Social Media

As the assembly elections approached in France, a friend of mine made an interesting comment: "I really like these angry green women." It struck a chord with me, summing up perfectly the powerful presence these women have in French politics. Among them, Marine Tondelier, the leader of the French Green party, has emerged as a particularly compelling figure. Tondelier has become a standout political force, navigating the tumultuous landscape with remarkable skill and charisma. Her ability to articulate her views passionately and clearly, while remaining relatable and genuine, is nothing short of inspirational. Tondelier’s presence in the political arena is a breath of fresh air. She speaks with a sense of urgency, delivering sharp retorts and dismantling her opponents with ease. Her background in Hénin-Beaumont, a stronghold of Marine Le Pen, fuels her determination to oppose the far right. One memorable instance was when she referred to National Rally president Jordan Bardella as "Jean-Michel Media Training" after he refused to debate her, knowing she would likely outshine him. A distinctive feature of Tondelier's public persona is her green blazer. Women in politics often face undue scrutiny over their appearance, and Tondelier's jacket has attracted significant attention. Instead of getting defensive, she has cleverly turned this interest to her advantage, making her blazer a symbol of her brand and values. This visual signature has made her instantly recognizable and helped her connect with people. In interviews, she often references her jacket, reinforcing her commitment to her cause. My admiration for French Green politicians doesn’t end with Tondelier. Another inspiring figure is Senator Mélanie Vogel, a dedicated advocate for women’s and LGBTQ+ rights. Vogel’s proposal to enshrine the right to abortion in the French constitution and her relentless fight to see it adopted were nothing short of electrifying. Her speeches, filled with palpable emotion and a call for cross-party solidarity, have given me a renewed sense of hope that a different kind of politics is possible. Sandrine Rousseau, an eco-feminist and #MeToo campaigner, is another notable French Green. Her outspoken criticism of systemic sexism in politics, including her denunciation of former Green leader Julien Bayou, who faced accusations of emotional abuse, led to his resignation and paved the way for Tondelier’s leadership. Rousseau’s bold proposals, such as criminalizing the failure to share domestic chores and defending the "right to be lazy," have stirred significant debate and raised rightwing blood pressure. Reflecting on these remarkable women, it becomes clear that their impact goes beyond their policies. They embody a new wave of political engagement that is deeply needed in today’s world. Their passion, determination, and willingness to challenge the status quo are qualities that inspire not just their supporters but anyone who believes in the possibility of meaningful change. They understand that politics is not a game and that we face unprecedented threats from the far right, deepening poverty, and escalating violence against women. They know that swift and decisive action is needed, which requires a new kind of politics: one that emphasizes cross-party cooperation, rejects sexism, and embraces frankness and authenticity. Initially, my friend's question, "Should we become angry green women?" made me hesitant, considering how politics often trivializes and dismisses women. But the more I reflect on these incredible women, the more fired up I get. Their passion, determination, and unapologetic approach have shown me the green light, inspiring me to believe in the possibility of real change. In a world where political figures often seem distant and out of touch, these green women stand out as beacons of hope and catalysts for transformation. Their influence extends beyond their immediate political circles, resonating with a broader audience that is hungry for change. They have shown that it is possible to be passionate and effective, to be driven by values and still achieve tangible results. Their ability to connect with people on a personal level, to speak candidly and forcefully about the issues that matter, sets them apart in a political landscape that often feels detached from the realities of everyday life. In the end, what makes these green women truly remarkable is their unwavering commitment to their cause and their fearless approach to politics. They are not afraid to show their emotions, to speak out against injustice, and to demand better from their leaders. They represent a new generation of politicians who are not content to sit on the sidelines but are ready to fight for a better future for all. Their stories remind us that change is possible, that passion and determination can make a difference, and that we all have a role to play in shaping the world we want to live in. As I look to the future, I am inspired by the example set by Marine Tondelier, Mélanie Vogel, Sandrine Rousseau, and their fellow green women. They have shown us that it is not only possible but necessary to be angry, radical, and ready for change. Credit: The Guardian 2024-07-16 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Earlier this month, President Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) published an op-ed highlighting the "outrageous prices that the pharmaceutical industry charges the American people for prescription drugs." This latest move is part of Sanders’s ongoing campaign to address exorbitant drug prices in the U.S. In June, Sanders, who chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, announced that Lars Jorgensen, CEO of Novo Nordisk, would voluntarily testify before Congress. The hearing aims to scrutinize the high prices Americans pay for Novo Nordisk's blockbuster drugs, Ozempic and Wegovy. These drugs, known for their efficacy in controlling diabetes (Ozempic) and aiding weight loss (Wegovy), have gained popularity, especially among celebrities, thus drawing significant public and media attention. Sanders hopes to leverage this notoriety to emphasize his long-standing argument: drug costs in the U.S. are unreasonably high. "The American people are sick and tired of paying, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs," Sanders said recently. Sanders often uses Ozempic as a prime example. He points out that "Novo Nordisk currently charges Americans with Type 2 diabetes $969 a month for Ozempic, while this same exact drug can be purchased for just $155 in Canada and just $59 in Germany." Sanders anticipates Jorgensen's testimony will shed light on why Americans are paying significantly more for these medications compared to people in other countries. The explanation for the high costs of drugs in America, particularly Ozempic, lies in the role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). The first PBMs emerged in the late 1950s, initially handling simple tasks like processing reimbursements for patients and drug stores. However, the modern PBM, which took shape in 2018, is a direct consequence of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010. One of the many provisions of Obamacare required insurance companies to spend 85 percent of each dollar on patient care, limiting the remaining 15 percent to overhead and profit. This rule aimed to curb insurance companies' ability to reap massive profits at the expense of patients. In response to this profit cap, the modern PBM emerged to perform similar management roles as insurance companies but without the profit restrictions. A recent exposé by The New York Times detailed how insurance companies have maneuvered around Obamacare's 85 percent rule by creating, acquiring, or merging with PBMs to maintain substantial profits. The Times highlighted that major health insurers like Aetna and Cigna sought mergers with PBMs to achieve the growth demanded by Wall Street. Aetna merged with CVS, while Cigna acquired Express Scripts. UnitedHealth, another giant in the health insurance industry, built its own PBM. This new arrangement allows pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs through pharmacies only by going through PBMs, which demand rebates from the pharmaceutical companies. These rebates, instead of benefiting patients, go to the PBMs. The rebates can be modest but are often substantial, turning PBMs into major profit centers. The exact amount of these rebates remains undisclosed since they are considered trade secrets. These rebates are a significant reason why drug costs in the U.S. are so high. For instance, in 2016, 266 million Americans had their drug purchases managed by a PBM, and manufacturer rebates to PBMs skyrocketed from $39.7 billion in 2012 to $89.5 billion in 2016. The Times reported that "the three biggest PBMs would each rank among the top 40 U.S. companies by revenue. The largest, Caremark, generates more revenue than Ford or Home Depot." Furthermore, some PBMs are now establishing another layer of middle-management called group purchasing organizations (GPOs), which also become profit centers. The question remains: what value do PBMs add to the system? Ohio Attorney General David Yost, a Republican, argues that PBMs are "seeking to extract from the system, without creating any corresponding value for the system. The patients are the ones that are suffering." When Sanders convenes his committee in early September, a logical starting point for the questioning would be: What percentage of the $969 Novo Nordisk charges for a month's supply of Ozempic in the U.S. constitutes rebates to PBMs? Some estimates suggest it could be around 70 percent, which more than explains why Ozempic is so expensive in the U.S. compared to other countries where PBMs do not operate. Credit: Hill 2024-07-16 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A report from the Independent Scrutiny and Oversight Board (ISOB) has highlighted the limited progress of a plan to combat police racism, warning that it will not result in meaningful change without full backing from the new home secretary. The police race action plan, initiated by police chiefs in 2020, aims to address prejudice within police forces, whether directed at officers or the public. However, the ISOB's latest findings indicate that the plan's effectiveness is hampered by a lack of government interest and support. Abimbola Johnson, the chair of the ISOB, criticized the previous Conservative government for showing "no real interest" in the plan. This indifference left the responsibility of implementation to individual police forces. Johnson stressed that some forces do not prioritize anti-racism efforts because their leadership, including chief constables and police and crime commissioners (PCCs), do not support the initiative. She argued that a central government push is necessary to ensure that all 44 police forces work together to combat racism, compelling ambitious officers to commit to the plan to advance their careers. Johnson also pointed to active obstructions by the previous government, including a review into police activism commissioned by Suella Braverman, which she said detracted from regular policing activities and negatively impacted the race action plan. The current iteration of the plan is set to end in March next year, and Johnson emphasized the need for a more visible and cohesive strategy. The lack of awareness and engagement with the plan was evident during the National Black Police Association (NBPA) conference in October, where attendees were either unaware of the plan or unsure how to hold their forces accountable for its implementation. In June, the NBPA withdrew support for the plan, accusing police leaders of failing to fulfill promises of reform and allowing a "toxic" environment to harm the careers of black and Asian officers. The NBPA called for the reform program to be taken out of the hands of chief constables. Johnson compared the public visibility and commitment to the race action plan with the violence against women and girls (VAWG) strategy, which has seen high-profile campaigns and thoughtful discussions from police leaders about the importance of delivering on its aims. She noted the absence of similar messaging and dedication for the race action programme. The ISOB recommends the establishment of metrics to assess police forces' progress on the race action plan, potentially overseen by the police inspectorate. A Home Office spokesperson responded to the report, stating, "Racism has no place in policing. Police forces must improve the culture as well as reflect the diverse communities they serve. This new government is committed to working with police and police staff to achieve a diverse workforce." Credit: The Guardian 2024-07-16 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

It is not just Donald Trump who dodged a bullet. Half an inch to the left and the cartridge that grazed Trump’s ear would have turned him into a martyr. There is no telling what his death would have unleashed. The attempted assassination of Donald Trump has plunged the United States into an unprecedented crisis as it hurtles toward a pivotal election. The close call, where a bullet narrowly missed Trump's ear, has ignited a firestorm that threatens to engulf the nation in deeper political turmoil. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, captured in the iconic image of Trump defiantly pumping his fist amidst the stars and stripes, partisan divisions have deepened. Voices from both sides have rushed to assign blame and shape the narrative to their advantage. Leading Republican figures, including potential vice-presidential candidate JD Vance, swiftly pointed fingers at Democratic rhetoric, alleging it directly incited the violence. Meanwhile, on social media platforms like X, owned by Elon Musk, conspiracy theories about the shooter's motives have proliferated, questioning how such an attack could occur. Conversely, some on the left have speculated that the shooting was staged to bolster Trump's electoral prospects, although no senior Democratic officials have supported this notion. The identity of the alleged shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old registered Republican with a donation history to a pro-Democratic group, has only added to the confusion. Despite such details, political opportunists continue to exploit the tragedy to vilify their adversaries. Central to the fallout is Trump's response. Known for his provocative rhetoric and controversial stance on political violence, Trump's own statements have come under scrutiny. His past endorsements of extremist groups and dismissive remarks about violence associated with his supporters have exacerbated tensions. In a more stable democracy, an incident of such gravity would prompt bipartisan calls for stricter gun control measures. Yet, given the entrenched views on firearms and the prevalence of AR-15-type rifles, such reforms seem unlikely in Trump's Republican Party stronghold. Looking ahead, Trump's near-miss is set to dominate the upcoming Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. His campaign, adept at leveraging optics for maximum impact, is poised to capitalize on the near-martyrdom narrative. As Trump prepares to announce his running mate amid heightened security concerns reminiscent of the armed militias at his 2016 convention, the nation braces for further polarization. Amidst this turmoil, Joe Biden and the Democrats face a momentary reprieve from internal strife over his candidacy. While debates about Biden's leadership persist, the focus has temporarily shifted back to Trump. Biden's campaign has paused its anti-Trump ads, but the respite may be short-lived as the election looms. The aftermath of Trump's brush with death has injected unprecedented volatility into an already critical election cycle. What was once implicit in political rhetoric—violence—has now become explicit. As the nation grapples with its historical precedent for political murder and the unique circumstances of 2024, America finds itself at a crossroads overshadowed by vengeance and uncertainty. Credit: Financial Times 2024-07-16 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Public opinion in Russia today is remarkably reminiscent of the sentiments prevalent in the 19th century: the tsar can do no wrong. Problems and crises are often attributed to incompetent administrators or seen as unavoidable. In stark contrast to the serfs who were emancipated in 1861, the contemporary Russian population is literate and has access to a wide array of information sources, including books, periodicals, and the internet. Despite the state's tight grip on the media, inquisitive individuals can still access alternative perspectives. Nevertheless, the overarching belief remains unchanged: Vladimir Putin, like the tsars of old, is considered infallible. Criticisms from domestic dissidents and foreign observers are largely dismissed. These insights are drawn from surveys conducted by the Levada Center for Public Opinion, an institution established during Mikhail Gorbachev’s era of glasnost. Operating independently of government support since last year, the Center is now listed as a “foreign agent.” According to their June survey, 54% of respondents pay attention to events in Ukraine, while 46% do not. Interestingly, the demographic most likely to be conscripted—males aged 18 to 30—showed the least interest in the war. In contrast, 68% of Russians aged 55 and older reported closely following events in Ukraine. Television remains the primary news source for 60% of Russians, and these viewers display the most interest in Ukraine. Conversely, more than half of those who rely on other sources—such as social media, Telegram, or YouTube—pay little attention to the events there. When asked if they support Russia’s war, more than three-quarters of respondents—77% in June 2024—affirmed their support. Only 7% were definitively opposed, down from 11% in December 2022. This high level of support persists even among those facing economic hardships, such as difficulties in obtaining sufficient food or clothing. Support is highest among those who believe the government is moving in the right direction. Those who rely on television are more likely to support Putin and his war in Ukraine, suggesting they are buying into his narrative of an existential struggle for Russia’s culture and values against a hostile Western world. When asked about their feelings towards the military actions in Ukraine, 48% expressed pride in Russia—a 10-point increase from September. Meanwhile, 33% felt anxiety and fear, a proportion that has remained consistent throughout the conflict. Fourteen percent reported that the war causes anger or shame, down from 20% in September. Regarding whether Russia should continue fighting or negotiate, 37% wanted to continue the conflict, while 58% favored negotiations, up from a low of 45% in May 2023. Women and younger respondents leaned more towards negotiations. However, 41% believe Russia is more interested in negotiating, and twice as many think Ukraine wants talks. The survey did not specify the terms of negotiations or address the fact that Kyiv’s terms differ significantly from anything Putin has suggested. Respondents were not asked if they would insist on keeping Crimea and Donetsk. More than half of respondents believe events in Ukraine could lead to war with NATO, and three-quarters anticipate such a war would involve nuclear weapons. One-third think Russia would be justified in using its warheads, while half of respondents disagree. It is evident that the Kremlin’s disinformation and the bias of Russian media are influencing public opinion. When asked who is most responsible for the death and destruction in Ukraine, 65% blamed the US and NATO, up from 57% in 2022-2023. Only 6% placed the primary responsibility on Russia. There is, however, an age divide. Only 41% of younger Russians blame the West, compared to three-quarters of those aged 55 and older. The Levada Center’s methodology, similar to that developed by Gallup and other US pollsters, cannot entirely escape the limitations imposed by the autocratic society in which it operates and the effects that has on responses. Survey interviews were conducted in 1,627 homes across the Russian Federation. Credit: CEPA 2024-07-16 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through both political and financial arenas. The attack, which narrowly missed making Trump a martyr, has significantly impacted his media company, Trump Media and Technology Group. Shares of the company, trading under the ticker DJT, surged by 50% in pre-market trading, potentially increasing the company's valuation by nearly $3 billion. This leap in value underscores the intertwining of political events and market dynamics, particularly as the incident has seemingly boosted Trump's chances of winning the November presidential election. Since its debut on March 26, Trump Media and Technology Group has been characterized by volatile trading patterns. However, the recent attack has propelled traders to push the share price toward levels not seen since May. At one point on Monday, the shares were up by 71% in pre-market trading, reflecting a significant increase from Friday’s closing price of $30.89. By the time of publication, the shares maintained a 50% gain. If this trend continues when markets officially open, it could add approximately $3 billion to the company’s valuation. Given that Trump owns 60% of Trump Media, the value of his stake, which was about $3.8 billion on Friday, could increase by as much as $2 billion. Neil Wilson, the chief analyst at brokerage firm Finalto, explained that the share price surge is essentially a "bet on Trump." He pointed out that the widespread perception of the shooting having improved Trump’s odds of reclaiming the White House is driving this market reaction. Furthermore, the belief that more people will flock to Trump’s platform, should he be re-elected, is also fueling the stock’s rise. Trump Media's share price history has seen significant highs and lows, with a peak of over $79 when it started trading in New York on March 26, and a low of $22.84 on April 16, coinciding with the start of Trump’s criminal hush-money trial, in which he was found guilty. Bitcoin, the leading cryptocurrency, has also experienced a rally since the shooting incident. The price of Bitcoin rose above $63,000 on Monday, marking a 9% increase over the day. This rise follows a period of fluctuation, with Bitcoin dropping from over $70,000 in early June to below $54,000 in early July. Its record high was in March, when it reached $73,803. Rania Gule, a market analyst at XS.com, stated that the movement in Bitcoin’s price reflects a belief among some crypto investors that a re-elected Trump would support the digital asset market by pursuing less stringent regulatory policies, potentially fostering a more favorable environment for cryptocurrency investments. The attempted assassination has not only intensified political discourse but also significantly influenced market dynamics. As traders and investors react to the perceived implications of Trump’s potential return to power, the financial landscape is being reshaped. The surge in Trump Media’s shares and the rally in Bitcoin underscore the broader market reactions to the evolving political scenario and its potential impact on future regulatory and economic conditions. Credit: The Guardian 2024-07-16 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Quinn Schansman had big dreams of becoming the youngest-ever CEO of an American company. At 18, he had just completed his first year of an international business degree in Amsterdam, setting him on the path toward that ambitious goal. Tragically, his aspirations were cut short when Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was downed, killing Quinn and 297 others. The plane was destroyed by a Soviet-era Buk surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine. The conflict that led to this incident has since escalated into a full-scale war following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. On Wednesday, Quinn’s father, Thomas Schansman, will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the tragedy by reading out the names of all the victims at a monument near Schiphol Airport, from where MH17 departed on its ill-fated journey to Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014. While Thomas has come to terms with the loss of his son, he struggles with Russia’s staunch denials of responsibility for the missile attack. An international investigation concluded that the Buk missile system originated from the Russian 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade and had been transported from a Russian military base near Kursk into Ukraine, before being returned after the attack. In 2022, a Dutch court convicted two Russians and a pro-Russian Ukrainian in absentia of murder for their roles in transporting the missile, sentencing them to life in prison. However, Russia refused to surrender them for trial, and they remain at large. Russia continues to deny any involvement. Further legal proceedings are underway at the European Court of Human Rights and the International Civil Aviation Organization Council to hold Russia accountable under international law. For Thomas Schansman, a legal ruling against Russia would be significant but not sufficient. “That does not provide closure. For me, closure is the acknowledgment by Russia that they delivered the Buk, the recognition that they must also take responsibility for it,” Schansman told The Associated Press. “I want to hear apologies. The simple ‘Sorry.’” The crash claimed the lives of citizens from 16 countries, including the Netherlands, Malaysia, Australia, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, the Philippines, Canada, New Zealand, Vietnam, Israel, Italy, Romania, the United States, and South Africa. Australian Attorney General Mark Dreyfus, who will attend the commemoration in the Netherlands, paid tribute to the victims' families, noting that 38 of those killed "called Australia home." Dreyfus honored their bravery and perseverance, recognizing their efforts in seeking justice through successive legal proceedings. He emphasized the importance of remembering the victims and committing to holding those responsible accountable for this "despicable crime." Thomas Schansman has reached a point where he no longer seeks justice against those directly involved in firing the missile, as it will not bring his son back. His primary desire is for Russia to admit its role in the tragedy. “The fact that for all these years — right up to today — they continue to deny and to spread disinformation, that hurts,” he said. “That is irritating and it makes you at certain times a bitter person.” Former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who was in office at the time of the disaster, described it as “perhaps the most drastic and emotional event of my entire premiership.” Rutte’s government coordinated a complex operation to repatriate the victims' remains to the Netherlands, a process marked by solemn convoys of hearses that transported coffins from a military airbase to a barracks for identification. The 10th anniversary ceremony will take place at the national MH17 memorial, a park near Schiphol Airport featuring 298 trees — one for each victim — and sunflowers, mirroring those that grew at the crash site. Despite the passage of time, Quinn’s memory endures. His sister Nerissa recently named her first daughter Frida Quinn Schansman Pouw, ensuring that his name lives on in their family. Credit: ABC News 2024-07-16 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

New topic Florida judge dismisses the Trump classified documents case

Judge Aileen Cannon handed down her decision on Monday in a big win for the former president. The Florida judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case dismissed the indictment against the former president Monday on the grounds that the appointment and funding of special counsel Jack Smith was illegal. The Justice Department, the special counsel's office and the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This is a developing story. Credit: NBC News 2024-07-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt on Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, social media became inundated with conspiracy theories, false claims, and unsupported assertions. The incident, which left Trump visibly injured, a spectator dead, and another injured, quickly turned into a hotbed for speculative discourse across various online platforms. The scarcity of concrete details following the shooting created a vacuum that conspiracy theorists, political operatives, and social media influencers were quick to fill. On platforms like X (formerly known as Twitter), posts about the incident gained significant traction almost immediately. The rapid dissemination of misinformation was evident as videos of the shooting circulated widely, amassing millions of views. The term "staged" swiftly became the second-highest trending topic on X, right after "Trump." Within an hour, numerous posts claiming that the shooting was staged were viewed millions of times, despite the lack of any supporting evidence. In reality, the incident was far from a fabrication: Trump had been visibly injured, and both a spectator and another individual had suffered injuries. Meta's Instagram and Threads also saw a proliferation of false narratives, though to a smaller audience. One of the most prominent unfounded claims was that the gunman was a “prominent Antifa activist” named Mark Violets. This misinformation rapidly became a top trending topic on X. However, law enforcement had not released any information about the shooter’s identity or background at that time. Such misidentifications are not uncommon in the aftermath of high-profile shootings. Anonymous social media accounts often exploit the information vacuum to disseminate posts that wrongly identify culprits, either for humor, to mislead the media, or to boost engagement and followers. In this instance, the false identification of the shooter was purportedly sourced from the Butler Police Department, accompanied by a photo of a man in sunglasses and a black hat, alleged to be a screenshot from a pre-attack YouTube video. This claim was entirely baseless. The misinformation was further amplified by verified accounts on X. One notable example was the account Wall Street Silver, which is known for spreading misinformation. The account, with 1.3 million followers, shared the false claim before eventually deleting it without explanation. The false narrative was also propagated by Russian propaganda accounts, as well as MAGA and Proud Boy channels on Telegram. The person falsely identified in these posts was actually Marco Violi, an Italian YouTuber who vlogs about soccer. The initial false identification originated from a joke posted by the X account @Moussolinho, which incorrectly pointed to Violi as the shooter, using a photo taken from another user’s account. This led to an online frenzy, with people flooding the account with accusations. The account owner, overwhelmed by the false allegations, made their account private and expressed frustration over the absurdity of the situation. Violi himself took to Instagram to deny the false claims, stating emphatically that he was in Rome, Italy, and had no connection to the incident. Violi wrote in Italian on his Instagram account, according to Meta's translation, "I STRONGLY DENY BEING INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION. I WAS AWAKE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT (2AM IN ITALY TO BE PRECISE) FROM THE MANY NOTIFICATIONS I RECEIVED ON INSTAGRAM AND ON X. I’M IN ITALY, I’M IN ROME AND I HAD NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED." The spread of conspiracy theories was not limited to anonymous or lesser-known accounts. Established conspiracy theorist Alex Jones livestreamed to hundreds of thousands of viewers on X, attributing the incident to the "deep state." Similarly, X accounts associated with QAnon conspiracy theories garnered millions of views by naming high-profile Democrats and Republicans as potential collaborators with the CIA in orchestrating the incident. These claims were entirely devoid of evidence. The rapid spread of misinformation following the assassination attempt on Donald Trump highlights the challenges of moderating content on social media platforms during major political events. With platforms stepping back from active moderation, the digital space remains susceptible to the rapid spread of false information, leaving the public to navigate a minefield of unfounded claims and speculative narratives. Credit: NBC News 2024-07-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In the early hours of July 5, the political landscape of Leicester South was shaken when Shockat Adam, an independent candidate, emerged victorious, defeating Labour’s Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow paymaster general, by a narrow margin of 979 votes. As the results were announced, Adam, a charismatic optician, held a keffiyeh aloft, echoing the words of George Galloway from the Rochdale by-election: “This is for Gaza!” This victory was one of several independents, including Jeremy Corbyn, who won against Labour candidates, capitalizing on claims against Sir Keir Starmer’s alleged complicity in what Adam described as a genocide in Gaza. The campaign trail leading to Adam's election was fraught with controversy, raising questions about whether the law was broken. A detailed investigation reveals that Adam might have benefited, knowingly or not, from his radicalized brother and a partisan website. The police are now investigating potential breaches of electoral law in Leicester South. Shockat Adam Patel, born in 1972 in Leicester, studied optometry at the University of Manchester and later became the director of Sask Optics. His brother, Ismail, became a prominent advocate for Palestinian rights after a trip to Jerusalem in the 1990s, founding Friends of Al-Aqsa. This organization, named after the sacred site in Jerusalem, has been vocal about Palestinian issues, particularly in response to the October 7 atrocities, claiming Hamas was reacting to Israel’s ongoing illegal occupation. Ismail's activism extended to supporting Hamas, which he publicly defended, even as it was proscribed as a terrorist organization by the US and the EU. Despite this, Ismail stated that he did not show support for any proscribed organization or military wing of Hamas. His involvement with the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in 2010, which ended in a deadly raid by IDF soldiers, further cemented his position in the pro-Palestinian movement. Adam’s political activism gained momentum in 2018 when he became chair of Leicester’s branch of Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), an organization accused of radicalism. Despite these allegations, Adam denied any extremist affiliations. His political journey saw him campaign for Claudia Webbe in 2019, who later faced expulsion from Labour due to harassment charges. Corbyn’s resignation in 2020 prompted Adam to move away from mainstream politics, a shift accelerated by the October 7 attacks and Starmer’s statements on Israel's right to defend itself, which went viral within Leicester’s Muslim community. Adam’s speech at a pro-Palestine march in Leicester, where he criticized leading political figures and declared a break from traditional parties, marked a pivotal moment. His campaign gained support from YouElect, a non-profit organization promoting voter registration, which endorsed Adam as their "top-rated candidate." However, YouElect’s connection to Ismail and its partisan backing raised concerns about the legitimacy of this support. During the campaign, Ashworth faced significant hostility, including accusations of supporting genocide in Gaza. His opponents used inflammatory tactics, distributing leaflets with provocative messages and intimidating voters. Ashworth himself reported incidents of intimidation and confrontations, including being followed and questioned aggressively by local agitator Majid Freeman, who was later arrested on unrelated terrorism charges. The legality of the campaign tactics used remains under scrutiny. The Representation of the People Act 1983 stipulates that election materials must clearly indicate who paid for them and the candidate they support. Many of the leaflets distributed in Leicester South failed to meet these requirements, prompting an ongoing police investigation to determine if criminal offences were committed. As the new MP for Leicester South, Adam has promised to focus on delivering for his constituents despite the controversies surrounding his campaign. He maintains that the accusations against him are unfounded and attributes his victory to the widespread dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties' stance on Gaza. The fallout from this election has left the new government grappling with how to address the level of intimidation witnessed in this and other races. Jess Phillips and Rushanara Ali, among other MPs, have spoken about the threats and hostility they faced, prompting calls for an investigation into the integrity of the election process. Adam, however, remains resolute, signaling a shift in the political dynamics of Leicester South and potentially setting a precedent for future independent campaigns. Credit: Sunday Times 2024-07-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Brittney Griner's memoir, "Coming Home," opens with a series of text messages that read like a suspenseful short story. “Hey baby I got stopped by security at customs.” “If you don’t hear from me for like one hour or more get my agent on the phone.” “Wake up plz.” “Baby text me plz I’m freaking out.” “Baby.” “Hello.” “This is it for me.” These chilling messages mark the beginning of a harrowing journey for Griner, one of the world's top basketball players, who found herself trapped in Russia's draconian penal system for nine months. On February 17, 2022, Griner was at a Moscow airport, heading to join UMMC Ekaterinburg, the team she played for during the WNBA off-season. Back home in Arizona, it was 2 a.m., and her wife, Relle, was asleep. Security personnel found two near-empty vials of medicinal cannabis oil in Griner’s bag. Her phone and passport were confiscated, and she was coerced into signing a document written in a language she couldn’t understand. After 19 hours in customs, she was led away in handcuffs. “The future,” she writes in her memoir, “was unimaginable.” Just days after her detention, Russia invaded Ukraine, turning Griner's status as an American double Olympic champion into a political pawn. Her detention became a significant plot point in the escalating geopolitical tensions. While her family, friends, and fellow athletes lobbied the White House for her release, celebrities like Justin Bieber and Jada Pinkett Smith joined the #WeAreBG campaign to keep public pressure on the government. It took nine agonizing months before she was finally brought home through a prisoner exchange. In "Coming Home," Griner reveals the grim reality of her imprisonment, presenting a biography that could easily be classified as a horror story. The details of her ordeal are harrowing, but it is the complete loss of power and autonomy that is most disturbing. Griner was thrust into a draconian and corrupt penal system where her fate hinged on the whims of Vladimir Putin. The squalor and humiliations she endured were relentless. From rusty-brown showers to invasive strip-searches by guards who questioned her gender, Griner faced a constant barrage of dehumanizing experiences. In one particularly grim basement cell, she describes the walls as being covered in “black soot and piss, or whatever bodily fluid I smelled.” The narrative builds incredible suspense, despite the well-known outcome of her release. From the initial, avoidable mistake of hurriedly packing her travel items to the unforeseen consequences of missing her plane from JFK, Griner's tale is one of tragic "ifs." She recounts the customs hall scenario where the 6-foot-9 black athlete was singled out among other foreigners. A forgotten vape cartridge in her bag led to charges of smuggling and possession, setting off the chain of events that would change her life. Denied bail, Griner was moved through various prisons, each with its own set of challenges. At a women's prison outside Moscow, she relied heavily on Alena, an English-speaking cellmate, to help her understand and cope with the prison’s rules and routines. The squalid conditions and degrading treatment she faced were unrelenting. Strip-searches became routine, and the guards’ disbelief in her gender added another layer of humiliation to her plight. After the shock of her sentencing – Griner received nine years, nearly the maximum penalty – she was transported to a former gulag. The train journey took over a week, during which she lay inside a cage, on a metal bunk far too small for her frame. She mourned the loss of one of her few possessions, a sudoku book that she had kept with her since her arrest. Relle had already completed one of the puzzles and signed her name next to it. “When I felt down I turned to that page and rubbed her signature on my cheek.” Griner’s co-writer, Michelle Burford, a founding editor of O, The Oprah Magazine, weaves the high-stakes drama of the narrative with empathetic glimpses of Griner’s upbringing. Growing up black and extremely tall, Griner attracted plenty of unwelcome attention, while her parents worried there was something medically wrong with her. When she came out, her father, Ray, who had fought in the Vietnam War before becoming a policeman, yelled at her: “I ain’t raising no gay bitch!” and she left home. Yet, despite this, their ongoing love for each other is palpable, and the toughness he instilled in her helped her survive in prison. We learn, too, about the tireless efforts of Relle, a lawyer, and Griner’s agent, Lindsay Kagawa Colas, who worked relentlessly to secure her release. “A freedom campaign has a question at its heart,” writes Griner: “‘Who deserves our sympathy?’” It is, perhaps, the book’s most powerful and poignant question. Griner’s story ends not with her return to the WNBA, but with a list of Americans still held hostage around the world, including former Marine Paul Whelan and Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich in Russia. This ending serves as a sobering reminder of the ongoing struggles faced by others in similar predicaments. "Coming Home" is a testament to Brittney Griner's resilience and a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls when autocrats invest in sport. Her account is a gripping and essential read, offering insights into the complexities of international sports, politics, and human rights. Credit: The Guardian 2024-07-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The Kremlin issued a statement addressing the recent assassination attempt on U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump during a rally in Pennsylvania. Although Russia does not believe the U.S. administration orchestrated the attack, it accuses the Biden administration of creating an environment that incited such violence. Trump was shot in the ear during the rally, and the incident is being investigated as an assassination attempt. The attacker was killed, and law enforcement officials have yet to determine a motive. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov clarified Russia's stance, stating, "We do not believe that the attempt to eliminate and assassinate Trump was organized by the current authorities." However, he added, "But the atmosphere around candidate Trump...provoked what America is confronting today." This sentiment echoes the accusations from some of Trump's Republican allies, who also blame President Biden for the attack. President Biden condemned the attack, stating there is no place for such violence in America. Peskov also condemned violence in the political arena, aligning with Russia's official stance. "After numerous attempts to remove candidate Trump from the political arena - using first legal tools, the courts, prosecutors, attempts to politically discredit and compromise the candidate - it was obvious to all outside observers that his life was in danger," Peskov remarked. Despite the gravity of the situation, he noted there were no plans for President Vladimir Putin to call Trump. The assassination attempt has elicited reactions from world leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who condemned the attack, denounced political violence, and wished Trump a speedy recovery. In the wake of the shooting, Russia's foreign ministry seized the opportunity to criticize U.S. policies, urging Washington to halt funding for Ukraine's military and instead focus on improving domestic law enforcement. Foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova commented on Telegram, responding to independent presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr.'s remarks following the shooting. She wrote, "Dear Bobby and all those who vote in the United States to supply Zelenskiy with arms, wouldn't it be better for this money to finance the American police and other services that are supposed to ensure law and order within the United States?" This statement highlights the ongoing tension between Russia and the West, exacerbated by Moscow's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which has plunged relations to their lowest point since the Cold War. When asked about the potential impact of the Trump attack on the legitimacy of the upcoming U.S. election, Peskov responded, "It is not for us to judge. We have not the slightest desire to interfere. This is a U.S. matter." This careful phrasing underscores Russia's intention to distance itself from any direct involvement while still commenting on the broader implications of the attack on the political climate in the United States. Credit: Reuters 2024-07-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania has sent shockwaves through the political landscape, leaving President Biden with a series of critical decisions to make. In the immediate aftermath, Biden’s response was swift and measured: he reached out to Trump, suspended his political ads, and returned to the White House. This decisive action was designed to project a sense of presidential leadership and to reduce the political tension that has gripped the nation. The moment offers Biden a unique opportunity to reinvigorate his presidency and address criticisms from within his own party about his effectiveness. Prior to the shocking event, Biden's advisers were in agreement that the president needed to confront Trump head-on in his re-election campaign. However, this strategy now faces a significant complication. It is challenging to politically attack someone who has just narrowly escaped an assassination attempt. Biden now finds himself in a delicate balancing act: he must continue to highlight the threat he believes Trump poses to democracy, while also recognizing the gravity of the recent attempt on Trump’s life. After the attack, Biden chose a cautious approach. He connected with Trump and then returned to the White House past midnight. His campaign has not confirmed whether he will proceed with planned campaign stops in Austin and Las Vegas later in the week. Biden's initial inclination, as reported by his advisers, was to gather more information before making any public statements. When he did address the nation, he made an effort to reach out to Trump on a personal level, referring to him as "Donald." He condemned the violence, stating, "There's no place in America for this kind of violence." He reiterated this point by saying, "It's sick," and emphasized the need for national unity, adding, "It's one of the reasons we have to unite this country." Throughout his presidency, Biden has made combating political extremism a central theme of his campaign. He has frequently cited Trump's response to far-right extremism in Charlottesville, Virginia, as a pivotal moment that drove him to run for president. Biden’s fundamental argument against Trump is deeply personal: he contends that Trump is morally unfit for the presidency, often referring to him as a "convicted felon." However, the attempt on Trump’s life has made this argument more complex and sensitive. The incident has undoubtedly altered the dynamics of the 2024 campaign in ways that Biden's advisers are still trying to fully understand. Republicans believe that the assassination attempt, combined with Trump’s defiant response, will ultimately play to Trump’s advantage. Conversely, Democrats are adopting a more cautious, wait-and-see approach, avoiding premature conclusions about the political ramifications of the event. The shooting has introduced a new layer of complexity to Biden's campaign strategy. His immediate actions to reach out to Trump and halt political ads were clear attempts to demonstrate leadership and empathy. However, how he restarts his campaign and addresses the electorate in the coming weeks will require careful navigation. Biden must strike a balance between condemning political violence and continuing to present his case against Trump’s return to power. As Biden moves forward, his campaign will need to craft a message that acknowledges the seriousness of the assassination attempt while also addressing the broader issues of political extremism and threats to democracy. The incident has shifted the campaign landscape significantly, and Biden's response in the days and weeks to come will be crucial in shaping both the narrative and his prospects for the 2024 election. The stakes are high, and the president’s ability to handle this delicate situation could define his re-election bid and influence the future direction of American politics. Credit: AXIOS 2024-07-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Meta has announced its decision to roll back the heightened restrictions on former President Donald Trump’s social media accounts, aiming to allow greater political expression as the campaign season heats up. This move comes as the Republican presidential contender gears up for the upcoming party conventions and the subsequent race for the presidency. The decision marks a significant shift in Meta’s handling of Trump’s accounts, which have been subject to rigorous consequences for any violations of the company’s content rules. These rules, which prohibit hate speech, incitement to violence, and voter suppression, were implemented following Trump’s two-year suspension from Facebook and Instagram. Nick Clegg, Meta's President of Global Affairs, emphasized the company's responsibility to permit political expression, especially in the context of a heated election cycle. “With the party conventions taking place shortly, including the Republican convention next week, the candidates for President of the United States will soon be formally nominated,” Clegg stated. “In assessing our responsibility to allow political expression, we believe that the American people should be able to hear from the nominees for President on the same basis.” The heightened penalties on Trump’s accounts were first imposed in 2023 after Meta lifted the initial two-year ban. Trump’s accounts were suspended on January 7, 2021, following his comments that were perceived as encouraging the rioters who stormed the Capitol, resulting in multiple deaths. The suspension was extended for two years and was only lifted last year. Upon reinstatement, Meta stipulated that any new violations by Trump or other reinstated leaders would result in harsher penalties, such as a one-month posting restriction or, in severe cases, another two-year suspension. Meta also outlined additional measures for handling posts from politicians that, while not directly violating content rules, might still pose risks. These measures included limiting the distribution of such posts, restricting access to advertising tools, removing the reshare button, or preventing the posts from being recommended. Despite these stringent rules, Meta has not imposed any further punishments on Trump’s accounts since their reinstatement. Both President Joe Biden and Trump remain subject to Meta’s policies against hate speech and incitement to violence. Trump, however, has been less active on mainstream social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube during this election cycle, opting instead to use his own social network, Truth Social, for his most controversial statements. Nevertheless, he continues to post videos of his rallies and criticisms of President Biden on Facebook and Instagram. This decision by Meta is likely to intensify the scrutiny the company faces as it navigates the delicate balance between showcasing important political speech and mitigating dangerous rhetoric online. Historically, Meta has been reluctant to police politicians' speech, preferring a more hands-off approach that allows controversial statements to remain on its platforms. However, this approach has often led to criticism from various quarters, questioning the company's role in managing political discourse and its implications for public safety and democratic processes. As the election season progresses, Meta’s policies and their enforcement will undoubtedly continue to be a focal point of public and political debate. The company's actions will be closely monitored, with stakeholders keen to see how it manages the complex intersection of free speech, political expression, and the imperative to curb harmful content. Credit: Washington Post 2024-07-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a powerful piece for The Guardian, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has sharply criticized the preceding Conservative government, accusing them of leaving a "mountain of mess" akin to the chaos of a "Downing Street party." Starmer's article lays bare his frustration with the state of the nation left by his predecessors and underscores his resolve to address the damage they caused. Starmer's rhetoric was strong and clear. He wrote, "Like a Downing Street party, they've left a mountain of mess for this government to clean up. Arrogant, reckless, and irresponsible to the very end, they'll go down in history as the government that fiddled while the country burned. They partied and profited out of the pandemic." His words reflect a deep-seated anger at the previous administration's handling of the country's affairs, particularly during the pandemic, where he accuses them of prioritizing their own interests over the welfare of the public. "They scrambled to advance their own interests while millions of people were pushed into greater insecurity. And they rewarded the people who helped crash the economy with seats in the House of Lords." The Labour leader did not stop at condemnation. He assured the public that under his leadership, such chaos and self-serving behavior would not be tolerated. "Under my watch, the chaos and self-service that became commonplace under the Conservatives will never happen again. I have already started making those tough decisions necessary to clean up the mess and get us back on track. That won't happen overnight." He emphasized the necessity of "serious government" as opposed to the previous administration's "headline-grabbing gimmicks," pledging a long-term commitment to improving people's lives. Detailing the actions taken by his government in its first week, Sir Keir highlighted significant steps such as lifting the ban on onshore wind, meeting with NHS bosses to increase appointment availability, restarting teacher recruitment schemes, implementing emergency measures to address issues in the justice system, and scrapping the controversial Rwanda scheme. These initiatives, he suggested, are indicative of his administration's dedication to making substantive, positive changes. Starmer also emphasized his engagement with leaders across the UK, including metro mayors and the leaders of the devolved nations. He reiterated his belief in the importance of decentralizing power from Westminster to local leaders, stating, "Decisions are best made by people with skin in the game, which is why I will get power out of Westminster and put it in the hands of local leaders. We're empowering them to deliver for their local community on everything from transport to housing." Despite the early efforts of his administration, the new government has faced some criticism, notably from a local MP who opposed the approval of solar farms in various parts of the country. Addressing this criticism, Sir Keir emphasized his commitment to actions over words, stating, "I know you won't judge us by our words, but by what we do now we're on the pitch. So we will fight every day until you believe again." In his conclusion, Sir Keir reflected on the past 14 years of damage while expressing hope for the future. "After 14 years of damage, the sunlight of hope is growing brighter. It's not just football that's coming home." His words convey a message of optimism and determination, signaling a new era of governance focused on rebuilding and improving the lives of the British people. Credit: Sky News 2024-07-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In the aftermath of the recent assassination attempt on Donald Trump, some left-wing social media users have come under fire for their tasteless and celebratory reactions. The shocking attack, which occurred at the Butler Farm Show grounds, narrowly missed Trump but resulted in the death of one attendee and critical injuries to two others. Among the numerous reactions online, a disturbing number of posts expressed disappointment that the shooter missed and lamented that the day fell short of being "the best day ever." A TikTok user, identified as @cele2t3, posted a video shortly after the attack, expressing disbelief and frustration that the shooter missed. “You’re telling me somebody finally had the balls to bring a ‘pew-pew,’ and they missed?” the user exclaimed, adding, “We were a second away, we were a centimeter away from half of the problem being gone and you missed!” The poster, who appeared to be driving while recording, further speculated about the identity of the shooter, implying racial motivations behind the failure. Kyle Rittenhouse, known for his controversial involvement in the 2020 Kenosha shooting, responded to the video, suggesting that the FBI should investigate the person behind the post. This call for investigation was echoed by many who found the reaction deeply inappropriate and alarming. Libs of TikTok, a popular conservative social media account, shared a compilation of other TikTok users who were celebrating or joking about the shooting. One video showed a person holding a candle and sarcastically attempting to summon the spirit of John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in 1865. The person mockingly called upon Booth, before trailing off and laughing. Another video criticized the shooter’s accuracy, lamenting, “We’re not even sending our best to f–ing assassinate,” and comparing the shooter unfavorably to notorious assassins Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth. One TikTok user with the handle @yourfavorites7880 expressed disbelief, asking, “How the f–k did you shoot and miss?” and criticizing the shooter for not practicing beforehand. In a particularly morbid display, one TikTok user shared a selfie video, sitting on a couch with news playing in the background, stating, “Today was, like, this close to being the best day ever.” Some reactions extended beyond social media, with individuals taking to the streets to express their sentiments. Near Butler Memorial Hospital, where Trump was examined after the incident, a woman held a makeshift cardboard sign that read, “Wishing Trump a long terrible recovery!” The assassination attempt also provided fodder for some to poke fun at President Joe Biden, who has faced increasing scrutiny over his mental fitness. One post on X (formerly Twitter) shared a photo of Biden with his mouth agape, captioned, "Someone shot my vice president???” This was a jab at a recent gaffe where Biden mistakenly referred to Vice President Kamala Harris as "Vice President Trump." President Biden condemned the attack, stating unequivocally that there is no place for such violence in America. Despite the gravity of the situation, some on social media continued to use the incident to further their political agendas, demonstrating a troubling disregard for the seriousness of political violence and its potential consequences. The incident has sparked a broader discussion about the role of social media in amplifying extreme and harmful rhetoric. As platforms continue to grapple with content moderation, the reactions to the Trump shooting highlight the challenges in balancing free speech with the need to prevent incitement and celebrate violence. The backlash against those who celebrated the attack underscores a societal consensus that such reactions are not only inappropriate but dangerous, contributing to an already volatile political climate. Credit: NYP 2024-07-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Five years ago, Kalih Raksasewu was getting his car tuned when his mechanic shared a curious tidbit: he had stumbled upon a tiger near his home. The startled creature had jumped a fence and vanished, the man said. Strange encounter, thought Raksasewu, not least because the men live on Indonesia’s most populous island, Java, and especially because Javan tigers have long been believed extinct. The last confirmed sighting dates back nearly half a century, to 1976. Raksasewu took out his phone and showed the mechanic images of leopards, which can sometimes be confused for tigers. "No sir," came the reply. "The cat had stripes." Raksasewu found himself getting excited. A researcher involved in local conservation work, he had grown up hearing tales of the giant felines, including from his mother, who once saw one while driving. “In my heart, I’ve always been greatly interested in this creature, and I was very sad when it was declared extinct,” he said. He raced off with the mechanic, the auto-shop boss, and a few hangers-on to search for traces of the big cat. They tramped through the area of the alleged sighting, near plantations and fragmented forest landscapes where wild pigs and other potential tiger prey abound. Then they saw it: a single strand of hair that lay on the low wooden fence the animal had allegedly jumped. “I had this hope that the tiger had a hair snagged when he leapt,” said Raksasewu. “It turned out to be true.” In the beginning, guesses as to the provenance of the hair were wildly varied: a local plant or a cat of the regular, purring kind rather than the mighty, roaring kind—both of which, while anticlimactic, seemed more plausible. Years went by as the lone strand made an improbable journey through myriad government offices and laboratories, peered at by a parade of locals, bureaucrats, and scientists. Two weeks ago, DNA analysis suggested a match: Javan tiger. In an article in Oryx, a peer-reviewed journal published by Cambridge University Press, researchers said they compared DNA from the lone hair with that of its nearest living relative, Sumatran tigers—close but no cigar. Same for the DNA of a Javan leopard. The best match: the DNA of a Javan tiger from the 1930s preserved at an Indonesian museum. “In Indonesia, if you talk about the king of the jungle, you’re talking about the tiger,” said Wirdateti, a government researcher trained in genetic analysis who co-authored the paper with Raksasewu and two others. If the results are confirmed by further testing, it would be one of the most dramatic examples of what some in the conservation community refer to as “Lazarus” creatures—animals declared extinct that somehow survived. While the study has caused buzz, it is also attracting a good deal of skepticism. Anubhab Khan, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Copenhagen who is an expert on the tiger genome, cast doubt. Khan said the genome of big cats is hugely complex, with distinctive features that affect what happens when big-cat DNA is sequenced for study. In this case, while the Indonesian researchers thought they were comparing what is known as mitochondrial DNA, they were in fact comparing a different type of DNA, Khan said. That muddied the analysis, he said. Khan said there may be a way to study the DNA further, but it would be challenging because there’s just one putative tiger hair to work with. As things now stand, Khan said, he’s fairly confident the hair comes from a big cat, but can’t go any further. “It’s just inconclusive.” He plans to publish his response in an academic journal. Indonesia’s environment ministry has said it plans to use camera traps and commission further genetic study. It cited the deepwater charr, which was believed to have perished from a large European lake decades ago but started turning up in fishing nets again in the 2010s. Tigers, however, are a different kettle of fish. “It is quite something,” Wulan Pusparini, an Indonesian ecologist pursuing a doctorate at Oxford University, said of the study. “I am quite skeptical about the possibility of a large cat hidden from public view for nearly five decades.” The giant predators were once so numerous in Java that entire villages would be evacuated after tiger attacks, which killed hundreds of people a year for much of the 19th century as coffee and sugar cane plantations expanded into the tigers’ forest home. Locals referred to bad years as “tiger plagues” and fortified their villages against attack. The British naturalist Alfred Wallace visited Java in the 1860s and recounted how a tiger dragged a boy from a cart. Some 700 villagers armed with spears systematically hunted down the cat, whose teeth were worn as charms. Today Java has long since lost its whiff of wildness. It is one of the most densely populated places on the planet, with more than 150 million people squished into an area slightly larger than Pennsylvania, leaving little room for tigers to roam undiscovered. Although residents claim to spot “tigers” occasionally, in many cases the cats turn out to be leopards. The Javan tiger was thought to be confined to folklore, used as a character in shadow puppet theater, and as an emblem for the armed forces. Wirdateti, who goes by one name, said she remained confident that the hair was from a Javan tiger and plans more research to buttress the team’s findings. She noted that other locals had also reported seeing what they said was a tiger. Ripi Yanur Fajar, the mechanic who claimed the initial sighting in 2019, said in an interview that he was confident of what he saw as he was riding his motorbike late at night. “The tiger was right there in front of me,” Fajar said. “It looked like they do in the zoo.” The discovery of a single hair has reignited hopes and dreams that the majestic Javan tiger may still roam the island. Yet, this revelation has also sparked a wave of scientific scrutiny and skepticism. As researchers continue to analyze and debate the findings, the world watches with bated breath, hoping that one of nature’s most magnificent creatures has defied the odds and survived the test of time. Credit: WSJ 2024-07-15 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1812293966659744074

Off topic inflamatory troll post removed @NativeBob

Nearly three years after the tragic death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the Western film "Rust" in New Mexico, the involuntary manslaughter case against its star, Alec Baldwin, has been dismissed. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer ruled that the case could not be filed again, following a motion by Baldwin's defense team accusing the prosecution of concealing ammunition evidence. The courtroom saw an extraordinary day as the special prosecutor took the unusual step of calling herself as a witness. The dramatic turn of events culminated in Baldwin breaking down in tears and hugging his lawyers as Judge Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case, citing misconduct by police and prosecutors. Baldwin, 66, had consistently denied the charge of involuntary manslaughter over the fatal shooting, maintaining that he did not pull the gun's trigger and that others on set were responsible for the weapon's safety checks. If convicted, he could have faced up to 18 months in prison. The prosecution had argued that Baldwin behaved recklessly during a scene rehearsal on the set near Santa Fe, New Mexico, accusing him of playing "make believe with a real gun" and violating "the cardinal rules of firearm safety." However, Baldwin's defense team countered these claims, arguing that he was merely "an actor, acting" and had committed no crime. With the case now dismissed, Judge Marlowe Sommer has stated it cannot be filed again. Baldwin's wife, Hilaria, who had been supporting him in court alongside his actor brother Stephen, also cried as the judge delivered her ruling. Baldwin left the courthouse immediately, without speaking to reporters. Judge Marlowe Sommer explained, "The late discovery of this evidence during trial has impeded the effective use of evidence in such a way that it has impacted the fundamental fairness of the proceedings." The case's collapse began after the second day of evidence presentation, when Baldwin's defense team learned that the Santa Fe sheriff's office had taken possession of live rounds as potential evidence earlier this year, coinciding with the conviction of the film's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, for involuntary manslaughter in connection with Hutchins' death. These live rounds were not listed in the Rust investigation file or disclosed to defense lawyers. Prosecutors argued that the ammunition was not connected to the case and was not hidden. In response, Baldwin's legal team filed a request to dismiss the case overnight. The court heard arguments on the motion from both parties without jurors present. Judge Marlowe Sommer decided she needed more evidence and testimony from additional witnesses to make a decision on the motion. She called the jury in only to dismiss them immediately afterward. The court heard testimony from witnesses, including prop store owner Seth Kenney, who supplied blanks and dummy rounds to the "Rust" set. Kenney denied providing live ammunition to the production and has not been charged in the case. Corporal Alexandria Hancock and Lieutenant Ryan Randall from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office also testified. Amid repeated suggestions from defense lawyer Alex Spiro that evidence had been concealed, special prosecutor Kari Morrissey took the witness stand in an unusual move, despite the judge indicating she was not required to do so. Morrissey denied that evidence had been hidden and maintained it was not relevant. However, Judge Marlowe Sommer found the conduct of the police and prosecutors "highly prejudicial" to Baldwin, stating, "There is no way for the court to right this wrong." During questioning, Spiro asked Morrissey if she simply did not "like Mr. Baldwin very much." Morrissey responded, "That is absolutely untrue. I actually really appreciate Mr. Baldwin's movies. I really appreciated the acting that he did on Saturday Night Live, and I really appreciate his politics." Spiro then claimed that Morrissey had referred to Baldwin as a "c*********" and an "arrogant p****" to witnesses, which Morrissey said she did not recall. Following the judge's ruling, Gutierrez's lawyer, Jason Bowles, commented that the judge had done "the right thing to preserve the integrity of our system." Gutierrez, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison, is currently appealing her conviction. Bowles indicated they would be filing a "similar motion" in her case. Credit: Sky News 2024-07-13 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has privately apologized to Eliza Cooney, a woman who has accused him of sexual assault. Despite stating that he does not recall the alleged incident, Kennedy expressed regret for any harm he might have caused, which he characterized as "inadvertent." This apology follows Cooney's detailed account of inappropriate behavior by Kennedy, which was published in Vanity Fair. Cooney's allegations include an incident in which Kennedy allegedly groped her in a pantry while she worked as his family's weekend nanny in the late 1990s. At the time of the alleged incident, Cooney was 23 years old, and Kennedy was 45, married, and the father of five children. "I have no memory of this incident but I apologize sincerely for anything I ever did that made you feel uncomfortable or anything I did or said that offended you or hurt your feelings," Kennedy wrote in a text message sent to Cooney at 12:33 a.m. on July 4, two days after her accusations became public. "I never intended you any harm. If I hurt you, it was inadvertent. I feel badly for doing so." Kennedy further expressed a desire to apologize in person, although he acknowledged that such a meeting might not be possible. "If you feel comfortable, Id [sic] like to tell you this by phone, and preferably, face to face. I recognize that this might not be possible. I have no agenda for sending this text other than making the most sincere and ernest [sic] amends." Despite Kennedy's apology, Cooney remains skeptical about his sincerity. In an interview with The Washington Post, Cooney, now 48, expressed disbelief that Kennedy claimed not to remember the incident and felt his efforts to contact her were more about damage control than genuine remorse. "It was disingenuous and arrogant," Cooney said of his message. "I’m not sure how somebody has a true apology for something that they don’t admit to recalling. I did not get a sense of remorse." Cooney was also disturbed by Kennedy’s suggestion that they meet in person, questioning, "Meet ‘face to face?’ What woman wants to do that?" Kennedy, son of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, is an independent candidate known for his conspiracist views and anti-vaccine activism. Despite his famous name, other prominent members of his family have disavowed his campaign, fearing it could divert crucial votes from President Biden in a close election. National polls indicate that about 9 percent of registered voters support Kennedy’s candidacy. After Cooney's story appeared in Vanity Fair, Kennedy made two phone calls to her on July 3 and sent her a text message asking her to call him. He followed up with his apology text shortly after midnight. Cooney, who had not been in contact with Kennedy for years, was unsure how he obtained her number and has not responded to his calls and messages. Kennedy declined to elaborate on his message to Cooney when contacted by The Washington Post, stating, "The text message speaks for itself." Cooney recounted several incidents of inappropriate behavior by Kennedy during her time working for his family. She described an episode where Kennedy ran his hand up and down her leg under a table, despite her efforts to bat his hand away. Another time, he appeared shirtless in her room with a bottle of body lotion, asking her to rub it into his back. The most egregious incident, according to Cooney, occurred in the pantry when Kennedy approached her from behind, placed his hands on her hips, and ran his hands up her body. This incident was interrupted by a man working on renovations in the house who made his presence known to Kennedy. Despite these experiences, Cooney continued to work for Kennedy for several months and remained at the environmental litigation clinic he led at Pace Law School for a few years. She ultimately decided against pursuing a career in environmental law, partly due to her negative experiences with Kennedy. Cooney shared her story with her mother for the first time amid the #MeToo movement, and her mother described it as "horrifying to hear about, especially with your own child." Elizabeth Geddes, a former federal prosecutor consulted by Cooney, stated that the unwanted touching Cooney described constituted sexual assault but that the criminal statute of limitations had passed. Cooney was eligible to bring a civil complaint under New York state’s Adult Survivors Act but chose not to due to concerns about the costs and duration of a lawsuit and potential blowback. Geddes criticized Kennedy’s direct approach to contacting Cooney, stating, "This is something that perhaps might make an offender feel better about doing it. But it’s hard to imagine that an apology such as this could provide any closure or other solace to somebody who was sexually assaulted in the workplace." Credit: Washington Post 2024-07-13 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Russia is suspected to be behind an assassination plot targeting Armin Papperger, the head of Europe's largest arms manufacturer, Rheinmetall. This plot is seen as part of Russia's broader campaign of sabotage and hybrid attacks against European NATO states, according to NATO diplomats. The alleged conspiracy was first reported by CNN, which cited US intelligence uncovering the effort and alerting German authorities, enabling them to foil the plot. Rheinmetall, based in Düsseldorf, Germany, has significantly increased its production capacity in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, manufacturing artillery shells, infantry fighting vehicles, military drones, and the Leopard 2 tank's main gun. Papperger drew ire from the Kremlin in 2023 when he announced plans to build a Panther tank factory in Ukraine. A spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Peskov, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on these allegations. Papperger's security has been heightened to a level similar to that of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. While Papperger could not confirm the plot's details, he expressed confidence in the validity of the CNN report, indicating serious threats against his life due to his company's support for Ukraine. Western intelligence services have increasingly warned of Russia's sabotage attempts in Europe, including plots targeting military bases in Germany. Despite the gravity of these warnings, the German government has been keen to downplay the developments at the NATO summit in Washington. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg refrained from commenting on the specific assassination report but acknowledged a pattern of Russian-organized hostile actions against NATO allies aimed at intimidating them from supporting Ukraine. Rheinmetall's production is set to expand further, with plans to produce 700,000 rounds of artillery next year, compared to 70,000 in 2022. The company will soon start producing 155mm shells in western Ukraine and will establish new production sites in Germany for ammunition and components for the F-35 fighter jet. Despite the threats, Papperger maintains a sense of safety and contentment, focusing on the critical role Rheinmetall plays in supporting Ukraine's defense efforts. The US National Security Council has taken the Russian subversion campaign seriously, working closely with NATO allies to expose and disrupt these activities. They emphasized that Russia's actions will not deter the allies from continuing to support Ukraine. This ongoing support highlights the importance of maintaining security and solidarity among NATO members in the face of increasing Russian aggression. Credit: Financial Times 2024-07-13 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A year after the tragic Titan submersible implosion, which claimed the lives of five individuals on a journey to the Titanic, OceanGate co-founder Guillermo Söhnlein is embarking on a new venture. Söhnlein’s company, Blue Marble Exploration, is organizing an ambitious expedition to explore Dean’s Blue Hole, one of the world’s deepest underwater sinkholes, located in the Bahamas. Known for its mysterious and foreboding reputation, the sinkhole has been described locally as the “portal to hell.” Dean’s Blue Hole plunges to a depth of 663 feet, presenting a challenging and potentially perilous environment for explorers. The sinkhole has previously been explored virtually, but Söhnlein’s team aims to undertake the first manned submersible dive to the site. The expedition promises to be a journey into the unknown, with participants encouraged to “expect the unexpected.” Guillermo Söhnlein, 58, co-founded OceanGate in 2009 with Stockton Rush, who tragically died in the Titan submersible disaster at the age of 61. After departing from OceanGate in 2013, Söhnlein co-founded Blue Marble Exploration, which has now set its sights on Dean’s Blue Hole. The sinkhole is steeped in local superstitions, with tales of it being a gateway to hell where the devil himself resides in the dark depths. The company’s website had previously noted that several people drown in Dean’s each year due to various misfortunes, and it is anticipated that human remains may be encountered during the dive. Dean’s Blue Hole is notorious for its dangers, having reportedly claimed as many as 200 lives in recent years. The challenges for the upcoming expedition are formidable, including uncharted waters, unpredictable currents, extreme pressure, near-complete darkness, and the sinkhole’s remote location. Blue Marble initially invited interested parties to join the expedition, but Söhnlein has since clarified that the dive will be conducted by trained professionals rather than tourists, as was the case with the ill-fated OceanGate trip. “The next frontier for our team is in the underwater depths of Dean’s Blue Hole,” the company’s advertisement for the mission read. “In the first descent of crewed submersibles, equipped with LED lights and underwater drone technology, our scientists will be able to venture into some of Earth’s least hospitable conditions in search of unprecedented findings.” Söhnlein has assured that certified submersibles will be used for the mission, emphasizing that this was always the plan, even before the Titan tragedy. The Titan submersible, which used a controversial carbon fiber hull, is believed to have experienced material weakening over time, leading to the catastrophic implosion during its dive to the Titanic wreck, situated approximately 12,500 feet below the North Atlantic Ocean. Reflecting on the Titan disaster, Söhnlein remains committed to the cause of deep-sea exploration. “Let’s figure out what went wrong, let’s learn lessons and let’s get down there again,” he told Reuters. “If anything, what we’re feeling is an even stronger imperative to continue doing this kind of exploration work. I think it’s important for humanity, and it’s probably the best way to honor the five crew members who gave up their lives doing something that they loved.” Söhnlein, who also harbors ambitions of safely sending humans to Venus, is undeterred by past tragedies. His focus now is on the upcoming dive into Dean’s Blue Hole, a venture that combines the allure of the unknown with the promise of scientific discovery. As Blue Marble Exploration prepares for this daring descent, the world watches with a mix of anticipation and caution, mindful of the risks but hopeful for the rewards of such audacious exploration. Credit: NZ Herald 2024-07-13 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Donald Trump has received discouraging news from Black voters as support for Joe Biden among this demographic has surged in seven key battleground states. According to a new survey conducted for BlackPAC, the proportion of Black voters who would vote for Biden over Trump has increased by 15 points between February and June. Specifically, backing for Biden rose from 50 percent to 65 percent, while support for Trump declined from eight percent to seven percent. The survey also noted a decrease in the proportion of Black voters supporting third-party candidates Jill Stein, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Cornel West, which fell from 17 percent to 11 percent. Additionally, the number of undecided voters dropped from 25 percent to 18 percent. This shift comes amid calls from within Biden's own party for him to step down from the race, particularly following the first presidential debate on June 27. During the debate, the Democratic incumbent appeared to lose his train of thought several times. More recently, at the NATO summit in Washington D.C., Biden mistakenly referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as "President Putin" and called Vice-President Kamala Harris "Vice-President Trump." The survey by Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies polled 800 likely Black voters in Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin between June 23 and June 29. The poll has a margin of error of 3.46 percent. Brilliant Corners has previously served as the chief pollster for the Democratic National Committee, while BlackPAC aims to "galvanize Black voters to the polls." The survey also found that Biden's net approval rating among Black voters in these key swing states increased from 44 points in February to 54 points in June. During this period, 74 percent of Black voters approved of his performance, while only 20 percent disapproved. Of those who watched the June 27 presidential debate, 70 percent said it made them more likely to vote for Biden, while just 20 percent said it made them less likely to do so. Another 10 percent either didn't know or declined to answer the question. Among Black voters in the swing states who didn't watch the debate, only 43 percent became more likely to back Biden, while 55 percent became less likely, with another two percent unsure. Representatives of the 2024 Joe Biden and Donald Trump presidential campaigns were contacted for comment by Newsweek but did not respond immediately. Meanwhile, a Siena College poll conducted between June 28 and July 2 for The New York Times found that 47 percent of Black voters think Biden shouldn't be the 2024 Democratic Party nominee, while 43 percent believe he should stay in the race. Among U.S. voters as a whole, a CBS News/YouGov poll conducted over the same period found that 69 percent don't think Biden should run, including 41 percent of Democrats. Among Black voters, the survey found that 58 percent think Biden should remain the Democratic candidate, while 42 percent want him replaced. Credit: Newsweek 2024-07-13 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe