.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
Trump says Zelensky ‘should have never started’ war with Russia
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
Latest posts...
-
204
Trump Joins the Axis. NATO Dead. WW111 Imminent?
The world would be a better place if we had multiple new and unstable states with nuclear weapons? Get a grip on yourself. -
5
Why do The Cars sound like Boston? Anybody know?
Neither as good as The Carsick Cars, either. Bet you never heard of this band. This is actually an Arbitrage Trading Band.... This band, as far as I recall, was one of the stars put forward by the Beijing Professor.... Who once owned a metal-club in Beijing. Long Time Passing, but I still remember a bit. So, you have: The Cars The Carsick Cars Just a matter of TASTE. As far as I know, that prof is still teaching in Beijing....even post-Pandemic. Pettis, I think, was an arbitrageur who did well, and got out, just in time, before the big crash. But, he didn't foresee the Carsick Cars crash, obviously. The Cars And Boston Are still doing better, even now. I guess one would need to be interested in China to know a lot about this garbage, as a matter of course. It's happenings such as this that we in China, Old China Hands, know about...even though we might not necessarily care about... Such nonsense. Pettis is a very interesting fellow. I once kept up with him and his exploits. But, finally, he tired me out...and...I just.... Gave up. -
3
THAILAND LIVE Thailand Live Friday 21 February 2025
Thailand's Tourism Boom: 5.5 Million Visitors and $8B Revenue Picture courtesy of Erik Karits, Unsplash Thailand is enjoying a tourism resurgence with over 5.5 million international visitors arriving between January 1 and February 16, according to the Ministry of Tourism and Sports led by Sorawong Thienthong. This boom has generated more than 270 billion baht (about $8 billion), boosting the nation's economic recovery. Full story: https://aseannow.com/topic/1352392-thailands-tourism-boom-55-million-visitors-and-8b-revenue/ -
0
HHS Issues Narrower Definitions of Sex, Sparking Criticism from Legal and Health Experts
In one of his first major actions as secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has issued new guidance that provides a more rigid definition of sex, aligning with a January executive order signed by President Donald Trump. The department also launched a website reinforcing these definitions and released a video defending restrictions on transgender women participating in women’s sports. According to HHS, the move was prompted by Trump’s executive order titled *“Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,”* which required the agency to provide “clear guidance expanding on the sex-based definitions set forth in the order” within 30 days. The newly issued guidance reflects a shift in federal policy, rejecting broader interpretations of sex and gender identity embraced during the Biden administration in favor of definitions that critics argue exclude transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals. Both the executive order and the HHS document define terms like "sex," "male," "female," "man," "woman," "boy," and "girl" in a narrow biological sense. HHS’s definition of male states that it is “a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing sperm,” while female is described in terms of reproductive function related to eggs. Additionally, HHS provides definitions for “father” as a male parent and “mother” as a female parent. The agency’s statement mirrors language from Trump’s order, asserting that sex is “a person’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.” However, it omits a sentence from Trump’s directive that explicitly stated sex “is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’” Unlike the executive order, the HHS document does not directly address gender. Previously, federal agencies, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), defined sex in broader terms, acknowledging that sex is “an individual’s biological status as male, female, or something else.” The CDC also previously distinguished between sex and gender, defining gender as “the cultural roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes expected of people based on their sex.” Shortly after taking office, the Trump administration removed the CDC website containing these definitions, along with hundreds of other gender-inclusive resources. After legal challenges, a judge ordered the administration to restore the pages, though they now include a disclaimer stating, “Any information on this page promoting gender ideology is extremely inaccurate and disconnected from the immutable biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female.” Kennedy defended the new definitions as a necessary correction to what he described as the previous administration’s overreach. “The prior administration’s policy of trying to engineer gender ideology into every aspect of public life is over,” he said in a news release. “This restores biological truth to the federal government.” The new definitions have sparked significant criticism from legal and health experts. Michele Bratcher Goodwin, a professor of health law at Georgetown University and co-faculty director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, argued that the definitions ignore scientific consensus and are legally questionable. “What we’ve seen coming from the Trump administration is to proffer matters that are unconstitutional, that are blatantly illegal, that have been shut down by an array of federal judges,” Bratcher Goodwin said. Critics warn that these definitions could have far-reaching consequences in healthcare and research. Bratcher Goodwin noted that narrowing the definition of sex could limit data collection on transgender individuals, affecting studies on health disparities and patient care. Health law expert Omar Gonzalez of Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, condemned the guidance as political theater. “This is just showmanship,” Gonzalez said. “It’s pure smoke and mirrors. It’s a website that links to the very executive orders that we’ve already challenged and even gotten some of them enjoined in court.” A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on February 4 related to one aspect of the executive order, specifically concerning the housing of transgender prisoners. Bratcher Goodwin also pointed out that the new definitions fail to acknowledge intersex individuals—those born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not fit typical definitions of male or female. By some estimates, up to 2% of the U.S. population is intersex. “Intersex people have been documented for millennia. It’s nothing new. It’s not as if the president could say, ‘Oh, this is some new trend, some fad,’” she said. “What the president’s executive order and also this guidance suggests is that they’re invisible. That these individuals don’t exist. It’s sophistry.” Cait Smith, director of LGBTQI+ policy at the Center for American Progress, called the new definitions “mean-spirited” and “unscientific,” arguing that they echo language from anti-transgender legislation introduced in state legislatures across the country. “The law today is no different than the law was yesterday. The law still protects trans folks from discrimination, so that is the reason that we’re seeing a lot of these PR stunts like this announcement,” Smith said. “I think it’s still unclear if they can do more than this at this point without courts intervening like they are.” Smith and other civil rights advocates are working with schools and medical organizations to interpret the policy changes while simultaneously pursuing legal action to block them. “Unfortunately, this will probably be a problem for a while,” Smith said. “Attempting to sow confusion, that’s easier than actually passing policy.” Based on a report by CNN 2025-02-21 -
0
Pentagon Ordered to Brace for Deep Budget Cuts Despite Push for Increased Spending
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has directed the military to prepare for substantial budget reductions over the next five years, exempting only border security from the cuts, according to a memo obtained by CNN. Dated Tuesday, the memo instructs military leaders to draft proposals for an eight percent reduction in budgetary allocations annually for the next five years. The directive targets the Pentagon’s nearly $850 billion budget, with detailed proposals due by February 24—less than a week after the memo’s issuance. This order was given just a day before President Donald Trump endorsed the House’s budget plan, which includes a $100 billion increase in defense spending, highlighting a potential divide within the administration. Only a week earlier, Hegseth himself advocated for boosting the defense budget. Speaking in Stuttgart, Germany, he remarked, “I think the US needs to spend more than the Biden administration was willing to, who historically underinvested in the capabilities of our military.” “I ask that the Military Departments and DoD Components resource the capabilities and readiness necessary for a wartime tempo and offset those requirements with low-impact items, such as wasteful DEI and climate change programs,” Hegseth stated in the memo. Labeled as CUI—controlled unclassified information—the memo was sent to senior Pentagon officials, combatant command leaders, and defense agencies. The timing of the memo coincides with a broader initiative led by Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, aimed at reducing federal expenditures and significantly downsizing the government workforce. “The Department of Defense is conducting this review to ensure we are making the best use of the taxpayers’ dollars in a way that delivers on President Trump’s defense priorities efficiently and effectively,” said Pentagon spokesman Robert Salesses. However, concerns are mounting within the defense community. Some officials involved in drafting lists of civilian Pentagon employees slated for termination as early as this week worry that mass firings could violate legal protections and undermine military readiness. The proposed reductions, which would slash tens of billions from the Pentagon’s budget in the first year alone, represent the most significant cut to the Defense Department since the 2013 sequestration. The plan is likely to face strong opposition from Congressional Republicans, many of whom have criticized the Biden administration for insufficient increases in defense spending. Senator Roger Wicker, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has pushed for a gradual increase in defense spending beyond $1 trillion annually. These cuts also come at a time when Trump is urging NATO allies to boost their defense spending to five percent of their gross domestic product (GDP), a dramatic increase for nearly all NATO member states. If the United States were to follow suit, its military budget would surpass $1.2 trillion. Based on a report by CNNN 2025-02-21 -
0
Trump Considers ‘DOGE Dividend’ to Return Federal Savings to Taxpayers
Former President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he is weighing a proposal to return 20% of the savings from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative to American taxpayers. The move could provide thousands of dollars in relief to citizens grappling with record inflation. “There’s even under consideration a new concept where we give 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% goes to paying down debt,” Trump said during a speech in Miami Beach to a nonprofit backed by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund. He added, “The numbers are incredible, Elon, so many billions — hundreds of billions — and we’re thinking about giving 20% back to the American citizens.” Trump’s remarks followed Musk’s recent statement on X, formerly known as Twitter, where he confirmed he would discuss the idea with Trump. The proposal was initially floated by investor James Fishback, who has actively pushed for a taxpayer rebate tied to DOGE’s cost-cutting measures. While the exact amount DOGE has saved so far remains uncertain, Musk has set an ambitious goal of cutting $1 trillion in federal costs annually. His 100-person team has been aggressively restructuring the federal bureaucracy, shutting down agencies, reducing staff, and canceling contracts deemed unnecessary. Among the most dramatic measures taken, DOGE has halted operations at USAID, a $50 billion-a-year foreign aid agency, while laying off most of its 10,000 employees. It has also begun dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency with 1,700 employees and $712 million in funds, the fate of which remains uncertain. Additionally, last week DOGE uncovered $1.9 billion in "misplaced" and unused funds within the Department of Housing and Urban Development and canceled $373 million in Education Department grants that were allocated for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training programs. The initiative also scrapped $900 million in grants meant for tracking academic progress and signaled that the Pentagon’s discretionary spending could be next in line for cuts. Musk, who leads SpaceX, Tesla, and X, has stated that he plans to spearhead this government spending overhaul for approximately four months. Fishback, a strong proponent of the "DOGE Dividend," has estimated that if DOGE achieves $2 trillion in savings over two years, the total would translate to approximately $25,000 per taxpayer. Under the proposed 20% rebate plan, each taxpayer could receive about $5,000. However, Musk clarified in a tweet on Wednesday that no specific amount has been decided. He also suggested that the payout could take the form of lower tax bills rather than direct payments. “The amount would… obviously be proportionate to how much savings DOGE actually achieves,” he wrote. “More savings would mean a bigger tax reduction! The top DOGE priority remains however reducing the deficit to stop inflation and lower people’s interest rates.” The proposal remains in its early stages and would require congressional approval before any payments or tax reductions are implemented. Meanwhile, debates continue over whether government savings should be returned to taxpayers, used to pay down national debt, or reallocated elsewhere within the federal budget. Based on a report by NYP 2025-02-21
-
-
Popular in The Pub
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now