jili 7788
IN FOCUS: ‘Entire burden falls on me’ – China’s single-child generation frets over country’s pension system
Hail Flutie: BC celebrates 40th anniversary of Miracle in MiamiK92 Mining Announces Multiple New Near-Mine Infrastructure Dilatant Zones Identified and High-Grade Zones ExtendedGovernment-wide acquisition contracts, aka GWACs, are one of the cornerstones of the federal IT market. At our final Power Breakfast of 2024, we will look at these contracts through several discussions of why they continue to be so important and where they are going. The event starts at 7:45 a.m. on Dec. 6 with breakfast and registration at the Carahsoft Conference Center in Reston, Virginia. The program kicks off at 8:30 a.m. and will wrap up at around 10:30. Follow this . Our program will start with a one-on-one conversation featuring Joanne Woytek, program director of the NASA SEWP vehicle. She is in the midst of getting SEWP VI into the market and that will mark the end of a remarkable government career. Woytek will share insights on how contracting has evolved since she helped launch SEWP in 1993. The conversation will include trends in the market, the role industry can play and why GWACs continue to be so important in the market. After that is a panel discussion featuring Larry Hale, deputy assistant director for IT category management at the General Services Administration; and Katherine Thompson, deputy executive director for Army Contracting Command. They will category management, emerging priorities, the future of major GWACs and tech trends. Winning a seat on contracts such as Alliant, OASIS and RS3 is only the first step. What do you do after that will be the topic of our third session, featuring industry practitioners who will share their best advice on how companies can leverage their positions on these lucrative contract vehicles. The panel will feature Amber Hart, co-founder of The Pulse of GovCon; Brian Seagrave, chief technology officer at Deep Water Point & Associates; and Joe Salgado, general manager for GWACs and IDIQs at Red Team Consulting. Molly Broemmelsiek from our data partner GovTribe will wrap up the Power Breakfast with a data presentation on how agencies use GWACs to meet their mission. As always with our Power Breakfasts, there will be opportunities for networking and meeting your peers in the market. Follow .
Author Michelle Prak is known for her tense outback thriller but software delivered the ultimate plot twist when AI showed up in her latest manuscript and refused to go away. or signup to continue reading The South Australian writer says Microsoft's artificially intelligent assistant Copilot swept into her workspace uninvited after a software update and, despite her best efforts, she cannot evict it. "It's a bit of an insult and really maddening that they want to offer their help every time I press enter," she said. "The sanctity of the blank page is gone." But Microsoft is not the only tech firm adding AI to its platform. Social network X recently changed its terms of service to allow tweets, photos and videos to train its AI model Grok, and Meta confirmed it is scraping data from its Australian Facebook and Instagram users. Artificial intelligence experts say these firms owe it to users to provide more clarity about their AI features and should make them optional. If companies fail to do so, they warn, laws and lawsuits will likely have the final say. Ms Prak, whose novel The Rush was published earlier this year, says seeing an AI assistant appear in her Microsoft word-processing software was a "really nasty, rude surprise". Avoiding the use of AI tools is important for authors, she says, to avoid questions about copyright, creativity and authenticity. "I really want all my work to be pure – I don't want anything to do with AI," she said. "If I submit my work to a publisher or a literary magazine, will it trip up their AI detectors? I do not like it there." But completely removing the AI feature has proven impossible, Ms Prak says. Users can opt out of allowing Microsoft Word to use their data for AI training in its privacy menu but cannot completely remove Copilot from Microsoft Word software. A spokeswoman for Microsoft Australia says existing subscribers may be able to disable the AI tool by removing updates but new subscribers will not be given that choice. The dogmatic approach to AI is concerning, RMIT information sciences professor Lisa Given says, as many people will not research new software features or read terms and conditions to find out how their data is being used. Tech firms offering AI and using customers' information need to be transparent about their intentions, she says, and give users the opportunity to activate services rather than switching them on by default. "I have concerns about people having to opt out because that requires time, knowledge and education," she says. "When you have something that's opt-in, it's a much more deliberate choice." Introducing and activating AI features without consultation can also lead to dangerous outcomes for organisations, she says, which could find their sensitive data is being shared incorrectly. Mandatory AI guardrails currently being drafted in Australia should consider opt-in provisions, she says, as data-hungry companies were unlikely to offer them. "AI is not only ahead of regulation and the lawmakers but it's also ahead of everyday workers trying to make choices," she said. "The onus is often left on us but it's a constantly moving landscape." Rules around high-risk AI use cases are currently being considered by the federal government after wrapped in October. But protecting Australians from unintended AI consequences could also involve reforming privacy laws, UNSW AI Institute chief scientist Toby Walsh says. Meta is harvesting data from Facebook and Instagram users to train its AI model Llama, for example, but will not let Australians opt out of the act like it does for users in the European Union. "There are various privacies that we don't have that they have in Europe because they have better data protection," Prof Walsh says. "Sadly, we haven't updated our privacy laws as quickly as they have in Europe and elsewhere." AI companies have been keen to push copyright boundaries, he says, as they need huge amounts of information to train their large-language models. While more are signing licensing agreements with publishers for access to work, such as a three-year deal struck with HarperCollins over non-fiction books last week, Prof Walsh says it may ultimately take lawsuits to change the industry's approach to copyright material. A contentious court battle between the New York Times and OpenAI, for example, is being fought over whether the firm scraped stories from behind its paywall to train AI without its permission. "There's a number of lawsuits in place and class action suits that will decide what's to happen but it's critical that we work out where our values are and that we appreciate the contributions of authors, musicians, painters and all the other people that add to our society," Prof Walsh said. "We have to push back against the premise that just because things are available, companies have consent to use them." DAILY Today's top stories curated by our news team. WEEKDAYS Grab a quick bite of today's latest news from around the region and the nation. WEEKLY The latest news, results & expert analysis. WEEKDAYS Catch up on the news of the day and unwind with great reading for your evening. WEEKLY Get the editor's insights: what's happening & why it matters. WEEKLY Love footy? We've got all the action covered. WEEKLY Every Saturday and Tuesday, explore destinations deals, tips & travel writing to transport you around the globe. WEEKLY Going out or staying in? Find out what's on. WEEKDAYS Sharp. Close to the ground. Digging deep. Your weekday morning newsletter on national affairs, politics and more. TWICE WEEKLY Your essential national news digest: all the big issues on Wednesday and great reading every Saturday. WEEKLY Get news, reviews and expert insights every Thursday from CarExpert, ACM's exclusive motoring partner. TWICE WEEKLY Get real, Australia! Let the ACM network's editors and journalists bring you news and views from all over. AS IT HAPPENS Be the first to know when news breaks. DAILY Your digital replica of Today's Paper. Ready to read from 5am! DAILY Test your skills with interactive crosswords, sudoku & trivia. Fresh daily! Advertisement AdvertisementJimmy Carter, a peanut farmer and little-known Georgia governor who became the 39th president of the United States, promising “honest and decent” government to Watergate-weary Americans, and later returned to the world stage as an influential human rights advocate and Nobel Peace Prize winner, has died. He was 100. When his turbulent presidency ended after a stinging reelection loss in 1980, Carter retreated to Plains, his political career over. Over the four decades that followed, though, he forged a legacy of public service, building homes for the needy, monitoring elections around the globe and emerging as a fearless and sometimes controversial critic of governments that mistreated their citizens. He lived longer than any U.S. president in history and was still regularly teaching Bible classes at his hometown Maranatha Baptist Church well into his 90s. During his post-presidency, he also wrote more than 30 books, including fiction, poetry, deeply personal reflections on his faith, and commentaries on Middle East strife. Though slowed by battles with brain and liver cancer and a series of falls and hip replacement in recent years, he returned again and again to his charity work and continued to offer occasional political commentary, including in support of mail-in voting ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Carter was in his first term as Georgia governor when he launched his campaign to unseat President Gerald Ford in the 1976 election. At the time, the nation was still shaken by President Richard Nixon’s resignation in the Watergate scandal and by the messy end of the Vietnam War. As a moderate Southern Democrat, a standard-bearer of what was then regarded as a more racially tolerant “new South,” Carter promised a government “as good and honest and decent and competent and compassionate and as filled with love as are the American people.” But some of the traits that had helped get Carter elected — his willingness to take on the Washington establishment and his preference for practicality over ideology — didn’t serve him as well in the White House. He showed a deep understanding of policy, and a refreshing modesty and disregard for the ceremonial trappings of the office, but he was unable to make the legislative deals expected of a president. Even though his Democratic Party had a majority in Congress throughout his presidency, he was impatient with the legislative give-and-take and struggled to mobilize party leaders behind his policy initiatives. His presidency also was buffeted by domestic crises — rampant inflation and high unemployment, as well as interminable lines at gas stations triggered by a decline in the global oil supply exacerbated by Iran’s Islamic Revolution. “Looking back, I am struck by how many unpopular objectives we pursued,” Carter acknowledged in his 2010 book, “White House Diary.” “I was sometimes accused of ‘micromanaging’ the affairs of government and being excessively autocratic,” he continued, “and I must admit that my critics probably had a valid point.” Carter’s signature achievements as president were primarily on the international front, and included personally brokering the Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel, which have endured for more than 40 years. But it was another international crisis — the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries and the government’s inability to win the release of 52 Americans taken hostage — that would cast a long shadow on his presidency and his bid for reelection. Carter authorized a secret military mission to rescue the hostages in April 1980, but it was aborted at the desert staging area; during the withdrawal, eight servicemen were killed when a helicopter crashed into a transport aircraft. The hostages were held for 444 days, a period that spanned Carter’s final 15 months in the White House. They were finally freed the day his successor, Ronald Reagan, took the oath of office. Near the end of Carter’s presidency, one poll put his job approval rating at 21% — lower than Nixon’s when he resigned in disgrace and among the lowest of any White House occupant since World War II. In a rarity for an incumbent president, Carter faced a formidable primary challenge in 1980 from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, a favorite of the Democratic Party’s liberal wing. Although Carter prevailed, his nomination was in doubt until the party’s August convention. The enmity between Carter and Kennedy, two of the most important Democratic political figures of their generation, continued throughout their lives. In Kennedy’s memoir, published shortly after his death in 2009, he called Carter petty and guilty of “a failure to listen.” While promoting the publication of “White House Diary,” Carter said Kennedy had “deliberately” blocked Carter’s comprehensive healthcare proposals in the late 1970s in hopes of defeating the president in the primary. In the 1980 general election, Carter faced Reagan, then 69, who campaigned on a promise to increase military spending and rescue the economy by cutting taxes and decreasing regulation. Carter lost in a 51% to 41% thumping — he won just six states and the District of Columbia — that devastated the man known for his toothy smile and sent him back to his hometown, an ex-president at 56. A year later, he and Rosalynn founded the Carter Center, which pressed for peaceful solutions to world conflicts, promoted human rights and worked to eradicate disease in the poorest nations. The center, based in Atlanta, launched a new phase of Carter’s public life, one that would move the same historians who called Carter a weak president to label him one of America’s greatest former leaders. His post-presidential years were both “historic and polarizing,” as Princeton University historian Julian E. Zelizer put it in a 2010 biography of Carter. Zelizer said Carter “refused to be constrained politically when pursuing his international agenda” as an ex-president, and became “an enormously powerful figure on the international stage.” When Carter appeared on “The Colbert Report” in 2014, host Stephen Colbert asked him, “You invented the idea of the post-presidency. What inspired you to do that?” “I didn’t have anything else to do,” Carter replied. He traveled widely to mediate conflicts and monitor elections around the world, joined Habitat for Humanity to promote “sweat equity” for low-income homeownership, and became a blunt critic of human rights abuses. He angered conservatives and some liberals by advocating negotiations with autocrats — and his criticism of Israeli leaders and support for Palestinian self-determination angered many Jews. A prolific author, Carter covered a range of topics, including the Middle East crisis and the virtues of aging and religion. He penned a memoir on growing up in the rural South as well as a book of poems, and he was the first president to write a novel — “The Hornet’s Nest,” about the South during the Revolutionary War. He won three Grammy Awards as well for best spoken-word album, most recently in 2019 for “Faith: A Journey For All.” As with many former presidents, Carter’s popularity rose in the years after he left office. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for “decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts” and to advance democracy and human rights. By then, two-thirds of Americans said they approved of his presidency. “Jimmy Carter may never be rated a great president,” wrote Charles O. Jones, a University of Wisconsin political scientist, in his chronicle of the Carter presidency. “Yet it will be difficult in the long run to sustain censure of a president motivated to do what is right.” :::: The journey for James Earl Carter Jr. began on Oct. 1, 1924, in the tiny Sumter County, Georgia, town of Plains, home to fewer than 600 people in 2020. He was the first president born in a hospital, but he lived in a house without electricity or indoor plumbing until he was a teenager. His ancestors had been in Georgia for more than two centuries, and he was the fifth generation to own and farm the same land. His father, James Earl Carter Sr., known as Mr. Earl, was a strict disciplinarian and a conservative businessman of some means. His mother, known as Miss Lillian, had more liberal views — she was known for her charity work and for taking in transients and treating Black residents with kindness. (At the age of 70, she joined the Peace Corps, working in India.) Inspired by an uncle who was in the Navy, Carter decided as a first-grader that he wanted to go to the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. He became the first member of his family to finish high school, then attended Georgia Tech before heading for the academy, where he studied engineering and graduated in 1946, 59th in a class of 820. Before his last year in Annapolis, while home for the summer, he met Eleanor Rosalynn Smith, a friend of his sister Ruth’s. He and a friend invited the two young women to the movies, and when he returned home that night, he told his mother he had met “the girl I want to marry.” He proposed that Christmas, but Rosalynn declined because she felt she was too young (she was 18 and a sophomore in college). Several weeks later, while she was visiting Carter at the academy, he asked again. This time she said yes. Carter applied to America’s new nuclear-powered submarine program under the command of the icy and demanding Capt. (later Adm.) Hyman Rickover. During Carter’s interview, Rickover asked whether he had done his best at Annapolis. “I started to say, ‘Yes, sir,’ but ... I recalled several of the many times at the Academy when I could have learned more about our allies, our enemies, weapons, strategy and so forth,” Carter wrote in his autobiography. “... I finally gulped and said, ‘No, sir, I didn’t always do my best.’” To which Rickover replied: “Why not?” Carter got the job, and would later make “Why not the best?” his campaign slogan. The Carters had three sons, who all go by nicknames — John William “Jack,” James Earl “Chip” and Donnel Jeffrey “Jeff.” Carter and Rosalynn had wanted to have more children, but an obstetrician said that surgery Rosalynn had to remove a tumor on her uterus would make that impossible. Fifteen years after Jeffrey was born, the Carters had a daughter, Amy, who “made us young again,” Carter would later write. While in the Navy, Carter took graduate courses in nuclear physics and served as a submariner on the USS Pomfret. But his military career was cut short when his father died, and he moved back to Georgia in 1953 to help run the family business, which was in disarray. In his first year back on the farm, Carter turned a profit of less than $200, the equivalent of about $2,200 today. But with Rosalynn’s help, he expanded the business. In addition to farming 3,100 acres, the family soon operated a seed and fertilizer business, warehouses, a peanut-shelling plant and a cotton gin. By the time he began his campaign for the White House 20 years later, Carter had a net worth of about $800,000, and the revenue from his enterprises was more than $2 million a year. Carter entered electoral politics in 1962, and asked voters to call him “Jimmy.” He ran for a seat in the Georgia Senate against an incumbent backed by a local political boss who stuffed the ballot box. Trailing by 139 votes after the primary, Carter waged a furious legal battle, which he described years later in his book “Turning Point.” Carter got a recount, the primary result was reversed, and he went on to win the general election. The victory was a defining moment for Carter, the outsider committed to fairness and honesty who had successfully battled establishment politicians corrupted by their ties to special interests. In two terms in the Georgia Senate, Carter established a legislative record that was socially progressive and fiscally conservative. He first ran for governor in 1966, but finished third in the primary. Over the next four years, he made 1,800 speeches and shook hands with an estimated 600,000 people — a style of campaigning that paid off in the 1970 gubernatorial election and later in his bid for the White House. In his inaugural address as governor in 1971, Carter made national news by declaring that “the time for racial discrimination is over.” He had a portrait of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. hung in a hall at the Capitol in Atlanta. But when Carter launched his official campaign for the White House in December 1974, he was still so little-known outside Georgia that a celebrity panel on the TV show “What’s My Line?” couldn’t identify him. In the beginning, many scoffed at the temerity of a peanut farmer and one-term governor running for the highest office in the land. After Carter met with House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr., the speaker was asked whom he had been talking to. “Some fellow named Jimmy Carter from Georgia. Says he’s running for president,” O’Neill replied. In a meeting with editors of the Los Angeles Times in 1975, Carter said he planned to gain the presidency by building a network of supporters and by giving his candidacy an early boost by winning the Iowa caucuses. Until then, Iowa had been a bit player in the nominating process, mostly ignored by strategists. But Carter’s victory there vaulted him to front-runner status — and Iowa into a major role in presidential nominations. His emergence from the pack of Democratic hopefuls was helped by the release of his well-reviewed autobiography “Why Not the Best?” in which he described his upbringing on the farm and his traditional moral values. On the campaign trail, Carter came across as refreshingly candid and even innocent — an antidote to the atmosphere of scandal that had eroded confidence in public officials since the events leading to Nixon’s resignation on Aug. 9, 1974. A Baptist Sunday school teacher, Carter was among the first presidential candidates to embrace the label of born-again Christian. That was underscored when, in an interview with Playboy magazine, he made headlines by admitting, “I’ve looked on many women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times. God knows I will do this and forgives me.” Carter had emerged from the Democratic National Convention in July with a wide lead over Ford, Nixon’s vice president and successor, but by the time of the Playboy interview in September, his numbers were tumbling. By election day, the contest was a dead heat. Carter, running on a ticket with Walter F. Mondale for his vice president, eked out a victory with one of the narrower margins in U.S. presidential history, winning 50.1% to 48% of the popular vote and 297 electoral votes, 27 more than needed. Many of Carter’s supporters hoped he would usher in a new era of liberal policies. But he saw his role as more of a problem-solver than a politician, and as an outsider who promised to shake things up in Washington, he often acted unilaterally. A few weeks into his term, Carter announced that he was cutting off federal funding to 18 water projects around the country to save money and protect the environment. Lawmakers, surprised by the assault on their pet projects, were livid. He ultimately backed down on some of the cuts. But his relationship with Congress never fully healed. Members often complained that they couldn’t get in to see him, and that when they did he was in a rush to show them the door. His relationship with the media, as he acknowledged later in life, was similarly fraught. Carter’s image as a reformer also took a hit early in his presidency after he appointed Bert Lance, a longtime confidant, to head the Office of Management and Budget. Within months of the appointment, questions were raised about Lance’s personal financial affairs as a Georgia banker. Adamant that Lance had done nothing wrong, Carter dug in his heels and publicly told his friend, “Bert, I’m proud of you.” Still, Lance resigned under pressure, and although he was later acquitted of criminal charges, the damage to Carter had been done. As Mondale later put it: “It made people realize that we were no different than anybody else.” When Carter did score legislative victories, the cost was high. In 1978, he pushed the Senate to ratify the Panama Canal treaties to eventually hand control of the canal over to Panama. But conservatives criticized the move as a diminution of U.S. strength, and even the Democratic National Committee declined to endorse it. Carter’s most significant foreign policy accomplishment was the 1978 Camp David agreement, a peace pact between Israel and Egypt. But he followed that with several unpopular moves, including his decree that the United States would not participate in the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, as a protest against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. It was the only time in Olympic history that the United States had boycotted an Olympics; the Soviets responded by boycotting the 1984 Summer Games in Los Angeles. Carter had taken a series of largely symbolic steps to dispel the imperial image of the presidency. After he took the oath of office on a wintry day, he and the new first lady emerged from their motorcade and walked part of the way from the Capitol to the White House. He ended chauffeur-driven cars for top staff members, sold the presidential yacht, went to the White House mess hall for lunch with the staff and conducted town meetings around the country. He suspended the playing of “Hail to the Chief” whenever he arrived at an event, though he later allowed the practice to resume. On the domestic front, he was saddled with a country in crisis. Inflation galloped at rates up to 14%, and global gasoline shortages closed service stations and created high prices and long lines. Interest rates for home mortgages soared above 14%. In his first televised fireside chat, he wore a cardigan sweater and encouraged Americans to conserve energy during the winter by keeping their thermostats at 65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night. He also proposed a string of legislative initiatives to deal with the crisis, but many were blocked by Congress. In what would become a seminal moment in his presidency, Carter addressed the nation — and a television audience of more than 60 million — on a Sunday evening in 1979, saying the country had been seized by a “crisis of confidence ... that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will.” He outlined a series of proposals to develop new sources of energy. The address, widely known as the “malaise speech” even though Carter never used that word, was generally well-received at the time, though some bristled at the implication that Americans were to blame for the country’s problems. Any positive glow disappeared two days later, when Carter fired five of his top officials, including the Energy, Treasury and Transportation secretaries and his attorney general. The value of the dollar sank and the stock market tumbled. Sensing that Carter was politically vulnerable, Kennedy moved to present himself as an alternative for the 1980 Democratic nomination, publicly criticizing the president’s agenda. But Kennedy damaged his own candidacy in a prime-time interview with CBS’ Roger Mudd: Asked why he was running for president, Kennedy fumbled his answer, and critics cited it as evidence that the senator didn’t want the job so much as he felt obligated to seek it. A few months after the malaise speech, in late 1979, revolutionaries loyal to Iran’s spiritual leader, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking 52 Americans hostage. Weeks stretched into months, with Iran refusing all efforts to negotiate a hostage release. In April 1980, Carter approved Operation Eagle Claw, a secret Delta Force rescue mission. But it ended in disaster — mechanical trouble sidelined three helicopters and, after the mission was aborted, one of the remaining helicopters collided with a transport plane on the ground, killing eight soldiers. Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance resigned before the mission, believing the plan too risky. Negotiations to free the hostages resumed, and Carter desperately tried to win their release before the November election. But the Iranians prolonged the talks and the hostages weren’t released until Jan. 20, 1981, moments after Carter watched Reagan being sworn in. The journey home for Carter was painful. Of those who voted for Reagan in 1980, nearly 1 in 4 said they were primarily motivated by their dissatisfaction with Carter. :::: Carter faced “an altogether new, unwanted and potentially empty life,” as he later put it. He sold the family farm-supply business, which had been placed in a blind trust during his presidency and was by then deeply in debt. Then, as Rosalynn later recalled, Carter awoke one night with an idea to build not just a presidential library but a place to resolve global conflicts. Together, they founded the nonprofit, nonpartisan Carter Center. His skill as a mediator made Carter a ready choice for future presidents seeking envoys to navigate crises. Republican President George H.W. Bush sent him on peace missions to Ethiopia and Sudan, and President Bill Clinton, a fellow Democrat, dispatched him to North Korea, Haiti and what then was Yugoslavia. Carter described his relationship with President Barack Obama as chilly, however, in part because he had openly criticized the administration’s policies toward Israel. He felt Obama did not strongly enough support a separate Palestinian state. “Every president has been a very powerful factor here in advocating this two-state solution,” Carter told the New York Times in 2012. “That is now not apparent.” As an election observer, he called them as he saw them. After monitoring presidential voting in Panama in 1989, he declared that Manuel Noriega had rigged the election. He also began building houses worldwide for Habitat for Humanity, and he wrote prodigiously. The Nobel committee awarded Carter the Peace Prize in 2002, more than two decades after he left the White House, praising him for standing by “the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation.” During his 70s, 80s and even into his 90s, the former president showed an energy that never failed to impress those around him. In his 1998 book “The Virtues of Aging,” he urged retirees to remain active and engaged, and he followed his own advice, continuing to jog, play tennis and go fly-fishing well into his 80s. When his “White House Diary” was published in 2010, he embarked on a nationwide book tour at 85, as he did in 2015 with the publication of “A Full Life: Reflections at 90.” When he told America he had cancer that had spread to his liver and brain, it was vintage Carter. Wearing a coat and tie and a pair of blue jeans, he stared into the television cameras and was unflinchingly blunt about his prognosis. “Hope for the best; accept what comes,” he said. “I think I have been as blessed as any human being in the world.” Former Times staff writers Jack Nelson, Robert Shogan and Johanna Neuman contributed to this report. ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
In an announcement shared first with Scripps News on Thursday, the White House offered more details about its national strategy for combatting Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate. The Biden administration first previewed parts of this work in October, and Thursday’s announcement includes additional information and areas of action that have already been implemented or can be completed in the next 40 days before President Biden leaves office. In a statement, President Biden said, “This first-ever National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate is a historic step forward to live up to our ideals. It seeks to deepen understanding of these communities and the discrimination and bias they have long faced across a number of sectors.” The president describes the strategy as “whole-of-government and whole-of-society effort” to combat discrimination, while also “protecting the freedom and safety of other religious and ethnic communities.” It contains more than 100 executive branch actions, 100 calls to action to “every sector of society,” and focuses on four priorities: increase awareness of hatred against Muslims and Arabs, and broaden recognition of these communities’ heritages; improve safety and security for Muslims and Arabs; tackle discrimination against Muslims and Arabs and appropriately accommodate their religious practices; continue to build cross-community solidarity and collective action to counter hate. A senior administration official says that beyond the federal government, the recommendations extend to state and local governments as well as the private sector and philanthropy. The senior administration official told Scripps News that the group tasked with crafting the strategy has been meeting with stakeholders in the Muslim and Arab-American communities for their input, like the Islamic Network Group and the Nation’s Mosque. They also consulted with academics and interfaith leaders. Doug Emhoff, the Second Gentleman was involved in the strategy as well. Anti-Islamic and antisemitic hate has been on the rise in the United States. In his statement, the president also noted the murder of six-year-old Wadee Alfayoumi, and his mother Hanan Shahin who was also stabbed and wounded in the attack which occurred at their home in Illinois last year. “These heinous acts shattered an American family. And they spread a wave of horror and fear across our nation,” he wrote. The White House had previewed the actions in a press release in October, where they enumerated the executive branch actions like improving safety and security alongside the Department of Homeland Security; tackling discrimination and bias leaning on agencies like the Department of Labor to remind the workforce about legal obligations to protect against religious or ethnic discrimination; and addressing issues related to travel. In May 2023, the White House released a 60-page national strategy that laid out government actions to counter anti-Jewish hate. It marked the first-ever nationwide strategy on antisemitism produced by the federal government. Notably, Biden made mention in his statement Thursday of the Trump-era Muslim ban that impacted people from Muslim-majority and African countries from entering the United States: “That ban was a stain on our national conscience and inconsistent with our long history of welcoming people of all faiths and backgrounds.” One of the senior administration officials said that the strategy is not a direct response to the language of the Trump administration’s past actions, but instead a larger part of President Biden’s legacy. “This strategy is part of a four-year effort to fight hate wherever we see it, in the in the country,” the official told Scripps News, adding, “It's important for people to know where we left things, what forward momentum there has been.” President-elect Trump could make the decision not to move forward with the strategy when he comes into office, a fact that Scripps News asked the senior administration official about. “We do not predict what the future administration will do, but we are proud of having a document that outlines an approach where a government thinks Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate are priority issues," the official said.
The vote came amid controversy about the pools' futures West Lancashire council leaders have weathered a 'no confidence' vote over the future of swimming pools in Skelmersdale and Ormskirk . However, three Labour councillors have now become independent due to the dispute over whether to close swimming pools in the two towns. One councillor said during a full council debate this week that any potential closures without replacements would be a 'betrayal of both towns'. Labour councillors Yvonne Gagen, the council leader, and Carl Coughlan, who is responsible for leisure services, were targeted in a 'no confidence' motion by the Our West Lancashire (OWL) group. However, Labour councillors dismissed these accusations. Outside the council building, some pool protesters gathered again, albeit in smaller numbers than in October. These included members of the Ormskirk Otters swimming club. The vote took place amidst controversy about the future of the pools, a recent public consultation by West Lancashire Council, and the backdrop of a new budget due next year. One proposal is to close the two existing pools before any replacements are built, as a cost-saving measure. Government cuts and rising costs are among the factors cited, but there are counter-claims of poor work by councillors, reports Lancs Live . The council is also seeking new design ideas after two recent blueprints were deemed unaffordable. Above-ground steel pools could be a cheaper option, a previous meeting heard, but a final decision has not yet been made. OWL Cllr Adrian Owens, proposing a 'no confidence' motion, said: "This reflects the wishes and opinions of local residents. It is local people who elect us and who we should listen to." He added: "I've been a councillor for 25 years. I've never seen the levels of anger and contempt for the council that I see at this time. I can't recall a petition being presented with so many signatures nor has there ever been a council consultation bringing anywhere close to 2,178 responses. This anger stretches across traditional political lines." Cllr Owens continued, regarding the situation with leisure services: "The council leader and lead member for leisure are driving us off the cliff top. It is time for a change of leadership before this council ends up the only one in the area with no council-operated swimming pools." Speaking on consultant spending and the council's leadership Cllr Owens concluded: "Residents have lost all confidence in him. He has consistently taken a he-knows-best approach, refusing to listen to other political groups or involve them in cross-party working groups. As a result, the council has spent more than £1.7m in the past 12 months on leisure consultants, much of it on two new leisure centre designs which are now deemed unaffordable." Furthermore, he claimed: "He has also starved the existing centres of investment. Nothing has been spent for four years and only £26,000 in the past decade. Then he has the cheek to use the alleged poor condition as a reason for closure." The OWL motion garnered support from Conservatives, including Robert Bailey and David Westley, with Cllr Westley saying: "We had a cross-party working group on leisure for six or eight years. But it was stopped 12 months ago. We tried to get it reinstated in May. The council leadership, honestly, needs help. There is a lack of control. Unfortunately there's lack of confidence in both of you." Former Labour councillors Neil Furey, Paul Hogan, and Kerry Lloyd have become independents due to the pools controversy. Cllr Furey said: "Make no mistake, community anger over potential closures is unbelievable. I hope we will hear some changes tonight. But this would be the ultimate betrayal of Ormskirk and Skelmersdale. People are up in arms, including teaching staff and governors. This cannot happen. There must be alternatives." Labour's Gareth Dowling, deputy council leader, said: "We've had about 15 minutes of slagging from the opposition and independents. You can check back on details. To say these councillors have been expelled from Labour is wrong. I suggest we move to a vote because nobody is going to change their minds." The OWL motion was ultimately defeated by a narrow margin of 23 votes to 21.Girl who shot her Kiwi mother was ‘anti-social’ and went to gun rangesJohn Healey said that the Government’s “interest” in Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), is “that they live up to their promises to protect” rights, when he spoke to reporters after a Cobra meeting on Thursday. HTS is banned in the UK because of its past association with al Qaida, the terrorist organisation once led by Osama bin Laden. But its leader, Abu Mohammed al-Golani, cut ties with al Qaida years ago and has sought to present his group as a more moderate and inclusive organisation, leading some to suggest the group should no longer be proscribed. When asked whether the Government was considering the status of the group, Mr Healey said: “Proscription is not a matter for now. “It doesn’t stop us talking to all the parties, and our interest in HTS is that they live up to their promises to protect the rights of all individuals and all groups, to respect international law and to prevent Syria becoming a base for a fresh terrorist threat.” Mr Healey said that Thursday’s meeting was “about making sure we have, as a Government, a laser focus on the role that we can play with allies to see a stable, peaceful transition. “So that the Syrians get the government they need for the future, and the region can see the stability in the future that it also needs.” Cobra meetings are called when ministers or officials need to respond to urgent matters. Following the toppling of the Bashar Assad regime over the weekend, the UK has paused decisions on asylum applications from Syria. Thousands of Syrians have been granted asylum in the UK but, earlier this week, the Home Office said decisions on applications would be paused while events unfold in Damascus. When asked how long the system would be paused for, and whether the move was fair, Mr Healey said on Thursday: “This is early days. “It’s a measure in response to rapidly changing developments, and the most important thing for us now is that the UK plays and will continue to play a full role with allies to see a stable, peaceful, orderly transition and that requires a political process. “It requires dialogue at the heart of it, and today’s ministerial meeting, the Cobra meeting, was about making sure that we do just that.” Earlier on Thursday, G7 leaders said that they “stand with the people of Syria” and “denounce terrorism and violent extremism in all its forms”. In a statement, Sir Keir Starmer and his counterparts said: “The G7 will work with and fully support a future Syrian government that abides by those standards and results from that process.” It went on: “After decades of atrocities committed by the Assad regime, we stand with the people of Syria. We denounce terrorism and violent extremism in all its forms. “We are hopeful that anyone seeking a role in governing Syria will demonstrate a commitment to the rights of all Syrians, prevent the collapse of state institutions, work on the recovery and rehabilitation of the country, and ensure the conditions for safe and dignified voluntary return to Syria of all those who were forced to flee the country.”
German politicians have criticised Elon Musk for an opinion piece he wrote backing the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), claiming his support for the party was “intrusive”. The support of the AfD from Musk, who is set to serve in US President-elect Donald Trump's administration, comes as Germans are set to vote on February 23. The vote was triggered after a coalition government led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz collapsed in a dispute over how to revitalise Germany’s stagnant economy. Mr Musk wrote an op-ed in German in the Welt am Sonntag newspaper claiming that “only the AfD can save Germany" and praised the party's approach to regulation, taxes and market deregulation. He went on to say the party “can lead the country into a future where economic prosperity, cultural integrity and technological innovation are not just wishes, but reality.” The editor of the newspaper’s opinion section, Eva Marie Kogel, resigned after the publication of the article. She wrote on X: “I always enjoyed leading the opinion section of WELT and WAMS. Today an article by Elon Musk appeared in Welt am Sonntag. I handed in my resignation yesterday after it went to print.” Friedrich Merz, leader of the opposition Christian Democrats and current favourite to succeed Scholz as chancellor, said in an interview with the Funke Media Group: "I cannot recall a comparable case of interference, in the history of Western democracies, in the election campaign of a friendly country." Mr Merz described the commentary as "intrusive and pretentious". Saskia Esken, co-leader of Scholz's Social Democrats (SPD), vowed fierce resistance to attempts by state actors as well as the rich and influential to influence Germany's elections. “In Elon Musk's world, democracy and workers' rights are obstacles to more profit,” she told Reuters. “We say quite clearly: Our democracy is defensible and it cannot be bought.” Welt's editor-in-chief designate defended the decision to publish the commentary, saying that democracy and journalism thrive on freedom of opinion, including polarising positions. The AfD is currently second in the opinion polls and might be able to thwart a centre-right or centre-left majority. However, the party has no realistic possibility of entering power because other parties refuse to work with them.Okta up 17% after posting profit, revenue jump in Q3
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said Thursday that he is "absolutely" confident that Ryan Day will be back as football coach in 2025. Calls to fire the sixth-year coach rose among Ohio State fans after the Buckeyes lost to Michigan for the fourth straight year. Bjork, in an interview on 97.1 The Fan, said Day is the man for the job, regardless of how the Buckeyes perform in the College Football Playoff. They host Tennessee in a first-round game Dec. 21. "Coach Day is awesome," said Bjork, who came from Texas A&M to replace the retiring Gene Smith last summer. "He's great to work with. He totally gets it. He loves being a Buckeye. So, we're going to support him at the highest level." The 13-10 loss to Michigan followed by an ugly melee between the teams put the coach in a precarious spot. He and his team were booed off the field by the home fans. Bjork ended up releasing a statement expressing his support for the coach. "The reason we had to say something after (the Michigan) game is, we're still breathing, we're still alive," Bjork said. "The season's not over. The book is not closed." Thanks to the playoff, Day has a chance to redeem himself with Ohio State's huge fanbase with a win against the Volunteers — and perhaps more in the 12-team tournament. Regardless of what happens, Day will be back next year, according to Bjork. "Coach Day and I just hit it off so well," Bjork said. "I've been really, really impressed. Every single time I talked to him, I learn something. He's innovative. He recruits at the highest level. He's got a great staff." Day wouldn't directly address his job status last weekend. "When you first come off those types of things, there's a lot of emotion," he said, referring to the Michigan loss. "And then as time goes on, you've got to get refocused because you know what you've done in the past does not affect what's going on moving forward. Everything is out in front of us." Failing to consistently beat Michigan is one of the few flaws in Day's coaching record. Hired as a member of coach Urban Meyer's staff in 2017, Day was the hand-picked successor when Meyer retired after the 2018 season. Compiling an overall 66-10 record, he is widely admired in the coaching community. "Great respect for what he's done in his coaching career, what he's done there at Ohio State and the success that they've had year-in and year-out," Tennessee coach Josh Heupel said. Day is in trouble now because losing The Game is considered an unforgiveable sin by Buckeyes fans. "What we have to do is this whole 'championship or bust' mentality, you want that as the goal, but it has to be about the process," Bjork said. "To me, we've got to maybe change some conversations a little bit. I think we need to maybe just approach things a little bit differently." Get local news delivered to your inbox!
Nvidia Stock Falls 3% On Rare Downgrade, Missed 'Bullish Whispers'
DETROIT (AP) — For a second time, a Delaware judge has nullified a pay package that Tesla had awarded its CEO, Elon Musk, that once was valued at $56 billion. On Monday, Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick turned aside a request from Musk's lawyers to reverse a ruling she announced in January that had thrown out the compensation plan. The judge ruled then that Musk effectively controlled Tesla's board and had engineered the outsize pay package during sham negotiations . Lawyers for a Tesla shareholder who sued to block the pay package contended that shareholders who had voted for the 10-year plan in 2018 had been given misleading and incomplete information. In their defense, Tesla's board members asserted that the shareholders who ratified the pay plan a second time in June had done so after receiving full disclosures, thereby curing all the problems the judge had cited in her January ruling. As a result, they argued, Musk deserved the pay package for having raised Tesla's market value by billions of dollars. McCormick rejected that argument. In her 103-page opinion, she ruled that under Delaware law, Tesla's lawyers had no grounds to reverse her January ruling “based on evidence they created after trial.” On Monday night, Tesla posted on X, the social media platform owned by Musk, that the company will appeal. The appeal would be filed with the Delaware Supreme Court, the only state appellate court Tesla can pursue. Experts say a ruling would likely come in less than a year. “The ruling, if not overturned, means that judges and plaintiffs' lawyers run Delaware companies rather than their rightful owners — the shareholders,” Tesla argued. Later, on X, Musk unleashed a blistering attack on the judge, asserting that McCormick is “a radical far left activist cosplaying as a judge.” Legal authorities generally suggest that McCormick’s ruling was sound and followed the law. Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, said that in his view, McCormick was right to rule that after Tesla lost its case in the original trial, it created improper new evidence by asking shareholders to ratify the pay package a second time. Had she allowed such a claim, he said, it would cause a major shift in Delaware’s laws against conflicts of interest given the unusually close relationship between Musk and Tesla’s board. “Delaware protects investors — that’s what she did,” said Elson, who has followed the court for more than three decades. “Just because you’re a ‘superstar CEO’ doesn’t put you in a separate category.” Elson said he thinks investors would be reluctant to put money into Delaware companies if there were exceptions to the law for “special people.” Elson said that in his opinion, the court is likely to uphold McCormick's ruling. Experts say no. Rulings on state laws are normally left to state courts. Brian Dunn, program director for the Institute of Compensation Studies at Cornell University, said it's been his experience that Tesla has no choice but to stay in the Delaware courts for this compensation package. The company could try to reconstitute the pay package and seek approval in Texas, where it may expect more friendlier judges. But Dunn, who has spent 40 years as an executive compensation consultant, said it's likely that some other shareholder would challenge the award in Texas because it's excessive compared with other CEOs' pay plans. “If they just want to turn around and deliver him $56 billion, I can't believe somebody wouldn't want to litigate it,” Dunn said. “It's an unconscionable amount of money.” Almost certainly. Tesla stock is trading at 15 times the exercise price of stock options in the current package in Delaware, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a note to investors. Tesla's share price has doubled in the past six months, Jonas wrote. At Monday’s closing stock price, the Musk package is now worth $101.4 billion, according to Equilar, an executive data firm. And Musk has asked for a subsequent pay package that would give him 25% of Tesla's voting shares. Musk has said he is uncomfortable moving further into artificial intelligence with the company if he doesn't have 25% control. He currently holds about 13% of Tesla's outstanding shares.