Start Blog Seite 84621

Women's March on Washington is poised to be the biggest anti-Trump demonstration

0

NewsHubTeresa Shook never considered herself much of an activist, or someone particularly versed in feminist theory. But when the results of the presidential election became clear, the grandmother and retired attorney in Hawaii turned to Facebook and asked: What if women marched on Washington around Inauguration Day en masse?
She asked her online friends how to create an event page, and then started one for the march she was hoping would happen.
By the time she went to bed, 40 women responded that they were in.
When she woke up, that number had exploded to 10,000.
Now, more than 100,000 people have registered their plans to attend the Women’s March on Washington in what is expected to be the largest demonstration linked to the inauguration of Donald Trump, and a focal point for activists on the left who have been energized in opposing his agenda.
Planning for the Jan. 21 march got off to a rocky start. Controversy initially flared over the name of the march, and whether it was inclusive enough of minorities, particularly African-Americans, who have felt excluded from many mainstream feminist movements.
Organizers say plans are on track, after securing a permit from D. C. police to gather 200,000 people near the Capitol at Independence Avenue and Third Street SW on the morning after Inauguration Day. Exactly how big the march will be has yet to be determined, with organizers scrambling to pull together the rest of the necessary permits and raise the $1 million to $2 million necessary to pull off a march triggered by Shook’s Facebook venting.
The march has become a catch-all for a host of liberal causes, from immigrant rights to police killings of African-Americans. But at its heart is the demand for equal rights for women after an election that saw the defeat of Democrat Hillary Clinton, the first female presidential nominee of a major party.
„We plan to make a bold and clear statement to this country on the national and local level that we will not be silent and we will not let anyone roll back the rights we have fought and struggled to get,“ said Tamika Mallory, a veteran organizer and gun-control advocate who is now one of the march’s main organizers.
More than 150,000 women and men have responded on the march’s Facebook page that they plan on attending. At least 1,000 buses are headed to Washington for the march through Rally, a website that organizes buses to protests. Dozens of groups, from Planned Parenthood to the antiwar CodePink, have signed on as partners.
Organizers insist the march is not anti-Trump, even as many of the groups that have latched on to it fiercely oppose his agenda.
„Donald Trump’s election has triggered a lot of women to be more involved than they ordinarily would have been, which is ironic, because a lot of us thought a Hillary presidency would motivate women,“ said Dana Brown, executive director of the Pennsylvania Center for Women in Politics at Chatham University. „A lot of women seem to be saying, ‚This is my time. I’m not going to be silent anymore. “
Boris Epshteyn, spokesman for the Trump Inaugural Committee, defended the president-elect’s popularity among women in an interview on CNN. While Trump did not receive the majority of women’s votes he got an „overwhelming“ number of them, Epshteyn said.
„We’re here to hear their concerns,“ he said. „We welcome them to our side as well. “
That all this could grow out of a dashed-off post from her perch nearly 5,000 miles from Washington is amazing to Shook, who has booked her ticket and plans to be in Washington on Jan. 21.
„I guess in my heart of heart I wanted it to happen, but I didn’t really think it would’ve ever gone viral,“ Shook said. „I don’t even know how to go viral. “
Unsure of how to proceed those initial few days, she said she enlisted the help of the first few women who messaged her to volunteer, some of whom independently also had an idea for a march. But as the march grew in prominence, it got caught up in a broader conversation in liberal circles about race and leadership, with activists and others criticizing that initial planning group for its racial makeup: Shook said all the women, including herself, that she tapped to help in the march’s nascent stages were white.
Some also took issue with the name Shook had proposed, the Million Woman March, which was the name of a 1997 black women’s march in Philadelphia. The racial concerns set off a heated conversation on the group’s main Facebook page, with some African-American women especially taking umbrage.
For her part, Shook said her aim was not to coopt any other movement. It was just an idea that took hold after the victory of a president-elect caught on tape boasting of grabbing women’s private parts, and the defeat of a woman who seemed to her much more qualified for the job. She said she had no idea the race of the women she first contacted; in fact, she said, most had an image of Clinton as their Facebook profile photo.
Complicating matters, it became apparent that the march likely could not start at the Lincoln Memorial as Shook had proposed, since the inaugural committee has dibs on that space.
Overwhelmed and under pressure, the original organizers eventually handed the reins to a diverse group of veteran female activists from New York: Mallory, the gun-control activist; Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab-American Association of New York; Carmen Perez, head of Gathering for Justice, a criminal justice reform group; and Bob Bland, a fashion entrepreneur.
Together, they settled on a new name: The Women’s March on Washington, a nod to the 1963 demonstration that was a cornerstone of the Civil Rights movement. They even got the blessing of Martin Luther King Jr.’s youngest daughter, Bernice King.
In D. C., Janaye Ingram, the former executive director of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, has been working to secure permits and hash out logistics for the march, including ensuring there is a proper sound equipment and sufficient Porta Potties.
People traveling to attend the march seem less concerned with behind-the-scenes politics than the chance to call for more family-friendly government policies, equal pay for women or reproductive rights. Some simply want to stand against the crass way Trump has spoken about women.
Lindsey Shriver, a 27-year old former pastry chef who is now an at-home mom in Ohio, said she was offended this election cycle by Trump’s rhetoric, which she characterized as „hateful and misogynistic. “ She also wants to highlight the need for paid family leave and affordable child care.
„I realized that being a feminist in my own personal life wasn’t going to be enough for my daughters,“ said Shriver.
Caroline Rule, 57, an attorney living in Manhattan, says she will attend with her 15-year-old daughter. While she agrees with the pro-women message behind the march, she said she’d likely participate in any march that pushed against Trump’s messages.
„I absolutely despise Donald Trump and everything he stands for,“ she said.
Feminist icon Gloria Steinem has recently signed on as a march co-sponsor, and celebrities like Amy Schumer, Samantha Bee and Jessica Chastain say they plan to attend as well.
Feminist scholars say the march reflects an emerging view of feminism: That it is less defined by reproductive issues such as birth control and abortion and more about how the challenges faced by women intersect with those encountered by African-Americans, gays and immigrants.
Still, reproductive rights will be a large part of the march, with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America as key partners.
Hahrie Han, a political science professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara specializing in political organizations and political engagement, said it’s not all that surprising that individual women instead of an established organization founded this march. Established organizations all come with at least some political baggage.
„The challenge with having one organization brand it as its own, is that each organization has its own image that draws some people, and pushes others back away,“ she said.

Similarity rank: 1.1
Sentiment rank: 0

© Source: http://www.chron.com/national/article/Women-s-March-on-Washington-is-poised-to-be-the-10833059.php
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Law indispensable to extent Brexit’s environmental impact, contend MPs

0

NewsHubBrexit poses a outrageous risk to UK wildlife and habitats and a new environmental law will be needed, MPs have said.
Even where EU law is incorporated into a UK’s authorised horizon there could still be problems, they warn.
The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee also says farmers are confronting poignant threats including detriment of income and tariffs on exports.
The supervision says it is committed to defence and improving existent environmental protection. Problems with incorporation
Whether it is a cleanliness of a UK’s beaches, wickedness control or a insurance of species, most of a UK’s environmental and wildlife legislation is secure in EU directives.
The supervision has pronounced that it will deliver a “Great Repeal Bill” that will incorporate many of these regulations into UK law when Britain leaves a union.
However, Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom certified that about one third of a stream environmental manners would be formidable to unseat into UK law, observant “there will be work to do to safeguard we can continue to make these measures work once we leave a EU”.
For instance, a EU’s Birds and Habitats Directives have given most larger insurance for furious birds and special areas of charge than domestic UK legislation – though these will no longer request in their stream form in UK law even if Britain stays in a Single Market.
The cranky celebration Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) says that to safeguard that there is no weakening, a new environmental insurance act should be upheld during a Article 50 negotiations.
“European law protects outrageous amounts of a UK’s environment, tillage and countryside,” Mary Creagh, chair of a committee, told BBC News.
“The routine of withdrawal a EU presents a outrageous risk to all of those protections that is because in a news we’re job for new environmental insurance act so that when we leave a European Union we are no worse off stable than we are during a moment.”
And it suggests incorporating EU law into a UK authorised horizon could outcome in these protections apropos supposed “zombie” laws, that are no longer updated and could be simply eroded with minimal parliamentary scrutiny.
Environmental campaigners concluded that this was a poignant concern.
“The Great Repeal Bill contingency enclose approved safeguards to make certain that no poignant amendment to a range or purpose of EU environmental legislation can be done though being theme to full parliamentary scrutiny,” pronounced Sam Lowe from Friends of a Earth.
“No one voted to ‘take behind control’ for a UK Parliament, usually to palm it true over to a minister, brandishing a red pen, with a energy to undo critical inlet protections on a whim.”
The news also focuses on a impact of Brexit on farming, indicating out that a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) creates adult between 50-60% of some plantation incomes. The MPs contend they have a series of worries about a destiny of farming.
“UK tillage faces poignant risks – from a detriment of subsidies and tariffs on plantation exports, to increasing foe from countries with weaker food, animal gratification and environmental standards,” pronounced Mary Creagh.
“The supervision contingency not trade divided these pivotal protections as we leave a EU. It should also give clarity over any destiny plantation subsidies.”
Many environmental campaigners trust that Brexit represents a really good event for reforming a EU tillage process that they contend has been one of a biggest drivers of environmental decrease in a UK and other tools of Europe.
“There needs to be estimable remodel – if a rancher is holding H2O on his margin upstream that is assisting to forestall downstream flooding, that’s not a blurb activity for a rancher though that’s where open funding is warranted,” pronounced Trevor Hutchings from WWF-UK.
“There’s a outrageous event here to have a clever and abounding tillage community, sourroundings as good as servicing a open good.”
Responding to a news a supervision forked out that a UK is a signatory of general wildlife insurance conventions, such as Ramsar and Bern , that are eccentric of EU membership.
A orator said: “The UK has a prolonged story of wildlife and environmental insurance and we are committed to defence and improving these, securing a best understanding for Britain as we leave a EU.”
Follow Matt on Twitter and on Facebook

Similarity rank: 2.1
Sentiment rank: -4.6

© Source: http://headlinenewstoday.net/law-needed-to-limit-brexits-environmental-impact-say-mps.html
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Pharrell Williams Humbly Accepts Creative Impact Award at Palm Springs Film Festival

0

NewsHubThe Parker Palm Springs, with its candied-colored hues of yellow and orange, was the place to be seen Tuesday morning at the Creative Impact Awards luncheon feting the 20th anniversary of Variety’s 10 Directors to Watch.
Among the celebrities at the Bellini-soaked brunch, thrown in tandem with the 28th annual Palm Springs International Film Festival , were “Hidden Figures” and “Moonlight” actress Janelle Monae; “Captain Fantastic” star and Creative Impact in Acting Award recipient Viggo Mortensen ; Pharrell Williams , honored with the Creative Impact in Producing Award for shepherding “Hidden” figures to the big screen; and “Loving” helmer Jeff Nichols, recipient of the Creative Impact in Directing Award.
“Glee” star and comedian Jane Lynch introduced Variety’s Vice President and Executive Editor Steven Gaydos, who created the 10 to Watch list as a means by which to earmark talented artists on the rise in Hollywood. Directors who previously made the list include Wes Anderson, Andrea Arnold, and Tom Ford.
“Palm Springs is just such an awesome great festival,” said Gaydos. “It feels like my neighborhood party.”
Gaydos gave special thanks to PSIFF chairman of the board Harold Matzer, the myriad local artists of Palm Springs, and world renowned glass sculptor Dale Chihuly, who designed the awards for Variety honorees.
Variety Chief Film Critic Peter Debruge introduced the 10 Directors to Watch by way of expressing his deep gratitude for his tenure at the trade.
“I have one of the best jobs in the world as the chief film critic of Variety,” said Debruge. “We are champions first and foremost. Why we sit through the terrible [movies] is to get through to the great ones.”
The directors of those chosen “great ones” — a mix of documentaries, narrative features and genre films — are Maren Ade (“Toni Erdmann”); Ritesh Batra (“The Sense of an Ending”); Otto Bell (“The Eagle Huntress”); Julia Ducournau (“Raw”); Geremy Jasper (“Patti Cake$”); Barry Jenkins (“Moonlight”); brothers Emmett and Brendan Malloy (“Tribes of Palos Verdes”); Kleber Mendonca Filho (“Aquarius”); William Oldroyd (“Lady Macbeth”); and David Sandberg (“Lights Out”).
Batra, Bell, the Malloys, Filho, and Sandberg were all at the brunch to accept their awards.
“Captain Fantastic” writer-director Matt Ross — a 2015 alumnus of Variety’s 10 Director to Watch list — was on hand to introduce Mortensen, fresh off a plane from Madrid, Spain, despite feeling slightly under the weather. (“Now you’re sick, too,” joked Mortensen after hugging Ross.)
Regarding his lead turn as an unconventional father raising his six kids in the wild after their mother’s suicide, Ross called Mortensen “selfless and brave, and a collaborative artist that cares about the things that really matter.” He also touted Mortensen as a modern-day Renaissance man: “He’s frighteningly well-read, and a father, a photographer, an artist, a painter.”
To further illustrate how committed Mortensen was to the role, Ross revealed that the Oscar-nominated actor camped out in a teepee and grew his own vegetable garden prior to the film’s shoot.
“He has made one of the best movies of this year,” said Mortensen in turn. “It’s a movie that’s prompted [audiences] to laugh, to cry in some cases, and most importantly, to think. I thank you Matt Ross for ‘Captain Fantastic.’”
When introducing Nichols, Negga, in a stunning sequined pencil skirt, gushed, “He is one of the masterful storytellers of our time. His films glow with humanity.”
Nichols, whose latest film chronicles the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case making interracial marriage legal in the United States, spoke of wanting “to make films that affected people.”
While “Loving” depicts a watershed moment in American legal history and the beginning of the civil rights movement, Nichols says he was inspired and influenced to direct the film because of the “great true love” between Mildred and Richard Loving.
“I saw that true love in my grandparents and my parents and I try to see that in my own marriage,” said Nichols.
Up next, Monae and “Hidden Figures” co-star Jim Parsons introduced Williams, with Monae hailing the producer-songwriter-composer-singer as “a visionary, a Renaissance man, a man who has done it all. He truly does believe women are the future. We are ‘femme-ing’ the future.”
Williams, humbled and nervous, took the stage, brimming with gratitude for everyone who helped in the creation of “Hidden Figures,” including his producing partner Mimi Valdez, also in attendance.
“Everybody’s been so poetic today,” said Williams. “You guys said the kindest things ever. Remember, all the motion in our film is powered by some brilliant human being. It’s really been incredible. My heartbeat is doing 9o billion heartbeats per hour.”

Similarity rank: 0
Sentiment rank: 2

© Source: http://variety.com/2017/film/news/pharrell-williams-variety-creative-impact-award-palm-springs-international-film-festival-1201951869/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Lady Gaga closes the curtain on 2016 with sophistication

0

NewsHubIt was nearly 10 years ago that I fell in love with Lady Gaga, through catchy pop-dance classics like “Poker Face,” “LoveGame” and “Bad Romance.” The romance continues with her soulful and visceral latest release, Joanne. I never thought I’d get to see and hear her perform the hits I’ve listened to on repeat for years, let alone up close in the luxurious Encore Theater in celebration of a new year.
As soon as Gaga first took the stage on December 30, clad in a floor-length, hooded, backless gown that sparkled like a beacon, she captivated the show’s 1,000 attendees. Her voice sounded fantastic, better live than recorded, and she performed with New York jazz musicians Brian Newman and his quintet and Steve Wynn’s ShowStoppers orchestra. It was as if we’d been transported to the Prohibition era, with Gaga as time-traveling muse. The six-time Grammy winner opened with “Theme From New York, New York,” and whirled through favorites like classic show tune “Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered,” Cher’s “Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)” and Edith Piaf’s “La Vie en Rose,” which she dedicated to Mr. Wynn and sang almost entirely in French.
There was also a brief piano performance during which Gaga began to play a rendition of “Bad Romance” before switching to “Million Reasons,” per an audience member’s request. We became her backup singers as she paused to let us fill in the lyrical gaps, a rare opportunity to become part of a dynamic performance—but I’ve always felt connected to her lyrics. I might have questioned her alien-like metamorphosis on Born This Way, but I’ve come to love and embrace her bold defiance of societal norms. Friday night marked an exceptional end to a year in need of her love, confidence and class.

Similarity rank: 0
Sentiment rank: 1.9

© Source: http://lasvegasweekly.com/nightlife/industry-weekly/2017/jan/03/i-was-there-lady-gaga-encore-theater-wynn/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

S. Korea fin min says will press Korea's case if US makes 'irrational' trade demands

0

NewsHubSouth Korea’s finance minister on Wednesday said the government will vigorously argue Korea’s case should the U. S. make any unreasonable trade demands.
„We will actively promote our stance on any irrational demands from the U. S., and use any rational demands (on trade) to improve our regulations to remove any impediments to the fourth industrial revolution,“ Yoo Il-ho said in a meeting with ministers in Seoul.
He said the government would strengthen its communications when U. S. President-elect Donald Trump takes office later this month, and will meet with global investors next week in New York to promote the economy.
A U. S. and South Korea free trade agreement came into effect on March 15, 2012. It was hailed at the time as the model for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which President-elect Donald Trump has sharply criticized as flawed, making approval by the U. S. Congress on an agreement reached this year by leaders and negotiators of the dozen nations involved unlikely.

Similarity rank: 0
Sentiment rank: -2.3

© Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/03/skorea-fin-min-says-will-press-koreas-case-if-us-makes-irrational-trade-demands.html
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

State Department: North Korea not capable of tipping missile with nuclear weapon

0

NewsHubWASHINGTON, Jan. 3 (UPI) — The U. S. State Department said Tuesday it does not believe Kim Jong Un has the capability to place a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile.
The statement comes a few days after the North Korean leader announced his country is ready to test an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Department spokesman John Kirby made the statement the same day the White House said nothing has changed in its assessment of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, Yonhap reported.
North Korea sent shockwaves around the world after Kim said in a televised statement on Sunday the country is almost ready to test an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Kim also vowed to continue the development of the weapons as long as the United States remains committed to holding military exercises on the Korean peninsula.
On Tuesday Kirby said the U. S. military stands ready deter Pyongyang’s biggest threats, owing to a policy of rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific.
„There is a military component to the Asia Pacific rebalance that the United States has pursued, and we have the majority of the U. S. Navy in the Pacific region,“ Kirby said. „We’ve moved special radars into place. “
At the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest said there was „no change“ in the assessment of North Korea’s nuclear and missile development, and any changes in the assessment would come from the intelligence community.
Seoul is taking North Korea’s weapons program seriously and is to launch in 2017 a special unit assigned to strike the North Korean leadership, two years ahead of schedule, according to Yonhap .
„We are planning to set up a special brigade with the goal of removing or [at least] paralyzing North Korea’s wartime command structure [in the face of escalating threats],“ Han said.

Similarity rank: 1.1
Sentiment rank: -1.7

© Source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/01/03/State-Department-North-Korea-not-capable-of-tipping-missile-with-nuclear-weapon/9951483496026/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Op-Ed: North Korean ICBMs: Regional detonator or nuisance?

0

NewsHub– The supposed development of a long range ICBM capability by North Korea has several ramifications. Whether or not the ICBM can hit the US or not, it represents a potential catalyst for a serious regional war. Sydney – The supposed development of a long range ICBM capability by North Korea has several ramifications. Whether or not the ICBM can hit the US or not, it represents a potential catalyst for a serious regional war. At this point, the US is skeptical of North Korea’s actual capabilities. There’s some doubt as to how far this technology has advanced, and whether it can actually deliver a warhead on target. Nor are the technical issues getting any simpler: The DPRK’s stated goal of delivering nukes from submarines, particularly the obsolete and rather undersized Whiskey and The DPRK, meanwhile, is trying to get the US to reverse its current policies of non-acceptance of it as a nuclear-armed state, by developing ICBMs, real or not. As a diplomatic position, it’s a bit hard to accept the logic. It’s also potentially suicidal, for less obvious reasons. Regional detonator? The regional implications of a new ICBM capability are significant. The DPRK’s neighbors have their own views on nations with nuclear strike capacity. China has no reason to consider this new development a threat, but Japan may see things differently. Japan has reacted very negatively to short and medium range tests near its territory. Add to this the alliance between China and the DPRK, and any conflict with Japan could bring in China. That’s not a natural scenario, though. China can pick and choose its level of participation in any conflict. One way of reminding a client state that it’s a client state is to leave it hanging in a crisis. That’s not impossible, either. Nor is Russia a natural engagement. In the 1950s, Russia aided North Korea in the Korean war in many ways, including equipping its air force with the revolutionary new MIG 15s which basically rewrote air tactics for the next 50 years. It’s not clear whether the Russian Federation would respond at all in any future conflict scenario. There’s not much in it for the Russians, in terms of political or other gains. “Amused spectator” would be a likely option, unless there’s any tangible gains to be made out of a confrontation with North Korea and Western-aligned nations. A confrontation between the US and the DPRK, however, makes Chinese intervention in some forms far more likely. China has been trying to make a point about expanding its regional interests, and a Korean war might be a game changer. China’s most predictable reaction would be “not in our back yard”, with related actions, but not necessarily direct conflict. Active Chinese participation, however, could turn the conflict in to a major regional war. The more likely immediate confrontation, if any, would be a clash of the two Koreas. That could get extremely nasty, very quickly. The DPRK has what is basically a post Cold War/ Iraq War style military force, with added naval capacity. Despite the huge size of the That not very secret fact, however, could well bring in Chinese and Russian support. Currently, China and Russia provide a low level of support to the DPRK military, but the overall DPRK arsenal is circa 1980s. Against modern weapons, the viability of these systems in combat is highly debatable. That very lack of viability, however, is more of a problem than it looks in a war scenario. Given the obvious problems and serious risks in mounting a conventional attack, an unconventional attack is therefore far more likely. In 1950, the DPRK mounted a very effective surprise attack which drove the combined South Korean and US forces back to the very tip of the Korean peninsula. The current scenarios are completely different, though. Against a fully prepared opponent, a surprise attack by conventional forces would have to achieve miracles. Even with a huge force, there’s no getting away from the fact that South Korea is a very hard target for the DPRK. 1950 won’t happen again, but a variant, particularly a failed variant, could create a cascade of events, including super power involvement. No good scenarios for any Korean conflict. The most likely scenario for a real war, based on the current DPRK posture and previous actions, is a dramatic action of some kind. This would have to be a direct surprise strike, on a “no going back” basis. A serious strike would definitely bring in other nations, in different capacities. Whether the US is moving to a less engaged role or not, it has 28,000 military personnel in South Korea, and they’re potential targets either directly or as collateral damage in a strike on Seoul. Any strike on American forces, however, would instantly bring in US forces, and retaliation. The range of possible escalations is obvious. The DPRK can’t necessarily count on support in a dramatic strike, either. Starting a large scale regional war wouldn’t go down too well with China or Russia. This is no longer 1950 in other ways, too. Chinese and Russian leadership is highly pragmatic. There’s no reason to believe they’d want to be drawn in to any conflict, on any level. They are very unlikely to respond well to a sudden demand for support in a conflict with the US or Japan, or both. The degree of commitment required to support the DPRK in an actual war would be huge. Nor are they likely to enthuse about supporting the side most likely to lose in such a war. In global politics, the Koreas are a sideshow, if potentially a very ugly sideshow, if a war starts. The major powers have nothing to gain but an unwanted problem and an expensive range of options. None of those options deliver any real benefits. ICBMs or no ICBMs, the DPRK is holding one card in a game where all the other players have much stronger cards. The real risk is escalation caused by people doing the wrong things and reacting the wrong way to situations. The problem is that history is full of cases of wars starting for exactly those reasons. The development of the ICBMs has now reached at least the point at which North Korea (correct name Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK) is prepared to do some gloating. While the usual pattern of information from the DPRK is based on a degree of spin, this is a bit different. When it comes to ICBMs, you either have this capacity or you don’t. So it’s likely that at least some level of increased capacity has been achieved. At this point, the US is skeptical of North Korea’s actual capabilities. There’s some doubt as to how far this technology has advanced, and whether it can actually deliver a warhead on target. Nor are the technical issues getting any simpler: The DPRK’s stated goal of delivering nukes from submarines, particularly the obsolete and rather undersized Whiskey and Romeo class subs, is of equally dubious value and almost zero combat credibility. Those subs could be tracked from one side of the Pacific to the other by Radio Shack level equipment, let alone American and Japanese ASW capabilities. A few drones could stooge around the Sea of Japan and sink them quite easily, too. Sub launched missiles really are not a working option. The DPRK, meanwhile, is trying to get the US to reverse its current policies of non-acceptance of it as a nuclear-armed state, by developing ICBMs, real or not. As a diplomatic position, it’s a bit hard to accept the logic. It’s also potentially suicidal, for less obvious reasons. The regional implications of a new ICBM capability are significant. The DPRK’s neighbors have their own views on nations with nuclear strike capacity. China has no reason to consider this new development a threat, but Japan may see things differently. Japan has reacted very negatively to short and medium range tests near its territory. Add to this the alliance between China and the DPRK, and any conflict with Japan could bring in China. That’s not a natural scenario, though. China can pick and choose its level of participation in any conflict. One way of reminding a client state that it’s a client state is to leave it hanging in a crisis. That’s not impossible, either. Nor is Russia a natural engagement. In the 1950s, Russia aided North Korea in the Korean war in many ways, including equipping its air force with the revolutionary new MIG 15s which basically rewrote air tactics for the next 50 years. It’s not clear whether the Russian Federation would respond at all in any future conflict scenario. There’s not much in it for the Russians, in terms of political or other gains. “Amused spectator” would be a likely option, unless there’s any tangible gains to be made out of a confrontation with North Korea and Western-aligned nations. A confrontation between the US and the DPRK, however, makes Chinese intervention in some forms far more likely. China has been trying to make a point about expanding its regional interests, and a Korean war might be a game changer. China’s most predictable reaction would be “not in our back yard”, with related actions, but not necessarily direct conflict. Active Chinese participation, however, could turn the conflict in to a major regional war. The more likely immediate confrontation, if any, would be a clash of the two Koreas. That could get extremely nasty, very quickly. The DPRK has what is basically a post Cold War/ Iraq War style military force, with added naval capacity. Despite the huge size of the DPRK military , South Korea has one of the most powerful and fully modern conventional military forces in the world, and it can hit back, hard, if a confrontation arises. South Korea is perfectly capable of winning a conventional war with the North on its own. That not very secret fact, however, could well bring in Chinese and Russian support. Currently, China and Russia provide a low level of support to the DPRK military, but the overall DPRK arsenal is circa 1980s. Against modern weapons, the viability of these systems in combat is highly debatable. That very lack of viability, however, is more of a problem than it looks in a war scenario. Given the obvious problems and serious risks in mounting a conventional attack, an unconventional attack is therefore far more likely. In 1950, the DPRK mounted a very effective surprise attack which drove the combined South Korean and US forces back to the very tip of the Korean peninsula. The current scenarios are completely different, though. Against a fully prepared opponent, a surprise attack by conventional forces would have to achieve miracles. Even with a huge force, there’s no getting away from the fact that South Korea is a very hard target for the DPRK. 1950 won’t happen again, but a variant, particularly a failed variant, could create a cascade of events, including super power involvement. The most likely scenario for a real war, based on the current DPRK posture and previous actions, is a dramatic action of some kind. This would have to be a direct surprise strike, on a “no going back” basis. A serious strike would definitely bring in other nations, in different capacities. Whether the US is moving to a less engaged role or not, it has 28,000 military personnel in South Korea, and they’re potential targets either directly or as collateral damage in a strike on Seoul. Any strike on American forces, however, would instantly bring in US forces, and retaliation. The range of possible escalations is obvious. The DPRK can’t necessarily count on support in a dramatic strike, either. Starting a large scale regional war wouldn’t go down too well with China or Russia. This is no longer 1950 in other ways, too. Chinese and Russian leadership is highly pragmatic. There’s no reason to believe they’d want to be drawn in to any conflict, on any level. They are very unlikely to respond well to a sudden demand for support in a conflict with the US or Japan, or both. The degree of commitment required to support the DPRK in an actual war would be huge. Nor are they likely to enthuse about supporting the side most likely to lose in such a war. In global politics, the Koreas are a sideshow, if potentially a very ugly sideshow, if a war starts. The major powers have nothing to gain but an unwanted problem and an expensive range of options. None of those options deliver any real benefits. ICBMs or no ICBMs, the DPRK is holding one card in a game where all the other players have much stronger cards. The real risk is escalation caused by people doing the wrong things and reacting the wrong way to situations. The problem is that history is full of cases of wars starting for exactly those reasons. This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com

Similarity rank: 0
Sentiment rank: -2.1

© Source: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/op-ed-north-korean-icbms-regional-detonator-or-nuisance/article/482902
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Criminal investigation underway into accidental poisoning that killed 4 kids

0

NewsHubAn investigation is underway into a deadly leak of highly poisonous gas in a Texas home. Four children were killed and six other family members w…
Davis said the father does not have professional certification as far as he knows. He did not know whether the friend who gave him the product had a certification.
Amarillo police spokesman Officer Jeb Hilton says the department’s special crimes unit is investigating because of the child deaths. Once completed, the investigation will be turned over to the district attorney to determine whether charges will be filed. Hilton said other federal and state environmental regulation agencies may also investigate the use and storage of the chemical.
Fire officials said the children who died were three boys — ages 7, 9 and 11 — and a 17-year-old girl. Officials have said all four children lived at the home in Amarillo, which is about 350 miles northwest of Dallas.
Four children died from gas poisoning believed to have been caused by a pesticide sprayed under their Amarillo home, officials said.
The children’s mother, Martha Balderas, 45, was in critical condition Tuesday at University Medical Center in Lubbock, according to a hospital spokesman. Five other family members, including the father and four other children, were being treated at BSA Health System in Amarillo and were in stable condition, hospital and fire officials said early Tuesday.
Crews who responded to a 5 a.m. call to the home on Monday originally thought it was related to carbon monoxide poisoning. Authorities later determined that phosphine gas was likely released when the father took a garden hose at some point Sunday and tried to rinse away some of the pellets because family members had complained of the smell.
Toxic Phosphine gas is produced when aluminum phosphide is mixed with water or moisture, CBS Amarillo affiliate KFDA reported.
The water started the chemical reaction that released the phosphine gas. A visitor arrived early Monday, found everyone sick and called 911.
Phosphine gas can cause respiratory failure and in severe cases can cause a pulmonary edema, which fills the lungs full of fluid.
The American Association of Poison Control Centers, which compiles data on poisoning, shows nine deaths from ingesting or breathing in aluminum phosphide between 2010 and 2015.
Two of those deaths happened in Utah in 2010, when two young children died after a pest control company spread vole pesticide pellets that released phosphine gas. Authorities believe the gas seeped into the home through cracks in the foundation.
Cynthia Aaron, the medical director for the Michigan Regional Poison Control Center at Children’s Hospital of Michigan, said doctors there more often treated adult patients for exposure to phosphine gas from aluminum phosphide because the pesticide is often used in industrial shipping.
“It’s not a rare exposure, but deaths like this are rare,” she said. “We see mostly the overdoses. For example, they used to use this in ship holds when they ship grain. So if they are de-mousing the big ship hold and someone doesn’t realize the pesticide has been activated or they haven’t yet been aired out properly, they might enter and pass out or die.”
Chip Orton, emergency management coordinator for the city of Amarillo and Potter and Randall counties, says his staff was working with a number of state and federal agencies to decontaminate the Amarillo home. He did not know when it would be safe for the family to return.
About 10 police, fire and medical personnel who first responded to the home were taken to the hospital as a precautionary measure, Davis said. Two were kept overnight for observation because of headache and nausea but were in good condition Tuesday, he said.
Davis said the home was far enough away from neighbors that no other evacuations or treatments were necessary.
Neighbors told KFDA that the Balderas family was well known and liked in the community.
“There was a lot of love in that family and still is,” said Nichole Wells, a teacher at Travis Middle School who taught 3 of the 8 Balderas children. “They’ll wave, they’re polite, they’re respectful. They were just such a great family, and they really knew what it was to be a family. That’s for sure.”
Many said the family is going to struggle with the costs associated with the tragedy.
“Everything’s going to have to change, and they’re going to need a lot of help with four funerals simultaneously,” said Wells. “So they’re going to need the love and support from the community and even surrounding areas to really make this happen, and at least give them some sense of normalcy.”
A GoFundMe page has been set up in the family’s name, and surpassed its goal of $25,000.

Similarity rank: 0
Sentiment rank: -24.2

© Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gas-poisoning-amarillo-texas-criminal-investigation-poisoning-killed-4-kids/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Arab observers voice admiration for corruption probe of prime minister

0

NewsHubUndergoing police investigation on suspicion of illegal gift taking must be unpleasant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
But it may be good for Israel’s image in the Arab world, casting Israel as a state where no one is above the law, as opposed to Arab regimes and the Palestinian Authority.
Be the first to know – Join our Facebook page.
The contrast was not lost on Dr. Sufian Abu Zaida, former PA minister of prisoner affairs, who published an opinion piece in the London-based Rai al-Youm website that voiced unabashed admiration for Israel as a “state of law” combined with indirect yet withering criticism of President Mahmoud Abbas’s increasingly despotic rule.
Abu Zaida, a supporter of Mohammed Dahlan, the former Gaza security chief who is the main rival to Abbas, wrote: “The investigation of the prime minister for corruption and bribe taking is the real expression of independence of the judiciary and separation of authorities. It’s the real expression of a genuine state of law where everyone is equal before the law and not a state of counterfeit law.
“It is of no use to Netanyahu that he is responsible for the Israeli police – he can’t threaten anyone to get them to overlook the suspicions or accusations he faces, he can’t evade the investigation by portraying it as a conspiracy against the nation,” Abu Zaida wrote. “He can delay it for a day or two or a week but he can’t avoid it forever or use his powers to cancel the investigation.
“Netanyahu can’t use the security apparatus like the Shin Bet or Mossad to threaten anyone from the police or judiciary under various pretexts. In the rule of law their mission is to protect the country, the law and the citizen.
Their mission is not to protect the president or the prime minister or any other official,” he wrote.
Abu Zaida went on to voice admiration for the fact that Israeli leaders have been forced to resign and to serve time in prison. He wrote that this could happen to Netanyahu also. “He must give convincing answers to the questions put to him. If they are not convincing, it will end in a charge sheet and a trial and his fate will be like that of his predecessor Olmert.”
Abu Zaida’s column citing the differences between Israel and the PA comes amid signs that Abbas is deploying the judiciary against political opponents and has veered towards one-man rule.
In November, Abbas mounted a purge of supporters of Dahlan from the ranks of his Fatah movement by excluding them from attending the Fatah conference that elected leadership bodies. Prior to that, Abbas cut off the salaries of Gaza PA employees who are supporters of Dahlan.
Last month, a PA constitutional court whose justices were handpicked by Abbas ruled that the president has the authority to rescind the parliamentary immunity of members of the Palestinian Legislative Council. Abbas proceeded to do this to five legislators critical of him, including Dahlan, paving the way for the public prosecutor to complete an investigation against them, reportedly for money laundering and illegal weapons trade.
On December 14, a Palestinian court issued a judgment in absentia against Dahlan on charges he embezzled funds and sentenced him to three years in jail and a $16 million dollar fine. Abbas has also sought to delegitimize Dahlan by hinting that he poisoned Palestinian Authority president Yasser Arafat in 2004.
Abu Zaida wrote: “In a state of law, the security, executive and judicial apparatuses are not used to serve the president or the prime minister or to be used as a tool or sword on the head of political opponents by fabricating accusations against them of corruption and if they are heavyweight former officials, accusing them of killing. In the state of law, livelihoods are not used as a sword against the necks of people.”
Not everyone was impressed by Abu Zaida’s argument. “Your admiration for the Zionist entity and your saying that it’s a state of law is like admiring a thief who gives some money to charity after plundering his victims,” wrote a talkback respondent, Wasifq. “Are you not ashamed of yourself?” Another respondent, Abu Abed Filastin, wrote: “The article is great but you should focus clearly and frankly on our Palestinian situation and that of the Arab world so it will not appear as if you are admiring the enemy state.”
Gaza political analyst Fayez Abu Shamaleh also commented admiringly on the police probe of Netanyahu, writing in a Facebook post, “No one is above the law in Israel. The gates of the prisons [were] locked behind the president of the state and the former prime minister Olmert.”
“Don’t ask me why Israel achieved a victory over all the Arab countries,” he added.
Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Think others should know about this? Please share
| |

Similarity rank: 0
Sentiment rank: -0.9

© Source: http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Arab-observers-voice-admiration-for-corruption-probe-of-prime-minister-477410
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Banned items at the Presidential Inauguration

0

NewsHubWASHINGTON (WUSA9) – There’s a host of items you should keep at home if you’re vying for a spot to watch Donald Trump swear in as the United States‘ 58th president on January 20.
Ammunition, explosives and firearms seem overtly obvious, but what about coolers, balloons or thermos cups? They’re off-limits too.
Additionally, the Presidential Inauguration Committee bans aerosols, animals other than helper dogs, backpacks, bags larger than a small purse (8″x 6″x 4″), bicycles, laser pointers, pepper spray, packages, structures and supports for signs and placards. There’s also a nuanced catch-all restriction prohibiting things that are „determined to be potential safety hazards,“ according to the District of Columbia government.
This year is the first where „selfie sticks“ and „drones“ are explicitly prohibited from events and on Capitol grounds during Inauguration Week.
Other items were prohibited from ticketing viewing areas on U. S. Capitol grounds in 2013, including alcohol, duffel bags, portable chairs, suitcases, strollers and umbrellas, however those items do not appear on this year’s most recent list.
The Joint Task Force- National Capital Region estimated that there would be approximately 8,000 national guardsmen at the inauguration ceremony, and approximately 5,000 active duty soldiers. Current crowd estimates are at 800,000 people, although that number is likely to rise. During the 2009 inauguration of President Barack Obama, an estimated 1.8 million people watched the event in person, more than one million witnessed during Obama swear into his second term.

Similarity rank: 0.1
Sentiment rank: 0

© Source: http://rssfeeds.wusa9.com/~/252863740/0/wusa-politics~Banned-items-at-the-Presidential-Inaugur
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Timeline words data