Social Media

In 1831, an immense volcanic eruption altered Earth’s climate, causing temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere to drop by an average of 1 degree Celsius. Nearly 200 years later, scientists have finally pinpointed the source of this mysterious eruption: Zavaritskii volcano on Simushir Island, part of the Kuril Islands archipelago in the northwest Pacific Ocean. This event, one of the most powerful eruptions of the 19th century, released vast quantities of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. It coincided with the final stages of the Little Ice Age, a period of notable cooling that lasted from the early 1400s to around 1850. Despite the eruption's climatic impact, the volcano responsible remained unidentified for decades due to limited historical records and its remote location. Dr. William Hutchison, a principal research fellow at the University of St. Andrews, explained the challenges of uncovering Zavaritskii’s eruptive history. "For many of Earth’s volcanoes, particularly those in remote areas, we have a very poor understanding of their eruptive history,” he said. “Zavaritskii is located on an extremely remote island between Japan and Russia. No one lives there, and historical records are limited to a handful of diaries from ships that passed these islands every few years.” The breakthrough came through an innovative analysis of ice cores from Greenland. Layers of sulfur isotopes, volcanic ash, and glass shards deposited between 1831 and 1834 pointed to a midlatitude volcano in the Northern Hemisphere. Geochemical analysis and computer modeling ultimately led researchers to Zavaritskii, a volcano whose last known eruption had been in 800 BC. “The moment in the lab analyzing the two ashes together — one from the volcano and one from the ice core — was a genuine eureka moment,” Hutchison shared. While earlier studies misattributed the 1831 eruption to tropical volcanoes like Babuyan Claro in the Philippines, new findings highlight the Kuril Islands as a source of significant climatic disruptions. Dr. Stefan Brönnimann, a climatologist at the University of Bern, emphasized the importance of this discovery. “This eruption had global climatic impacts but was wrongly attributed to a tropical volcano for a long time period. The research now shows that the eruption took place on the Kurils, not in the tropics.” The impact of the eruption extended far beyond the Northern Hemisphere's cooler temperatures. The resulting environmental changes contributed to widespread famine and hardship across India, Japan, and Europe. “It seems plausible that volcanic climate cooling led to crop failure and famine,” Hutchison said. “A focus of ongoing research is to understand to what extent these famines were caused by volcanic climate cooling or by other socio-political factors.” The identification of Zavaritskii adds to a broader understanding of the role of volcanic activity in shaping Earth’s climate. Alongside other eruptions, such as Tambora in Indonesia in 1815 and Cosegüina in Nicaragua in 1835, it underscores the significant impact of volcanic eruptions during the Little Ice Age. Hutchison stressed the importance of monitoring isolated volcanoes like Zavaritskii, as future eruptions could have devastating global consequences. “We don’t really have a coordinated international community to kick into gear when the next big one happens,” he warned. “That is something we need to think about as both scientists and as a society.” By shedding light on the mysterious 1831 eruption, this research highlights the delicate interplay between natural events and human history and the need for vigilance in the face of Earth’s unpredictable geological forces. Based on a report by CNN 2024-01-06

The Biden administration has formally notified Congress of a proposed $8 billion arms sale to Israel, encompassing munitions for fighter jets and attack helicopters, as well as artillery shells, according to sources with direct knowledge of the deal. This marks a significant and possibly final arms transfer to Israel under the current administration. The decision arrives amidst ongoing claims from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters that the Biden administration had imposed a silent “arms embargo” on Israel. Despite calls from some Democrats to condition arms sales on Israel’s approach to the war effort and humanitarian concerns in Gaza, President Biden chose not to tie such conditions to the deal. This agreement is structured as a long-term arrangement, with a mix of immediate fulfillment from U.S. stocks and deliveries that could take several years to complete. According to sources, the package includes a range of advanced weaponry: AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles for intercepting airborne threats, including drones; 155mm artillery shells; Hellfire AGM-114 missiles for attack helicopters; small diameter bombs; and JDAM tail kits that convert conventional bombs into precision-guided munitions. Additionally, the deal comprises 500-pound warheads and bomb fuzes, demonstrating a focus on both air superiority and ground-based offensive capabilities. A U.S. official stated that the sale is designed to bolster Israel’s long-term security by replenishing critical munitions and enhancing air defense systems. "The President has made clear Israel has a right to defend its citizens, consistent with international law and international humanitarian law, and to deter aggression from Iran and its proxy organizations,” the official said. “We will continue to provide the capabilities necessary for Israel's defense." Approval of the sale now lies with the House and Senate foreign relations committees, which will review the proposal. Given its scope and timing, the agreement underscores the Biden administration’s commitment to Israel’s security amidst regional instability, even as it navigates domestic and international scrutiny over the broader implications of arms transfers in the context of ongoing conflicts. While the deal is poised to address Israel’s strategic needs, its political and humanitarian ramifications remain subjects of debate, reflecting the delicate balance between defense partnerships and accountability in international relations. Based on a report by AXIOS 2024-01-06

Donald Trump has voiced strong criticism of the United Kingdom's energy policies, particularly its reliance on wind energy and the recent hike in windfall taxes on fossil fuel profits. Trump called these moves a "very big mistake" and urged the UK to "get rid of windmills" while opening up the North Sea for more oil and gas production. In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump shared a news article from November detailing the withdrawal of a major U.S. oil producer, Apache, from the North Sea. The region, situated off the Scottish coast, is a significant hub for oil production. Trump wrote, "The UK is making a very big mistake. Open up the North Sea. Get rid of windmills!" Apache announced it would cease operations in the North Sea by 2029, attributing its decision partly to the increased windfall tax imposed on fossil fuel companies. The energy profits levy, introduced as a response to surging energy prices following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, was raised to 38% in October by UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves. This marked an increase from the original 25% introduced by Rishi Sunak in 2022. John Christmann, chief executive of Apache’s parent company, APA Corporation, explained that the investment required to meet UK regulations, combined with the "onerous financial impact" of the windfall tax, made hydrocarbon production beyond 2029 economically unviable. He also noted that substantial investments would be necessary to comply with regulatory requirements, further discouraging long-term commitments in the region. Trump's remarks reflect his broader stance on energy production. During his first presidential campaign, he popularized the phrase "drill, baby, drill," signaling his commitment to expanding oil and gas production. He has indicated that increasing domestic energy output will remain a key focus if he secures a second term in office. The windfall tax, formally known as the energy price levy, was introduced to address record profits reported by many oil and gas companies amid soaring energy prices. The additional revenue was intended to help alleviate the financial burden on households facing skyrocketing gas and electricity bills during a widespread cost-of-living crisis. Despite its intended benefits, the policy has faced criticism from industry stakeholders, with Apache being one of several firms reevaluating or scaling back operations in the North Sea. Critics argue that the tax discourages investment in the region, potentially undermining the UK’s energy security and economic stability. As global energy challenges continue, the debate over the balance between promoting renewable energy and maintaining fossil fuel production remains contentious. Trump's call to prioritize oil and gas over wind energy adds a high-profile voice to the conversation, further fueling the discourse on the future of energy policy in the UK and beyond. Based on a report by Sky News 2024-01-06

As Americans celebrated the arrival of a new year on New Year's Day, the dark reality of radicalized violence shattered the festive atmosphere in New Orleans. Around 3:15 a.m. local time on Bourbon Street, a bustling hub of New Year's revelry, tragedy struck. Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a U.S. Army veteran who had converted to Islam and reportedly embraced extremist ideologies, drove a rented pickup truck into a dense crowd of partiers. The vehicle was more than just a weapon of impact; it was packed with firearms, improvised explosive devices, and an ISIS flag. This horrific act of violence left at least 15 dead and more than 30 injured, turning a night of joy into one of devastation. Jabbar’s journey toward radicalization remains under investigation, but some details are emerging. He had been associated with Masjid Bilal, a mosque in Houston. In the wake of this horrific event, the mosque advised its members via social media to avoid speaking directly with the FBI, instead directing inquiries to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR, a controversial organization, has faced criticism and scrutiny over the years. It was listed by the FBI as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 case against the Holy Land Foundation, the largest terror financing prosecution in U.S. history. Former FBI counterterrorism officials have also described the group as a “front organization for Hamas,” a designation that continues to stir heated debate. A few hours later several hundred demonstrators called for an intifada at an anti-Israel protest in New York City’s Times Square to mark New Year’s Day. Attendees chanted “Resistance is glorious — we will be victorious,” “We will honor all our martyrs,” and “Gaza, you make us proud.” They carried signs that said “Zionism is cancer,” “No war on Iran,” and “End all US aid to Israel.” “There is only one solution — Intifada revolution,” they chanted, using a common refrain at anti-Israel rallies in the US. “Intifada,” Arabic for “uprising,” is associated with the Second Intifada, a period of terror attacks in Israel in the early 2000s marked by suicide bombings. For decades, political leaders and commentators have oscillated between vigilance and complacency regarding the threat posed by radical Islamic extremism. The assassinations of figures like Osama bin Laden and the dismantling of ISIS’s territorial control fostered a dangerous sense of security among some policymakers. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, often dismissed as regional concerns primarily affecting Israel, were deprioritized in the broader U.S. national security strategy. However, history provides ample warnings about the risks of underestimating jihadist networks. The 1983 Hezbollah bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, which claimed the lives of 241 American servicemen, remains a poignant reminder of their capacity for destruction. In contrast to this historical vigilance, recent political and cultural priorities have shifted focus domestically, with some officials concentrating on issues like abortion clinic protests and school board controversies. Meanwhile, fundamental security recommendations, such as those outlined in the 9/11 Commission’s final report urging a secure U.S.-Mexico border, appear to have been sidelined. The New Orleans attack is a grim testament to the persistent and evolving threat of radical Islamic jihad. It underscores the urgent need for robust national security measures, including tightened border controls and renewed international cooperation to combat extremism. The United States must remember the lessons of the past and confront the realities of the present. As the nation mourns the victims of this senseless act, it is imperative to recognize that complacency is not an option. If America is to prevent future tragedies, it must commit to a vigilant and proactive stance against the multifaceted threats posed by radical ideologies. Based on a report by NewsWeek | TOI 2024-01-06

Europe stands on the brink of an economic apocalypse, with its longstanding prosperity under siege from stagnation, dwindling competitiveness, and the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House. As Mario Draghi starkly warned in a recent report, this is “an existential challenge” for the continent. Historically, Europe thrived on innovation and a robust economic model underpinned by its eastern expansion and strong trade relationships with the U.S. and Asia. Yet, the once-firm foundations of this prosperity now show alarming cracks. With China’s economic boom losing steam and U.S.-Europe trade relations clouded by rising tensions, Europe’s economic trajectory appears increasingly precarious. The challenges could escalate dramatically under a second Trump presidency. His administration has already hinted at imposing punitive tariffs on European goods, from Bordeaux wine to luxury Italian suits. Trump’s persistent demand for NATO allies to contribute more financially to their own defense adds another strain. European governments, already grappling with soaring deficits and declining tax revenues, face the prospect of deeper financial and political turmoil. Europe’s woes, however, go beyond external pressures. At its core, the continent faces a troubling truth: it has become an “innovation desert.” Despite a storied history of transformative inventions—from the automobile to modern pharmaceuticals—Europe has ceded ground in global innovation. Christine Lagarde, speaking at Paris’s historic Collège des Bernardins, cautioned that Europe’s cherished social model is at risk unless the region swiftly adapts. “Otherwise, we will not be able to generate the wealth we will need to meet our rising spending needs to ensure our security, combat climate change and protect the environment,” she said. The statistics paint a grim picture. Europe’s global tech presence is paltry, with only four of the world’s top 50 tech firms hailing from the continent. In the automotive sector, despite accounting for over 40% of global R&D spending, European carmakers missed the electric vehicle revolution. Germany’s auto giants, for instance, focused on optimizing diesel engines while companies like Tesla and Chinese manufacturers dominated the electric vehicle market. This failure has led to significant repercussions, including Volkswagen’s decision to shutter some German plants for the first time in its history. Compounding the issue is Europe’s chronic underinvestment in emerging technologies. IMF data reveals that U.S. tech companies spend over twice as much on R&D as their European counterparts, resulting in a 40% productivity surge in the U.S. tech sector since 2005, compared to stagnation in Europe. Lagarde succinctly captured the problem: “Europe is falling behind in emerging technologies that will drive future growth.” This economic malaise extends beyond tech and cars. European industries face mounting competition from China in areas like machinery and trains, sectors where the region once held dominance. Meanwhile, social spending in many EU nations is unsustainable under current economic conditions. France, for example, spends over 30% of GDP on social programs but is grappling with a budget deficit expected to surpass 7% by 2025. As borrowing costs rise and economic growth stagnates, the stark reality is that Europe may face difficult decisions reminiscent of Greece’s austerity measures in 2010. Clemens Fuest of the Ifo Institute reflected on Europe’s lack of preparation for these challenges: “The failure of Europe’s leaders to draw lessons from the last Trump presidency is now coming back to haunt us.” If Europe’s leaders fail to act decisively, the continent risks becoming a “debt-ridden, open-air museum,” as Draghi described. The trouble is, by the time Europeans wake up to their new reality, it may be too late to do much about it. Based on a report by Politico 2024-01-06

Labour has been accused of attempting to manipulate the next general election by proposing significant changes to voting laws. Critics claim the proposed reforms could dismantle safeguards against voter fraud and extend voting rights to millions of foreign nationals, potentially securing a Labour majority in future elections. Speculation in Westminster suggests Labour ministers are planning sweeping electoral reforms. Among the most contentious proposals is a move to extend voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds, a change that could be enacted through legislation expected later this year. Adding to the controversy, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), a think-tank aligned with Labour, has recommended relaxing or removing the requirement for voters to present photographic identification, a measure introduced in 2022 to prevent voter fraud and intimidation. The IPPR argues that easing photo ID rules could increase voter turnout among marginalized groups, such as renters and non-graduates. The think-tank's report warns that ignoring political inequality would harm the Government's legitimacy, stating, “Letting current trends in political inequality play out would be an obvious act of self-harm for this Government.” Another divisive suggestion from the IPPR involves granting voting rights to approximately five million foreign nationals who are permanent taxpaying residents in the UK. Currently, voting rights are restricted to citizens of the UK, Ireland, and Commonwealth nations. The IPPR’s report highlights, “Around five million permanent taxpaying residents of the UK do not have the right to vote in its elections… There is clear need for a wider political conversation about the notion of citizenship and voting rights in the UK.” Additionally, the report proposes automatically registering voters before their 16th birthdays, potentially adding 700,000 young people to the electoral register annually. The combination of these changes could significantly alter the electorate, with critics arguing the reforms disproportionately benefit Labour. The proposals have sparked fierce backlash from Conservative MPs. Nigel Huddleston, co-chairman of the Conservative Party, accused Labour of attempting to undermine the electoral process. “This is nothing more than a shameless attempt by Labour to rig elections in its favour and turn a blind eye to electoral fraud,” Huddleston said. “It is no surprise that Labour has resorted to dirty tricks to improve its chances of electoral success and try to distract people away from its failures. In six short months in power, it has trashed the economy, whacked up taxes, and cut the winter fuel payment for 10 million vulnerable pensioners.” The controversy has also reignited scrutiny of the IPPR, a think-tank with a storied history of influencing Labour policy. Once dubbed “Tony Blair’s favourite think-tank,” the IPPR played a pivotal role during the New Labour era. Today, it wields significant influence over Sir Keir Starmer’s administration. The Prime Minister has appointed former IPPR executive director Carys Roberts and policy expert Rachel Statham to advisory roles, signaling the think-tank’s continued sway in shaping Labour’s agenda. As the debate over electoral reforms intensifies, questions remain about the broader implications for democracy and the balance of power in the UK. Critics argue the proposed changes represent a dangerous precedent, while supporters contend they are necessary to modernize the voting system and promote inclusivity. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-01-06

Bill Maher has not held back his criticism of the "crazies" within the Democratic Party, making his views clear during a recent interview with the *Wall Street Journal*. Known for his sharp wit and unapologetic commentary, Maher explained why his comedy increasingly targets the left, despite being a lifelong Democrat. “You’re damn right I do, because you give me more material,” Maher said when asked about his satirical focus on the left. “I’m a comedian. I’m going to go where the gold is.” He emphasized the unique power of humor in political discourse, stating, “I think humor is one of the best avenues to get at the truth, maybe the best, especially in politics. When someone laughs, it is involuntary. So you can make the audience admit that they agree with you even if they really don’t want to.” Maher criticized the left’s inability to tolerate differing viewpoints, agreeing with the interviewer’s observation that the “woke” often fail to laugh at themselves. “This is one of the issues I have with the left,” he remarked. “They can’t stand to have to endure a moment of hearing something they don’t already agree with. Not that the right doesn’t do it, too, but the left does it worse.” He also addressed backlash from his liberal friends regarding his decision to host conservative guests on his show, such as Ann Coulter. “‘I had liberal friends who just couldn’t stand that. Just think about what this is,’” Maher said, pausing for effect. “‘That’s people who hate me for who I won’t hate.’” He repeated for emphasis, “‘People who hate me for who I won’t hate.’” When asked why many on the left struggle to engage civilly with those they disagree with, Maher attributed it to virtue signaling. “It’s in their psychological profile. They just have this need for virtue signaling, and to have their friends—and I guess everybody on social media—think of them as the good people. ‘We’re the good people. We know who’s good. And it’s us.’” Despite his criticism, Maher dispelled rumors of switching political allegiances. “Many Republicans say, ‘Maybe we could get Bill Maher.’ No, you can’t. What you can get is Bill Maher being honest about the left. I’m not going to join your team that doesn’t believe in democracy.” However, Maher acknowledged the appeal of the Republican Party to some voters, explaining, “There are voters who are not particularly enamored with Trump, not blind to his many flaws, but they just feel that the crazy on the left is somehow worse. I don’t agree with them, but I get it. I don’t hate them for voting for him.” Maher also critiqued the younger generation for what he perceives as a lack of perspective, particularly those educated at elite universities. “They have no idea, no perspective. Of course, if they’ve gone to elite universities, i.e., a—h— factories, they’ve been indoctrinated into this idea that they live in the worst country in the world at the worst time in history, when actually they live in, with all our flaws, still probably the best, with definitely indisputably the best time in history.” While Maher called for a “metaphorical colonic” for the country, he rejected the notion that America needs a revolution. “I like America. America does not need a revolution,” he said, pushing back against extremist rhetoric. Maher expressed concern that Democrats risk losing elections by failing to connect with voters. “They often say, when they lose elections, ‘We didn’t get our message out.’ Yes, you did. They just didn’t like it. You got it out loud and clear.” Concluding with his signature bluntness, Maher turned his sights on Vice President Kamala Harris, declaring, “You lost a crazy contest to an actual crazy person. Congratulations.” Based on a report by NYP 2024-01-06

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently shared his thoughts on handling tech mogul Elon Musk, who has been exchanging sharp comments with German politicians. Scholz advised against engaging with Musk, suggesting it is better not to “feed the troll.” “There are a lot of people on social media who want to attract attention with snappy slogans,” Scholz said during an interview with the German magazine *Stern*, published on Saturday. “I don’t believe in courting Mr. Musk’s favor,” he added, “I’m happy to leave that to others.” Scholz further emphasized that as a Social Democrat, he is accustomed to dealing with wealthy media entrepreneurs who do not appreciate Social Democratic policies and openly express their disdain. His remarks came amidst an ongoing back-and-forth with Musk, a tech billionaire closely allied with President-elect Donald Trump. Musk, recently appointed by Trump to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) alongside Vivek Ramaswamy, has used his social media platform to mock Scholz, referring to him as “Oaf Schitz” and predicting his defeat in the upcoming parliamentary elections on February 23. This jab came shortly after Musk wrote an op-ed in the German newspaper *Welt am Sonntag*, where he expressed strong support for Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), led by Alice Weidel. In the op-ed, Musk criticized Germany's bureaucracy and regulatory overreach, endorsing AfD’s immigration policies. Following the publication of Musk’s op-ed, the German government accused him of interfering in the country's electoral process. However, they downplayed his efforts to boost support for the AfD, stating that “freedom of expression also includes the greatest nonsense.” In his New Year’s address, Scholz subtly responded to Musk’s provocations, saying, “In our debates, one can be forgiven for sometimes thinking the more extreme an opinion is, the more attention it will garner.” Scholz expressed greater concern over Musk’s support for the AfD, a party with elements that are right-wing extremist, promote reconciliation with Putin’s Russia, and seek to weaken transatlantic relations. “It’s much more worrying than such insults,” Scholz told *Stern*. Musk, who has been increasingly involved in U.S. politics, backing Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign with a significant financial contribution of at least $250 million, is set to speak with Weidel, the AfD leader, on January 9 via his platform, X. Germany is heading into its February election amidst political turmoil, following the collapse of Scholz's coalition in November. Based on a report by The Hill 2024-01-06

President-elect Donald Trump announced on Friday that former Fox News contributor Tammy Bruce will soon be joining his State Department. Bruce is set to work alongside Marco Rubio, the nominee for United States Secretary of State, as the new Spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State. “It is my great honor to announce that Tammy Bruce will be joining our incredible Nominee for United States Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, as Spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State,” Trump shared on his social media platform, Truth Social. Bruce had been a contributor at Fox News until Friday, a role she held since joining the network in 2005. She is also an accomplished author of several books. A Fox News spokesperson confirmed Bruce’s departure, stating, “Tammy Bruce has been an extremely valued contributor at FOX News Media for nearly 20 years, and we wish her all the best in her new role.” Trump praised Bruce, calling her a “highly respected political analyst” who had firsthand experience with “the lies and fraud of the Radical Left.” According to her bio on Fox News, Bruce was once a registered Democrat and was involved in several left-wing political campaigns during the 1990s. She later transitioned to using her experience as a liberal community organizer to oppose and expose the leftist agenda. Previously, she led the National Organization for Women. “As one of the longest-serving News Contributors, Tammy has brought TRUTH to the American People for over two decades,” Trump wrote. “I know she will bring that same strength of conviction and fearless spirit to her new position as State Department Spokesperson.” Bruce joins a growing list of former Fox News personalities who have been appointed to positions in Trump’s incoming administration, including Sean Duffy, Pete Hegseth, Janette Nesheiwat, and Monica Crowley. Notably, Bruce’s new role does not require Senate confirmation. Based on a report by The Hill 2024-01-06

Four years ago, after the upheaval of the Trump administration, President Joe Biden entered office with a promise to restore alliances and uphold democracy. The responsibility for executing this vision on the global stage fell to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, a seasoned diplomat and close Biden confidant with two decades of collaboration with the president. Their message to allies and adversaries alike was clear: a stable and predictable era of American leadership was on the horizon. However, Blinken’s tenure quickly became a trial by fire. The chaotic and widely criticized withdrawal from Afghanistan marked a difficult start. This was soon overshadowed by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a conflict that presented a generational challenge to global stability. More recently, Hamas’s brutal attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza further plunged the region into turmoil, with ripple effects destabilizing both international and domestic political climates. Despite these challenges, Blinken has remained steadfast in advocating Biden’s vision of strong, proactive diplomacy as the solution to the world’s most pressing issues. "We continue to believe that the quickest way, the most effective way to have an enduring end to Gaza is through an agreement on a cease-fire that brings the hostages home. The two biggest impediments to getting that over the finish line — and we’ve been so close on several occasions and as we speak today, we’re also very close — there have been two major impediments, and they both go to what drives Hamas. One has been whenever there has been public daylight between the United States and Israel and the perception that pressure was growing on Israel, we’ve seen it: Hamas has pulled back from agreeing to a cease-fire and the release of hostages. And so there are times when what we say in private to Israel where we have a disagreement is one thing, and what we’re doing or saying in public may be another. But that’s in no small measure because with this daylight, the prospects of getting the hostage and cease-fire deal over the finish line become more distant." As Biden’s administration nears its conclusion, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East persist, showing no clear path to resolution. The potential return of Donald Trump to the White House raises further uncertainty. A new Trump administration is expected to adopt a markedly different approach, retreating from the alliances and international institutions that Blinken and Biden have worked to strengthen. This oscillation in American foreign policy has left observers questioning the country’s reliability and its evolving role in the global order. Throughout these turbulent years, Blinken has remained committed to the ideals of diplomacy and international cooperation. His efforts have underscored the complexities of balancing immediate crises with long-term strategic goals. The legacy of his tenure, like the administration he serves, will likely be judged in the context of these extraordinary challenges and the outcomes they yield. Antony Blinken Says the War in Gaza Won’t Define His Legacy Based on a report by NYT 2024-01-06

A number of posts have been reported and removed for being off topic, mainly instigated by @frank83628 Replies also removed. This topic is not about Ukraine and Russian war. Why South Korea Should Go Nuclear

Off topic troll post removed @placeholder

There is a seperate topic already running for that. This is not it.

A couple of troll posts removed along with a very immature sarcastic follow up troll post @Will B Good 17. ASEAN NOW news team collects news articles from various recognised and reputable news sources. The articles may be consolidated from different sources and rewritten with AI assistance These news items are shared in our forums for members to stay informed and engaged. Our dedicated news team puts in the effort to deliver quality content, and we ask for your respect in return. Any disrespectful comments about our news articles or the content itself, such as calling it "clickbait" or “slow news day”, and criticising grammatical errors, will not be tolerated and appropriate action will be taken. Please note that republished articles may contain errors or opinions that do not reflect the views of ASEAN NOW. If you'd like to help us, and you see an error with an article, then please use the report function so that we can attend to it promptly.

A baiting troll post removed @blaze master along with replies Please discuss the "topic" nicely or it will be more than posts removed. Elon Musk and JD Vance Spark Controversy with Support for Germany’s Far-Right AfD

Reminder of the topic: Netherlands: Names of 425,000 Suspected Nazi Collaborators Published Online This topic is not about other wars and certainly nothing to do with the Palestinians

An inflammatory hate speech troll post making personal attacks and comment on moderation has been removed @nobodysfriend

President Joe Biden awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal to former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., at a ceremony held at the White House on Thursday. Cheney and Thompson served as vice chair and chair, respectively, of the House Jan. 6 committee, which conducted a thorough 18-month investigation into the events surrounding the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021, and former President Donald Trump’s involvement. Thompson and Cheney’s recognition comes amidst continued tension, with Trump openly criticizing the Jan. 6 committee and its members. The former president has suggested punitive actions against them, including calling for their imprisonment. Trump has also pledged to pardon individuals convicted for their roles in the Capitol attack, further deepening the political divide. In response, Thompson dismissed Trump’s threats, stating that the committee acted within the bounds of the law. During the ceremony, Biden underscored the critical importance of democracy and the role of citizenship in safeguarding it. “I think it's pretty damn simple. Our democracy begins and ends with the duties of citizenship. That’s our work for the ages. That’s what all of you — and I mean this — all of you embody,” he remarked. As each recipient's name was announced, they stepped forward to receive their medal from the president. Cheney received a particularly enthusiastic response when her name was called. The announcer recognized her for “putting the American people over party,” prompting loud applause and a standing ovation from the audience. While Cheney herself did not comment on the recognition, her contribution to the committee’s work and her outspoken stance on upholding democratic principles have garnered widespread attention. In addition to Cheney and Thompson, more than a dozen Americans were honored during the ceremony. These included former senators Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, and Ted Kaufman of Delaware, along with veterans, marriage equality activists, women’s rights advocates, and civil rights leaders. Based on a report by NBC 2024-01-04

Australia has taken a pioneering step in the global effort to protect children online, implementing a law that restricts minors under the age of 16 from accessing social media. This groundbreaking legislation places Australia at the forefront of online safety, with Julie Inman Grant, the nation’s eSafety Commissioner, playing a critical role in its enforcement. An American by birth and a former tech industry veteran, Inman Grant has become a central figure in this ambitious initiative, offering insights that could guide similar efforts in the United States. "For too long, the burden for safety has fallen on the parents themselves or the children, rather than the platforms," Inman Grant explained in an interview. The new law shifts the responsibility onto social media companies, requiring them to adopt measures to prevent children from accessing platforms with potentially harmful content. This comes as countries worldwide wrestle with the growing influence of the tech industry and its impact on young users. The political momentum for this legislation in Australia was significant. Driven by concerns from parents, politicians, and media campaigns advocating for stricter online safety measures, the government acted decisively. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasized the need for social media platforms to demonstrate greater responsibility, noting that their previous efforts to protect children had been insufficient. While some refer to the new policy as a "social media ban," Inman Grant prefers the term "social media restriction bill." She highlighted its numerous exemptions, ensuring a balanced approach. "We’re not trying to cut kids off," she said, pointing to the ongoing role of messaging apps and online gaming platforms that facilitate healthy connections and problem-solving skills. However, platforms with addictive features, opaque algorithms, and harmful content are under scrutiny. Implementing the law is no small task. Verifying the age of users remains a complex challenge. "It’s not just a technological issue; it’s an ecosystem issue," Inman Grant remarked. She emphasized the importance of balancing safety with privacy, noting that methods such as biometrics, government IDs, and digital tools are being explored to enforce the restrictions. Critics, particularly social media companies, argue that the law represents government overreach and risks stifling free speech. Inman Grant counters that the legislation was driven by parental demand. "Parents feel like it’s just too hard," she said, referencing the overwhelming number of parental controls on platforms that are often difficult to navigate. The law aims to simplify this by placing the burden of safety on tech companies. The U.S. is also considering measures to protect children online, such as the Kids Online Safety Act. However, legislative efforts have stalled due to political divisions. Inman Grant believes Australia’s approach could serve as a model, advocating for proactive measures like embedding safety features into technology from the outset. She likened this to how the automotive industry evolved to include life-saving features like seat belts and airbags. Reflecting on her unique position as an American leading Australia’s online safety efforts, Inman Grant sees potential for international collaboration. "I would be absolutely delighted if the U.S. had an online safety regulator," she said, underscoring the importance of bipartisan support and a focus on harm remediation. Australia’s experiment in online safety is ambitious, but it offers valuable lessons for other nations grappling with the challenges of the digital age. By shifting responsibility onto platforms and embedding safety measures into technology, the hope is to create a safer, more accountable online environment for young users. Based on a report by Politico 2024-01-04

Vice President-elect JD Vance stirred debate on Thursday by sharing an op-ed penned by Elon Musk, in which the tech billionaire voiced support for Germany’s far-right political party, Alternative for Germany (AfD). Vance posted the piece on the platform X, calling it an “interesting piece” while clarifying he was not endorsing AfD, as he viewed Germany's elections as a matter for its own citizens. In his post, Vance explained, “We hope to have good relations with all Germans.” However, he criticized the portrayal of AfD in U.S. media, asserting that “American media slanders AfD as Nazi-lite, but AfD is most popular in the same areas of Germany that were most resistant to the Nazis.” Musk’s guest editorial, featured in the German newspaper *Welt am Sonntag*, raised eyebrows both in Germany and abroad. The Tesla CEO, a close ally of President-elect Donald Trump, argued that Germany faces an impending “economic and cultural collapse.” In his view, the far-right AfD is the only political force capable of reversing the nation’s trajectory. “Only the AfD can save Germany,” Musk proclaimed in a separate post on X. The op-ed sparked immediate backlash. The commentary editor of *Welt am Sonntag* resigned in protest, and the German government accused Musk of attempting to influence its February elections. German government spokesperson Christiane Hoffmann remarked during a media briefing, “Freedom of expression also includes the greatest nonsense,” underscoring the controversial nature of Musk’s intervention. Germany’s ambassador to the U.S., Andreas Michaelis, responded to Vance’s remarks on Bluesky, noting the complexities of German history. “Historical context can be tricky,” Michaelis wrote. “While some areas you are referring to resisted the Nazi party early on, others did not, or later became strongholds of the regime. Germany’s history reminds us how important it is to challenge extremism in all its forms.” Musk’s increasing involvement in global politics has drawn scrutiny. He defended his foray into Germany’s political landscape, asserting that his substantial investments in the country’s technological and industrial sectors grant him a stake in its future. His criticisms have not stopped at Germany; Musk recently targeted British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the Labour Party-led government. The February 23 election in Germany has significant implications for the country’s future. While the AfD remains the second most popular party, its far-right policies, including calls for mass deportations and a strong anti-immigration stance, have made it an isolated force in German politics. All major parties have categorically ruled out forming a coalition with the AfD. Amid the growing political tensions, Musk has also called for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to resign, adding further fuel to the fire. Whether these statements will influence Germany’s electorate remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Musk’s political interventions are becoming a defining feature of his global presence. As debates rage on, both Musk and Vance find themselves at the center of a broader conversation about the role of influential figures in international politics and the dangers of extremism in an increasingly polarized world. Based on a report by The Hill 2024-01-04

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has reignited calls for a national inquiry into the grooming scandals that have plagued towns and cities across the UK, describing such an investigation as "long overdue." Her statement follows mounting criticism of government minister Jess Phillips, who recently declined Oldham Council's request for a public inquiry into child sexual exploitation in the town. Badenoch took to the platform X, asserting, “The time is long overdue for a full national inquiry into the rape gangs scandal. Trials have taken place all over the country in recent years, but no one in authority has joined the dots. 2025 must be the year that the victims start to get justice.” Her plea was echoed by Alicia Kearns, the shadow safeguarding minister, who wrote to Phillips urging a reversal of the government's decision regarding Oldham. Kearns emphasized, “We have asked for planned Conservative measures to be enacted, to reverse the Oldham refusal, and for a statutory inquiry into grooming and rape gangs.” The grooming scandals, which have spanned over a decade, were first brought to public attention in 2013. Reports uncovered harrowing instances of girls as young as 11 being groomed and raped in towns such as Oldham, Rochdale, Rotherham, and Telford. A 2014 report by Professor Alexis Jay revealed the horrific scale of abuse in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, where approximately 1,400 girls were abused, while police and social services failed to act. This was followed by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), also chaired by Professor Jay. In its 2022 final report, the inquiry found that children across England and Wales continued to suffer sexual exploitation by organized networks in what it described as the "most degrading and destructive ways." Among its key recommendations was a legal requirement for institutions working with children to report suspicions of sexual abuse. In contrast to Badenoch's stance, Jess Phillips, Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, defended her position in a letter to Oldham Council dated October last year. She wrote that while she understood the "strength of feeling" surrounding the issue, she believed that commissioning a local inquiry was the responsibility of Oldham Council rather than the government. Phillips’ response drew backlash from Conservative figures, including former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who accused her of “letting down victims.” Survivors and critics, however, also directed their frustrations at Badenoch and the Conservative government. Sammy Woodhouse, a survivor of the Rotherham abuse, criticized Badenoch’s call for action, stating, “I’ve met with your party for 12 years about this when you were in power. I asked for an inquiry into every town and city, none of you cared. Now you need the vote you want to speak on it?” Reform UK leader Nigel Farage added to the condemnation, remarking, “Talk is cheap. The Conservatives had 14 years in government to launch an inquiry. The establishment has failed the victims of grooming gangs on every level.” The demand for accountability persists as survivors, campaigners, and politicians on both sides of the aisle grapple with the government’s role in addressing systemic failures. With calls for justice growing louder, the question remains whether 2025 will indeed be the year meaningful action is taken to confront this enduring national tragedy. Based on a report by Sky News | Independent 2024-01-04

A troubling new survey has revealed that nearly half of Britons no longer believe the police will respond to reports of burglary or car theft. This growing crisis in public confidence highlights the challenges faced by law enforcement and the consequences of systemic underfunding. According to the poll, 46 percent of adults have abandoned the expectation that a home burglary will be properly investigated, while 49 percent hold the same belief regarding car thefts. The situation is particularly dire among older citizens, with 54 percent of those aged 65 and above expressing doubt that officers would attend a burglary at their property. Adding to the alarming findings, eight percent of Britons admitted they have delayed contacting the police after experiencing a crime. Of these, a quarter believed that officers would take too long to respond, while over a third felt the police would not have the time or resources to take the matter seriously. This erosion of trust comes despite a 2023 directive from then-Home Secretary Suella Braverman mandating that police attend every reported burglary. However, the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) has acknowledged that resource constraints make such a policy challenging. An NPCC spokesperson noted, "An immediate response may not be possible or appropriate if the resident is away or does not want us to attend." The Police Federation, representing 145,000 officers across England and Wales, echoed these concerns, citing insufficient resources to meet the demand for consistent responses to crimes. The survey also highlighted broader issues, with two in five adults expressing a lack of confidence that police would respond effectively to street assaults. These findings have drawn sharp criticism from the Liberal Democrats, who commissioned the poll. Lisa Smart, the Liberal Democrats' Home Affairs spokesperson, described the results as "scandalous" but not surprising given the current state of law enforcement. "This crisis in confidence is a direct consequence of years of neglect and mismanagement from the previous Conservative government," she stated. "They decimated frontline policing and left our communities to pay the price. People deserve to feel confident that if they do fall victim to crime, the police will turn up and properly investigate. The new government must act urgently to restore the public's trust in policing. That requires a return to proper community policing—keeping our communities safe and reducing crime with more bobbies on the beat." Recent statistics paint a bleak picture of police effectiveness. In the three months leading up to June 2024, officers in England and Wales failed to solve 31,980 domestic burglaries—equivalent to three out of every four cases. Out of 42,488 recorded investigations during the same period, only 2,494 resulted in charges, a mere six percent. The Liberal Democrats have called on ministers to take decisive action by guaranteeing that all domestic burglaries are attended to and thoroughly investigated. The party argues that such measures are essential to rebuilding public trust and ensuring the safety of communities across the country. Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-01-04

In a landmark moment for historical transparency, the names of approximately 425,000 individuals suspected of collaborating with the Nazis during the German occupation of the Netherlands have been published online for the first time. These names come from a vast archive documenting investigations conducted through a special legal system established toward the end of World War II. Among those listed, more than 150,000 faced some form of punishment for their alleged actions. Until now, the full records of these investigations were only accessible by visiting the Dutch National Archives in The Hague, posing a significant barrier to those interested in delving into this chapter of history. The digitization effort, led by the Huygens Institute, marks a significant step toward making this archive more accessible. The Institute emphasized the importance of these records, stating, "This archive contains important stories for both present and future generations, from children who want to know what their father did in the war, to historians researching the grey areas of collaboration." The archive comprises files on various individuals, including war criminals, approximately 20,000 Dutch citizens who joined the German armed forces, and suspected members of the National Socialist Movement (NSB), the Dutch Nazi party. The online database provides basic information, such as names, birthdates, and birthplaces, but it does not indicate whether a person was found guilty or the nature of their alleged collaboration. For further details, users must visit the National Archives and request the corresponding file, demonstrating a legitimate interest in doing so. While the initiative promises to shed light on a dark chapter in Dutch history, it has sparked concerns about the potential misuse of sensitive information. To address these concerns, the initial release of online data has been carefully limited. Rinke Smedinga, whose father was an NSB member and worked at Camp Westerbork—a transit camp from which many were deported to concentration camps—expressed apprehension about the potential backlash. "I am afraid that there will be very nasty reactions," Smedinga told the Dutch publication DIT. Tom De Smet, director of the National Archives, acknowledged the delicate nature of this endeavor. "Relatives of both collaborators and victims of the occupation had to be taken into account," he explained. Yet, De Smet also emphasized the potential for healing and understanding. "Collaboration is still a major trauma. It is not talked about. We hope that when the archives are opened, the taboo will be broken." In a letter to parliament dated December 19, Culture Minister Eppo Bruins underscored the broader significance of this move, writing, "Openness of archives is crucial for facing the effects of [the Netherlands'] difficult shared past and to process it as a society." As this newly accessible archive begins to reveal its secrets, it offers an opportunity for the Netherlands to confront and better understand the complexities of its wartime history—a journey that may help bridge the divide between past and present. Based on a report by BBC 2024-01-04

Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a 34-year-old Palestinian American with deep roots in Gaza, has become a beacon of clarity in the often polarized discourse surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict. With a pragmatic and humane approach, his voice has resonated in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks, positioning him as a leading advocate for peace and mutual understanding. Alkhatib's rise to prominence stemmed from his ability to express truths that many Palestinians, particularly those in Gaza or the West Bank, cannot safely articulate. As an outspoken critic of Hamas and a defender of Palestinian rights, he navigates a treacherous middle ground that few dare to tread. His efforts have earned both admiration and hostility. “Ahmed is unique because he does speak out, and he takes a lot of shit for it,” said Gershon Baskin, an Israeli hostage negotiator and close ally. “He’s a very clear, sound voice for peace, reason, and logic.” In widely read outlets such as the *Wall Street Journal*, *The Atlantic*, *Foreign Policy*, and the *Times of Israel*, as well as during interviews on CNN, ABC, and NPR, Alkhatib has articulated positions that challenge entrenched narratives. He has condemned Hamas unequivocally, describing the group as harmful to the Palestinian cause, and this outspoken stance has occasionally necessitated a security detail for his protection. Simultaneously, he has criticized the unrelenting brutality of Israel’s military actions, urging empathy for all victims, regardless of their nationality. In the wake of the October attacks, Alkhatib observed a stark shift in public discourse. “This off-the-shelf messaging came down,” he said. “There was no space, whatsoever, to call for the release of hostages. I was equally horrified by the dehumanization of all Gazans as terrorists.” These statements reflect his refusal to accept simplistic, dehumanizing narratives, emphasizing instead a nuanced understanding of the conflict. Despite personal tragedy—31 members of his extended family have perished in Israeli airstrikes since the conflict began—Alkhatib remains steadfast in his commitment to peace. He proudly identifies as pro-Palestinian and has championed humanitarian initiatives, such as a project to establish a civilian airport in Gaza. Yet, he has also distanced himself from certain U.S.-based Palestine supporters who advocate for indiscriminate boycotts or glorify violence. These positions underscore his independence of thought and dedication to fostering constructive dialogue. Hamas had accomplished its goal of sabotaging nonviolent political solutions to the conflict. Additionally, the group’s propaganda, which I experienced firsthand in Gaza, glorified its terrorism and demonized the word “peace,” claiming it was equivalent to betrayal, weakness, surrender and the embrace of Jews. It also focused on Islamizing Palestinian society, which had historically been secular. I remember signing up for a summer camp in 2002, thinking it would be full of fun recreational activities. Though I hadn’t realized it, this camp was organized by Hamas propagandists who proselytized the virtues of armed resistance and being a good Muslim. I told my mom that I wouldn’t be attending the rest of the boring weeklong camp. Even as a child I saw through its cheap propaganda. Through its indoctrination and Islamization of Gaza’s youth, Hamas was breeding future generations of radicalized Palestinians. I remember the “protests” that Hamas regularly organized: They took students out of class, bused them to border checkpoints and Israeli military positions, and had them throw stones at soldiers. These field trips would often end up with young Palestinian children being maimed by Israel Defense Forces fire. Hamas wanted scenes of dead Palestinians for its recruitment efforts and propaganda and to undermine the Palestinian Authority-led peace process. Many Palestinians and their allies, particularly outside Gaza, aren’t willing to condemn Hamas and acknowledge its undeniable role in the suffering of Gazans. Hamas has been a disaster to Palestinian aspirations for freedom and self-determination. It must be ruthlessly criticized and rejected, especially because it is serving the goals and interests of anti-peace Israeli factions. The slaughter on Oct. 7 was meant to destabilize the region and fulfill the destructive aspirations of Hamas and its backers. The group counted on an overwhelmingly violent Israeli reaction to reinvigorate the spirit of resistance born out of Palestinian suffering. Hamas sought to hide its failures and inability to produce any progress in Gaza behind this brutal attack. Hamas counted on international sympathy for the unbearable civilian casualties—including dozens of my own family members—resulting from the Israeli offensive. Hamas bet that these deaths would shield it from criticism. Based on a report by Foreign Policy | WSJ 2024-01-04

As 2025 begins, the political landscape in the UK reveals a challenging start for Labour, six months into their government. Recent polling data from December paints a sobering picture of public sentiment, offering insights into favourability ratings, government approval, and key concerns dominating the national conversation. Keir Starmer, the Labour leader and prime minister, faces a stark decline in his personal favourability. According to polling conducted for *The Times* in mid-December, Starmer’s net favourability reached a new low of -41. A significant majority of Britons (66%) expressed a negative view of the prime minister, while only 25% held a positive perception. This marks a continuing trend of diminishing public confidence in Starmer’s leadership. On the Conservative side, Kemi Badenoch, the recently appointed Tory leader, is also experiencing a decline in public sentiment as familiarity with her grows. In early November, 39% of Britons were undecided about Badenoch. However, by December, this figure dropped to 33%, and her net favourability rating fell from -20 to -31. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, remains a divisive figure. His favourability numbers have remained relatively stable, with 28% of Britons viewing him positively and 62% unfavourably, giving him a net rating of -34. Despite this, Farage poses a significant threat to the Conservative Party, as 45% of their 2024 voters hold a favourable view of him, although Badenoch’s 55% approval among Tory voters still provides a buffer. The broader perception of Labour's government mirrors Starmer’s personal ratings, with approval at its lowest point since taking office. A late-December survey revealed that 62% of Britons disapprove of the government’s record, while only 17% approve. Among Labour’s own voters, opinions are mixed, with 38% disapproving and 34% expressing approval. Disappointment runs deep among Labour’s base. Nearly half (46%) of Labour voters surveyed in December said the party’s performance had not met their expectations, while only 28% felt the government was doing well. This sentiment is even more pronounced among the general public, where just 10% believe Labour is performing satisfactorily. Public concerns reflect enduring challenges. The economy remains the most pressing issue, cited by 52% of Britons as a top concern. Immigration and health follow closely, at 46% and 40%, respectively. These priorities vary significantly across party lines. For Labour voters, the economy and health dominate equally, with 55% and 53% prioritizing these issues, while immigration ranks lower at 28%. Conversely, immigration is the primary concern for Tory voters, with 71% listing it as a top issue, followed by the economy at 59% and health at 33%. As Labour embarks on its first full year in government, the data underscores the significant hurdles it faces in aligning public expectations with policy delivery. While the economy, immigration, and health remain focal points for the electorate, restoring faith in leadership and government performance will be critical in shaping public opinion in the months to come. Based on a report by YouGov Public Data 2024-01-04