Social Media

China's rapid naval buildup has reached a pace that alarms global observers, resembling a chess game where one player continually adds more pieces. This aggressive expansion is part of a broader strategic shift aimed at enhancing China's military, economic, and geopolitical influence. Several recent developments highlight the multifaceted approach China is taking to assert its power on the world stage. Vladimir Putin's recent visit to China, accompanied by his entire inner circle, including current and former Defense Ministers, underscores the deepening ties between Beijing and Moscow. While specific details of their agreements remain undisclosed, the high-level nature of the visit signals significant strategic cooperation. For President Xi Jinping, Putin's ongoing war in Ukraine serves as a strategic distraction for Western powers, allowing China to advance its own goals with less interference. Four days ago, China concluded Exercise Joint Sword, an annual military exercise involving an increasing number of Chinese ships and aircraft surrounding Taiwan. This year's exercise was described by Beijing as a "strong punishment" in response to the inauguration of Taiwan's newly elected President Lai, a candidate opposed by China. The exercise saw 46 People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) ships and 82 aircraft violating Taiwan's Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ), marking the highest count on record. Such displays of military might serve as a warning to Taiwan and a signal to the United States and its allies of China's growing capabilities. Simultaneously, a rare trilateral meeting between China, Japan, and South Korea took place. These three nations account for 25% of global GDP, and their discussions are crucial amid heightened US diplomatic and military efforts in the Indo-Pacific region. China's participation, after a five-year hiatus, indicates a strategic attempt to balance regional dynamics and assert its influence through diplomatic channels, complementing its military posturing. China's naval expansion is not just about quantity but also technological advancement. The PLAN recently launched the first of a new class of corvette, completing construction in under a year. This feat contrasts sharply with the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship, which took four years to build and has faced operational challenges. Similarly, the UK's new frigate, the Type 26, takes approximately five years from keel laying to sea trials. China's accelerated shipbuilding pace—producing the equivalent of the entire Royal Navy every two years—demonstrates its formidable industrial capacity and strategic intent. Corvettes occupy a niche between offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) and frigates, offering a blend of versatility and cost-effectiveness. Traditionally, Western navies have shunned corvettes, viewing them as limited in high-intensity conflict scenarios. However, China's renewed interest in corvettes suggests a strategic shift. These smaller ships are well-suited for a range of maritime activities, from posturing around Taiwan and operations in the South China Sea to missions off Africa. Their relatively lower cost and quicker build time provide China with a flexible and robust naval force. China's Type 056 corvette program, initiated in 2012, resulted in 79 ships, with 50 serving the PLAN and the remainder in the coastguard and export markets. The recent resurgence in corvette production indicates a realization of their utility in various maritime operations short of full-scale war. These ships enhance China's ability to project power globally while reserving larger vessels for major conflicts. Arming these new corvettes with advanced weaponry will be a costly endeavor. Missiles like the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile cost nearly $1 million per round, while the high-end SM-3 Block IIA missile reaches $28.7 million each. Fully arming an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer can exceed $420 million. Despite these costs, the strategic benefits of a well-balanced fleet, including corvettes, justify the investment. The new Chinese corvettes are likely to be fast, equipped with a mix of advanced missiles, guns, and emerging technologies. They will provide valuable operational experience for future commanders of larger ships, addressing a reported gap in the PLAN's current leadership. China's naval engagements reflect a broader strategy of enhancing global influence, economic growth, and countering US hegemony. The recent meetings with Putin, military exercises near Taiwan, and diplomatic talks with Japan and South Korea all align with this strategic vision. The rapid buildup of corvettes and other naval assets strengthens China's ability to secure its maritime trade routes and project power globally. In summary, China's naval buildup is a multifaceted strategy aimed at asserting dominance in the maritime domain. The combination of diplomatic maneuvers, military exercises, and rapid shipbuilding demonstrates Beijing's comprehensive approach to enhancing its influence and capabilities. As China continues to expand its naval power, the global balance of maritime forces is shifting, prompting significant strategic recalculations among other major powers. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-05-30 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Ireland’s unwavering support for Palestine is not merely a political stance but a deeply ingrained sentiment rooted in the nation’s own history of colonial struggle and quest for independence. The recent decision by Ireland to officially recognize Palestine as a state highlights the potent sense of kinship and solidarity that pervades Irish society, drawing parallels between Ireland’s past and the Palestinian plight. Taoiseach Simon Harris articulated this connection succinctly when he declared, “Recognition is an act of powerful political and symbolic value. From our history, we know what it means.” Harris’s words reflect a profound empathy for the Palestinian struggle, which resonates deeply within Ireland, a country that experienced its own battle for independence from British colonial rule. In January 1919, Irish politicians declared independence from the United Kingdom, establishing a government in Dublin and seeking recognition from “every free nation in the world.” This declaration marked the beginning of a turbulent period that culminated in the UK recognizing the Irish Free State three years later. Harris drew a direct parallel between this historical plea for recognition and Ireland’s current stance on Palestine, emphasizing “our distinct national identity, our historical struggle, and our right to self-determination and justice.” The announcement of Ireland’s recognition of Palestine, coordinated with Norway and Spain, triggered a vehement response from Israel, which recalled its ambassador to Ireland. Jerusalem media were allowed to film the Irish ambassador, Sonya McGuinness, being shown videos of female hostages taken during Hamas’s October 7 attack, a move condemned by Micheál Martin, Ireland’s deputy premier, as “totally unacceptable.” Israeli ambassador Dana Erlich accused Ireland of a “disproportionate obsession with Israel” and warned of a review of Ireland’s diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian activities in Palestine. Despite these diplomatic tensions, Harris remained unrepentant. He refuted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that recognizing Palestine was a “reward for terrorism.” Harris stated unequivocally, “We have been clear and unequivocal that we condemn Hamas, that we condemn the most horrific, barbaric massacre that Israel experienced on [October 7],” and drew another parallel to Irish history, asserting, “The IRA was never the people of Ireland and Hamas is not the people of Palestine.” Ireland’s political landscape shows rare unity on the issue of Palestine. From the centre-right Fine Gael to the left-wing Sinn Féin, which has historically been linked to the Provisional IRA, support for Palestine is widespread. This unity is particularly significant ahead of two contentious elections focused on housing and immigration. Recognizing Palestine is a popular move that resonates with Irish voters. For Fine Gael and its coalition partners, the conservative Fianna Fáil and the Greens, it is a strategic decision to prevent being outflanked by Sinn Féin, which has led the polls for the past two years. Public opinion in Ireland overwhelmingly supports the Palestinian cause. A February poll by Ireland Thinks revealed that 79 percent of Irish people believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. In contrast, a YouGov poll in the UK found that 59 percent of British people supported an immediate ceasefire. These sentiments are evident in the numerous protests that have taken place in Ireland, including large demonstrations at the Israeli embassy in Dublin, where protesters chanted slogans like “how many children have to die” and “Palestine will be free.” The solidarity extends beyond protests. The Bohemian Football Club’s 2023 away kit was made in partnership with Palestine Sport For Life, with sales proceeds donated to support football for children in West Bank camps. This initiative underscores the pervasive support for Palestine in Irish society. Jeremy Corbyn, former leader of the UK Labour Party, who faced accusations of anti-Semitism during his tenure, was even pictured wearing one of these shirts. Irish support for Palestine also manifests in actions targeting other entities perceived as supporting Israel. For instance, in May, Trinity College Dublin saw protests by pro-Palestinian students, which led to the university agreeing to divest from Israeli companies active in occupied territories and providing scholarships for students from Gaza. This five-day demonstration highlighted the depth of support for Palestinian rights within Irish academic institutions. Ireland’s historical and political connections to Palestine date back over a century. Both Ireland and Palestine were under British control, and figures like Arthur Balfour, who was opposed to Irish home rule, played significant roles in shaping the destinies of both nations. Balfour, known as “Bloody Balfour” in Ireland, was later responsible for the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which supported the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The notorious Black and Tans, British soldiers known for their brutality in Ireland, were also deployed in Palestine, further intertwining the histories of the two regions. Diplomatically, Ireland has been consistent in its support for Palestine. It was the first EU member state to call for Palestinian statehood in 1980 and has maintained official relations with Palestine since 2000. Ireland did not recognize Israel until 1963, and it was the last EU country to allow Israel to open a residential embassy, which only happened in 1994. Irish neutrality during World War Two and its aftermath have also influenced its relations with Israel. Ireland’s support for Palestinian statehood is also reflected in its stance at the United Nations, where it has consistently voted for resolutions calling for an end to the conflict and for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories. Irish UN peacekeepers stationed in Israel and the Golan Heights have further complicated relations between Ireland and Israel. Despite accusations against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency of links to Hamas, Ireland increased its funding to the agency, demonstrating its commitment to supporting Gaza’s main aid organization. The sympathy for Palestinians in Ireland is not solely based on political or historical reasons but also on a profound cultural and emotional identification. Images of Palestinian protesters under fire evoke memories of Catholic civil rights marches in Northern Ireland. Murals in places like Belfast draw direct comparisons between Palestinian hunger strikers and figures like Bobby Sands, an IRA member who died during a hunger strike in 1981. During the Troubles, the PLO supplied the IRA with arms, further cementing the bond between the two struggles. While the Good Friday Agreement, which brought peace to Northern Ireland, inspires some to hope for a similar resolution in the Middle East, divisions remain in Northern Ireland, where nationalists are generally pro-Palestine and unionists pro-Israel. This dynamic was evident during the Second Intifada when Israeli flags appeared in loyalist communities in response to Palestinian flags in nationalist areas. In 2006, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams laid a wreath on Yasser Arafat’s grave and met with Hamas members during a tour of the Middle East. Sinn Féin, the only all-Ireland party, has been a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights. Mary Lou McDonald, Adams’ successor, praised the recent decision to recognize Palestine, and Michelle O’Neill, Sinn Féin’s deputy leader and First Minister of Northern Ireland, stated, “The people of Ireland will continue to stand up for the rights and freedom of the Palestinian people.” Ireland’s conservative government has even been willing to risk straining relations with Joe Biden, the most Irish American president since Kennedy, by recognizing Palestine ahead of its Western allies. Biden supports a two-state solution, but his administration, like the UK and most of the international community, believes that recognition of Palestine should come during or after peace negotiations. During the last St. Patrick’s Day celebrations in Washington, then-Taoiseach Leo Varadkar urged Biden to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for a ceasefire. Varadkar invoked Irish history, stating, “We see our history in their eyes. A story of displacement, of dispossession and national identity questioned and denied, forced emigration, discrimination, and now hunger.” However, the fervent support for Palestine in Ireland has also had darker undertones. Alan Shatter, a Jewish former cabinet minister, has expressed concerns about rising anti-Semitism in Ireland, stating, “I’m hugely concerned that no lessons have been remembered from the Holocaust. Significant things are happening in Ireland at the moment which are causing enormous concern. There’s been a substantial escalation in anti-Semitism, Jewish people are being targeted and Jewish people are suffering discrimination.” Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-05-30 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

President Biden's re-election campaign faces significant challenges as recent polling indicates declining support among crucial voter demographics, driven primarily by economic dissatisfaction. A combination of inflation, economic pessimism, and a perception of poor economic management has contributed to Biden's lowest approval ratings in nearly two years. Declining Approval Ratings The latest Reuters-Ipsos tracking poll reveals Biden's approval rating at just 36 percent, matching the lowest point of his presidency. This decline is particularly evident among voters under 30, Black voters, and Hispanic voters, who have traditionally been strong supporters of the Democratic Party. Emerson polling shows alarming drops: only 26 percent of voters under 30 approve of Biden’s performance, along with 55 percent of Black voters and 33 percent of Hispanic voters. Rising Support for Trump In a striking shift, these traditionally Democratic groups are increasingly open to supporting Donald Trump. The Emerson poll indicates that Trump leads Biden among voters in their 30s by 4 points, a reversal from the 2020 election. Among Black and Hispanic voters, while Biden maintains a lead, his support has weakened significantly. CNN polling shows Trump's support among Black voters at 22 percent, with Biden's support falling from 81 percent in 2020 to 69 percent. Economic Perceptions The primary driver behind this shift appears to be economic concerns. Inflation and economic pessimism have plagued Biden's presidency. Despite a strong job market, with unemployment below 4 percent for an extended period, many Americans perceive the economy negatively. The Reuters-Ipsos poll highlights a preference for Trump’s economic policies over Biden’s by a 10-point margin (40 percent to 30 percent). Misconceptions About Economic Indicators Misconceptions about key economic indicators further complicate the perception of Biden’s economic management. Despite the S&P 500's strong performance—up nearly 24 percent in 2023 and more than 10 percent in 2024—49 percent of Americans believe it is negative for the year. Similarly, half of Americans think unemployment is at a 50-year high, despite historically low rates. Blame for Inflation Inflation remains a significant issue. The Guardian-Harris poll shows that a majority of Americans blame the Biden administration for rising prices, with 58 percent attributing the perceived negative state of the economy to mismanagement. Even among Democrats, 39 percent believe Biden is worsening the economy, and 49 percent think the U.S. is in a recession. Broader Concerns Beyond the Economy Beyond economic issues, Biden struggles to convince voters of his successes in other areas. On immigration, Trump’s policies are preferred by a 17-point margin (42 percent to 25 percent), and on managing foreign conflicts and national security, Trump leads 36 percent to 29 percent according to the Reuters poll. Strategic Implications for the Biden Campaign The erosion of support among key voter groups and the overwhelming concern about economic issues present significant hurdles for Biden's re-election campaign. Despite these challenges, it is important to note that Trump remains a highly divisive figure, dealing with multiple criminal trials and a fractured GOP base. The importance of the economy in election outcomes cannot be overstated. Persistent inflation and the resulting economic pessimism have undermined Biden’s standing, even among his core supporters. If these trends continue, Trump’s chances of returning to the White House could increase significantly. Credit: The Hill 2024-05-30 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In a recent statement, al-Qaeda's central leadership has lauded recent attacks on Israelis and expressed support for anti-Israel protests occurring on Western university campuses. This statement comes amidst heightened tensions and ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip, reflecting al-Qaeda's strategy of leveraging global unrest to further its objectives. The statement from al-Qaeda's general command praised what it referred to as "revenge attacks" carried out by young members of the Islamic community, specifically celebrating actions taken in what they called "the land of Canaan." The message declared, "We were happy, and every Muslim was happy, with these revenge attacks and operations carried out by the youth of the Islamic nation, especially the heroes of the revenge action in the land of Canaan." Encouraging further violence, the statement continued, "We call on the youth of our nation to follow this blessed path… outpace them with the number of operations and the force of strikes and to fill the hearts of the children of Zion with terror in retaliation for the blood of our oppressed people in Gaza." This call to action underscores al-Qaeda's ongoing commitment to jihad and its efforts to inspire similar actions among its followers. In addition to endorsing violent actions, al-Qaeda's leadership also acknowledged and appreciated the efforts of Western protesters, particularly students on university campuses, who have organized sit-ins and demonstrations against Israel's actions in Gaza. The statement noted, "While we support the assassination of the infidel Zionists and the beheading of them, we also appreciate and value the movement of Western demonstrators and sit-in students from Western universities, who through their sit-ins and protests expressed their rejection of the genocide taking place in Gaza." This recognition of Western protests by a major terrorist organization highlights the complex interplay between global jihadist movements and local activist efforts. Al-Qaeda, along with other Middle Eastern terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, sees these protests as beneficial to their cause, despite ideological differences and tactical approaches. These groups have identified a potential to rally support and possibly recruit naive Westerners through these demonstrations. The statement also drew parallels with a lesser-known Egyptian group, the "Vanguards of Liberation Group for the Martyr Muhammed Salah," which claimed responsibility for the assassination of an Israeli businessman in Alexandria on May 7. The murder was purportedly in retaliation for Israeli operations in Gaza. Al-Qaeda praised this group, saying, "You have an inevitable legal duty, which is jihad and fighting like the Vanguards of Liberation Group for the Martyr Muhammed Salah. May God strike them in the throats of the Zionists. Let the people of Islam be encouraged to create groups that master the art of disciplining Jews, Americans, and those who are allied with them." However, questions have arisen regarding the authenticity of the "Vanguards of Liberation Group for the Martyr Muhammed Salah's" claims. Discrepancies in their released media, such as inconsistencies in the video evidence showing the murder, have cast doubt on their credibility. Initially, the group posted a still image on their Telegram channel showing a gunman with white gloves on both hands, but the subsequent video showed the gunman with only one glove on his left hand. This inconsistency raises suspicions about the validity of their claims and the actual sequence of events. This recent communication marks the second time al-Qaeda's general command has issued a statement related to Israel since the Hamas-led attack on October 7. In a previous statement last November, al-Qaeda called for attacks against Israeli, European, and U.S. interests worldwide. This pattern of rhetoric underscores al-Qaeda's enduring strategy of capitalizing on geopolitical conflicts to advance their goals and incite violence. Al-Qaeda's statements and actions serve as a reminder of the ongoing threat posed by extremist groups, even as they attempt to co-opt local and global movements to further their agenda. The convergence of terrorist propaganda and legitimate protest movements creates a challenging landscape for counterterrorism efforts and underscores the need for vigilance in monitoring and countering extremist narratives. Credit: Long War Journal 2024-05-30 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

David DePape, who was convicted of federal crimes for breaking into the residence of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and attacking her husband, Paul Pelosi, has expressed remorse for his actions. Despite his apology, the judge upheld the initial 30-year federal prison sentence. The incident, which occurred two years ago, has sparked significant discussion about politically motivated violence in the United States. In a federal courtroom in San Francisco, DePape apologized for his actions, stating, "I should have left the house when I learned Nancy Pelosi wasn’t there. I will never do anything violent like that ever again." This hearing was a continuation of his sentencing proceedings, which Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley had reopened to allow DePape the opportunity to speak, a procedural step she initially overlooked. Judge Corley, however, remained unswayed by DePape's apology. She reiterated the maximum sentence of 30 years, emphasizing the gravity of the crime and the necessity to deter similar politically motivated acts. "The message has to be out there that it’s absolutely unacceptable to our democracy," she stated. DePape's convictions include attempted kidnapping of a federal officer and assault on an immediate family member of a federal official. He acknowledged his troubled state of mind at the time of the attack, saying, "I have been able to reconnect with my mom and other family members, which has allowed me to move forward." His federal sentencing hearing was held amid his ongoing state criminal trial, where he faces additional charges including attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and elder abuse. If convicted, he could face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The attack on October 22, 2022, just weeks before the midterm elections, underscored fears of escalating politically motivated violence. DePape, 42 at the time, broke into the Pelosi residence in San Francisco through a back door, seeking Nancy Pelosi. Finding her absent, he encountered Paul Pelosi instead. According to trial testimony and police footage, DePape attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer, causing severe injuries that required surgery for two skull fractures and a six-day hospital stay. Despite his initial sentencing on May 17, DePape’s federal public defenders filed an appeal and opposed the reopening of the hearing, arguing it should proceed to an appeals court or be resentenced by a different judge. They contended that Judge Corley could not impartially reassess the sentence after expressing her previous conclusions. Ms. Pelosi’s office has chosen to withhold comment on the resentencing until the verdict in the state trial is reached. DePape had lived a marginal existence in the San Francisco Bay Area, at times sleeping in a park in Berkeley, California. He was deeply immersed in online conspiracy theories such as Pizzagate and QAnon. Judge Corley, before delivering the sentence, acknowledged that DePape had no prior criminal or violent record and noted his vulnerability to media influence. The case highlights the dangerous intersection of conspiracy theories and political violence. As Judge Corley underscored, the severity of DePape's actions and the need for deterrence are critical to protecting democratic principles and ensuring such acts are not repeated. Related Topics: DOJ Seeks 40-Year Sentence for Pelosi's Husband's Attacker David DePape charged with assault, attempted kidnapping in attack on Paul Pelosi Paul Pelosi: Who is spreading false claims about attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband? Nancy Pelosi's husband 'violently assaulted' at San Francisco home, suspect in custody Credit: New York Times 2024-05-30 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A post has been removed from the usual suspect for going off topic into history. Please discuss this in another topic and stop attempting to hijack this one, you know this is not the one for that. Thank you

Unapproved social media link has been removed along with some posts contravening the forums community standards

Posts contravening community standards have been removed

The hush money trial involving former President Donald Trump has reached its concluding phase, with both the defense and prosecution delivering their closing arguments. The defense, represented by Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche, focused on discrediting the prosecution's key witness, Michael Cohen, while the prosecution, led by Joshua Steinglass, aimed to underscore the substantial evidence supporting their case. Here’s a detailed look at the arguments presented by both sides. Defense Arguments: Attacking Credibility and Intent Discrediting Michael Cohen: Trump's attorney Todd Blanche concentrated on undermining the credibility of Michael Cohen, the prosecution's main witness. Blanche described Cohen as the "MVP of liars," emphasizing inconsistencies in Cohen’s testimony and highlighting his past actions, including stealing from the Trump Organization. Blanche asserted that the jury could not convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt based on Cohen’s words alone, which he claimed lacked any solid evidence. Blanche argued that Cohen's testimony about a supposed retainer agreement with Trump in 2017 was false. He suggested that Cohen would not have worked for free and that Trump would not have overpaid him, pointing out instances where Cohen did perform legal work. According to Blanche, any payments labeled as "legal expenses" by the Trump Organization were standard practice and not criminal. Lack of Intent and Knowledge: Blanche further argued that Trump, who was President at the time, was too busy to be aware of the details of each check sent to Cohen. He noted that Trump's sons, Eric and Donald Jr., had co-signed some checks, implying a lack of direct involvement by Trump. Blanche insisted that there was no intent to defraud since the payments to Cohen were properly disclosed to the IRS. He contended that the decision to pay $130,000 to Stormy Daniels was made by Cohen independently, without informing Trump, who Cohen believed would appreciate the action later. Blanche also dismissed the idea that Trump believed stories in the National Enquirer could influence the election outcome, labeling it "preposterous." Curative Instruction: During his closing argument, Blanche made an "outrageous" comment suggesting that the jury "cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen." The judge, Merchan, had to issue a curative instruction, reminding the jury that they are not supposed to consider potential penalties in their deliberations. Prosecution Arguments: Corroborating Evidence and Motive Substantial Evidence: Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass countered the defense’s claims by asserting that the case did not rely solely on Cohen’s testimony. Steinglass pointed to a "mountain of evidence" corroborating Cohen’s account, including testimonies from other witnesses and documentary evidence. He emphasized that Cohen’s role was to provide context to the substantial physical evidence presented. Stormy Daniels’ Credibility: Steinglass also addressed the defense's attempts to undermine Stormy Daniels' credibility. He argued that the details Daniels provided about her interaction with Trump supported the truth of her claims. Steinglass suggested that the payment to Daniels and the falsification of business records were motivated by Trump’s desire to keep the affair hidden. Contradictions in Defense Claims: Steinglass pointed out inconsistencies in the defense’s narrative, particularly regarding the payment to Cohen. He noted that the defense's argument that the payments were for legal services was contradicted by handwritten notes from former CFO Allen Weisselberg and former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney. Steinglass highlighted these notes as evidence that the payments were reimbursements, as Trump himself had admitted. Involvement in "Catch and Kill" Schemes: The prosecutor argued that Trump was deeply involved in his business operations and had personally signed checks related to the payments. Steinglass presented vouchers and check stubs as evidence, emphasizing Trump’s signature in Sharpie as proof of his involvement. In referencing a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower, Steinglass claimed that Trump and former American Media Inc. CEO David Pecker discussed how to manage negative stories about Trump through "catch and kill" operations. Although the exact terminology wasn’t used, Steinglass argued that such schemes were critical to Trump’s electoral success. As the trial concludes, the jury faces the task of sifting through the arguments presented by both sides. The defense has focused on discrediting key witnesses and arguing a lack of intent and involvement by Trump, while the prosecution has underscored substantial corroborative evidence and the motive behind the hush money payments. The outcome now rests in the hands of the jurors, who must decide whether the evidence presented is sufficient to convict the former President. Credit: CNN 2024-05-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Antarctica, once reserved for explorers and scientists, is now opening up to adventurous tourists seeking unparalleled experiences. From the opportunity to sleep out on the ice to exploring the sub-Antarctic waters in a mini-submarine, this remote destination offers outlandish activities that few get to experience. When the chance to camp on the seventh continent arises, it’s an opportunity that’s hard to pass up. When I was offered the chance to join a camping trip on the ice, I accepted without hesitation. Despite having only 90 minutes to prepare, pack, layer up, and eat my final meal—since no food was allowed at the pristine tent site—I was eager for the adventure. Out of the 335 passengers aboard Hurtigruten’s Fridtjof Nansen, only 30 had the opportunity to camp in Antarctica. These coveted spots were allocated by secret ballot, with invitations slid under the cabin doors of the fortunate few. Though I didn’t initially receive a ticket, I remained undeterred and attended the briefing out of curiosity. In Antarctica, the unpredictable nature of the environment means that itineraries are often uncertain and subject to change. Activities were announced only the night before, maintaining an air of mystery. After a two-day voyage from Ushuaia, Argentina, our schedule simply read: Five days, Antarctica. We knew that some of us would have the chance to go kayaking and snowshoeing, elective activities ranging from $80 to $900. Even after being selected by ballot, there was no guarantee these excursions would happen, as evidenced by the cancellation of the much-anticipated “Amundsen Night” on the previous sailing due to a sudden blizzard in Paradise Bay. Each activity required a comprehensive briefing, and attendance was mandatory. Even those who had been seasick had to attend the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) briefing and biosecurity inspection to be allowed on the ice. This strict protocol ensured the preservation of Antarctica’s pristine environment. The unexpected call to my cabin came from Paul, the ship’s expedition leader. “There has been a dropout,” he informed me. “It says here you were at the briefing. There’s a space if you’re up for it. We leave at 8.30.” With little time to think, I quickly prepared and joined the other campers in an inflatable dinghy, heading towards the ice with 15 red two-person tents. I was paired with Todd, a retired lecturer from Texas with a wealth of stories about his adventures in Yellowstone and Yosemite. Despite his extensive experience, like the rest of us, Todd had never spent a night on Antarctica nor used a snow anchor. Setting up the tents on the ice was a far cry from the controlled environment of the carpeted meeting room on the Fridtjof Nansen. Under the guidance of experienced expedition leaders, we began the task of setting up our tents on the ice. The process involved digging into the snow to secure the tents with snow anchors—a new skill for most of us. Once the tents were up, we arranged two layers of ground insulation and thick down sleeping bags, ready for the frigid night ahead. As the temperature dropped to around -6°C, it became difficult to discern when sundown had occurred, as the sun hovered just below the horizon, casting a perpetual twilight. It wasn’t until the Nansen sailed around the cove and out of sight that it truly felt like night had fallen on Antarctica. We were left in near silence, with only the ethereal sounds of breaking ice, the wind blowing snow, and the occasional snore from fellow campers punctuating the stillness. Camping in Antarctica comes with unique challenges and strict regulations to preserve its pristine environment. One of the less glamorous aspects is managing human waste. The Antarctic Treaty stipulates that no waste, including human waste, can be left behind. We were provided with buckets in a snow dugout to collect and bring back all waste, ensuring we left no trace. Additionally, no food or cooking stoves are allowed onshore, adhering to treaty regulations aimed at minimizing human impact. Only emergency rations were permitted, emphasizing the self-sufficiency required for such an expedition. The Antarctic summer provided around 16 hours of daylight, with twilight persisting through the night, adding to the surreal experience. Despite the cold and the stringent regulations, the experience was nothing short of magical. The landscape was otherworldly, with vast expanses of ice stretching in every direction, and the sheer silence of the environment was awe-inspiring. The sense of isolation and the pristine beauty of the surroundings were profound, making every moment feel like a privilege. Sharing this experience with fellow adventurers like Todd, who brought stories and laughter to the camp, added a communal spirit to the expedition. We were all aware of the rarity of our adventure, each of us savoring the opportunity to be part of something so extraordinary. As dawn approached and the Nansen returned to retrieve us, there was a shared sense of accomplishment and reverence among the campers. The experience of camping in Antarctica is not just about enduring the cold or the challenges but about connecting with a place so few have seen. It’s about understanding the fragility of this environment and the importance of preserving it for future generations. Antarctica’s allure lies in its untouched wilderness and the extreme conditions that make any activity there unpredictable and unique. For those who get the chance to camp on its ice, it’s an adventure that leaves an indelible mark, a story of resilience and respect for one of the last great wildernesses on Earth. Credit: NZ Herald 2024-05-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

As the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Keir Starmer faces a significant credibility issue. Standing before a rostrum emblazoned with the word "change," Starmer formally launched his party's election campaign in Sussex. His speech, filled with modern political tropes such as family history, first jobs, and personal passions, aimed to address critical election issues like security, defense, and economic stability. However, Starmer's history within Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet casts a long shadow over his current declarations, raising questions about his ability to lead the Labour Party away from its recent past. Starmer's challenge lies in his association with Jeremy Corbyn, whose leadership was marked by policies and positions that many believe jeopardized national security, defense, and economic stability. Starmer's recent self-identification as a "Socialist" only intensifies scrutiny, especially since he served under Corbyn throughout most of his tenure, except during the attempted post-Brexit coup. Unlike senior colleagues such as Yvette Cooper, Rachel Reeves, and Wes Streeting, who chose not to serve under Corbyn, Starmer supported him, making it difficult for him to convincingly claim that he has fundamentally changed the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn, now expelled from the Labour Party and standing as an independent in Islington North, led the party through the 2017 and 2019 elections. During this time, Starmer was a key figure maneuvering to keep the UK in the EU. The Labour manifestos of those years reflected Corbyn's left-wing ideology, proposing the renationalization of energy and railways, wage caps on businesses, the removal of immigration controls, attacks on private education, the introduction of rent controls, the freezing of rail fares, the abolition of university tuition fees, and measures that would render Britain's nuclear deterrent nearly ineffective. Starmer insists that Labour has moved away from Corbyn's radical policies. Yet, many of these policies remain familiar, albeit in a more moderated form. His attempt to rebrand Labour and reassure voters about his commitment to defense and security is complicated by his previous role in a team that, according to critics, would have compromised these very areas. His struggle to make a significant impact, even after nearly five years as Labour leader, further complicates his narrative of change. Elected leader during the pandemic, Starmer had limited opportunities to establish a robust profile. Additionally, with only nine years in Parliament, his political career is not extensive enough to be evaluated independently of his association with Corbyn. By reiterating his backstory in an effort to introduce himself to voters, Starmer inadvertently highlights his past service under Corbyn, a period that many voters and political opponents are unlikely to forget or forgive. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-05-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

North Korea’s latest attempt to launch a spy satellite ended in a dramatic mid-air explosion, as confirmed by Pyongyang on Monday. The failure, attributed to the "operational reliability of the engine," marks yet another setback for Kim Jong-un’s regime, which has been fervently pursuing the capability to monitor its adversaries from space. The failed launch was visually documented by Japanese broadcaster NHK, which captured footage of what appeared to be a flaming projectile in the night sky. The projectile eventually exploded into a fireball, an event observed from northeast China, coinciding with the time of the attempted launch. North Korea’s National Aerospace Technology Administration provided a statement via the official Korean Central News Agency, acknowledging the failure. "The satellite exploded in the air during the first flight stage and failed to launch," the statement read. An expert review indicated that the failure stemmed from issues with the "newly developed liquid oxygen and oil engine." This incident follows two previous failed attempts last year and casts doubt on North Korea’s claim of successfully placing the Malligyong-1 (meaning Telescope-1) satellite into orbit in November. Despite Pyongyang’s assertions, Seoul’s intelligence agency has expressed skepticism regarding the satellite’s functionality. Seoul and Tokyo swiftly criticized the planned launch, which had been announced by Pyongyang earlier on Monday. The South Korean military detected the launch and confirmed the satellite's presumed explosion in mid-air. "The South Korean and US intelligence authorities are analysing it in detail in close cooperation," stated South Korea’s joint chiefs of staff. The international response was equally critical. The US Indo-Pacific Command denounced the launch as a "brazen violation of multiple unanimous UN Security Council resolutions," warning that it "risks destabilising the security situation in the region and beyond." Japan briefly issued an alert for residents of southern Okinawa prefecture to seek shelter, though it was lifted shortly afterward. This launch attempt occurred just after the conclusion of the first trilateral summit since 2019 involving Seoul, Beijing, and Tokyo. South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol emphasized that another satellite launch would "undermine regional and global peace and stability." The development of spy satellites is a top priority for North Korea, as they could significantly enhance its intelligence-gathering capabilities, particularly regarding South Korea. Such advancements would provide crucial data in any potential military conflict. The geopolitical implications of North Korea’s satellite ambitions are further complicated by allegations of external assistance. Seoul claims that Kim Jong-un received technical assistance from Russia for the November launch, in exchange for sending containers of weapons to Moscow for use in Ukraine. These allegations add another layer of complexity to the already tense international relations surrounding North Korea’s activities. Kim Jong-un’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in September further fuelled suspicions of Russian involvement in North Korea’s space endeavors. Following their meeting, Putin suggested that Russia could help North Korea build satellites. Subsequently, both Seoul and Washington accused Pyongyang of supplying weapons to Moscow, with South Korea alleging that thousands of containers of weapons were shipped for use in Ukraine. Adding to the controversy, reports from Yonhap on Sunday, citing a government official, indicated that a group of Russian engineers had entered North Korea to assist with the launch preparations. This alleged collaboration underscores the broader geopolitical dynamics at play, with North Korea's actions potentially serving broader strategic interests beyond its borders. The repeated failures of North Korea's satellite launches highlight the significant technical challenges faced by the regime. Despite these setbacks, the persistence of these efforts reflects Kim Jong-un’s determination to enhance his regime’s surveillance and intelligence capabilities. However, each failed attempt also invites increased scrutiny and condemnation from the international community, further isolating North Korea and complicating its relations with neighboring countries and global powers. The implications of North Korea's pursuit of satellite technology are profound. Success in this domain would not only bolster its military capabilities but also alter the strategic balance in the region. For now, however, the regime's technological aspirations remain unfulfilled, leaving the international community on edge, wary of the potential repercussions of North Korea's continued defiance and determination. Credit: The Guardian 2024-05-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Candidate for the upcoming European elections Marion Marechal, of the far-right Reconquete party, poses before a debate with other party leaders, Monday, May 27, 2024 in Paris. The European Elections will take place on June 9 in France. As the European Union prepares for its upcoming elections, many European citizens find themselves inundated with messages urging them to vote. These messages emphasize the importance of participating in the democratic process with the warning that if you don’t vote, “others will decide for you.” While my rational side agrees with this sentiment, urging me to do my part for democracy, my heart is not in it this time. As a brown, Muslim European who has always hoped for the success of the EU project, I find myself increasingly terrified by the growing influence and power of far-right politicians who are unabashedly racist, xenophobic, and Islamophobic. The rise of far-right ideologies within and outside government poses a significant threat to the values I hold dear. These politicians’ vision for Europe is inherently hostile not only to Muslims but also to women, Jews, and LGBTQ+ individuals, despite what they might publicly claim. The increasing normalization of their views within the political landscape is deeply concerning and signals a bleak future for progressive Europeans, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities. The fear is not unfounded. Evidence of pervasive and relentless racism across Europe is visible, with Islamophobia and antisemitism on the rise, exacerbated by conflicts such as the Israel-Gaza war. The far-right’s anticipated gains in power will likely worsen this situation, especially as the EU’s anti-racism action plan loses momentum. The corrosion of European democracy from within, fueled by racism, discrimination, and xenophobia, creates societal divisions and political polarization. However, these critical issues are rarely discussed in the predominantly white corridors of Brussels. Compounding the problem is the fact that center-right and liberal politicians have often embraced, openly or tacitly, the extremists’ political agenda. This is evident in the EU’s new migration and asylum pact and the European People’s Party’s Rwanda-style plans for sending refugees and migrants to third countries. These policies reflect a toxic worldview that further alienates and marginalizes racial and ethnic minorities. Recent actions by EU governments, such as clamping down on freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly for those opposing the Israeli offensive in Gaza, have prompted warnings from Amnesty International. The European Commission’s invitation to Israel’s foreign minister, Israel Katz—whose statements on Palestinians have been cited at the International Court of Justice as evidence of genocidal intent—highlights the extent to which extremist views have infiltrated EU institutions. The trajectory of European politics towards far-right territory was starkly illustrated by the formation of the new Dutch coalition led by Geert Wilders. Wilders, known for his anti-Muslim rhetoric, threatens to close down mosques and ban the Qur’an and hijab. Such developments are alarming for Muslims and other minorities in Europe, and they underscore the need for a robust response from progressive forces. There is some hope in the promises to construct a “cordon sanitaire” around newly elected far-right Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). However, only the left has made clear commitments to tackling systemic racism. There is a pressing need for EU institutions to become more racially diverse and inclusive and to decolonize Eurocentric trade, aid, and foreign policies. Ignoring these issues perpetuates the disconnect between predominantly white EU institutions and the reality of a vibrant, diverse, and multicultural Europe. Representation alone does not guarantee racial justice. Some of Europe’s most hardline anti-immigration politicians are not white. For instance, Geert Wilders has Indonesian ancestry, and his coalition partner, Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius, leader of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, is a former child refugee from Turkey. Nevertheless, Black and brown members make up only about 3% of the current European Parliament, reflecting political parties’ reluctance to include people of color on their lists for the European elections. This lack of representation undermines the legitimacy of EU institutions and perpetuates a vicious cycle of exclusion. For European Muslims, dealing with the EU is a special challenge. The Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (Femyso), which brings together young people from across Europe, has struggled to engage with the EU. Despite repeated requests, they have yet to secure a bilateral meeting with the European Commission’s new coordinator for combating anti-Muslim hatred. Furthermore, a meeting with the EU Commissioner for Equality, Helena Dalli, in 2021 was criticized by the French government over unfounded allegations of Femyso’s links with the Muslim Brotherhood, a charge the organization strongly denies. Despite the challenges, many Black and brown Europeans, as well as members of Femyso and Diaspora Vote, remain enthusiastic about voting in the elections. They see it as their duty and responsibility to participate in the democratic process and to be part of the conversation about Europe’s future. Their commitment and passion are far more compelling than the bland platitudes of EU policymakers and politicians about the importance of voting. As the EU elections approach, the stakes for brown, Muslim Europeans—and indeed all progressive Europeans—are higher than ever. The rise of the far right and the pervasive racism and xenophobia within EU institutions pose a significant threat to the values of diversity, inclusion, and justice. It is a time of deep personal anxiety, but also a time to stand up and be counted. By voting and actively participating in the democratic process, we can push back against the forces of intolerance and hate and work towards a more inclusive and equitable Europe. Shada Islam, a Brussels-based commentator on EU affairs Credit: The Guardian 2024-05-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

The Pope is reported to have used extremely derogatory language in a private meeting. This incident occurred during a session at the Italian Bishops’ Conference, where the Pope was asked if gay men should be allowed to train for the priesthood provided they remain celibate. Pope Francis reportedly responded negatively and used a highly offensive Italian slur, "frociaggine," to describe the presence of gay individuals within the Church. The comments, initially reported by the Italian investigative website Dagospia, have since been corroborated by other Italian news agencies citing multiple sources. This revelation has sent shockwaves through the Catholic community and beyond, particularly given Pope Francis's public persona as a progressive and compassionate leader. Pope Francis's choice of words is especially jarring because he has often spoken publicly about the need for respect and inclusion of gay people. Early in his papacy, he made headlines with his statement, "Who am I to judge?" in response to a question about gay individuals. This comment was seen as a significant shift in tone for the Catholic Church, which has long held conservative views on homosexuality. The Pope's recent remarks at the Italian Bishops’ Conference, however, seem to contradict his earlier statements and actions. Progressive supporters of Pope Francis have argued that while there has been little tangible change in the Church’s stance on gay rights, the Pope has managed to create a more welcoming and less judgmental atmosphere. His recent suggestion that priests might bless same-sex couples in certain circumstances further fueled hopes that the Church might be moving towards a more inclusive stance. These hopes were seemingly dashed at the conference, where the Pope not only rejected the idea of allowing celibate gay men to train for the priesthood but also reportedly used derogatory language on multiple occasions. Some reports even suggest that he stated gay individuals should be expelled from seminaries regardless of whether they acted on their sexual tendencies. Defenders of Pope Francis have attempted to mitigate the fallout by suggesting that the Pope, who is a native Spanish speaker, may have misused Italian colloquialisms. They argue that he might not have fully understood the offensive nature of the term, despite having grown up in an Italian-speaking household in Argentina. The Vatican has yet to comment officially on the matter, leaving many in the Catholic community and beyond in a state of confusion and concern. This incident highlights the ongoing tension within the Church regarding its stance on homosexuality and the struggle between progressive and traditionalist factions. The reported comments have also sparked wider debates about the Catholic Church's approach to LGBTQ+ issues. Despite Pope Francis's earlier attempts to present a more compassionate face, this incident suggests that deep-seated prejudices and resistance to change remain prevalent within the Church hierarchy. The impact of this controversy is likely to be far-reaching. For many progressive Catholics, Pope Francis had represented a beacon of hope for a more inclusive and understanding Church. This incident, however, casts a shadow over that perception and raises questions about the sincerity of his earlier statements on LGBTQ+ inclusion. Moreover, the Pope’s reported use of such derogatory language could have broader implications for the Church’s global image. As a leader who has garnered significant respect for his progressive views on various social issues, these comments threaten to undermine his credibility and the Church’s efforts to engage more positively with the LGBTQ+ community. The disparity between his public persona and reported private remarks highlights the ongoing struggle within the Church to reconcile its traditional doctrines with modern attitudes towards sexuality. Update Pope Apology: Pope Francis issued an apology on Tuesday following a media uproar over his use of a vulgar term to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s ban on gay priests. The apology came after Italian media reported that Francis had used the derogatory term "faggotness" in a meeting with Italian bishops on May 20, where he reiterated the Church's stance against admitting gay men into seminaries and ordaining them as priests. Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni released a statement acknowledging the controversy and clarifying the Pope's intentions. Bruni emphasized that Pope Francis, known for his outreach to the LGBTQ+ community, never intended to offend or use homophobic language. "The pope never intended to offend or express himself in homophobic terms, and he extends his apologies to those who were offended by the use of a term that was reported by others," Bruni said. Credit: BBC 2024-05-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

On Memorial Day, President Joe Biden delivered a heartfelt speech at Arlington National Cemetery, paying tribute to the members of the armed forces who sacrificed their lives for the nation. His words resonated deeply with the audience, reflecting on the profound loss experienced by the families of the fallen and drawing a personal connection to his late son, Beau Biden. “We gather at this sacred place at this solemn moment to remember and to honor the sacrifice of the hundreds of thousands of women and men who have given their lives to this nation,” Biden began. “Each one, literally, a link in the chain of honor stretching back to our founding days, each one bound by a common commitment not to a place, not to a person, not to a president, but to an idea unlike any idea in human history: the idea of the United States of America.” Biden's speech was not only a tribute to the nation's fallen heroes but also a personal remembrance of his son, Beau, who passed away in 2015 from brain cancer. The President has often connected Beau's illness to his exposure to toxic chemicals during his military service in Iraq. Addressing the families of other fallen veterans, Biden acknowledged the enduring pain of their losses. “I know it hurts,” Biden said, his voice heavy with emotion. “The hurt is still real. Still raw. This week marks nine years since I lost my son Beau. The pain of his loss is with me every day, as it is with you. Still sharp. Still clear. But so is the pride I feel in his service. As if I can still hear him saying, ‘It’s my duty, Dad. It’s my duty.’” Joining Biden at the solemn event were First Lady Jill Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. CQ Brown Jr. The presence of these dignitaries underscored the significance of the occasion and the collective respect for the sacrifices made by the nation's servicemen and women. Biden used the platform to highlight his administration's commitment to veterans, emphasizing the legislative efforts made to support service members and their families. “Since I took office, I’ve signed over 30 bipartisan laws supporting servicemen, veterans, their families, caregivers, and survivors,” he stated. “Last year, the VA delivered more benefits and processed more claims than ever in our history.” The President reiterated the nation's sacred obligation to its military members. “We have many obligations as a nation,” he continued, “but we only have one truly sacred obligation: to prepare those we send to battle and to take care of their families when they come home, and when they don’t.” The contrast between Biden's somber and unifying message and the tone of his political rival, former President Donald Trump, was stark. Shortly after posting a graphic honoring the fallen on Truth Social, Trump launched a tirade against Biden and the judges overseeing his legal cases, referring to those who oppose him as “human scum.” Credit: The Hill 2024-05-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

During her recent visit to southern Israel, former US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley laid the blame for the devastating Hamas massacre on October 7 squarely at the feet of Iran, Russia, and China. Touring communities heavily affected by the brutal attack, Haley, accompanied by Likud MK and former UN envoy Danny Danon, asserted that the massacre was not just an isolated act of terror by Hamas but a coordinated assault orchestrated by international powers. Standing beside the ruins of the Sderot police station, destroyed in the attack, Haley declared, “Hamas’s attack on October 7 was orchestrated by Iran. It was helped with Russian intelligence. And it was fueled by money from China. Don’t deny that.” She warned that such an assault could happen in the United States if security measures are not stringent enough. “If we are arrogant enough, this could absolutely happen in America too,” she cautioned. Haley's allegations against Iran, Russia, and China were strong and unequivocal, though she did not present direct evidence to support her claims. “China’s been funding Iran the entire time. Russia’s intelligence helped them know where everything was. Iran helped get them trained. So this isn’t Hamas. These are all murderers and accomplices. If we really mean it’s never going to happen again, we have to be honest and truthful with ourselves about who did this,” she stated. Despite the lack of concrete evidence linking Russia and China directly to the October 7 massacre, Haley's comments reflect a broader geopolitical stance. Russia, led by President Vladimir Putin, has been vocally critical of Israel since the start of the Gaza conflict, hosting Hamas officials and calling for a ceasefire without mentioning Hamas’s brutal actions. China, too, has shown diplomatic support for the Palestinian cause, recently announcing it would host Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi and other Arab leaders to discuss the Palestinian issue. The timing of Haley’s visit and her pointed remarks come amid growing speculation that she might seek a significant role in the Republican administration, potentially as vice president to Donald Trump. However, Haley dismissed these speculations, stating, “Trump has made it very clear that I am not” going to be his vice-presidential pick. Yet, she affirmed her support for Trump, emphasizing her commitment to a strong America and a robust alliance with Israel. Haley’s visit was orchestrated by Danny Danon, who has been actively arranging tours for foreign dignitaries to witness the aftermath of the October 7 massacre. During the visit, Haley met with survivors and local residents, reinforcing her critical view of Hamas. “We need to know that we’re going to have the backs of our allies and hold our enemies to account. I want to know that we’re going to protect freedom at all costs. We’re going to protect capitalism at all costs,” she asserted. Haley refrained from criticizing the current US administration while abroad but did not hold back on her views about President Joe Biden's Middle East policies. She argued that withholding weapons from Israel was counterproductive. “The sure way to not help Israel is to not withhold weapons,” she said. Haley linked the Gaza conflict to broader US domestic issues, particularly immigration and border security. “If we are arrogant enough, this could absolutely happen in America too,” she warned, stressing the need for stringent border control to prevent similar attacks on US soil. Danon, supporting Haley’s claims, stated that while there was clear evidence of Iranian involvement, the roles of Russia and China needed further scrutiny. “We have evidence about Iranian involvement,” he said, but when pressed about Russian and Chinese involvement, he acknowledged, “No, we have to look at the rockets and missiles that they were using. Definitely, they came from Russia and China. You have to look deeply who brought it and who gave it to them.” Haley’s remarks and visit highlight a critical stance against Hamas and its international backers. The October 7 massacre, which saw brutal attacks on Israeli civilians, is part of a long history of violence perpetuated by Hamas. The organization’s actions have consistently undermined peace efforts and exacerbated the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians. As the international community continues to navigate the complexities of the Gaza conflict, Haley’s visit underscores the importance of identifying and confronting all entities that support and facilitate terrorism. Her pointed criticism of Hamas and its backers serves as a stark reminder of the broader geopolitical implications of terrorism and the need for a united front against those who perpetuate violence and instability. Credit: Times of Israel 2024-05-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

In 2008, the late American climate scientist Wally Broecker warned of the dire global consequences of polar ice loss. His predictions now resonate more urgently than ever as Greenland’s ice sheets hemorrhage at an alarming rate, raising the specter of rapid sea-level rise. The Arctic Circle has been heating up at four times the global average, now exceeding temperatures from the 1980s by more than 3°C. The year 2023 saw an unprecedented loss of Antarctic sea ice. Land and ocean temperatures have skyrocketed over the past year, far surpassing what was expected during an El Niño year. Global average temperatures have breached the critical 1.5°C mark, indicating that the climate transition is in full swing. Record-breaking wildfires, catastrophic floods threatening major cities, and other extreme climate events have become the new norm, causing extensive loss of life and economic damage worldwide. Despite the mounting evidence and urgent pleas for action, meaningful progress remains elusive. Historically, global prosperity has been built on the foundation of fossil fuels. However, the grip of fossil fuel giants—heavily subsidized by governments and backed by financial institutions—prioritizes short-term profits over the planet's survival. This entrenched dependency hampers efforts to transition to a sustainable future, even as the need for change becomes increasingly critical. GDP growth is treated as sacrosanct, while climate, biodiversity, health, and social equity are sacrificed, condemning future generations to inherit a ravaged planet. As the chair of the global Climate Crisis Advisory Group, I recognize that such statements may seem like virtue signaling, particularly to those in the global south where development is still underway. This is not about denying them their pathway but about altering our stance in the developed world—and perhaps redefining our ultimate destination. On our current trajectory, civilization as we know it will vanish. If we adhere only to current commitments—net zero by 2050—some form of humanity might survive, managing the challenges of continued extreme weather events, ice loss, and sea-level and temperature rises. However, we have the agency to change this, and a thriving future is still within reach. To achieve this, we must embark on a radical journey through the “4R planet” pathway: reducing emissions, removing excess greenhouse gases (GHGs) already in the atmosphere, repairing ecosystems, and strengthening resilience against inevitable climate impacts. It is absurd to believe, as some influential fossil fuel leaders claim, that we can continue our economies based on burning fossil fuels because scientists are developing ways to capture the emissions. Recent analysis indicates that annual global GDP costs due to extreme weather events could approach 100% of global GDP by the end of the century. The transition away from fossil fuels is already underway, with renewables, hydropower, geothermal energy, distributed energy storage, electric transport, and nuclear energy operating at competitive economic levels. For example, Kenya has achieved more than 90% electricity production from renewable sources, providing a significant advantage to its economy. The global transition rate, properly led by government regulations and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, could and should be accelerated tenfold. Implementing the four Rs must be seen as a crucial risk management cost, offsetting the projected enormous financial losses. Currently, the world emits over 50 billion tonnes of GHGs annually, expressed as CO2 equivalent. Given that we are unlikely to achieve a removal rate exceeding 10 billion tonnes per annum, reducing emissions to a very small figure is imperative. Today, GHG levels in the atmosphere exceed 500 parts per million (ppm), compared to the pre-industrial level of 275 ppm. A safe level for humanity is about 350 ppm, necessitating the removal of excess GHGs already in the atmosphere. At a removal rate of 10-20 billion tonnes per annum, this process could extend to the end of the century, and we must commence this immediately. Additionally, repairing ecosystems is essential to buy time; otherwise, the consequences of melting polar ice and ice from mountain peaks will overwhelm us before GHG levels are sufficiently reduced. Repairing the Arctic Circle will be a significant enterprise. Promising processes are under development but are hindered by inadequate funding. Two immediate projects worth supporting include covering the Arctic Sea with bright white cloud cover during the three months of the north pole summer and pumping seawater on top of the thin layer of ice formed over the sea in the polar winter to thicken it. These projects will cost billions of dollars annually, a small fraction of the costs of lives and damage avoided. Deploying such projects will require unprecedented global governance and collaboration, but if not now, then when? If not for this cause, then for what? The most vulnerable are already suffering the most from incredible changes. Investing on the necessary scale in global resilience, particularly in the global south, will not only improve lives in real-time but will also help repair the damaged trust between nations needed for a cohesive climate response. Funding the development of the four Rs will fall on advanced and emerging economies. Leaders of G20 countries must take the lead. Vision and understanding from our leaders, coupled with a global public demanding more, are essential. Beyond policy changes and investment, a seismic cultural shift is imperative to steer humanity away from self-destruction towards a just and sustainable future. We must realign our political will, economic priorities, and societal values to recognize that ecological well-being is synonymous with human well-being. We often hear that responding to the climate crisis requires sacrifices. However, this framing is flawed. We must find joy in nurturing what is around us, from nature to the things we own. Fulfillment should come from quality, not quantity, and from nature, not new possessions. We are part of the natural world and depend on it. We can choose to transition our societies into a sustainable period of ecological civilization. As we face a self-inflicted set of global challenges over the coming decades, the need for such a cultural transformation will drive action. This process must begin now. David King is the founder and chair of the global Climate Crisis Advisory Group Credit: The Guardian 2024-05-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Former President Donald Trump has declared his intention to crack down on pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses if he wins the 2024 presidential election. Addressing a group of wealthy donors, primarily Jewish, Trump characterized the demonstrations against Israel’s war in Gaza as part of a "radical revolution." He promised that his administration would roll back the movement by "25 or 30 years" if re-elected, according to the Washington Post, which first reported the event. “If you get me re-elected, we’re going to set that movement back 25 or 30 years,” Trump assured the donors. He also stated that his administration would expel any foreign students involved in the protests, which have recently taken the form of tented encampments on college campuses across the United States. During the meeting in New York on May 14, Trump responded to concerns from a donor who feared that students and faculty participating in the protests could eventually occupy influential positions in the US. Praising the New York police for dismantling the encampments at Columbia University, Trump urged other cities to adopt a similar approach, emphasizing, “It has to be stopped now.” Republicans have increasingly highlighted campus protests as an election issue, portraying them as a sign of "chaos" during President Joe Biden’s tenure. Congressional Republicans have held hearings on Capitol Hill to emphasize the trend, focusing on reports of antisemitism among protesters and accusing university presidents of failing to address it adequately. At a recent hearing, GOP members criticized the presidents of Northwestern and Rutgers universities for negotiating voluntary dismantlements of the encampments rather than involving the police, as Trump suggested. Trump's comments to the donors also marked a shift in his stance on Israel’s offensive in Gaza. After months of ambivalence, he expressed support for Israel's "war on terror." Previously, he had noted that Israel was "losing the PR war" due to its actions in Gaza, where more than 36,000 Palestinians have been killed in an operation launched in retaliation for a deadly Hamas assault in October, which resulted in around 1,200 Israelis being killed and another 253 being taken hostage. Speaking to Israel Hayom newspaper in March, Trump had said, “You have to finish up your war … You gotta get it done,” while also calling for Israel to "get back to peace and stop killing people." At the donor meeting, Trump, who joked about the presence of “98% of my Jewish friends,” did not mention Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by name, reflecting his ongoing resentment over Netanyahu's recognition of Biden’s 2020 election victory. However, Trump highlighted his pro-Israel policies, including moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War. Trump’s pledges to his donors underscore his commitment to a hardline stance against pro-Palestinian activism and his enduring support for Israeli policies, reflecting his broader strategy to galvanize his base and secure crucial support for his re-election campaign. Credit: The Guardian 2024-05-29 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A post has been removed that referred to the Rafah incident. This is not the topic for that. It is about "The initiative, known as the Global Women’s Coalition against Gender-Based Violence as a Weapon of War, aims to address the rampant sexual assaults committed during wartime, particularly spotlighting the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas". Another off topic post also removed. "Israeli Lawmaker Advocates for Global Action Against Wartime Sexual Violence"

Reminder that this is the topic here. Ireland, Norway, & Spain to Recognize Palestinian State Amid Ongoing Israel-Hamas Conflict

The UN Security Council is poised to hold an emergency session on Tuesday to address the recent Israeli airstrike in Rafah that reportedly killed dozens, including individuals in a displaced persons camp. This operation targeted senior Hamas operatives but tragically resulted in a fire that claimed 45 lives, according to health officials in Gaza. The incident has ignited substantial international condemnation, with numerous voices referring to it as a “massacre.” The attack, which took place overnight, aimed at two senior Hamas members in the southern Gaza border city. However, the strike also caused a fire that spread to a nearby displacement center, resulting in significant casualties. Early Tuesday, AFP journalists reported additional Israeli strikes in the same area. The global response to the Rafah strike has been one of profound outrage and condemnation. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres voiced a strong rebuke of the violence, emphasizing the perilous situation in Gaza. "There is no safe place in Gaza. This horror must stop," Guterres posted on social media. UN Humanitarian Chief Martin Griffiths echoed this sentiment, criticizing the attack and underscoring the predictable nature of civilian casualties in such operations. "We’ve seen the consequences in last night’s utterly unacceptable attack," Griffiths stated. "To call it ‘a mistake’ is a message that means nothing for those killed, those grieving, and those trying to save lives." European leaders have also expressed their dismay. The EU’s foreign policy chief was "horrified by news" of the strike, while French President Emmanuel Macron said he was "outraged." A US National Security Council spokesperson underscored that Israel "must take every precaution possible to protect civilians." The Israeli military has announced it is launching a probe into the incident. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Knesset, noting, "The deaths occurred despite our best efforts to protect civilians." The emergency session of the UN Security Council, initiated by Algeria, will address the Rafah strike's ramifications and discuss potential responses. The deadly Rafah strike occurred after a barrage of rockets was fired by Hamas at the Tel Aviv area. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) reported that their aircraft targeted a Hamas compound in the city, resulting in the deaths of two senior Hamas operatives, Yassin Rabia and Khaled Nagar. According to the IDF, Rafah houses significant Hamas battalions and is considered a key stronghold for the group. Gaza’s civil defense agency reported that the strike ignited a fire near a facility of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, affecting a displacement center in northwestern Rafah. Israeli officials have informed the US that they believe the fire was caused by shrapnel igniting a fuel tank located approximately 100 meters from the area targeted in the airstrike. The US has stated it has no way to validate or reject Israel’s version of events and is awaiting the outcome of the Israeli investigation. Credit: Times of Israel 2024-05-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Please remain on topic, this is not about the African National Congress or Algeria

Three chatbots stand out for their capabilities and user accessibility: OpenAI's ChatGPT, Microsoft's Copilot, and Google's Gemini. These tools are best approached not as mere information desks but as tutors or assistants, each offering unique features tailored to different needs. Understanding how to use these AI tools effectively can significantly enhance your productivity and creativity. While getting started with any of these chatbots is relatively easy, knowing when and how to use them for optimal results can still be tricky. Each of these chatbots is designed to create, edit, and summarize content, making them versatile assistants for a variety of tasks. ChatGPT, for instance, works well for most general tasks. It can help you write a resume, create a basic recipe with the ingredients you have, summarize long articles, turn text into presentations, or even create itineraries for vacations. It's also great for sparking creativity or overcoming writer's block. Some people even use it to help communicate with their kids. On the other hand, Google's Gemini has access to more timely and updated information, making it particularly useful for tasks requiring the latest data. Copilot shines in work-related tasks, leveraging its integration with Microsoft 365, which includes access to emails, documents, calendar entries, and more. For those looking to take full advantage of these tools, most free versions are good enough. However, subscribing to their premium versions for around $20 per month unlocks additional features. Copilot, for example, integrates with your Microsoft Graph, accessing all the data within your Microsoft 365 suite. Gemini Advanced allows you to summarize content or create new content from your Gmail, Google Docs, and Google Drive, with an offer to try it free for two months. Additionally, while ChatGPT has its own GPT store, Copilot lets you integrate third-party plugins from services like Shopify, OpenTable, or Kayak, and Gemini allows you to use extensions like Google Flights and Google Hotels. Accessing these tools is straightforward. ChatGPT and Copilot both have free iPhone and Android apps, while Google's Gemini is available as an app on Android and can be accessed on iOS through the Google app by tapping the Gemini icon. When using these chatbots, the requests you make or questions you ask are called prompts. Effective prompts should be specific and can include requests for responses in a particular tone, for a certain audience, or even for a specific number of words. For instance, you might ask, "Explain the theory of relativity to me in 100 words. Act as a friendly scientist and answer as if I'm ten years old." Interestingly, studies have shown that you'll get better results if you're polite in your requests. However, it's important to acknowledge that all current generative AI chatbots are prone to producing inaccuracies and historical untruths, a phenomenon known as "hallucinating." While search engine algorithms have been progressively improving in showing more reliable sources, chatbots can set us back by confidently delivering misinformation. This is particularly disconcerting because, by their nature, these chatbots are designed to generate content, which sometimes includes fabrications. Moreover, any prompts you enter could potentially be used to train these chatbots. This means users should be cautious with sensitive personal details and confidential work information. Some services, especially paid subscriptions, offer more privacy. Google, for instance, assures that personal content from Workspace won't be used to train Gemini's model or viewed by human reviewers, even in the free version. Looking ahead, the potential of AI is both exciting and intimidating. Soon, these tools will not only be able to answer questions and create or summarize content but also act on your behalf. This advancement could revolutionize how we interact with technology, making these AI tools even more integral to our daily lives. Credit: AXIOS 2024-05-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

"The Apprentice," a highly anticipated biopic about former President Donald Trump's ascent in the real estate world, failed to clinch any awards at the Cannes Film Festival. Directed by Iranian Danish filmmaker Ali Abbasi, the film stars Sebastian Stan as the young Trump and Jeremy Strong as his mentor and attorney, Roy Cohn. Despite receiving an eight-minute standing ovation at its premiere, the film did not win any accolades, with the festival's top prize, the Palme d’Or, going to Sean Baker's romantic drama "Anora," set in New York. "The Apprentice" delves into Trump's early career and personal relationships, portraying his interactions with Roy Cohn and his first wife, Ivana Trump, in a controversial light. The film's depiction has led to significant backlash from Trump and his associates. Trump's attorney issued a cease-and-desist letter to the filmmakers, claiming the movie was a "concoction of lies" and defamatory towards the former president. The letter threatened legal action if the distribution and marketing of the film were not halted immediately. “If you do not immediately cease and desist all distribution and marketing of this libelous farce, we will be forced to pursue all appropriate legal remedies,” the letter stated. This move followed earlier warnings from Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung, who criticized the film as "pure malicious defamation" and suggested it deserved to be discarded. "This ‘film’ is pure malicious defamation, should not see the light of day, and doesn’t even deserve a place in the straight-to-DVD section of a bargain bin at a soon-to-be-closed discount movie store, it belongs in a dumpster fire,” Cheung stated. Despite the controversy, the film’s producers defended their work, describing it as a "fair and balanced portrait of the former president." They expressed their desire for audiences to view the film and form their own opinions. "We want everyone to see it and then decide," they told Variety. Adding to the turmoil, Dan Synder, an investor in the film through the company Kinematics and an ally of Trump, reportedly expressed dissatisfaction with the final product. According to anonymous sources cited by Variety, Synder was furious about the film's outcome and attempted to stop its release by involving Kinematics’s legal team. The biopic's failure to win awards at Cannes, coupled with the legal and public relations battles it has sparked, underscores the contentious nature of its subject matter. As "The Apprentice" moves forward, it faces a landscape fraught with potential legal challenges and polarized public opinion. Credit: The Hill 2024-05-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

A recent study has revealed that transgender men taking testosterone to transition from female to male are experiencing "postmenopausal" symptoms typically seen in older women. This phenomenon is causing significant health issues, including bladder and bowel dysfunctions, which are under-researched and under-reported. The study, conducted by experts who analyzed 68 transgender men undergoing testosterone treatment, found that a staggering 95 percent had developed pelvic floor dysfunction. Participants, ranging from 18 to an average age of 28, exhibited bladder and bowel symptoms usually expected in women post-menopause. These symptoms included incontinence, frequent toilet visits, bed-wetting, constipation, and an inability to control stools or gas. Approximately 87 percent of the participants reported urinary symptoms such as incontinence, frequent urination, and nocturia (urinating during the night), while 74 percent faced bowel issues like constipation and fecal incontinence. Sexual dysfunction was also prevalent, with 53 percent of the participants experiencing difficulties, including orgasm disorders and pain during intercourse. The rate of urinary incontinence among transgender men was found to be three times higher than that of women, affecting about one in four compared to eight percent of the general female population. These individuals also suffered from symptoms like burning sensations, hesitancy, urgency, and difficulty urinating, along with defecation issues. Elaine Miller, a pelvic health physiotherapist and member of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, noted that many women are unaffected by incontinence until menopause, after which it becomes a common issue. She stated, "That appears to be exactly the same trajectory for female people who take cross-sex hormones, but there hasn’t been much in the way of research." Miller has worked with around 20 detransitioners seeking help for pelvic floor issues and emphasized the stigma and embarrassment surrounding incontinence, which often leads to the minimization of the problem. Miller highlighted the profound impact of incontinence on young people’s lives, affecting their ability to exercise, maintain intimate relationships, travel, and work. She stressed the importance of proper discussion of these risks within gender clinics, expressing concern that almost all female individuals taking cross-sex hormones could face these problems. The study pointed out that the menopausal process, characterized by loss of muscle mass and body strength, affects the pelvic floor and can lead to incontinence. Women who undergo early menopause are offered Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) on the NHS to prevent conditions like coronary heart disease, osteoporosis, and dementia. However, taking testosterone accelerates the menopausal process by stopping ovarian function and reducing estrogen production, which can exacerbate these issues. Testosterone is known to impact muscle mass and hair loss and has been associated with blood clots and gallstones, but its effects on pelvic floor issues and incontinence have not been extensively researched. Miller noted that the treatment for trans men experiencing these symptoms is similar to that for postmenopausal women, which seems incongruous given their young age. Treatments involve addressing constipation, educating on normal bladder and bowel functions, and pelvic floor exercises. Kate Barker, chief executive of the LGB Alliance, criticized the lack of thorough consideration given to the long-term consequences of these treatments. She highlighted testimonies from detransitioners at their annual conference, describing the lasting impact of decisions made at a young age, including permanent sterilization and loss of sexual function. Barker emphasized that these issues were officially acknowledged by the Cass Review, which led to the NHS halting the prescription of puberty blockers outside clinical trials and pausing cross-sex hormones for under-18s. The review called for more careful treatment of individuals under 25 and prompted a review of adult clinics. The authors of the study, led by Lyvia Maria Bezerra da Silva at the Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil, called for more research into the long-term effects of testosterone on transgender men. They noted a high frequency of pelvic floor dysfunction symptoms among participants and stressed the need for a deeper understanding of the long-term impacts of testosterone treatment. The findings were published in the International Urogynecology Journal, highlighting the urgent need for further research and better patient education on the potential risks associated with cross-sex hormone therapy. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-05-28 Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe