons accounted for almost half (47.6 percent) of the variability in support for Brexit.
Zmigrod added:
In today’s politically-polarised climate, it is important to understand more about the psychological processes behind nationalistic and social attitudes if we are to build bridges between communities.
Though in such turbulent times, these conclusions seem unlikely to heal the political divisions on either side of the pond.
HT: IFLScience
Academics think they've figured out why people voted for Trump and Brexit
Posted 2 months ago by Louis Staples in news
UPVOTE
The election of Donald Trump and Britain’s Brexit vote came as a huge shock to most people, causing politicians, commentators and even scientists to search for answers.
After months of hot takes in newspapers and on TV, scientific studies have finally provided solid evidence of what made people vote for Trump and Brexit.
Two papers on the topic have now been released, the first of which focuses on Trump’s election.
After Trump's victory, pundits debated the influence of factors such as economic hardship and racial anxiety. With the absence of hard evidence, Professor Diana Mutz of the University of Pennsylvania questioned 1,200 voters.
She observed:
Candidate preferences in 2016 reflected increasing anxiety among high-status groups rather than complaints about past treatment among low-status groups.
Both growing domestic racial diversity and globalization contributed to a sense that white Americans are under siege by these engines of change.
Mutz concluded that the people most likely to vote for Trump, after either voting Democrat previously or not voting at all, were those who felt their place in the world was being threatened.
Trump voters perceived that America was having to share its status as the world's most powerful nation, and also feared the possibility of losing the benefits of being part of a dominant ethnic group.
But the corresponding study of Brexit voters, authored by PhD student Leor Zmigrod and collaborators at the University of Cambridge, proved even more controversial.
The team sampled 332 UK citizens and asked them how they voted in the referendum, as well as probing their attitudes to related issues regarding national identity and culture.
Brexit voters were found to have greater nationalism, conservatism, and support for authoritarian policies. The paper concludes that these reasons accounted for almost half (47.6 percent) of the variability in support for Brexit.
Zmigrod added:
In today’s politically-polarised climate, it is important to understand more about the psychological processes behind nationalistic and social attitudes if we are to build bridges between communities.
Though in such turbulent times, these conclusions seem unlikely to heal the political divisions on either side of the pond.
HT: IFLScience
Factbox: How could Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May be removed from office? - Reuters
Factbox: How could Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May be removed from office?
Reuters Staff
LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May is facing a rebellion from eurosceptics in her party after she announced plans to negotiate close trading ties with the European Union after Britain leaves the bloc next year.
Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May commences a meeting with her cabinet to discuss the government's Brexit plans at Chequers, the Prime Minister's official country residence, near Aylesbury, Britain, July 6, 2018. Joel Rouse/MOD/Handout via REUTERS
Brexit Secretary David Davis and another minister, Steve Baker, resigned late on Sunday in a blow to the prime minister and some members of her party are now calling for her to be replaced.
Below is an explanation of how May could be removed from office if she has to face a leadership challenge:
- What needs to happen for there to be a leadership contest?
A leadership challenge can be triggered if 15 percent of members of parliament in May’s Conservative Party write a letter to the chairman of the party’s so-called “1922 committee”.
The Conservatives currently have 316 members of parliament (MPs) so 48 of them would need to write such letters to challenge May.
Once that threshold has been reached, the chairman will announce the start of the contest and invite nominations.
- Could this happen to May?
The chairman of the 1922 committee is the only person who will know exactly how many members of parliament have submitted letters of no confidence.
But some eurosceptic members of parliament have started submitting letters to the committee chairman in protest over her Brexit negotiating strategy.
- What will happen during a no confidence vote?
If a no confidence vote is called then all serving Conservative members of parliament will be able to cast a vote for or against the serving leader.
If May wins any confidence vote she remains in office. If she loses, she is obliged to resign and barred from standing in the leadership election that follows.
- How quickly can a no confidence vote take place?
In the last no confidence vote against a sitting Conservative leader in 2003, the chairman of the 1922 committee announced he had received enough letters to trigger a vote on Oct. 28 and the vote was held the next day.
- What would happen if May lost the no confidence vote?
If May lost a no confidence vote then there would be a leadership contest.
If several names are put forward to lead the party, then a vote is held among Conservative MPs using the first past the post system to whittle down the field with the candidate with the fewest votes removed. Another ballot among Conservative lawmakers is then held until two candidates remain.
The final two nominees are then put to a ballot of the wider Conservative Party membership with the winner named the new leader.
Following David Cameron’s decision to step down as prime minister and Conservative leader after the EU referendum in 2016, five candidates put their names forward.
The field was narrowed to May and then junior minister Andrea Leadsom but she pulled out of the race before members voted, leaving May to become leader unopposed.
Reporting By Andrew MacAskill, Editing by William Maclean
Reuters Staff
LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May is facing a rebellion from eurosceptics in her party after she announced plans to negotiate close trading ties with the European Union after Britain leaves the bloc next year.
Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May commences a meeting with her cabinet to discuss the government's Brexit plans at Chequers, the Prime Minister's official country residence, near Aylesbury, Britain, July 6, 2018. Joel Rouse/MOD/Handout via REUTERS
Brexit Secretary David Davis and another minister, Steve Baker, resigned late on Sunday in a blow to the prime minister and some members of her party are now calling for her to be replaced.
Below is an explanation of how May could be removed from office if she has to face a leadership challenge:
- What needs to happen for there to be a leadership contest?
A leadership challenge can be triggered if 15 percent of members of parliament in May’s Conservative Party write a letter to the chairman of the party’s so-called “1922 committee”.
The Conservatives currently have 316 members of parliament (MPs) so 48 of them would need to write such letters to challenge May.
Once that threshold has been reached, the chairman will announce the start of the contest and invite nominations.
- Could this happen to May?
The chairman of the 1922 committee is the only person who will know exactly how many members of parliament have submitted letters of no confidence.
But some eurosceptic members of parliament have started submitting letters to the committee chairman in protest over her Brexit negotiating strategy.
- What will happen during a no confidence vote?
If a no confidence vote is called then all serving Conservative members of parliament will be able to cast a vote for or against the serving leader.
If May wins any confidence vote she remains in office. If she loses, she is obliged to resign and barred from standing in the leadership election that follows.
- How quickly can a no confidence vote take place?
In the last no confidence vote against a sitting Conservative leader in 2003, the chairman of the 1922 committee announced he had received enough letters to trigger a vote on Oct. 28 and the vote was held the next day.
- What would happen if May lost the no confidence vote?
If May lost a no confidence vote then there would be a leadership contest.
If several names are put forward to lead the party, then a vote is held among Conservative MPs using the first past the post system to whittle down the field with the candidate with the fewest votes removed. Another ballot among Conservative lawmakers is then held until two candidates remain.
The final two nominees are then put to a ballot of the wider Conservative Party membership with the winner named the new leader.
Following David Cameron’s decision to step down as prime minister and Conservative leader after the EU referendum in 2016, five candidates put their names forward.
The field was narrowed to May and then junior minister Andrea Leadsom but she pulled out of the race before members voted, leaving May to become leader unopposed.
Reporting By Andrew MacAskill, Editing by William Maclean
This is Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak’s simple formula for happiness - CNBC News
This is Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak’s simple formula for happiness
Catherine Clifford 11:30 AM ET Sat, 3 Feb 2018
Steve Wozniak
When Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak was young, he defined a successful life for himself — one that, despite its radical simplicity, has worked for almost 50 years.
"I thought out my philosophies when I was about 20 years old ... How do you do in life? ... How do you become a good person?" explains Wozniak, speaking at the at the Nordic Business Forum in Stockholm on January 24.
He continues, "It if I died and had all this wealth and yachts and all this stuff, would I be as happy as when I laugh? And I thought about pranks I played and jokes I had told and music I would hear that would make me smile, and I came up with my formula that life is about happiness."
Yes, a formula. Always the engineer.
26-year-old CEO: Happiness is NOT the same as success, here's why 26-year-old CEO and self-made millionaire: Happiness is not the same as success—here's why
"Maybe success with money makes you happy too — but for me it was really just down to earth laughter and smiles. So I came up with my formula: Happiness equals smiles minus frowns," says Wozniak. "H = S-F."
"The Woz," as he is affectionately called, determined a key way to maximize happiness is to decrease the amount of sadness in your life.
"How do you get rid of the frowns? I worked on that," says Wozniak, who is now 67.
"Don't care that much that you are going to frown. Let things happen. Things do go badly in life and just say, 'Hey, my car got scratched, I will fix it,'" he explains.
In these situations, complaining or blaming others is just going to make things worse, says Wozniak. So will judging other people.
"And don't argue. Don't argue! You don't win an argument, you just walk away unhappy," says Wozniak. "You only have to convince one person in life, and that is yourself.
"This kept me so happy, to this day. My mind just kind of floats in a state of happiness and I just don't really have a lot of always being upset," he says.
James Altucher shares his simple formula for achieving happiness James Altucher shares his simple formula for achieving happiness
Indeed. Speaking in Stockholm, Wozniak continually smiles, gestures and is easily excited. It's that genuine enthusiasm that drove Wozniak to work in computing. Building computers was not a plan to get rich.
"I was never into money in any way — finance — to this day I have never used Apple stock app, I don't buy and sell stock," Wozniak says.
In fact, Wozniak sold virtually all his bitcoin holdings when the price shot up so he wouldn't be compelled to watch the price yo-yo. "I don't want that kind of care in my life. Part of my happiness is not to have worries."
Of course, Wozniak is worth millions, by one account as much as $100 million, so perhaps that's easy to say.
But there is one thing that makes him mad, he says: illogical, counter-intuitive machine user experience.
Catherine Clifford 11:30 AM ET Sat, 3 Feb 2018
Steve Wozniak
When Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak was young, he defined a successful life for himself — one that, despite its radical simplicity, has worked for almost 50 years.
"I thought out my philosophies when I was about 20 years old ... How do you do in life? ... How do you become a good person?" explains Wozniak, speaking at the at the Nordic Business Forum in Stockholm on January 24.
He continues, "It if I died and had all this wealth and yachts and all this stuff, would I be as happy as when I laugh? And I thought about pranks I played and jokes I had told and music I would hear that would make me smile, and I came up with my formula that life is about happiness."
Yes, a formula. Always the engineer.
26-year-old CEO: Happiness is NOT the same as success, here's why 26-year-old CEO and self-made millionaire: Happiness is not the same as success—here's why
"Maybe success with money makes you happy too — but for me it was really just down to earth laughter and smiles. So I came up with my formula: Happiness equals smiles minus frowns," says Wozniak. "H = S-F."
"The Woz," as he is affectionately called, determined a key way to maximize happiness is to decrease the amount of sadness in your life.
"How do you get rid of the frowns? I worked on that," says Wozniak, who is now 67.
"Don't care that much that you are going to frown. Let things happen. Things do go badly in life and just say, 'Hey, my car got scratched, I will fix it,'" he explains.
In these situations, complaining or blaming others is just going to make things worse, says Wozniak. So will judging other people.
"And don't argue. Don't argue! You don't win an argument, you just walk away unhappy," says Wozniak. "You only have to convince one person in life, and that is yourself.
"This kept me so happy, to this day. My mind just kind of floats in a state of happiness and I just don't really have a lot of always being upset," he says.
James Altucher shares his simple formula for achieving happiness James Altucher shares his simple formula for achieving happiness
Indeed. Speaking in Stockholm, Wozniak continually smiles, gestures and is easily excited. It's that genuine enthusiasm that drove Wozniak to work in computing. Building computers was not a plan to get rich.
"I was never into money in any way — finance — to this day I have never used Apple stock app, I don't buy and sell stock," Wozniak says.
In fact, Wozniak sold virtually all his bitcoin holdings when the price shot up so he wouldn't be compelled to watch the price yo-yo. "I don't want that kind of care in my life. Part of my happiness is not to have worries."
Of course, Wozniak is worth millions, by one account as much as $100 million, so perhaps that's easy to say.
But there is one thing that makes him mad, he says: illogical, counter-intuitive machine user experience.
China foam insulation blamed for jump in ozone-depleting gas - Financial Times
July 9, 2018
China foam insulation blamed for jump in ozone-depleting gas
Manufacturers of PU product admit using chemical CFC-11 despite global ban
The Antarctic ozone hole has swelled this month to one of its biggest sizes on record, UN and US scientists say © AP
Emily Feng in Beijing 20 MINUTES AGO Print this page0
A mysterious jump in levels of a banned industrial gas that depletes the earth’s ozone layer has been linked to Chinese production of cheap insulation foam, according to a research report.
Scientists had puzzled over what caused atmospheric levels of the chemical CFC-11 to jump up to 38 per cent since 2012, despite reported global production being effectively zero.
Researchers from the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), a UK-based non-governmental organisation, uncovered large-scale use of CFC-11 by Chinese foam production companies, despite the gas being effectively banned since 1989.
“Information collected from foam production companies in China confirms that CFC-11 continues to be extensively produced and used illegally in China’s PU (Polyurethane) foam industry,” the EIA researchers wrote.
“The evidence gathered from conversations with multiple industry sources . . . points to its widespread use in the foam blowing production industry as the primary source of the illegal emissions.”
Republicans accuse US environmental group of being China ‘agent’
CFC-11 is one of the most potent destroyers of ozone, a gas that protects the earth from harmful UV radiation. Once commonly used as refrigerant, the chemical was supposed to have been phased out by 2010 under the Montreal Protocol, a widely praised international agreement to protect the ozone layer that went into force in 1989.
“The increase in emission of CFC-11 appears unrelated to past production; this suggests unreported new production,” a separate government scientist wrote in Nature.
China is the world’s largest consumer of PU foam, comprising three-quarters of demand in Asia and a third globally in 2015, according to IHS Markit. PU foam is being used for insulating buildings as well as cooling units such as refrigerators.
In interviews with EIA researchers, 18 out of 21 foam manufacturers across China confirmed they were using CFC-11 because of its low cost, with several acknowledging it was illegal.
In China’s industrial province of Hebei, representatives of the region’s largest manufacturer of white agent — a component of PU foam — told researchers that 90-95 per cent of their production used CFC-11.
A representative of another Hebei company said it used CFC-11 in most of its products, admitting that it did so by running unlicensed factories in what the report called “shady and hidden operations” in Inner Mongolia.
Since 2016, environmental regulators in China’s Shandong province have acknowledged in public reports that “large volumes of illegally produced CFC-11” were used in plastic foam production.
EIA researchers said annual emissions from China’s illegal use of CFC-11 were equivalent to carbon dioxide emissions from 16 coal-fired power stations, but pointed to a “high degree of uncertainty” in their calculations.
Chinese officials did not respond to requests for comment.
Since the Montreal Protocol, some manufacturers, particularly in China, have substituted their production with HCFCs, a chemically related pollutant less harmful than CFC-11 but thought to be a contributor to global warming.
Environmental regulators in China have moved to phase out HCFCs from manufacturing by 2030.
Follow Emily Feng on Twitter @emilyzfeng
Sunday, July 8, 2018
Car wars: Counting the cost of Trump's tariffs - Al Jazeera
Car wars: Counting the cost of Trump's tariffs
How the world's biggest exporters try to steer away from a damaging trade war with the US.
07 Jul 2018 19:08 GMT Business & Economy, Donald Trump, United States, Europe, China
China is already calling it a full-blown trade war.
Billions of dollars worth of products are affected as US tariffs on selected Chinese products take effect this week. And China has said it's retaliating with its own tariffs on American goods.
But the big driver of an all-out global trade war could be cars.
US President Donald Trump has said cars are key to getting trade concessions. His administration is now considering a 25 percent tariff on foreign cars and car parts in the name of national security.
Europe currently charges a 10 percent tariff on US cars, while the US charges only 2.5 percent on European cars. Trump says that's unfair, but carmakers and dealers around the world point out that the US has a 25 percent tariff on light trucks and SUVs.
We are looking at much deeper implications than we have seen in previous trade wars.
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, a director of the European Centre for International Political Economy
They are warning that Trump's tariffs would be bad for the car industry and bad for consumers.
Analysts call it a case of car crash economics.
So how will it affect consumers and producers? How important is the car industry? And what can be done to prevent a global trade war?
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, a director of the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) and a leading author on trade diplomacy and the digital economy, believes the implications for consumers, as well as manufacturers, will be much larger than the ones of aluminium and steel tariffs.
He says "car wars" would not just be felt by consumers in the US, because "some of the SUVs that are made by European brands are made in the US and actually shipped to Europe. So, if you have a 20 percent price hike on imported cars, as well as car components, this will be felt as US-made cars are actually exported back to Europe. We are looking at much deeper implications than we have seen in previous trade wars."
"The big three American manufacturers have also strongly opposed this move - simply because most of the cars nowadays are produced relatively locally. In the case of the US, they are either made in the US or in the NAFTA region," Lee-Makiyama says. "Whereas, if you look at the supply chains, they are extending over the world. So, for example, you can buy a European car, let's say a BMW, and it will be made in the US but still, key components will be arriving from Germany, South Africa, and, sometimes, even China. So it is a very globalised industry."
"For the current administration in the US, the question is: Is the purpose of the new tariffs actually to open up the rest of the world by creating an artificial leverage, or is the purpose to try and force factories to move from Canada, Mexico into the US? ... Or rather protect the domestic production in the US - although US manufacturers don't even want that protection," he says.
Asked about implications on China, Lee-Makiyama explains that the main trade barrier in China is not just tariffs: "Their biggest trade barrier will be the fact that ... foreign manufacturers in China are actually forced into joint ventures, forced marriages with their Chinese competitors who are entitled to half of the profits and 100 percent of the know-how."
How the world's biggest exporters try to steer away from a damaging trade war with the US.
07 Jul 2018 19:08 GMT Business & Economy, Donald Trump, United States, Europe, China
China is already calling it a full-blown trade war.
Billions of dollars worth of products are affected as US tariffs on selected Chinese products take effect this week. And China has said it's retaliating with its own tariffs on American goods.
But the big driver of an all-out global trade war could be cars.
US President Donald Trump has said cars are key to getting trade concessions. His administration is now considering a 25 percent tariff on foreign cars and car parts in the name of national security.
Europe currently charges a 10 percent tariff on US cars, while the US charges only 2.5 percent on European cars. Trump says that's unfair, but carmakers and dealers around the world point out that the US has a 25 percent tariff on light trucks and SUVs.
We are looking at much deeper implications than we have seen in previous trade wars.
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, a director of the European Centre for International Political Economy
They are warning that Trump's tariffs would be bad for the car industry and bad for consumers.
Analysts call it a case of car crash economics.
So how will it affect consumers and producers? How important is the car industry? And what can be done to prevent a global trade war?
Hosuk Lee-Makiyama, a director of the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) and a leading author on trade diplomacy and the digital economy, believes the implications for consumers, as well as manufacturers, will be much larger than the ones of aluminium and steel tariffs.
He says "car wars" would not just be felt by consumers in the US, because "some of the SUVs that are made by European brands are made in the US and actually shipped to Europe. So, if you have a 20 percent price hike on imported cars, as well as car components, this will be felt as US-made cars are actually exported back to Europe. We are looking at much deeper implications than we have seen in previous trade wars."
"The big three American manufacturers have also strongly opposed this move - simply because most of the cars nowadays are produced relatively locally. In the case of the US, they are either made in the US or in the NAFTA region," Lee-Makiyama says. "Whereas, if you look at the supply chains, they are extending over the world. So, for example, you can buy a European car, let's say a BMW, and it will be made in the US but still, key components will be arriving from Germany, South Africa, and, sometimes, even China. So it is a very globalised industry."
"For the current administration in the US, the question is: Is the purpose of the new tariffs actually to open up the rest of the world by creating an artificial leverage, or is the purpose to try and force factories to move from Canada, Mexico into the US? ... Or rather protect the domestic production in the US - although US manufacturers don't even want that protection," he says.
Asked about implications on China, Lee-Makiyama explains that the main trade barrier in China is not just tariffs: "Their biggest trade barrier will be the fact that ... foreign manufacturers in China are actually forced into joint ventures, forced marriages with their Chinese competitors who are entitled to half of the profits and 100 percent of the know-how."
News media paid Melania Trump thousands for use of photos in 'positive stories only' - NBC News
News media paid Melania Trump thousands for use of photos in 'positive stories only'
The first lady earned six figures from an agreement with Getty Images that paid royalties to the Trumps and mandated photos be used in positive coverage.
by Andrew W. Lehren, Emily R. Siegel and Merritt Enright / Jul.03.2018 / 2:18 AM ET
Image: Trump family photoshoot
A screen shot shows how an individual Mahaux photo of the Trump family appears on the Getty Images website.
Since her husband took office Melania Trump has earned six figures from an unusual deal with a photo agency in which major media organizations have indirectly paid the Trump family despite a requirement that the photos be used only in positive coverage.
President Donald Trump's most recent financial disclosure reveals that in 2017 the first lady earned at least $100,000 from Getty Images for the use of any of a series of 187 photos of the first family shot between 2010 and 2016 by Belgian photographer Regine Mahaux.
It's not unheard of for celebrities to earn royalties from photos of themselves, but it's very unusual for the wife of a currently serving elected official. More problematic for the many news organizations that have published or broadcast the images, however, is that Getty's licensing agreement stipulates the pictures can be used in "positive stories only."
According to the revenue statement in President Trump's May financial disclosure, Melania Trump earned between $100,000 and $1,000,000 in photo royalties in 2017 from the Getty deal.
Image: Trump family photoshootA photo of Barron and Melania Trump taken by Regine Mahaux and licensed via Getty Images was used in a 2016 NBC Nightly News segment.
Federal officials are only required to give an income range in their filings, and both Getty and the White House declined requests to provide more precise figures or list the places the images had appeared.
But NBC News found at least a dozen organizations that had paid to use Mahaux's restricted images of the Trumps in 2017, resulting in indirect payment to the first family.
Yahoo News, NBC News, Marie Claire, the Daily Mail, My San Antonio, Houston Chronicle, House Beautiful, and SF Gate, the website for The San Francisco Chronicle, are among those that have featured Mahaux's highly stylized family portraits since Trump took office.
The February 2017 issue of the Russian edition of the fashion magazine Elle included a gilded Mahaux portrait of the first family.
A Mahaux group portrait of Donald, Melania and son Barron Trump was featured on the May page of the White House 2017 calendar that was on sale in the White House gift shop for $14. Bent Publishing, which publishes the calendars, confirmed that it licensed the Mahaux photo for the 2017 calendar. The 2018 calendar now on sale at the gift shop does not include any Mahaux images.
NBC News also found that numerous entities had used the images before President Trump took office, though no income from the Getty deal was itemized in any financial disclosure prior to 2017.
In August 2016, Mahaux's portrait of then-candidate Trump and his wife was featured in the official Republican National Convention guide book that was given to each delegate. Campaign finance records show the money to pay for the guide came from political donations to the Republican National Committee.
The program was produced by Great Lakes Publishing, which said it got the image from a committee involved in arranging the convention. Jeff Larson, a political consultant who ran that committee, said, "We didn't pay any royalties that I know of for that photo."
NBC's Nightly News included the images in a Nightly News segment on Melania Trump that aired July 18, 2016, during the Republican National Convention.
The French edition of Vanity Fair put one of the pictures on the cover of its August 2016 issue.
Fox News used the photos in a variety of news segments in 2016. Greta Van Susteren's show "On the Record" included two portraits of Melania Trump during an interview Van Susteren did with the future first lady. In November 2016, after Trump's upset election win, the first episode of the Fox News show "OBJECTified," hosted by TMZ founder Harvey Levin, depicted the life and rise of Donald Trump. The episode included two of the images taken by Mahaux.
A Fox News Channel spokesperson said in a statement that the Mahaux photos used by Fox "were provided by the Trump campaign and Melania Trump's office, who told us they had full ownership and rights to the photos."
Image: Trump family photoshootA screenshot of a My San Antonio/San Antonio Express article featuring a Regine Mahaux image of Melania Trump. My San Antonio took the story down after an inquiry from NBC News.
An NBC News spokesperson said NBC News did not agree or sign a statement that the image would be used for positive coverage, and was never informed that a portion of the royalties would go to the Trump family.
Several news organizations removed the images from their websites after inquiries by NBC News.
Yahoo took them down and said in a statement: "We were not aware of this specific arrangement with Getty nor was our editorial influenced by it. We have removed the image from Yahoo Lifestyle."
The San Francisco Chronicle deleted the images from its website as well, and said it was looking into how they came to be used.
Trump mocks Warren: 'To the fake Pocahontas, I won't apologize'
Rescuers race to save soccer team trapped in Thailand cave with heavy rain on the way
The photographs were also pulled from the websites for The Houston Chronicle and The San Antonio Express-News following inquiries by NBC News. Hearst Communications Inc. owns the three newspapers and their websites. The images remained on other Hearst websites like those for the magazines House Beautiful and Marie Claire. Representatives for those publications did not return repeated calls and emails.
French Vanity Fair, Russian Elle, and the Daily Mail and Paris Match, which also used the photographs, did not respond to requests for comment.
Image: Trump family photoshootA 2017 calendar featuring Donald, Melania and Barron Trump was offered for sale at the White House gift shop, and included a Regine Mahaux photo. A portion of the gift shop's revenues is donated to rural police departments.
In a standard photo contract, the photographer gets royalties and the photo agency receives fees for each use of an image. Models are not paid royalties.
Paying royalties to the Trumps and limiting the use to only positive stories is unusual for news organizations, according to Akili Ramsess, executive director of the National Press Photographers Association. She said that celebrity wedding or baby photographs are sometimes licensed so part of the fees flows back to the celebrity. Keith Major, another Getty photographer who has also photographed Melania Trump, said he does not share royalties with her.
Getty's licensing agreement does not offer any hint that money is also paid to the Trumps, and the arrangement did not appear to have become public until the income was listed in the president's May financial filing.
However, Getty does make clear in its catalog that the images can only be licensed with permission by Getty or, in some cases, Mahaux, and that the images may be used for "positive stories only."
News organizations likely would not have known about the payments to Melania Trump, but could have been aware of the published stipulation about positive coverage in the catalog.
Indira Lakshmanan, a media ethicist at the Poynter Institute, said, "If I'm a news editor, I would use photos that don't have any restriction attached to them. There's a lesson for editors, for public figures. There are plenty of photos out there that you can use that don't have these restrictions."
Getty Images told NBC News that the details and amounts of payments to the Trumps are covered by confidential agreements. The agency declined to say whether there are separate royalty arrangements with other members of the Trump families, and declined all comment on the deal other than to say that once a photo has been licensed, Getty pays "contracted royalties back to the photographer and/or individual(s) as covered by their confidential agreement."
In a statement, a White House spokesperson said: "President Trump's recent Public Disclosure Report, which included information regarding Mrs. Trump's income and assets, was filed after being certified by the White House Ethics Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. The report speaks for itself."
When NBC News reached photographer Regine Mahaux by phone, she said "everything is legal" and then asked that any questions be submitted to her by email. NBC repeatedly emailed her questions but did not get a reply.
Mahaux took the photos during sessions in 2010, 2011 and 2016. Most feature some combination of Trump, Melania and son Barron. At least one of the photos, depicting the future first lady floating inside a swan boat on a still lake, and her swinging from a chandelier, combines images into a composite. Getty noted in its online catalog that many of the images of the Trumps have been "retouched," including those that later appeared in various news publications.
Mahaux has worked closely with the Trumps since 2010. Several albums on the Getty website feature her intimate photoshoots with the family in Trump Tower. "I like working with the family's image – it speaks to me. It inspires me," Mahaux told a French news outlet in 2017. Mahaux also took Melania Trump's official White House portrait, which is public and not subject to the licensing arrangement.
Melania's 2017 income from the Mahaux photos is an increase from previous years, based on the president's financial filings. Royalties from Getty Images do not appear in any of the financial statements submitted by Trump in the three prior years. Melania Trump likely earned some money during those years, but the income was below the federal government's threshold required for declaring the income.
Most modern first ladies have launched books and other commercial products during their stints in the White House — and then donated the entire proceeds to charity. Laura Bush donated a book advance to education charities, and Michelle Obama gave the proceeds from her book American Grown to the National Park Foundation.
Among Trump administration spouses, Vice President Mike Pence's wife, Karen, announced that revenues from her children's book would be donated to a children's hospital in Indiana and an anti-sex-trafficking nonprofit. In 2017, Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter and wife of senior adviser Jared Kushner, said she would give most of the advance and any future royalties from her book "Women Who Work" to charity.
The White House declined to comment on whether the Trumps have steered any of the proceeds from the Getty deal, which was consummated before Melania Trump became first lady, to a charity. Absent a public announcement, their annual tax returns might provide a hint — but unlike all other modern first families, the Trumps have not released them.
However, some of the proceeds from at least one of Mahaux's pictures of the first lady seem to have made their way to charity through another means. The White House gift shop, which sold the 2017 White House calendar, donates part of its earnings to help rural police departments
The first lady earned six figures from an agreement with Getty Images that paid royalties to the Trumps and mandated photos be used in positive coverage.
by Andrew W. Lehren, Emily R. Siegel and Merritt Enright / Jul.03.2018 / 2:18 AM ET
Image: Trump family photoshoot
A screen shot shows how an individual Mahaux photo of the Trump family appears on the Getty Images website.
Since her husband took office Melania Trump has earned six figures from an unusual deal with a photo agency in which major media organizations have indirectly paid the Trump family despite a requirement that the photos be used only in positive coverage.
President Donald Trump's most recent financial disclosure reveals that in 2017 the first lady earned at least $100,000 from Getty Images for the use of any of a series of 187 photos of the first family shot between 2010 and 2016 by Belgian photographer Regine Mahaux.
It's not unheard of for celebrities to earn royalties from photos of themselves, but it's very unusual for the wife of a currently serving elected official. More problematic for the many news organizations that have published or broadcast the images, however, is that Getty's licensing agreement stipulates the pictures can be used in "positive stories only."
According to the revenue statement in President Trump's May financial disclosure, Melania Trump earned between $100,000 and $1,000,000 in photo royalties in 2017 from the Getty deal.
Image: Trump family photoshootA photo of Barron and Melania Trump taken by Regine Mahaux and licensed via Getty Images was used in a 2016 NBC Nightly News segment.
Federal officials are only required to give an income range in their filings, and both Getty and the White House declined requests to provide more precise figures or list the places the images had appeared.
But NBC News found at least a dozen organizations that had paid to use Mahaux's restricted images of the Trumps in 2017, resulting in indirect payment to the first family.
Yahoo News, NBC News, Marie Claire, the Daily Mail, My San Antonio, Houston Chronicle, House Beautiful, and SF Gate, the website for The San Francisco Chronicle, are among those that have featured Mahaux's highly stylized family portraits since Trump took office.
The February 2017 issue of the Russian edition of the fashion magazine Elle included a gilded Mahaux portrait of the first family.
A Mahaux group portrait of Donald, Melania and son Barron Trump was featured on the May page of the White House 2017 calendar that was on sale in the White House gift shop for $14. Bent Publishing, which publishes the calendars, confirmed that it licensed the Mahaux photo for the 2017 calendar. The 2018 calendar now on sale at the gift shop does not include any Mahaux images.
NBC News also found that numerous entities had used the images before President Trump took office, though no income from the Getty deal was itemized in any financial disclosure prior to 2017.
In August 2016, Mahaux's portrait of then-candidate Trump and his wife was featured in the official Republican National Convention guide book that was given to each delegate. Campaign finance records show the money to pay for the guide came from political donations to the Republican National Committee.
The program was produced by Great Lakes Publishing, which said it got the image from a committee involved in arranging the convention. Jeff Larson, a political consultant who ran that committee, said, "We didn't pay any royalties that I know of for that photo."
NBC's Nightly News included the images in a Nightly News segment on Melania Trump that aired July 18, 2016, during the Republican National Convention.
The French edition of Vanity Fair put one of the pictures on the cover of its August 2016 issue.
Fox News used the photos in a variety of news segments in 2016. Greta Van Susteren's show "On the Record" included two portraits of Melania Trump during an interview Van Susteren did with the future first lady. In November 2016, after Trump's upset election win, the first episode of the Fox News show "OBJECTified," hosted by TMZ founder Harvey Levin, depicted the life and rise of Donald Trump. The episode included two of the images taken by Mahaux.
A Fox News Channel spokesperson said in a statement that the Mahaux photos used by Fox "were provided by the Trump campaign and Melania Trump's office, who told us they had full ownership and rights to the photos."
Image: Trump family photoshootA screenshot of a My San Antonio/San Antonio Express article featuring a Regine Mahaux image of Melania Trump. My San Antonio took the story down after an inquiry from NBC News.
An NBC News spokesperson said NBC News did not agree or sign a statement that the image would be used for positive coverage, and was never informed that a portion of the royalties would go to the Trump family.
Several news organizations removed the images from their websites after inquiries by NBC News.
Yahoo took them down and said in a statement: "We were not aware of this specific arrangement with Getty nor was our editorial influenced by it. We have removed the image from Yahoo Lifestyle."
The San Francisco Chronicle deleted the images from its website as well, and said it was looking into how they came to be used.
Trump mocks Warren: 'To the fake Pocahontas, I won't apologize'
Rescuers race to save soccer team trapped in Thailand cave with heavy rain on the way
The photographs were also pulled from the websites for The Houston Chronicle and The San Antonio Express-News following inquiries by NBC News. Hearst Communications Inc. owns the three newspapers and their websites. The images remained on other Hearst websites like those for the magazines House Beautiful and Marie Claire. Representatives for those publications did not return repeated calls and emails.
French Vanity Fair, Russian Elle, and the Daily Mail and Paris Match, which also used the photographs, did not respond to requests for comment.
Image: Trump family photoshootA 2017 calendar featuring Donald, Melania and Barron Trump was offered for sale at the White House gift shop, and included a Regine Mahaux photo. A portion of the gift shop's revenues is donated to rural police departments.
In a standard photo contract, the photographer gets royalties and the photo agency receives fees for each use of an image. Models are not paid royalties.
Paying royalties to the Trumps and limiting the use to only positive stories is unusual for news organizations, according to Akili Ramsess, executive director of the National Press Photographers Association. She said that celebrity wedding or baby photographs are sometimes licensed so part of the fees flows back to the celebrity. Keith Major, another Getty photographer who has also photographed Melania Trump, said he does not share royalties with her.
Getty's licensing agreement does not offer any hint that money is also paid to the Trumps, and the arrangement did not appear to have become public until the income was listed in the president's May financial filing.
However, Getty does make clear in its catalog that the images can only be licensed with permission by Getty or, in some cases, Mahaux, and that the images may be used for "positive stories only."
News organizations likely would not have known about the payments to Melania Trump, but could have been aware of the published stipulation about positive coverage in the catalog.
Indira Lakshmanan, a media ethicist at the Poynter Institute, said, "If I'm a news editor, I would use photos that don't have any restriction attached to them. There's a lesson for editors, for public figures. There are plenty of photos out there that you can use that don't have these restrictions."
Getty Images told NBC News that the details and amounts of payments to the Trumps are covered by confidential agreements. The agency declined to say whether there are separate royalty arrangements with other members of the Trump families, and declined all comment on the deal other than to say that once a photo has been licensed, Getty pays "contracted royalties back to the photographer and/or individual(s) as covered by their confidential agreement."
In a statement, a White House spokesperson said: "President Trump's recent Public Disclosure Report, which included information regarding Mrs. Trump's income and assets, was filed after being certified by the White House Ethics Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. The report speaks for itself."
When NBC News reached photographer Regine Mahaux by phone, she said "everything is legal" and then asked that any questions be submitted to her by email. NBC repeatedly emailed her questions but did not get a reply.
Mahaux took the photos during sessions in 2010, 2011 and 2016. Most feature some combination of Trump, Melania and son Barron. At least one of the photos, depicting the future first lady floating inside a swan boat on a still lake, and her swinging from a chandelier, combines images into a composite. Getty noted in its online catalog that many of the images of the Trumps have been "retouched," including those that later appeared in various news publications.
Mahaux has worked closely with the Trumps since 2010. Several albums on the Getty website feature her intimate photoshoots with the family in Trump Tower. "I like working with the family's image – it speaks to me. It inspires me," Mahaux told a French news outlet in 2017. Mahaux also took Melania Trump's official White House portrait, which is public and not subject to the licensing arrangement.
Melania's 2017 income from the Mahaux photos is an increase from previous years, based on the president's financial filings. Royalties from Getty Images do not appear in any of the financial statements submitted by Trump in the three prior years. Melania Trump likely earned some money during those years, but the income was below the federal government's threshold required for declaring the income.
Most modern first ladies have launched books and other commercial products during their stints in the White House — and then donated the entire proceeds to charity. Laura Bush donated a book advance to education charities, and Michelle Obama gave the proceeds from her book American Grown to the National Park Foundation.
Among Trump administration spouses, Vice President Mike Pence's wife, Karen, announced that revenues from her children's book would be donated to a children's hospital in Indiana and an anti-sex-trafficking nonprofit. In 2017, Ivanka Trump, the president's daughter and wife of senior adviser Jared Kushner, said she would give most of the advance and any future royalties from her book "Women Who Work" to charity.
The White House declined to comment on whether the Trumps have steered any of the proceeds from the Getty deal, which was consummated before Melania Trump became first lady, to a charity. Absent a public announcement, their annual tax returns might provide a hint — but unlike all other modern first families, the Trumps have not released them.
However, some of the proceeds from at least one of Mahaux's pictures of the first lady seem to have made their way to charity through another means. The White House gift shop, which sold the 2017 White House calendar, donates part of its earnings to help rural police departments
Man claiming to be from the future says he's got footage of Las Vegas in 2120 - yes, really - Independent
July 8, 2018
Man claiming to be from the future says he's got footage of Las Vegas in 2120 - yes, really
Posted 3 days ago by Lowenna Waters in discover
UPVOTE
A well known 'time traveller' who claims to have visited us from the future has now released footage that he claims is Las Vegas in 2120. Yes, really.
The man, who is known as Noah, made headlines around the world earlier this year when he passed lie detector tests when discussing his time-travelling escapades.
This time, Noah's back - and he's posted a video on Apex TV YouTube channel saying that he's just got back from a 'failed mission' and that he wants to 'spread the truth' about the reality of time travel.
In the video, he claims to have made two stops, one in 2060 and one in 2120, which is where he captured the footage as part of a top secret mission.
Near the end of the 16 minute clip, Noah finally pulls out his mobile phone to reveal the footage of the city.
Speaking about the video clip, he says:
These red clouds are global warming.
It is a highly impactful thing in the future, you can see it's everywhere.
I remember it being incredibly hot, but I'm pretty sure they're working on it in the future.
Many YouTube users have pointed out the many flaws with the video, focusing on the amazing coincidence that people seem to use current time mobile phones in the future.
Mehrab Kahn wrote:
Video is from the future but his mobile phone is not from the future!
Another said:
So he recorded the video on his future iPhone from 2030? I would have been much more impressed in the technology in the actual phone. Fake news !
Others just focused on the fact that the video is obviously faked, and that it's most probably CGI:
That is clearly CGI what is wrong with you people?
And some had their priorities sorted, asking about the pressing matters of the day:
Is there Mick Jagger in 2120?
We wish we knew, oh how we wish we knew.
Man claiming to be from the future says he's got footage of Las Vegas in 2120 - yes, really
Posted 3 days ago by Lowenna Waters in discover
UPVOTE
A well known 'time traveller' who claims to have visited us from the future has now released footage that he claims is Las Vegas in 2120. Yes, really.
The man, who is known as Noah, made headlines around the world earlier this year when he passed lie detector tests when discussing his time-travelling escapades.
This time, Noah's back - and he's posted a video on Apex TV YouTube channel saying that he's just got back from a 'failed mission' and that he wants to 'spread the truth' about the reality of time travel.
In the video, he claims to have made two stops, one in 2060 and one in 2120, which is where he captured the footage as part of a top secret mission.
Near the end of the 16 minute clip, Noah finally pulls out his mobile phone to reveal the footage of the city.
Speaking about the video clip, he says:
These red clouds are global warming.
It is a highly impactful thing in the future, you can see it's everywhere.
I remember it being incredibly hot, but I'm pretty sure they're working on it in the future.
Many YouTube users have pointed out the many flaws with the video, focusing on the amazing coincidence that people seem to use current time mobile phones in the future.
Mehrab Kahn wrote:
Video is from the future but his mobile phone is not from the future!
Another said:
So he recorded the video on his future iPhone from 2030? I would have been much more impressed in the technology in the actual phone. Fake news !
Others just focused on the fact that the video is obviously faked, and that it's most probably CGI:
That is clearly CGI what is wrong with you people?
And some had their priorities sorted, asking about the pressing matters of the day:
Is there Mick Jagger in 2120?
We wish we knew, oh how we wish we knew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
