Last Seen Blogs
crazyratlady
Untitled
plxtypusbearr73
time kills all his children in the end
teaforearl
House of Corgis
v-valerie
Panam Brainrot
mehlou3
Evolvere
Text
Lizzo's body shouldn't be 'celebrated'
Turns out, Jillian Michaels is 100% in hot water.
The celebrity trainer, best known for her stint on "The Biggest Loser," stirred up controversy Wednesday during an appearance on BuzzFeed News’ "AM to DM" by questioning why Lizzo's body is praised.
When host Alex Berg mentioned Lizzo's body-positivity movement, Michaels interjected: "Why are we celebrating her body? Why does it matter? Why aren't we celebrating her music? 'Cause it isn't gonna be awesome if she gets diabetes."
Michaels, 45, continued: "I love her music. My kid loves her music. But there’s never a moment where I’m like, 'And I’m so glad that she’s overweight.' "
Opinion: Stop shaming Lizzo. Let her live her life
Michaels' remarks were immediately met with backlash, with many social media users accusing the fitness personality of perpetuating stereotypes and fat-shaming Lizzo, who recently quit Twitter over internet trolls and bullying.
Actress Jameela Jamil, who has emerged as a body neutrality activist, tweeted: "Just saying... MY WHOLE DAMN THIN FAMILY HAS DIABETES AND HIGH CHOLESTEROL AND PROBLEMS WITH OUR JOINTS. Why is This woman acting like she’s an MRI? Stop concern-trolling fat people and get in the bin."
User @Connecticutting added, "We celebrate Lizzo because Lizzo unapologetically celebrates Lizzo and encourages everyone to celebrate themselves, so Jillian can (expletive) all the way off to whatever washboard ab mountain of misery she sits atop."
Jillian Michaels dishes out new diet advice: Fast for 12 hours and eat only one snack a day
Michaels didn't back down from the backlash. Instead, she doubled down on her statement, urging her followers to "prioritize our health."
"As I’ve stated repeatedly, we are all beautiful, worthy, and equally deserving," she wrote in a statement posted to Instagram Wednesday evening. "I also feel strongly that we love ourselves enough to acknowledge there are serious health consequences that come with obesity — heart disease, diabetes, cancer to name only a few."
She continued: "I would never wish these for ANYONE and I would hope we prioritize our health because we LOVE ourselves and our bodies."
More: Jillian Michaels doubles down on keto diet attack after Al Roker, Andy Cohen diss
Michaels' comments about Lizzo come just days after the Grammy-nominated artist announced that she was taking a break from Twitter.
"Yeah I can’t do this Twitter (expletive) no more.. too many trolls," she tweeted Sunday. "I’ll be back when I feel like it."
Lizzo explained her decision to walk away on Instagram Live Monday, saying, "I would love to be on Twitter ’cause I could connect with you people who positively support me… not to mention spreading my own positive messages. But now I’ve gotten to a point where I’m not just dealing with Internet bullies, I’m dealing with seeing a lot of negativity on the Internet dealing with everyone."
USA TODAY reached out to Lizzo's and Michaels' reps for comment.
'I'm trying to empower everyone':Lizzo is Time's 2019 Entertainer of the Year
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
Trump vs. Iran: It's not over
The weeklong scare also left a chilling memory of how the impulsive choices of a seat-of-the-pants President brought his nation to the cusp of another war in the Middle East. It's possible Trump might learn the wrong lessons from his brinkmanship.
And the drama exposed the failings of a gutted national security team staffed largely by inexperienced or deeply ideological officials apparently prone to confusion and mixed messages.
On the upside, tensions that culminated in Trump's evaluation that Iran was "standing down" after not killing any Americans in strikes at bases in Iraq did not spin out of control. Both sides were apparently able to telegraph their intentions, through public rhetoric and a Swiss diplomatic channel, to avoid miscalculations that could have spilled over into a war.
While there are hopes that stepping back from the brink will give each side an incentive to kick off a fresh diplomatic process, it's more likely they will return to the same state of mutual loathing that has prevailed for 40 years.
Iraq is still on edge -- a brace of rockets landed in the highly fortified Green Zone of Baghdad on Wednesday -- the area that hosts the US Embassy, which was previously attacked by a pro-Iran mob.
The drones and missiles may have been pulled back for now, but it would be naive to assume this episode is over. Events in the Middle East take months and years to play out. And Iran's history suggests that it will not view a limited missile strike as sufficient vengeance for the killing of a top leader like Soleimani -- who headed the elite Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, meaning more proxy militia violence is likely.
"I think that anybody who tells you that this is over and that the retaliation has now ceased and we can all make assessments based on where we are right now ... that's very unlikely. The story is far from over," said Susan Hennessey, a former National Security Agency attorney who is now a CNN legal analyst, on "The Situation Room."
What Trump achieved
Still, after looking like he was talking the United States into the kind of Middle East quagmire he decried as a candidate, Trump was glad to step back on Wednesday.
"Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world," he said at the White House.
The President's team, eyeing his reelection race, has material to work with. They will boast about how Trump, daring to take a step discounted by his predecessors as too inflammatory, wiped Soleimani, whom he blasted as a terrorist "monster," off the planet.
More strategically, Trump may have established a principle that could be significant in future US-Iran tensions. The killing of Soleimani, who masterminded Iran's regional network of militia allies like Hezbollah and Hamas, signals that Washington now sees Iran's proxy activity as grounds for military action, a new threshold in the confrontation.
"There was a direct attack, direct assault on the US Embassy, US sovereign soil, by Iranian proxies," said David Urban, a senior Trump political adviser and veteran of the first Gulf War.
"This President, unlike presidents in the past, decided to say, 'No longer will the US allow Iran to attack the US via proxies,' " Urban told CNN's Christiane Amanpour.
That new standard could be significant given Iran's record of using affiliated groups to attack US targets -- such as the assault on the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.
But it could also be a trigger to a future conflict.
Iran pockets its gains
Iran also sent messages -- to Trump after taking the significant step of firing missiles from its own territory at US troops -- crossing its own new line in the clash with the President.
It put its US-allied neighbors on notice that its missiles can hit targets like bases, airports and civilian cities -- and next time they may not be programmed to miss. And Tehran skillfully orchestrated Soleimani's funeral rites to foster an impression of unity, weeks after unleashing a brutal crackdown on anti-government protests amid economic blight brought on by Trump's devastating package of economic sanctions.
Trump's threat to hit Iranian cultural targets, meanwhile, helped solidify the notion that Iran faces an existential threat from the US that the clerical government has for years used to cement its legitimacy.
But the deeper trends revealed by these tense few days suggest that Iran and the US are not likely to just return to their respective corners and count their winnings.
To begin with, the President's White House speech signaling that military action was over for now included a promise to tighten sanctions. While Trump said he was willing to "embrace peace with all who seek it," he showed no sign of relaxing conditions for dialogue with Iran that would effectively require the Islamic Republic to capitulate on its top issues. That means there is no way for Iran to loosen the straitjacket imposed by Trump's "maximum pressure campaign" other than proxy attacks on shipping, oil fields and in a possible more serious scenario, US targets in the region.
How the showdown could erupt again
The US -- despite Trump's boasts that Americans are safer with Soleimani gone -- seems to have come out of the conflict in a worse geopolitical position. Iran has wriggled out of the last constraints of the Obama-era nuclear deal, raising fears of a possible race to an atomic weapon within months.
The US now seems far closer to being forced out of Iraq after striking Soleimani on Iraqi soil, in an insult to Iraqi sovereignty. Trump compounded the damage by threatening to sanction the star-crossed nation invaded by US-led troops in 2003 if American forces are kicked out. Any US departure from Iraq would hamper the fight against extremism and hand a prize to Baghdad's bigger, more powerful neighbor. For reasons of military logistics, it would likely force the US to abandon the remnants of its fight against ISIS in Syria.
In Washington, the step back from confrontation with Iran has taken some of the heat out of Trump's clash with Democrats in Congress over what at one point looked like another war.
But Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans on Wednesday left classified briefings on the crisis by top officials disgusted by the presentation. Trump has claimed that he thwarted imminent terrorist attacks against Americans by killing Soleimani.
GOP Sen. Mike Lee of Utah slammed "the worst briefing I've had on a military issue," as he and colleagues castigated the administration for dismissing their concerns about Trump's legal rationale for targeting Soleimani.
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he wasn't given overwhelming evidence that specific acts were about to happen.
"There was no specific information given to us of a specific attack. I didn't learn anything in the hearing that I hadn't seen in a newspaper already," Paul said.
The question of the timing of an Iranian attack is important because it bears on the legal justification for Trump's targeting of Soleimani.
There was also fresh evidence of the disarray in Trump's national security team during a crisis that at one point saw conflicting signals sent over whether US troops were withdrawing from Iraq.
Administration sources spoke on Wednesday of Iranian signals sent through Iraq and Swiss diplomats to the effect that the missile attacks were not meant to kill Americans.
But Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, broke ranks.
"I believe, based on what I saw and what I know, that they were intended to cause structural damage -- destroy vehicles and equipment and aircraft -- and to kill personnel. That's my own personal assessment," Milley said.
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
The circular phone with two headphone jacks
The Cyrcle Phone is one of the more bizarre products on show at this year's CES tech expo in Las Vegas.
While the smartphone giants are trying to make their devices fold and encourage the use of wireless headphones, this US start-up is focused on delivering a shape that it says is more "sensual" and has built in two headphone jacks.
The project dates back to 2015 and has yet to get its software to match its form, but the company suggests the phone will finally launch in about a year's time.
The BBC's Cody Godwin went to see how much progress had been made.
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
Standing down: How Trump decided that not striking back was his best option on Iran
Brian Hook, the special representative for Iran, was in Los Angeles to talk about US policy toward Iran. But by the time he stepped to the podium, he was already more than an hour late, having spent much of the day on a secure line speaking to US officials in Washington including his boss, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
And now, he had to leave.
"The peoples of Iraq and Lebanon and Iran, they want their country back," Hook said. "And they are tired of Iran being unable to stay within its own borders. Thank you."
With that, Hook walked briskly off stage. America's defense apparatus was spinning into action.
Minutes earlier, US intelligence satellites had picked up signs of a heat signature from Iran, suggesting the country had just launched short range ballistic missiles. The US knew an impending attack was likely, thanks to a tip from the Iraqi government, which had been told by the Iranians an attack was coming and which bases to avoid.
Still, using information from the satellites and US aircraft in the region -- which had intercepted Iranian communications -- US intelligence analysts quickly determined that two bases in Iraq were the targets, al-Asad and Erbil. Within minutes, US troops stationed there were warned. They'd already been on high alert and sought safety in bunkers, according to a source familiar.
Troops took short-term cover the day before out of a concern of a possible attack. Now, the threat was imminent, and the troops were told of incoming missiles.
At 7:30 p.m. ET, the official announcement went out: Iran had launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against US military and coalition forces in Iraq.
Just five days after killing Iran's top military leader, Qassem Soleimani, in a drone strike in Baghdad, this was the moment that the Trump administration had been preparing for -- a direct retaliatory attack from Iran.
News of the missile strike came as the administration had spent days stuck in a chaotic series of self-inflicted wounds. First, Trump had threatened to target Iranian cultural sites. Then there was the shocking letter announcing the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq that the Pentagon had to walk back as "a mistake."
It all raised questions about the administration's handling of the situation, and even had some Republican allies of the President privately expressing concern about whether the administration was truly prepared to deal with the events it had unleashed with the Soleimani strike.
The moment wasn't lost on Trump's top aides, who convened in the basement Situation Room knowing that the ensuing hours could redeem a chaotic several days -- or cement the impression of a rudderless ship.
On Tuesday evening, aides watched as the situation went from the potential for dramatic conflict to one that seemed to offer Trump a new opportunity to deescalate. Bolstered by incoming messages from Iran sent through back-channels, Trump's aides realized the damage would be limited.
"Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world," Trump said on Wednesday morning.
The following account of the events that unfolded over the past are based on interviews with dozens of Trump administration officials, foreign diplomats, as well as staffers and top lawmakers on the Hill.
Scramble to inform
Within an hour of the strikes, leaders on Capitol Hill were being briefed. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was discussing the situation in Iran with a group of top Democrats when she was handed a note with news of a rocket attack on a US military base in Iraq. Among those present was Rep. Dan Kildee, who told CNN that Pelosi paused the discussion to alert members of the situation. "Pray," Pelosi told members, according to Rep. Debbie Dingel.
Not long after, Pelosi got on the phone with Vice President Mike Pence, who briefed her on the Iranian attacks. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also received a call from Pence around the same time and was briefed on the attack.
Meanwhile, GOP leaders were getting briefed directly by the President.
At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior defense officials as soon as he got word of the attack. Less than an hour after news broke of the Iranian strike, Esper's office reached out to Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul al-Mahdi, who just days earlier had criticized the US drone strike on Soleimani as a "flagrant violation of the conditions for the presence of the American forces in Iraq."
At first Esper's team couldn't get through. It was around 3 a.m. in Baghdad and the number the Pentagon had for Mahdi's office wasn't working, said a source familiar with the outreach. They contacted the ambassador in Washington at home, who managed to connect the two parties.
After making a few calls to senior congressional officials, Esper and Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed to the White House.
In the Situation Room
Just before 7:30 p.m. ET, Esper, Milley and Pompeo all pulled up to the White House within a few minutes of each other. Pompeo arrived first. As he waited for the others, Pompeo turned the light on in the back seat of his Cadillac sedan and was reading from two cellphones. Once the other two cars arrived, Pompeo, Esper and Milley all entered the West Wing together.
Soon, a group of senior administration officials were gathered in the Situation Room. Along with Pence, Pompeo, Esper and Milley, the group included national security adviser Robert O'Brien, acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. White House counsel Pat Cippolone and press secretary Stephanie Grisham were there, while CIA Director Gina Haspel joined by teleconference.
The first objective was to determine whether any Americans had died in the strike. A senator who spoke with Trump told CNN the President appeared ready to attack Iranian facilities had there been even one American casualty. Though it took well into the night to confirm, the early evidence suggested there had not been any American deaths.
That lack of casualties fed a sense of restraint in the room, according to sources. While some consideration was given to striking back at Iran that night, according to one White House official, the decision was made to hold off until more information came in regarding Iran's intentions and the conditions on the ground.
One of the initial reactions in the room was one of surprise that the Iranians fired so few missiles out of their arsenal of thousands, this source said. That, along with the expectation that Iran was always going to strike back, created a sense of calm. Though there was an obvious level of tension given the high stakes, part of the reason the group was more relaxed was the initial view among many administration officials that Iranians were more bent on sending a message than in killing Americans.
One source pointed to how accurate Iranians have been in the past with its ballistic missiles, such as the attack a Saudi oil refinery, suggesting the attack could have been lethal.
Within hours of the strike, the President had made clear he wanted to make a public address and began dictating an outline of what it should look like, according to a person familiar. As Trump and his advisers continued to meet in the Situation Room, aides began making urgent plans for an address to the nation, including prepping the Oval Office. The framework of a speech started coming together with aide Stephen Miller at the helm and senior advisers weighing in.
Over the past few days, top White House officials expressed regret that Trump hadn't addressed the nation sooner after the strike that killed Soleimani, and worried he'd missed a chance to shape the narrative in his favor. Right after the strike, White House aide and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner was among those pushing Trump to give a speech, but the decision was made to hold off.
On the Hill, Republican leaders were getting constant updates from the White House, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Armed Services Chairman Sen. James Inhofe. The overall message to the White House from Republicans, according to a number of sources, was one of restraint, and that this was a moment for de-escalation.
In the end, White House officials said Trump would not emerge on Tuesday night to make an address. The news was met with a collective sigh of relief on the Hill, according to several GOP aides who spoke to CNN.
Around 9 p.m. ET, Trump began making calls to several GOP lawmakers, including Inhofe, who told reporters Wednesday the President was in a "very, very positive" mood and said he was willing to negotiate with Iran. Inhofe agreed, telling the President this was an opportunity to not just de-escalate but start negotiations.
At 9:45 p.m. ET, Trump tweeted, "All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning."
But the night was far from over.
Iran Back Channels
Starting late Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning, Iran initiated contact with the administration through at least three back channels, including Switzerland and other countries, according to a senior administration official. The message from Iran was clear: This would be their only response. They would now wait to see what the US would do.
As part of its response back, the US conveyed that it was fully aware that Iran controls its proxies in the region, including Hezbollah. The source told CNN that Iran tried to "squeak out of it," saying they are not responsible for those proxies, but the US made clear it didn't buy that argument.
By around 1 a.m. ET, the battleground assessment came in, confirming no US casualties. Working through the night without sleep in secure rooms at the White House, national security teams put response options together, including plans to sanction Iran.
By early Wednesday morning, teams met again with the President, who was given an update on the latest assessment. That's when Trump made the final decision that the US response would be sanctions, signaling to advisers that the threat of escalation was off the table.
"They've stepped back -- now we've taken a bit of a step back," said a senior administration official.
Trump then began making his own edits on the draft of the speech, as did a handful of other national security advisers including Esper, Pompeo and Milley. As the White House prepared for an 11 a.m. ET address to the nation, advisers kept weighing in on the draft of the President's remarks, delaying Trump's address by nearly half an hour.
As junior staffers and reporters crowded into the red-carpet lined White House foyer, the President's top national security officials -- many wearing their military uniforms -- lined up on either side of the podium.
The wooden doors opened behind them and Trump -- silhouetted by late-morning sun -- emerged.
CNN's Kaitlan Collins, Jennifer Hanlser, Manu Raju, Alex Marquardt and Kylie Atwood contributed to this report.
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
What Harry Meghan mean they don't want to be 'senior royals' anymore?
If you weren't familiar with the British term "gobsmacking" before, now you may get an idea of what it means after digesting the astonishing news that Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan of Sussex have decided they are not going to be "senior royals" anymore.
On Wednesday, they issued a "personal message" announcing they are stepping back from their roles as senior members of the British royal family, they're working on becoming "financially independent," and they're planning to split their time between North America and the United Kingdom.
Then, an hour after that came another statement from the palace, this one from the office of the private secretary and communications director for Queen Elizabeth II, Harry's grandmother. It suggested some in the palace were not amused.
"We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through," the statement said carefully. Translation: Not so fast, Your Royal Highnesses.
By now, Americans unfamiliar with Brit-speak or the ins-and-outs of royal doings might be wondering: What? Have they quit being royals? Can they do that? And why would they?
Sally Bedell Smith, the acclaimed American biographer of the queen and of Harry's mother, the late Princess Diana, says it appears from these statements that Harry and Meghan have acted on their own and without consulting anyone in the royal family.
"You would think that Harry would know that you can't just go off and make decisions without taking advice," Smith said. "For them to have cooked this up all by themselves – I think is a real violation of the way the royal family is supposed to operate. "
"We are in unprecedented waters," says British royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams. "It is extraordinary. What the hell is going on? What do they want to do? This is trouble!"
As Smith says, careful parsing of the Sussex statement produces more head-scratching than insight. Here are the salient sentences:
“After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution. We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen."
Have they quit being royal?
No. Even Edward VIII, the king who abdicated in 1936, was still a royal Duke of Windsor afterwards and still a member of the family, even though there was little love lost between them.
A "senior" royal means someone close to the queen and high up in the succession. Harry is currently sixth in line. He will still be both those things despite his plans.
Bottom line: They'll still be royals but they don't want to work like royals, or not as much anymore.
Have they retired, like grandfather Prince Philip?
Not really. The Duke of Edinburgh is 98 and he's earned his retirement. Harry, 35, and Meghan, 38, seem to be saying they're not going to be doing their usual round of royal engagements but they haven't explained exactly what they'll be doing instead or whether they will do a combination of things, and how that would work.
What do they mean by "financially independent"?
Are they going to get jobs and if so, what kind? Will the former Meghan Markle go back to acting? Will they spend all their time raising money for charity?
"This creates an awful lot of problems because they seem to be setting up a situation of one foot in the royal family and one foot in some undescribed private enterprise they’re setting up through a non-profit, which will require them to raise a lot of money," Smith says. "But the cachet for that comes from being senior members of the royal family...the logic of all this seems muddy."
Who supports them financially?
According to their Sussex Royal website, they will no longer take money from the British taxpayers through the Sovereign Grant that supports the queen and senior royals for their public duties. The Sussex office expenses are covered by the grant, amounting to 5% of their total costs. They "prefer to release this financial tie."
Harry's father, Prince Charles, has supported their private life and 95% of their office through his deep-pocketed Duchy of Cornwall income, which apparently will continue.
But they won't be skint: Meghan made plenty of money as an actress on "Suits," and Harry inherited a considerable amount of money from his mother which has likely grown since 1997.
"We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honor our duty to The Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages. This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity."
What happens to Frogmore Cottage, their newly renovated Windsor home?
Frogmore Cottage will continue to be the property of the queen, the Sussex website says. They will continue to use it as their official residence "so that their family will always have a place to call home in the United Kingdom."
In a rebuke of media criticism, the newly-updated Sussex website explained the renovation of Frogmore was funded by the queen through the Sovereign Grant, "reflecting the monarchy’s responsibility to maintain the upkeep of buildings with historical significance." It was already under renovation when the queen offered its use to them and the renovations cost half what they would have spent if they had moved into the originally suggested official residence at Kensington Palace.
How can they live both in the U.K. and in, say, Canada or America?
The climate-damaging flying requirement seems daunting at best. "This really is extraordinary as it will raise issues such as security costs," Fitzwilliams says. (Security for the Sussexes is required by law, as they are classified as internationally protected individuals and the British government never discusses security issues for royals.)
What about the media scrutiny they so despise in the U.K? It's hardly likely to be better over here. But Harry and Meghan's relationship started under wraps and remained so for more than a year of dating, so they've demonstrated they can elude the paparazzi when they want to. They spent at least some of their year-end time-off period in Canada and were only spotted by a local paper on Vancouver Island at the very end.
"I don’t see them living in some sort of modest home in Laguna Beach," Smith said. "Maybe they had a total transforming revelation while they were off for six weeks and decided they want to live in the wilderness."
Is there a positive aspect to this announcement?
For Americans maybe it's this: We might get to see the Sussexes' 8-month-old baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, more often in America. Unless they plan to spend most of their time in Canada.
What happens next?
"We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge and all relevant parties. Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.”
Given that the queen and Prince Charles may have been as much in the dark as the rest of us, it's likely that what happens next is a lot of meetings at the palace, and more careful statements "explaining" matters.
Meanwhile, outside the palace, royal fans are puzzled, anti-monarchy forces are gleeful, and a media maelstrom may be building. Already, one of their best-known critics, ex-tabloid-editor-turned-morning-TV-host Piers Morgan, is tweeting his contempt.
"People say I'm too critical of Meghan Markle - but she ditched her family, ditched her Dad, ditched most of her old friends, split Harry from William & has now split him from the Royal Family. I rest my case."
Smith predicts that Meghan will take all the blame for this decision, causing further damage to her already-shaky relations with the media, a crucial factor in the continued stability and popularity of the monarchy.
"It's a delusion that they can escape the media (in North America)," Smith says. "There's even less protection in this new hybrid existence. This is having your cake and eating it, too, and that doesn’t end well usually."
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
'The Nanny' to Broadway? Fran Drescher, Rachel Bloom collab on musical
She had style, she had flair, she was there – and now, with the help of a "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend," she's on the road to Broadway!
A musical theater adaptation of the hit 90s sitcom "The Nanny" is currently in the works, with the help of a few seasoned TV veterans.
The series' original creators Fran Drescher (who also starred as nanny Fran Fine on the show) and her ex-husband Peter Marc Jacobson are penning the book, while Rachel Bloom and Adam Schlesinger tackle the score.
Bloom co-created, wrote, produced and starred in the CW musical series "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend," for which Schlesinger was an executive music producer, composer, musical director and writer.
The cast of the new musical has yet to be determined.
"Nobody is cast yet — we're plotting — but we feel confident we will find a fabulous actress who is funny, charming and has a great voice," Drescher and Jacobson said in a statement to USA TODAY.
Drescher joked: "Of course I would do it myself, but we'd have to change the title to 'The Granny.' "
Bloom explained how this project has special meaning for her.
" 'The Nanny' was a fundamental part of my childhood because it was the first time I saw an openly Jewish female protagonist on television," she said in a statement. "The story of Fran Fine, however, is a universal one that has touched the hearts of people of every race, religion and orientation. I am so proud to be using the characters established by 'The Nanny' to tell a new story about one woman's journey to becoming proud of who she is and what makes her different."
Marc Bruni, who directed the recent Broadway show "Beautiful: The Carole King Musical," is set to direct, and Brian and Scott Zeilinger are the project's producers.
"The Nanny" ran for six seasons from 1993 to 1999 as it followed cosmetics saleswoman Fran Fine as she navigated life as a nanny to the three kids of a wealthy British widower, played by Charles Shaughnessy.
In a statement to USA TODAY, Bruni described how the series "began from a familiar theatrical premise" similar to the Broadway classic "The Sound of Music."
"But what if instead of Maria Rainer with her guitar, Fran Fine showed up on the doorstep of a fractured family?" he continued "Over its six seasons, the show examined class, coming of age, feminism, love and Broadway with heart and laughs. I am thrilled to be working with Fran, Peter, Rachel, and Adam in bringing these characters to the stage in a fresh new light that I hope will delight fans of the show, as well as capture the imagination of a new generation of theatre-goers.”
Bloom expressed her excitement for the project Wednesday, posting the news to her Instagram and writing, "I CAN FINALLY SPEAK ABOUT MY INVOLVEMENT WITH THIS!"
Instagram
Drescher also showed her enthusiasm on her Instagram, writing, "The Nanny Musical Broadway Bound! Go online it’s all over the news!"
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
Hacking attempts originating in Iran nearly triple following Soleimani strike, researchers say
Soon after the strike that killed Soleimani, Iran-based attempts to hack federal, state and local government websites jumped 50% — and then continued to accelerate, said network security company Cloudflare.
Over the course of 48 hours, attacks traced to Iranian IP addresses nearly tripled against targets around the world, Cloudflare said, peaking at half a billion attempts per day.
Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince called the increase "statistically significant" in an interview with CNN. He added that the true number of attempts was likely higher, given that the company has a limited view of the wider internet.
"That would be very atypical to happen on its own," Prince said of the spike. "That, I think, you can safely correlate directly to the death of the Iranian general."
Even as malicious activity increased from within Iran, attacks originating from other countries also grew, Prince said. That could indicate sophisticated Iranian attackers masking their locations, said Prince, or it could suggest that non-Iranian hackers are taking advantage of a chaotic situation.
Some of the increase in activity reflects so-called "denial of service" attacks, according to Cloudflare — efforts to shut down a site by overwhelming it with bogus traffic. But much of the spike came in the form of network probes, or hackers sniffing a target to assess its vulnerabilities.
Texas officials said Tuesday that the state's computer systems were being scanned as often as 10,000 times per minute.
"We absolutely saw an increase in activity that needed to be blocked from Iran," said Amanda Crawford, executive director of the Texas Department of Information Resources, in an interview with CNN.
Separately, websites belonging to the Texas Department of Agriculture and an Alabama veterans' group were defaced this week with an image of Soleimani. The image was accompanied by a message: "Hacked by Iranian hacker."
Over the weekend, a website belonging to the Government Publishing Office was also defaced with an image of President Donald Trump, edited to appear bloody after being punched by a disembodied fist.
Authorities are investigating the Texas Agriculture Department case, according to Maddison Jaureguito, a spokesperson for the department. Cybersecurity experts described the defacements as the work of amateurs.
"Cheesy, low budget images are a hallmark of Iranian propaganda," said James Lewis, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Probably 'patriotic hackers' going after the only vulnerable .gov site they could find. Definitely not the A team."
US officials have advised businesses and infrastructure operators to maintain a high alert as tensions with Iran continue. The Department of Homeland Security has issued numerous warnings, and on Saturday it updated the nation's terror advisory system with a bulletin addressing the risk of Iranian cyberattacks.
Agency officials briefed members of Congress on Tuesday evening about Iran's cyber capabilities and the potential vulnerabilities of American targets.
Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal was among those who received the classified briefing. In an interview, Blumenthal told CNN that he left the meeting with strong concerns about ransomware — malicious software that takes computers hostage and prevents legitimate users from unlocking them.
Experts say Iran has steadily improved its capabilities in cyberspace. The country is considered a second-tier digital threat after more powerful countries such as Russia and China — still dangerous enough to be able to cause significant localized damage.
Iran in the past has been accused of shutting down bank websites and erasing data on computers belonging to the oil giant Saudi Aramco.
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
A royal caper is eclipsing the US-Iran showdown
It's actually a good sign that a future plot for "The Crown" is eclipsing the back-from-the-brink pause in the US showdown with Iran. It means the missiles and drones are earthbound -- at least for now.
With a barrage of ballistic missiles, Iran has salvaged its honor after the US killing of its top military commander Qasem Soleimani. It calibrated the strike so as not to put President Donald Trump back on the warpath. Before the dust had settled, Tehran was already sending back-channel messages to Washington that the attacks were over. All is well, you might say.
Only in this volatile modern era, when everything seems speeded up, could panic about a looming national emergency seem like yesterday's news so fast. That doesn't mean the threat is gone: The impulsive Trump hasn't had a personality transplant and Iran isn't feeling warmer toward the Great Satan. But the President's speech and ensuing quiet suggest that neither side wants to slug out their differences in a costly conventional conflict right now.
Any number of factors could ignite the situation again. So enjoy these few minutes of regularly scheduled celebrity programming while you can. The world needs to know: What the heck is going on at Buckingham Palace?
"We must all work together toward making a deal"
After hours of uncharacteristic circumspection in the wake of Iran's attacks on bases housing US troops in Iraq, Trump finally addressed the nation on Wednesday morning. He vowed Iran would never have a nuclear weapon and that it was time for a "new deal" with the country. Read the whole speech here.
Moments before Trump appeared between the marble columns of the Grand Foyer of the White House, TV viewers were treated to a bizarre spectacle -- a parade by his top political and military aides, who formed up as a ramrod-straight honor guard around his podium.
Vice President Mike Pence, the secretaries of state and defense, and military brass with jacket fronts straining under racks of battle ribbons waited for wooden doors to swing open. When the President emerged, he was framed by a backdrop of white light, with a Pattonesque swagger.
Trump loves the theater of the presidency and probably watched the tableau back on Tivo. It wasn't quite George W. Bush jetting onto an aircraft carrier to declare Mission Accomplished, but Trump's White House advance team did him proud. When it comes to presidential pomp, his tastes definitely trend toward dictator kitsch.
In fact, his appearance with his politburo recalls that of his estranged pen pal Kim Jong Un.
US x Iran
Now that the US and Iran have got that off their chests, is a diplomatic window opening to cool their feud once and for all -- and to neutralize Tehran's nuclear program? Probably not.
Here's what we're thinking:
Trump hasn't ditched his hardline policy; he just promised to pile new sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Ordinary Iranians were already in pain from the US "maximum pressure" campaign, which Tehran sees as economic warfare. It may see its only option to respond in renewed proxy attacks — the very activity that led to Soleimani's death.
Trump claims to want a new deal, but Iran is unlikely to trust him — or the US— again. By trashing the nuclear deal crafted by his predecessor, Barack Obama, Trump might have torched hopes for diplomacy for a generation.
The original Iranian nuclear deal worked because it was global, involving Russia and China as well as Washington's trans-Atlantic allies. The President on Wednesday took another shot at America's erstwhile European friends who still back the nuclear deal. Trump has fractured the international consensus needed for serious diplomacy.
US conditions for talks are too punitive -- Iran would have to completely capitulate before even sitting down at the table. That is not going to happen.
Despite everything, Trump would probably love a big photo-op summit with a top Iranian leader in an election year. But there's no reason for Tehran to offer that big political bonus. Plus no Iranian leader wants to be seen standing beside the smiling American who killed Soleimani.
Below: Satellite images from Planet Labs, Inc. appear to show damage from Iranian missile strikes at al Asad Air Base in Iraq.
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
Appeals court allows use of $3.6 billion in military funds for border wall
In a 2-1 ruling, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of a Texas judge's order, which the administration had appealed. The case is still ongoing.
The use of Defense Department funds for the President's border wall has received pushback from numerous groups and states, which have argued the administration circumvented Congress to shore up wall funds.
The latest ruling applies to the military construction funds. Last September, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper authorized diverting $3.6 billion in the construction funds for 11 wall projects on the southern border with Mexico. The Pentagon said at the time that half the money was coming from deferred projects overseas, and the other half was planned for projects in the US.
The ruling doesn't apply to the use of other funds, including counter-drug and Treasury Forfeiture Funds, that have been designated for wall construction.
In February 2019 Trump ended a 35-day government shutdown when Congress gave him $1.4 billion in wall funding, far less than he had sought. He subsequently declared a national emergency to get money from other government accounts to construct sections of the wall.
"We don't control our own border," Trump claimed at the time. "We're going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border and we're going to do it -- one way or the other we have to do it."
Trump has repeatedly made claims about "tremendous amounts of drugs" crossing into the US from the southern border -- even though the majority of those drugs come through ports of entry -- and addressed the issue of human trafficking.
The lawsuit, brought by El Paso County, Texas, and Border Network for Human Rights, argued that Trump overstepped his authority when he issued a national emergency declaration to gain access to additional funds for his border wall, despite receiving the $1.375 billion from Congress.
Kristy Parker, counsel at the nonpartisan nonprofit Protect Democracy, emphasized in a news release Wednesday that "a court has already determined that the government can't lawfully use military construction funds to build Trump's border wall."
"It's unfortunate that the people of El Paso will continue to suffer harm while the government appeals, but we're confident that we'll prevail again in this next stage of litigation," she said.
Source link
Read the full article
#politics#USappealscourtallowsTrumpadministrationtouse$3.6billioninmilitaryfundsforborderwall-CNNPolitics
0 notes
Text
A new virus related to SARS is behind China's mysterious pneumonia outbreak
They've found a new coronavirus in 15 of 57 patients with the illness in the central city of Wuhan, saying it has been preliminarily identified as the pathogen for the outbreak, state broadcaster CCTV reported on Thursday.
The report said the whole genome sequence of the virus has been obtained, and a sample isolated from one of the patients showed "typical coronavirus appearance" under an electron microscope.
Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that cause illnesses ranging from the common cold to SARS, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Symptoms can range from fever and coughing to kidney failure, and in some cases lead to death.
But the new coronavirus in Wuhan appears to not be as lethal as SARS. Its symptoms are mainly fever, with a number of patients having difficulty breathing. Eight patients had recovered and been discharged from hospital as of Wednesday, and no deaths have been reported, according to CCTV.
The virus was first detected in Wuhan on December 12. Since then, a total of 59 people have been struck by the illness, with seven patients in critical condition at some stage, Chinese health authorities said on Sunday.
Authorities said there has been no obvious evidence of human-to-human transmission, and no healthcare workers have been infected.
Some of the patients were employed at a seafood market in Wuhan. Local media reported the market also sold other live animals, including birds, rabbits and snakes -- sparking concerns that the virus might have been transmitted to humans from animals.
According to the WHO, coronaviruses can infect both humans and animals. The coronavirus that causes SARS was traced to the civet cat, a wild animal considered a delicacy in parts of southern China, where the epidemic began. And dromedary camels are considered a likely source of MERS.
Across Asia, governments have stepped up preventive measures such as airport temperature screening and notification requirements in the wake of the Wuhan outbreak.
On Wednesday, South Korea reported a suspected case linked to the Wuhan pneumonia, according to the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The patient, a Chinese woman who had visited Wuhan in December, has been isolated and is undergoing treatment and further tests.
In Hong Kong, 38 people have been found with fever or respiratory symptoms after traveling from Wuhan, according to the city's Hospital Authority. Among them, 21 have been discharged and so far none has been linked to the cluster of pneumonia in Wuhan.
In Singapore, travelers arriving from Wuhan are also required to go through temperature screening, according to the Ministry of Health. Doctors have been alerted to look out for suspected cases of pneumonia among people who recently returned from there.
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
The hi-tech cure for stinky shoes
A South Korean start-up has created a gadget designed to stop well-worn trainers smelling bad.
The ShoeBlast uses a combination of heat and ultraviolet light to achieve its goal.
Zoe Kleinman put the device to the test at the CES tech expo in Las Vegas.
Catch up with all the BBC's CES 2020 coverage
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
Ukrainian Airlines airplane crashes in Tehran shortly after takeoff - CNN Video
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
Ukrainian Airlines airplane crashes in Tehran shortly after takeoff - CNN Video
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
'Jeopardy!' Greatest of All Time tourney features three top winners
Spoiler alert: This story contains details from Tuesday's first match in ABC's "Jeopardy! The Greatest of All Time" tournament.
Ken Jennings advanced a step toward “Jeopardy!” GOAT status Tuesday.
The first night of ABC's "Greatest of All Time” tournament brought together the three biggest money winners in the syndicated quiz show's history – Jennings, Brad Rutter and James Holzhauer – for its first network prime time airing since 1990. The pre-taped competition continues Wednesday (8 EST/PST).
The players and venerable host Alex Trebek will return each weeknight, except for Monday, until one wins three nights, or matches. Each match consists of two traditional, half-hour "Jeopardy!" games, with the night's highest total points winner (scores are measured in points, not dollars, in the special format) getting the victory.
The contest could end as early as Thursday, if one player sweeps, or stretch out until a three-way, winner-take-all match on Jan. 16. The winner gets $1 million, with the other two competitors each receiving $250,000.
The players lived up to their champions billing early in Tuesday's first game, as no one answered incorrectly in the "Jeopardy!" round, with full wagers accompanying the Daily Doubles. The first wrong answer came from Rutter on the first Daily Double in the Double Jeopardy! round.
Jennings went into Final Jeopardy! with 33,200 points, doubling Holzhauer's 16,600 and Rutter scored 5,200. With the category "Presidents & The Bible," the final clue was "'Silent' Calvin Coolidge was inaugurated in 1925 on a Bible open to this six-word first line of the Gospel According to John."
All three passed this quick Bible study exam (the correct question is at the end of this story), leaving Jennings still on top with 45,000, followed by Holzhauer (32,000) and Rutter (11,400).
The lower-scoring second game was much closer, with Holzhauer (15,000) on top going into Final Jeopardy!, putting him ahead of Jennings (12,200) and Rutter (10,000). The Final Jeopardy! category was "Astronomers" and it featured this clue: "This man's name was given to a comet that crashed into Jupiter in 1994; he's the only human whose remains lie on the moon."
Holzhauer and Jennings providing the correct response (this question also is at the end of the story), and their bets revealed the different strategy of a two-game match concept.
Holzhauer bet everything, doubling his score to 30,000 and bringing his evening's total to 63,200. Jennings, with his wide margin from the first game, bet 6,200 to finish Game 2 with 18,400, a calculation that gave him a total of 63,400, putting him 200 ahead of Holzhauer and giving him the first match of the tourney.
Rutter, who missed the Final Jeopardy! response, ended Game 2 with nothing and an evening score of 10,400.
Holzhauer's headline-grabbing success last year inspired the concept, Trebek told USA TODAY in an exclusive interview when the contest was announced in November.
“When James had his run last year, a lot of people were wondering, 'Well, how would he do against Ken Jennings? How would he do against Brad Rutter?' (They’re) our two most successful players in 'Jeopardy!' history,” he says. “These three players have won close to $10 million in ‘Jeopardy!’ prize money and over 100 games among them, so it was logical.”
GOAT honors:Exclusive: Three top 'Jeopardy!' champs face off in ABC's Greatest of All Time tournament
Fans will be rooting for Trebek, 79, as well as the players. The host, who has helmed the syndicated hit since it launched in 1984, revealed his stage 4 pancreatic cancer diagnosis in March and has updated the public about his treatments and status as he continues to conduct the show. He appreciates fan support, which included an emotional "We (heart) you Alex!" Final Jeopardy answer from a contestant in November.
"People all over America and abroad have decided they want to let me know now, while I'm alive, about the impact that I've been having on their existence," he told Michael Strahan during an ABC special last week. "They have come out, and they have told me and, my gosh, it makes me feel so good."
Hearts and minds:'Alex Trebek chokes up when 'Jeopardy' contestant honors him by answering 'We love you Alex'
The three GOAT contenders compiled their winnings in varying fashion.
Holzhauer, 35, set the single-game winnings record on April 17 ($131,127), amassed $2.46 million during his 32-game streak and added another $250,000 when he won November's Tournament of Champions. His aggressive betting style, a groundbreaking strategy, left him just short of the $2.52 million won by 45-year-old Jennings, who more than doubled Holzhauer's victory streak with a "Jeopardy!" record of 74 wins in 2004.
Rutter, 41, first appeared in 2000, when players were limited to five consecutive wins. He didn't make the top 10 for regular-season play, but he's the biggest overall money winner on an American game show with $4.68 million, mostly from tournaments.
ABC reality programming chief Rob Mills came up with the tournament idea, calling it "my dream project." He says Holzhauer, whose spring run was a publicity and ratings bonanza, provided a worthy third player to challenge earlier champs Rutter and Jennings, who faced off against IBM's Watson computer in 2011 and in an All-Stars match in March.
Winning:James Holzhauer wins 'Jeopardy!' Tournament of Champions, adds to streak
"Jeopardy!" is averaging 9.4 million viewers this season, and is both TV's top game show and top syndicated program. It peaked at 14 million during Holzhauer's streak. Mills hopes the GOAT spectacular, the show's first prime time appearance since "Super Jeopardy!" on Saturdays during the summer of 1990, yields similar audience interest.
"I don't know how this doesn't become an event," Mills says.
Final Jeopardy, Game 1: What is: In the beginning was the Word?
Final Jeopardy!, Game 2: Who is Shoemaker?
Contributing: Gary Levin
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
Duke and Duchess of Sussex drop by Canada House
The Duke and Duchess recently returned from Canada, where they spent the Christmas holidays with the Duchess' mother, Doria Ragland.
They were met at Canada House by Janice Charette, the high commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom.
"The Duke and Duchess have a strong connection to Canada. It's a country The Duke of Sussex has visited many times over the years and it was also home to The Duchess for seven years before she became a member of The Royal Family," the royals said on their Instagram page, Sussex Royal.
The Duke and Duchess posted a video of their tour, which included seeing exhibits and meeting the staff.
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
The electric bike that rides on water
It has taken nearly a decade to bring a commercial hydrofoil bicycle to market.
But New Zealand-based Manta5 has finally launched its product and has brought it to the CES tech show to exhibit.
BBC Click's Spencer Kelly was one of the first to try out the water bike on Lake Las Vegas.
Catch up with all the BBC's CES 2020 coverage
Source link
Read the full article
0 notes
Text
California congressman convicted in corruption case to resign next week
SAN DIEGO (Reuters) - U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter, a leading California Republican who pleaded guilty last month to a federal corruption charge of conspiracy to misuse campaign funds, announced on Tuesday that he would resign from office effective Jan. 13.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter leaves federal court after pleading guilty to misusing campaign funds in San Diego, California, U.S., December 3, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Blake
Hunter, 43, whose conviction set off a scramble within the Republican Party to succeed him while seemingly boosting Democrats’ chances to gain his seat, notified Governor Gavin Newsom and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi by letter of his departure date.
The U.S. Marine Corps combat veteran and six-term congressman, an early supporter of President Donald Trump, faces sentencing next month.
Hunter’s letters make no mention of his criminal conviction but instead cite his work in Congress on behalf of the military, war veterans, education and the maritime industry. An aide, Michael Harrison, said the Jan. 13 date held no significance.
Hunter and his wife, Margaret, were indicted in 2018 on charges of misappropriating $250,000 in campaign donations to pay for personal expenses, including their children’s private school tuition, lavish travel, expensive meals at restaurants and clothing.
His wife pleaded guilty and named her spouse a co-conspirator in June, the same month prosecutors alleged in court papers that Hunter had spent campaign funds on extramarital liaisons with five women, all lobbyists or congressional staffers.
After long insisting he was wrongly accused and the victim of a politically motivated prosecution, Hunter pleaded guilty on Dec. 3 to a single count of conspiring to convert campaign funds to personal use.
He did so, Hunter said, to spare his family a trial. At the time, his representatives would only say Hunter would resign “after the holidays.”
Sentencing is set for March 17, and he faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip Halpern told Reuters last month that if the court abides by prosecutors’ recommendation, Hunter likely “will be doing upwards of 14 months in jail.”
The conviction has set the stage for a wide-open race to succeed Hunter, who won election in 2008 to fill the seat his father had held until his own retirement that year.
Ten candidates for California’s 50th congressional district, which leans heavily Republican, have qualified for the 2020 ballot so far.
Among them are former U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican who previously served in a neighboring district, and Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar, who narrowly lost his bid for the seat in 2018 when Hunter was still under indictment.
In California’s open-primary system, the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, even if they are from the same party. Democrats already hold a large majority of California’s 53 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Reporting by Jennifer McEntee in San Diego; Writing and additional reporting by Steve Gorman in Culver City, California; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and Michael Perry
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Source link
Read the full article
#California#Corruption/Bribery/Embezzlement#Crime#Crime/Law/Justice#generalnews#Government/Politics#HUNTER#JudicialProcess/CourtCases/CourtDecisions#Pictureavailable#Pictures#politics#UnitedStates#us#USGovernmentNews#USA
0 notes