A planned pan-European payments network backed by 22 banks is to compete with U.S. Mastercard and Visa appealed for public money, saying its private backers were not prepared to stump up all the cash needed.

Planned pan-European payments network  to compete with U.S. Mastercard and Visa

Snap or food stamp is a U.S. Department of agriculture initiative. The programme aims at ending hunger and move U.S. Citizens towards self sufficiency. But with conditions applied. Take a look at this report.

Families face impact of snap rules in United States

Over the last two decades, global wealth tripled, with China leading the way and overtaking the US for the top spot globally.

In a new report, the research arm of consulting firm McKinsey &amp; Co. examines the national balance sheets of ten countries which together account for more than 60 per cent of world income.

The world is now wealthier than it has ever been, says Jan Mischke, a partner at the McKinsey Global Institute in Zurich.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-rakes-up-taiwan-issue-during-virtual-meet-xi-warns-dont-play-with-fire-429694" hreflang="en">Biden rakes up Taiwan issue during virtual meet, Xi warns don’t 'play with fire'</a>

The study says global wealth rose from $156 trillion in 2000 to $514 trillion in 2020. A third of the increase was accounted for by China. Its wealth increased from $7 trillion in 2000, when it joined the World Trade Organization, to $120 trillion in 2015, speeding its economic ascent.

In contrast, the US saw its net worth more than double over the period, to $90 trillion, despite more muted increases in property prices.

It is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent of households control more than two-thirds of each country's wealth, and according to the report their share has been increasing.

Real estate accounts for 68 per cent of global net worth, in 2020 it accounted for two-thirds of net worth. The remainder is made up of things like infrastructure, machinery, and equipment, and to a lesser extent, things like intellectual property and patents.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-blasts-own-satellite-us-slams-it-as-missile-test-threatens-international-space-station-429666" hreflang="en">Russia blasts own satellite, US slams it as missile test threatens International Space Station</a>

Since financial assets are effectively offset by liabilities, they are not included in the global wealth calculation.&nbsp;

In the past two decades, net worth has outstripped growth in global GDP, fuelled by skyrocketing property prices and declining interest rates. According to McKinsey, asset prices are almost 50 per cent higher than their long-term average.

However, there are questions about whether the wealth boom can last.

Real-estate values rising too fast can make home ownership unaffordable for many people and increase the risk of a financial crisis, like the one the United States experienced in 2008. There is a possibility that China might also run into trouble due to the debts of property developers such as the China Evergrande Group.

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas: China is now the richest country in the world. Can it stay rich?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-china-is-now-the-richest-country-in-the-world-can-it-stay-rich-429864/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The report recommends that the world's wealth be invested in more productive investments that expand global GDP.&nbsp;

"There are different ways to interpret the expansion of balance sheets and net worth relative to GDP. It could mark an economic paradigm shift, or it could precede a reversion to the historical mean, softly or abruptly. Aiming at a soft rebalancing via faster GDP growth might well be the safest and most desirable option. To achieve that, redirecting capital to more productive and sustainable uses seems to be the economic imperative of our time, not only to support growth and the environment but also to protect our wealth and financial systems."

The ten countries that account for about 60 per cent of global GDP are Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Over the last two decades, global wealth tripled, with China leading the way and overtaking the US for the top spot globally. In a new report, the research arm of consulting firm McKinsey & Co.

Over the last two decades, global wealth tripled, with China leading the way and overtaking the US for the top spot globally. In a new report, the research arm of consulting firm McKinsey & Co. examines the national balance sheets of ten countries which together account for more than 60 per cent of world income. The world is now wealthier than it has ever been, says Jan Mischke, a partner at the McKinsey Global Institute in Zurich. Also read | Biden rakes up Taiwan issue during virtual meet, Xi warns don’t 'play with fire' The study says global wealth rose from $156 trillion in 2000 to $514 trillion in 2020. A third of the increase was accounted for by China. Its wealth increased from $7 trillion in 2000, when it joined the World Trade Organization, to $120 trillion in 2015, speeding its economic ascent. In contrast, the US saw its net worth more than double over the period, to $90 trillion, despite more muted increases in property prices. It is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent of households control more than two-thirds of each country's wealth, and according to the report their share has been increasing. Real estate accounts for 68 per cent of global net worth, in 2020 it accounted for two-thirds of net worth. The remainder is made up of things like infrastructure, machinery, and equipment, and to a lesser extent, things like intellectual property and patents. Also read | Russia blasts own satellite, US slams it as missile test threatens International Space Station Since financial assets are effectively offset by liabilities, they are not included in the global wealth calculation. In the past two decades, net worth has outstripped growth in global GDP, fuelled by skyrocketing property prices and declining interest rates. According to McKinsey, asset prices are almost 50 per cent higher than their long-term average. However, there are questions about whether the wealth boom can last. Real-estate values rising too fast can make home ownership unaffordable for many people and increase the risk of a financial crisis, like the one the United States experienced in 2008. There is a possibility that China might also run into trouble due to the debts of property developers such as the China Evergrande Group. Watch | Gravitas: China is now the richest country in the world. Can it stay rich? The report recommends that the world's wealth be invested in more productive investments that expand global GDP. "There are different ways to interpret the expansion of balance sheets and net worth relative to GDP. It could mark an economic paradigm shift, or it could precede a reversion to the historical mean, softly or abruptly. Aiming at a soft rebalancing via faster GDP growth might well be the safest and most desirable option. To achieve that, redirecting capital to more productive and sustainable uses seems to be the economic imperative of our time, not only to support growth and the environment but also to protect our wealth and financial systems." The ten countries that account for about 60 per cent of global GDP are Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

At $514 trillion, China overtakes US in terms of amassing the biggest net worth

The US has condemned Russia for conducting a "dangerous and irresponsible" missile test that it says endangered the crew aboard the International Space Station (ISS). The test blew up one of Russia's own satellites, creating debris that forced the ISS crew to shelter in capsules

US condemns Russian missile test which put ISS crew at risk

It's been over 3 months since the Taliban took over and deliberations between countries on the Afghanistan crisis continues. In the latest Indian foreign secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla met U.S. Special representative for Afghanistan Thomas West to discuss the ongoing developments.

Indian Foreign Secy Shringla meets US special representative for Afghanistan

Alarm bells are ringing in the halls of the Pentagon led by General Mark Milley, senior Pentagon officials are becoming increasingly worried about China's rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal.

US worried about China's nuclear arsenal, 'We have to act now,' says General Milley

The virtual meeting between President Joe Biden and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, produced no breakthroughs in a relationship that has spiraled dangerously downward. That was not the intent.

Instead, the two leaders sought to keep the many disputes between the two countries from escalating into a broader conflict. If they can translate their words into a kind of détente, it would count as a diplomatic success.

“It seems clear to me we need to establish some common-sense guardrails,” Biden told Xi in opening remarks, speaking over what amounted to the equivalent of a Zoom call from the Roosevelt Room at the White House and the East Hall in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

Xi, for his part, called Biden “my old friend” and used a nautical metaphor, comparing the two countries to ships that must together navigate the ocean’s wind and waves without colliding.

Bubbling under the surface, though, was acrimony that could prove difficult to resolve.

At the end of 3 1/2 hours of talks, the two did not even cobble together the sort of joint statement that has typically punctuated summits between the United States and China over the decades. Xi’s last meeting with a U.S. president, Donald Trump in 2019, also ended with no joint statement, marking the deterioration in ties.

Nor did the meeting end with any agreement to have groups of officials from both sides hold further talks on strategic nuclear issues and conflicts in cyberspace — the way Biden did in his summit in June with another quarrelsome geopolitical rival, President Vladimir Putin of Russia.

“We were not expecting a breakthrough,” a senior administration official told reporters shortly after the talks with Xi ended. “There were none.”

Instead, the two sides issued their own statements, each emphasizing the points of long-standing contention. They amounted to catalogs of mutual grievances that offered little room for compromise.

Biden raised concerns about human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, and about China’s “unfair trade and economic policies” harming American workers, the White House statement said. Xi, according to China’s own readout, said that U.S. support for Taiwan was “playing with fire,” and explicitly warned that the world risked slipping back into the superpower confrontations of a half-century ago.

“Engaging in ideological demarcation, camp division, group confrontation, will inevitably bring disaster to the world,” Xi said, a clear reference to a pillar of the new administration’s strategy for challenging China by teaming up with like-minded nations that fear China or oppose its authoritarian model. “The consequence of the Cold War are not far away.”

With that reference, Xi plunged directly into the debate now underway in Washington about whether the two powers are descending into something akin to the Cold War, or whether the deep economic, trade and technological links between China and the U.S. make any comparison to the old U.S.-Soviet Union relationship impossible.

The tone of the meeting was a reminder that China, perhaps inevitably, remains what Biden and his top advisers have cast as the greatest geopolitical challenge to the United States in its history. They have rejected the Cold War comparisons as overly simplistic, and as Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, put it, “We have the choice not to do that.”

“China is going to be a factor in the international system for the foreseeable future — it’s not going anywhere,” Sullivan said last week during a speech to the Lowy Institute in Australia. “And the United States is not going anywhere, and we’re not going anywhere in the Indo-Pacific either. And so we’re going to have to learn how to deal with that reality.”

Although the two leaders have spoken by telephone twice this year, the conference was intended to replicate the more thorough discussion of issues in previous summits between the United States and China — something that has not been possible because pandemic and political preoccupations have kept Xi from traveling since January 2020.

The White House had hoped to hold the meeting in person, possibly at the Group of 20 meeting in Rome last month, but concluded that it was better to meet remotely than to let tensions fester into next year. Xi is sure to be preoccupied then with the Winter Olympics in Beijing in February and a Communist Party congress in November that is expected to extend his rule.

Biden has repeatedly suggested that it should be possible for the United States to engage in vigorous competition with China and to confront it over certain issues, without risking clashes — whether in the disputed waters off China’s coast or in the murky shadows of cyberspace.

He also wanted to hold the meeting after he had begun to shore up American competitiveness at home. Just hours before meeting Xi, he signed the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which his aides cited as an example of refocusing on international competitiveness. He also recently signed other legislation that bans some key Chinese technology players, like telecommunications giant Huawei, from operating inside the United States.

What is perceived as a move to strengthen the economy in one capital can seem aggressive in the other.

“Both leaders are dissatisfied with the state of the relationship and the behavior of the other country,” said Danny Russel, a former assistant secretary of state who participated in talks with Xi during the Obama administration. “Both are also mindful of the risk of an incident between our militaries that could quickly spin out of control.”

No one meeting could have resolved the enormous divisions that have grown between the two countries.

The trade war that Trump started remains unresolved, with China still more than $180 billion short of a pledge to purchase $380 billion in American products before a deadline of Dec. 31. Problems have also emerged or gotten worse, including a Pentagon assessment that China is rapidly expanding its strategic nuclear arsenal, and may be abandoning its decadeslong strategy of maintaining a “minimum deterrent.”

Administration officials declined to discuss what was said about the nuclear buildup, beyond a vague statement that Biden “underscored the importance of managing strategic risks.”

Other topics that analysts thought would come up did not, according to the senior administration official. They included disputes over granting visas for diplomats, journalists and others, as well as a possible invitation to attend the Winter Olympics in Beijing in February.

Many also expected an effort to create a forum for discussing disputes.

The two sides did agree to talks among lower-level officials. That, and the leaders’ tone in their published statements, raised hopes that tensions could ease at least a bit.

“All the right things were said by both sides to stabilize a relationship marked by mutual mistrust,” said Rorry Daniels, a security specialist with the National Committee on American Foreign Policy in New York. “The question moving forward is how each side will adjust policy to meet this change of direction.”

On Tuesday, Biden suggested that officials from both sides would meet in working groups, though he did not specify on which issues. “We got a lot to follow up on,” he said.

After Biden’s last telephone call with the Chinese leader in September, the tone of the relationship, at least, improved considerably.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his counterpart, Wang Yi, met on the sidelines of the G-20 gathering and spoke by phone again last weekend. Biden’s envoy on climate change, John Kerry, and Xi’s, Xie Zhenhua, reached a surprise agreement on the issue at the talks this month in Glasgow, Scotland.

Xi, according to the Chinese description of the talks, suggested that cooperation on issues like climate change was conditional on stability across the spectrum of the relationship — a stance at odds with Biden’s view.

“China and the United States are entering a period of détente, but we don’t know how long it will be and to what extent,” said Cheng Xiaohe, an associate professor of international studies at Renmin University in Beijing. “We have a lot of uncertainties now.”

Even as the two leaders met virtually, another meeting was taking place in Beijing, commemorating the American pilots known as the Flying Tigers who aided China during its war against Japan in 1941 and 1942.

“The story of the Flying Tigers undergirds the profound friendship forged by the lives and blood of the Chinese and American people,” Qin Gang, China’s ambassador to the United States, said during the event. Acknowledging the tensions in the relationship, he added that the two countries “should inherit the friendly friendship tempered by war.”

The virtual meeting between President Joe Biden and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, produced no breakthroughs in a relationship that has spiraled dangerously downward.

The virtual meeting between President Joe Biden and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, produced no breakthroughs in a relationship that has spiraled dangerously downward. That was not the intent. Instead, the two leaders sought to keep the many disputes between the two countries from escalating into a broader conflict. If they can translate their words into a kind of détente, it would count as a diplomatic success. “It seems clear to me we need to establish some common-sense guardrails,” Biden told Xi in opening remarks, speaking over what amounted to the equivalent of a Zoom call from the Roosevelt Room at the White House and the East Hall in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Xi, for his part, called Biden “my old friend” and used a nautical metaphor, comparing the two countries to ships that must together navigate the ocean’s wind and waves without colliding. Bubbling under the surface, though, was acrimony that could prove difficult to resolve. At the end of 3 1/2 hours of talks, the two did not even cobble together the sort of joint statement that has typically punctuated summits between the United States and China over the decades. Xi’s last meeting with a U.S. president, Donald Trump in 2019, also ended with no joint statement, marking the deterioration in ties. Nor did the meeting end with any agreement to have groups of officials from both sides hold further talks on strategic nuclear issues and conflicts in cyberspace — the way Biden did in his summit in June with another quarrelsome geopolitical rival, President Vladimir Putin of Russia. “We were not expecting a breakthrough,” a senior administration official told reporters shortly after the talks with Xi ended. “There were none.” Instead, the two sides issued their own statements, each emphasizing the points of long-standing contention. They amounted to catalogs of mutual grievances that offered little room for compromise. Biden raised concerns about human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, and about China’s “unfair trade and economic policies” harming American workers, the White House statement said. Xi, according to China’s own readout, said that U.S. support for Taiwan was “playing with fire,” and explicitly warned that the world risked slipping back into the superpower confrontations of a half-century ago. “Engaging in ideological demarcation, camp division, group confrontation, will inevitably bring disaster to the world,” Xi said, a clear reference to a pillar of the new administration’s strategy for challenging China by teaming up with like-minded nations that fear China or oppose its authoritarian model. “The consequence of the Cold War are not far away.” With that reference, Xi plunged directly into the debate now underway in Washington about whether the two powers are descending into something akin to the Cold War, or whether the deep economic, trade and technological links between China and the U.S. make any comparison to the old U.S.-Soviet Union relationship impossible. The tone of the meeting was a reminder that China, perhaps inevitably, remains what Biden and his top advisers have cast as the greatest geopolitical challenge to the United States in its history. They have rejected the Cold War comparisons as overly simplistic, and as Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, put it, “We have the choice not to do that.” “China is going to be a factor in the international system for the foreseeable future — it’s not going anywhere,” Sullivan said last week during a speech to the Lowy Institute in Australia. “And the United States is not going anywhere, and we’re not going anywhere in the Indo-Pacific either. And so we’re going to have to learn how to deal with that reality.” Although the two leaders have spoken by telephone twice this year, the conference was intended to replicate the more thorough discussion of issues in previous summits between the United States and China — something that has not been possible because pandemic and political preoccupations have kept Xi from traveling since January 2020. The White House had hoped to hold the meeting in person, possibly at the Group of 20 meeting in Rome last month, but concluded that it was better to meet remotely than to let tensions fester into next year. Xi is sure to be preoccupied then with the Winter Olympics in Beijing in February and a Communist Party congress in November that is expected to extend his rule. Biden has repeatedly suggested that it should be possible for the United States to engage in vigorous competition with China and to confront it over certain issues, without risking clashes — whether in the disputed waters off China’s coast or in the murky shadows of cyberspace. He also wanted to hold the meeting after he had begun to shore up American competitiveness at home. Just hours before meeting Xi, he signed the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which his aides cited as an example of refocusing on international competitiveness. He also recently signed other legislation that bans some key Chinese technology players, like telecommunications giant Huawei, from operating inside the United States. What is perceived as a move to strengthen the economy in one capital can seem aggressive in the other. “Both leaders are dissatisfied with the state of the relationship and the behavior of the other country,” said Danny Russel, a former assistant secretary of state who participated in talks with Xi during the Obama administration. “Both are also mindful of the risk of an incident between our militaries that could quickly spin out of control.” No one meeting could have resolved the enormous divisions that have grown between the two countries. The trade war that Trump started remains unresolved, with China still more than $180 billion short of a pledge to purchase $380 billion in American products before a deadline of Dec. 31. Problems have also emerged or gotten worse, including a Pentagon assessment that China is rapidly expanding its strategic nuclear arsenal, and may be abandoning its decadeslong strategy of maintaining a “minimum deterrent.” Administration officials declined to discuss what was said about the nuclear buildup, beyond a vague statement that Biden “underscored the importance of managing strategic risks.” Other topics that analysts thought would come up did not, according to the senior administration official. They included disputes over granting visas for diplomats, journalists and others, as well as a possible invitation to attend the Winter Olympics in Beijing in February. Many also expected an effort to create a forum for discussing disputes. The two sides did agree to talks among lower-level officials. That, and the leaders’ tone in their published statements, raised hopes that tensions could ease at least a bit. “All the right things were said by both sides to stabilize a relationship marked by mutual mistrust,” said Rorry Daniels, a security specialist with the National Committee on American Foreign Policy in New York. “The question moving forward is how each side will adjust policy to meet this change of direction.” On Tuesday, Biden suggested that officials from both sides would meet in working groups, though he did not specify on which issues. “We got a lot to follow up on,” he said. After Biden’s last telephone call with the Chinese leader in September, the tone of the relationship, at least, improved considerably. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his counterpart, Wang Yi, met on the sidelines of the G-20 gathering and spoke by phone again last weekend. Biden’s envoy on climate change, John Kerry, and Xi’s, Xie Zhenhua, reached a surprise agreement on the issue at the talks this month in Glasgow, Scotland. Xi, according to the Chinese description of the talks, suggested that cooperation on issues like climate change was conditional on stability across the spectrum of the relationship — a stance at odds with Biden’s view. “China and the United States are entering a period of détente, but we don’t know how long it will be and to what extent,” said Cheng Xiaohe, an associate professor of international studies at Renmin University in Beijing. “We have a lot of uncertainties now.” Even as the two leaders met virtually, another meeting was taking place in Beijing, commemorating the American pilots known as the Flying Tigers who aided China during its war against Japan in 1941 and 1942. “The story of the Flying Tigers undergirds the profound friendship forged by the lives and blood of the Chinese and American people,” Qin Gang, China’s ambassador to the United States, said during the event. Acknowledging the tensions in the relationship, he added that the two countries “should inherit the friendly friendship tempered by war.”

US-China summit produces little more than polite words, but they help

Food crisis is deepening in America. The outbreak of Covid pandemic has only worsened the situation, so much so that even American military forces are finding it hard to secure food for their families.

According to a report by news agency AP, as many as 160,000 active-duty military members are having trouble feeding their families.

The report has quoted data from a United States-based nonprofit organisation, Feeding America, which runs over 200 food banks and feeds more than 46 million people across the country.

The revelation came when the NGO was compiling data to examine how long-term food insecurity has extended into every aspect of American life, including the military.

According to Department of Agriculture, US, over 89 per cent of US households were food secure throughout the year in 2020.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/bidens-effort-to-combat-hunger-marks-a-profound-change-375471">Biden's effort to combat hunger marks ‘a profound change’</a>

The remaining 10.5 per cent of households were food insecure at least some time during the year, including 3.9 percent (5.1 million households) that had very low food security.

While the government has no data of food insecurity among the military members, the NGO’s report is the first one to openly acknowledge the glaring crisis among the armed forces.

Activists say that food crisis had existed for years in the military ranks, primarily among junior-level enlisted service members with children.

The group estimates that 29 per cent of troops in the most junior enlisted ranks faced food insecurity during the previous year.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/124-mln-people-food-insecure-in-war-torn-syria-wfp-363463">12.4 mln people food insecure in war-torn Syria: WFP</a>

“It’s a shocking truth that’s known to many food banks across the United States. This should be the cause of deep embarrassment,” Vince Hall, Feeding America’s government relations officer, told AP.

A Naval officer acknowledged that he was relying on food assistance to ensure that his two daughters are fed.

“It is what it is," said James Bohannon, 34, a low-ranking Naval in San Diego.

"You know what you’re signing up for in the military,” he said, after emerging from a drive-thru food distribution organized by the local Armed Services YMCA branch. “But I’m not going to lie. It’s really tough.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/around-20-million-yemenis-food-insecure-due-to-ongoing-conflict-un-182515">Around 20 million Yemenis food insecure due to ongoing conflict: UN</a>

Meredith Knopp, CEO of a food bank in St. Louis and an Army veteran, said the problem cuts across all branches of the military. She recalls being a young officer in Texas when she was approached by a new private with a baby.

“They were getting ready to turn off his electricity because he couldn't pay his bills,” she said. “It was shocking to me.”

According to experts there are several reasons why the military members are finding hard to afford food.

Modest pay, for instance, of junior enlisted ranks is the primary source of food crisis, the experts say. Apart from that, internal military culture of self-sufficiency leaves many reluctant to speak about their difficulties, for fear they will be regarded as irresponsible.

(With inputs from agencies)

Food crisis is deepening in America. The outbreak of Covid pandemic has only worsened the situation, so much so that even American military forces are finding it hard to secure food for their families.

Food crisis is deepening in America. The outbreak of Covid pandemic has only worsened the situation, so much so that even American military forces are finding it hard to secure food for their families. According to a report by news agency AP, as many as 160,000 active-duty military members are having trouble feeding their families. The report has quoted data from a United States-based nonprofit organisation, Feeding America, which runs over 200 food banks and feeds more than 46 million people across the country. The revelation came when the NGO was compiling data to examine how long-term food insecurity has extended into every aspect of American life, including the military. According to Department of Agriculture, US, over 89 per cent of US households were food secure throughout the year in 2020. Also read | Biden's effort to combat hunger marks ‘a profound change’ The remaining 10.5 per cent of households were food insecure at least some time during the year, including 3.9 percent (5.1 million households) that had very low food security. While the government has no data of food insecurity among the military members, the NGO’s report is the first one to openly acknowledge the glaring crisis among the armed forces. Activists say that food crisis had existed for years in the military ranks, primarily among junior-level enlisted service members with children. The group estimates that 29 per cent of troops in the most junior enlisted ranks faced food insecurity during the previous year. Also read | 12.4 mln people food insecure in war-torn Syria: WFP “It’s a shocking truth that’s known to many food banks across the United States. This should be the cause of deep embarrassment,” Vince Hall, Feeding America’s government relations officer, told AP. A Naval officer acknowledged that he was relying on food assistance to ensure that his two daughters are fed. “It is what it is," said James Bohannon, 34, a low-ranking Naval in San Diego. "You know what you’re signing up for in the military,” he said, after emerging from a drive-thru food distribution organized by the local Armed Services YMCA branch. “But I’m not going to lie. It’s really tough.” Also read | Around 20 million Yemenis food insecure due to ongoing conflict: UN Meredith Knopp, CEO of a food bank in St. Louis and an Army veteran, said the problem cuts across all branches of the military. She recalls being a young officer in Texas when she was approached by a new private with a baby. “They were getting ready to turn off his electricity because he couldn't pay his bills,” she said. “It was shocking to me.” According to experts there are several reasons why the military members are finding hard to afford food. Modest pay, for instance, of junior enlisted ranks is the primary source of food crisis, the experts say. Apart from that, internal military culture of self-sufficiency leaves many reluctant to speak about their difficulties, for fear they will be regarded as irresponsible. (With inputs from agencies)

Thousands of low-ranking military officers in US facing food insecurity: Report

The United States has imposed an entry ban on Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, his vice-president wife and his government.

United States imposes entry ban on Nicaraguan Prez

A year after President Biden’s election, we’re beginning to see the contours of his foreign policy: He has something for everyone. For balance-of-power realists, he has countered China by working much more closely with “the Quad” — India, Australia, Japan and the United States — and creating a new British, Australian, U.S. nexus with the AUKUS submarine deal, no matter how clumsily handled.

For liberal internationalists, he has re-engaged with global institutions: rejoining the World Health Organization and the U.N.-sponsored Paris Agreement to limit climate change and recommitting to NATO. For those advocating “restraint” in America’s military might, he has ended at least the visible “forever wars.”

And for democracy and human rights activists committed to a values-based foreign policy, Mr. Biden will be hosting a Summit for Democracy next month. The administration has also ratcheted up both its rhetoric and its actions on human rights issues, accusing China of both genocide and crimes against humanity for its treatment of its Uyghur population and authorizing sanctions against several officials responsible for the war and humanitarian crisis in Ethiopia.

Yet when everyone gets something, no one gets everything, which is why the core principles of Mr. Biden’s worldview have been hard to pin down.

Not for lack of trying, however. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that Mr. Biden is continuing many of Donald Trump’s “America First” policies in a different guise. Joshua Shifrinson, a Boston University professor, and Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, claim that the Biden Doctrine is “pragmatic realism,” pursuing U.S. interests “in a competitive world” and changing course as necessary to achieve them.

On the values-based side of the foreign policy ledger, a growing number of observers insist that the real Biden Doctrine is to preserve and prove “the supremacy of democracy” worldwide. As Jonathan Tepperman, former editor in chief of Foreign Policy, argues, the “global contest between democracies and autocracies” provides an “organizing principle” to link investing in infrastructure and industrial policy at home, pursuing a foreign policy for the middle class and working to build coalitions of democracies abroad.

Perhaps Mr. Biden is perfectly comfortable with multiple “Biden Doctrines.” He might say that reconciling conflicting impulses and brokering compromises is his trademark as a politician who knows how to get things done.

The problem is that swinging from one framework and set of goals to another without a set of clear principles and priorities risks falling radically short of the progress that the world needs on existential issues. What difference does it make whether the United States “beats China” if our cities are underwater, the Gulf Stream stops warming northern Europe and the United States, and hundreds of millions of climate refugees are on the move? If we destroy the biodiversity on the planet? If millions more people die from serial pandemics? If people the world over do not have the means to flourish and care for one another?

It is time to break free of 20th-century thinking. Two decades of Mr. Biden’s 50-odd years in public life were spent during the Cold War and a third during the 1990s with the United States as a hyperpower. For most of this period great-power competition and making the world safe for democracy were fused. “People” issues were relegated to human rights advocates and development experts. Diplomacy and defense were the provinces of nations and the field of international relations.

The frameworks, paradigms and doctrines of that era, of any kind, are simply insufficient to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Bolder thinking is required, thinking that shifts away from states, whether great powers or lesser powers, democracies or autocracies. It is time to put people first, to see the world first as a planet of eight billion people rather than as an artificially constructed system of 195 countries and to measure all state actions in terms of their impact on people. Instead of competing with China today on one issue and cooperating tomorrow on another, Mr. Biden must prioritize cooperation on global issues and challenge other nations, regardless of whether they are democracies, autocracies or something in between, to join in.

This approach is known as globalism, which has a bad name because of its association with globalization. But globalism is actually closer to localism, to beginning with people, where they live and what they need, regardless of what colored square on the map they happen to be born in. It is a people-centered rather than a state-centered approach to problem-solving on a global scale. It does not pretend that governments don’t exist or don’t matter, but rejects the idea that interstate rivalry matters as an end in itself — the essence of geopolitics.

Globalism also sees government officials as a set of actors who can contribute to either global problems or global solutions. To succeed as problem solvers, however, they must work side by side with global corporations and networks of cities, civic groups, faith groups, universities, scientists and others. These actors are not just “helpers” or catalysts or constituents. They are players in global politics.

Mr. Biden sometimes seems to be moving in this direction. His speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September laid out a long list of global problems, from health and climate change to inequality and corruption. In my view, his greatest foreign policy achievement to date was to secure a minimum global corporate tax rate of 15 percent, ensuring that corporations worldwide pay at least a portion of their fair share for the public goods — from roads to intellectual property laws — that they rely on and that benefit all citizens. The Biden administration also embraces an “all of society” approach to fighting climate change.

Time and again, however, Mr. Biden’s other goal — of beating China, or more broadly of lining up the democracies to beat the autocracies — gets in the way. This week, thanks to the work of John Kerry, the climate envoy, the United States and China reached an important agreement to cooperate on deeper cuts to both carbon dioxide and methane emissions. It’s not enough, however, and misses a larger opportunity to mobilize the United States, China, the European Union and India as co-leaders on a global climate challenge.

The lure of competition — often on the edge of conflict — with a rival superpower is just too strong, both for Mr. Biden and for the tight-knit band of brothers who form the core of his foreign policy team. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, are veterans of the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” a concept designed and advanced in large part by Kurt Campbell, now the White House Asia czar.

From the perspective of 20th-century geopolitics, it makes sense for the Biden administration to approach its relationship with China as one in which the United States has many different goals: economic, military and diplomatic. On some issues, like climate or health, we seek China’s cooperation. On many more, like military primacy, freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, fair trade, intellectual property rights, cybersecurity and human rights, our relationship requires competition and coercion. Hence we have the frequent trade-off debate, in which China hawks have demanded that Mr. Kerry not give an inch to get concessions on Chinese emissions or to encourage other actions that are necessary to stop the globe from warming another degree.

From a people-first perspective, saving the planet for humanity must be a goal that takes precedence over all others. The United States should openly challenge China to a competition to see which country can deliver the cleanest and safest environment for its people while at the same time increasing their well-being. Which country can build and deploy clean technologies the fastest? Which country can help the most developing countries upgrade their infrastructure and wean themselves off carbon?

It should be possible to develop common measures to assess the climate impact of China’s Belt and Road investments versus the Build Back Better World initiative — a project of the Group of 7 wealthiest economies — and the E.U.’s Global Gateway investments and to agree on a set of nongovernmental organizations charged with applying and publicizing these metrics. Global youth movements, from the Sunrise Movement in the United States to the China Youth Climate Action Network and Greta Thunberg’s followers everywhere, would be ideal candidates.

When it comes to the Covid-19 pandemic, if our collective goal really is to vaccinate and treat as many people as possible worldwide, then it’s time to ignore geopolitics. Back in September, the Biden administration’s global vaccine summit brought together over 100 governments and an additional 100 global actors to commit to vaccinating 70 percent of the world’s people by 2022. China has said that it is now working with 19 nations to produce vaccines and cooperating with another 30 countries on vaccine distribution through the Belt and Road Initiative. Indeed, President Xi Jinping of China proposed a Global Vaccine Cooperation Action Initiative at the Group of 20 summit last month, without an apparent response from the United States. Aboard Air Force One, on his way to Rome, Mr. Sullivan told reporters that “the main thrust of the effort on Covid-19 is not actually traveling through the G20.” My translation: The Chinese and their partners have one effort and the United States and its partners have another.

Mr. Biden believes in the inherent value and ultimate superiority of democracy. He sees it as the form of government that best recognizes human dignity and agency, and that can deliver well-being and prosperity for the greatest number of people. So do I. But this conviction, which was as reflexive as breathing for most Americans during the 20th century, must now be put to an empirical test, starting at home.

Mr. Biden gets this, in part. He has made clear that the United States must demonstrate that our democracy can in fact represent and deliver results for our own people. Bolder thinking would insist that the United States face all the ways in which our democracy has fallen short for millions of our people and accept at least the possibility that other forms of government could be better. Beyond U.S. borders, the contest between democracy and autocracy should be an open competition to see which governments can deliver more — materially, intellectually, spiritual and all the other ways we measure human flourishing — for their people. One measure might be which country does the most to achieve the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals, as assessed by a global coalition of civic organizations.

Globalism is not mushy government idealism — far from it. It does not deny the existence or importance of government — at the local, state, national and international levels — or of intergovernmental diplomacy. But it insists that the great-power games, as deadly as they have been and could still be, must give way to planetary politics, in which human beings matter more than nationalities. Competition itself is fine and natural, but it needs to be competition to achieve a goal that benefits us all.

Under normal circumstances, administrations set goals and navigate the conflicting interests that are the essence of politics. They muddle through one crisis, one summit, one speech at a time. But we are not living in normal times. As Mr. Biden understands and is striving to achieve on the domestic front, it’s time for bold, transformative change. To vaccinate fewer people globally in the hope of demonstrating American or even democratic superiority is a moral calamity that will hurt us all.

To some, adopting people-centered policies at the national and global levels might seem so fanciful as to be delusional. But history shows that it is possible to change course, even drastically. Just over a hundred years ago, the United States Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and turned its back on the League of Nations. At the time, no one would have predicted that a quarter century later, President Franklin Roosevelt would be a principal architect of the United Nations and that the United States would embrace a set of global institutions designed to maintain peace, prosperity and security. Gen Z and many millennials are already thinking in planetary terms, putting people ahead of states. It is time for the rest of us to catch up.

A year after President Biden’s election, we’re beginning to see the contours of his foreign policy: He has something for everyone. For balance-of-power realists, he has countered China by working much more closely with “the Quad” — India, Australia, Japan and the United States — and creating a new British, Australian, U.

A year after President Biden’s election, we’re beginning to see the contours of his foreign policy: He has something for everyone. For balance-of-power realists, he has countered China by working much more closely with “the Quad” — India, Australia, Japan and the United States — and creating a new British, Australian, U.S. nexus with the AUKUS submarine deal, no matter how clumsily handled. For liberal internationalists, he has re-engaged with global institutions: rejoining the World Health Organization and the U.N.-sponsored Paris Agreement to limit climate change and recommitting to NATO. For those advocating “restraint” in America’s military might, he has ended at least the visible “forever wars.” And for democracy and human rights activists committed to a values-based foreign policy, Mr. Biden will be hosting a Summit for Democracy next month. The administration has also ratcheted up both its rhetoric and its actions on human rights issues, accusing China of both genocide and crimes against humanity for its treatment of its Uyghur population and authorizing sanctions against several officials responsible for the war and humanitarian crisis in Ethiopia. Yet when everyone gets something, no one gets everything, which is why the core principles of Mr. Biden’s worldview have been hard to pin down. Not for lack of trying, however. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that Mr. Biden is continuing many of Donald Trump’s “America First” policies in a different guise. Joshua Shifrinson, a Boston University professor, and Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, claim that the Biden Doctrine is “pragmatic realism,” pursuing U.S. interests “in a competitive world” and changing course as necessary to achieve them. On the values-based side of the foreign policy ledger, a growing number of observers insist that the real Biden Doctrine is to preserve and prove “the supremacy of democracy” worldwide. As Jonathan Tepperman, former editor in chief of Foreign Policy, argues, the “global contest between democracies and autocracies” provides an “organizing principle” to link investing in infrastructure and industrial policy at home, pursuing a foreign policy for the middle class and working to build coalitions of democracies abroad. Perhaps Mr. Biden is perfectly comfortable with multiple “Biden Doctrines.” He might say that reconciling conflicting impulses and brokering compromises is his trademark as a politician who knows how to get things done. The problem is that swinging from one framework and set of goals to another without a set of clear principles and priorities risks falling radically short of the progress that the world needs on existential issues. What difference does it make whether the United States “beats China” if our cities are underwater, the Gulf Stream stops warming northern Europe and the United States, and hundreds of millions of climate refugees are on the move? If we destroy the biodiversity on the planet? If millions more people die from serial pandemics? If people the world over do not have the means to flourish and care for one another? It is time to break free of 20th-century thinking. Two decades of Mr. Biden’s 50-odd years in public life were spent during the Cold War and a third during the 1990s with the United States as a hyperpower. For most of this period great-power competition and making the world safe for democracy were fused. “People” issues were relegated to human rights advocates and development experts. Diplomacy and defense were the provinces of nations and the field of international relations. The frameworks, paradigms and doctrines of that era, of any kind, are simply insufficient to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Bolder thinking is required, thinking that shifts away from states, whether great powers or lesser powers, democracies or autocracies. It is time to put people first, to see the world first as a planet of eight billion people rather than as an artificially constructed system of 195 countries and to measure all state actions in terms of their impact on people. Instead of competing with China today on one issue and cooperating tomorrow on another, Mr. Biden must prioritize cooperation on global issues and challenge other nations, regardless of whether they are democracies, autocracies or something in between, to join in. This approach is known as globalism, which has a bad name because of its association with globalization. But globalism is actually closer to localism, to beginning with people, where they live and what they need, regardless of what colored square on the map they happen to be born in. It is a people-centered rather than a state-centered approach to problem-solving on a global scale. It does not pretend that governments don’t exist or don’t matter, but rejects the idea that interstate rivalry matters as an end in itself — the essence of geopolitics. Globalism also sees government officials as a set of actors who can contribute to either global problems or global solutions. To succeed as problem solvers, however, they must work side by side with global corporations and networks of cities, civic groups, faith groups, universities, scientists and others. These actors are not just “helpers” or catalysts or constituents. They are players in global politics. Mr. Biden sometimes seems to be moving in this direction. His speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September laid out a long list of global problems, from health and climate change to inequality and corruption. In my view, his greatest foreign policy achievement to date was to secure a minimum global corporate tax rate of 15 percent, ensuring that corporations worldwide pay at least a portion of their fair share for the public goods — from roads to intellectual property laws — that they rely on and that benefit all citizens. The Biden administration also embraces an “all of society” approach to fighting climate change. Time and again, however, Mr. Biden’s other goal — of beating China, or more broadly of lining up the democracies to beat the autocracies — gets in the way. This week, thanks to the work of John Kerry, the climate envoy, the United States and China reached an important agreement to cooperate on deeper cuts to both carbon dioxide and methane emissions. It’s not enough, however, and misses a larger opportunity to mobilize the United States, China, the European Union and India as co-leaders on a global climate challenge. The lure of competition — often on the edge of conflict — with a rival superpower is just too strong, both for Mr. Biden and for the tight-knit band of brothers who form the core of his foreign policy team. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, are veterans of the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” a concept designed and advanced in large part by Kurt Campbell, now the White House Asia czar. From the perspective of 20th-century geopolitics, it makes sense for the Biden administration to approach its relationship with China as one in which the United States has many different goals: economic, military and diplomatic. On some issues, like climate or health, we seek China’s cooperation. On many more, like military primacy, freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, fair trade, intellectual property rights, cybersecurity and human rights, our relationship requires competition and coercion. Hence we have the frequent trade-off debate, in which China hawks have demanded that Mr. Kerry not give an inch to get concessions on Chinese emissions or to encourage other actions that are necessary to stop the globe from warming another degree. From a people-first perspective, saving the planet for humanity must be a goal that takes precedence over all others. The United States should openly challenge China to a competition to see which country can deliver the cleanest and safest environment for its people while at the same time increasing their well-being. Which country can build and deploy clean technologies the fastest? Which country can help the most developing countries upgrade their infrastructure and wean themselves off carbon? It should be possible to develop common measures to assess the climate impact of China’s Belt and Road investments versus the Build Back Better World initiative — a project of the Group of 7 wealthiest economies — and the E.U.’s Global Gateway investments and to agree on a set of nongovernmental organizations charged with applying and publicizing these metrics. Global youth movements, from the Sunrise Movement in the United States to the China Youth Climate Action Network and Greta Thunberg’s followers everywhere, would be ideal candidates. When it comes to the Covid-19 pandemic, if our collective goal really is to vaccinate and treat as many people as possible worldwide, then it’s time to ignore geopolitics. Back in September, the Biden administration’s global vaccine summit brought together over 100 governments and an additional 100 global actors to commit to vaccinating 70 percent of the world’s people by 2022. China has said that it is now working with 19 nations to produce vaccines and cooperating with another 30 countries on vaccine distribution through the Belt and Road Initiative. Indeed, President Xi Jinping of China proposed a Global Vaccine Cooperation Action Initiative at the Group of 20 summit last month, without an apparent response from the United States. Aboard Air Force One, on his way to Rome, Mr. Sullivan told reporters that “the main thrust of the effort on Covid-19 is not actually traveling through the G20.” My translation: The Chinese and their partners have one effort and the United States and its partners have another. Mr. Biden believes in the inherent value and ultimate superiority of democracy. He sees it as the form of government that best recognizes human dignity and agency, and that can deliver well-being and prosperity for the greatest number of people. So do I. But this conviction, which was as reflexive as breathing for most Americans during the 20th century, must now be put to an empirical test, starting at home. Mr. Biden gets this, in part. He has made clear that the United States must demonstrate that our democracy can in fact represent and deliver results for our own people. Bolder thinking would insist that the United States face all the ways in which our democracy has fallen short for millions of our people and accept at least the possibility that other forms of government could be better. Beyond U.S. borders, the contest between democracy and autocracy should be an open competition to see which governments can deliver more — materially, intellectually, spiritual and all the other ways we measure human flourishing — for their people. One measure might be which country does the most to achieve the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals, as assessed by a global coalition of civic organizations. Globalism is not mushy government idealism — far from it. It does not deny the existence or importance of government — at the local, state, national and international levels — or of intergovernmental diplomacy. But it insists that the great-power games, as deadly as they have been and could still be, must give way to planetary politics, in which human beings matter more than nationalities. Competition itself is fine and natural, but it needs to be competition to achieve a goal that benefits us all. Under normal circumstances, administrations set goals and navigate the conflicting interests that are the essence of politics. They muddle through one crisis, one summit, one speech at a time. But we are not living in normal times. As Mr. Biden understands and is striving to achieve on the domestic front, it’s time for bold, transformative change. To vaccinate fewer people globally in the hope of demonstrating American or even democratic superiority is a moral calamity that will hurt us all. To some, adopting people-centered policies at the national and global levels might seem so fanciful as to be delusional. But history shows that it is possible to change course, even drastically. Just over a hundred years ago, the United States Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and turned its back on the League of Nations. At the time, no one would have predicted that a quarter century later, President Franklin Roosevelt would be a principal architect of the United Nations and that the United States would embrace a set of global institutions designed to maintain peace, prosperity and security. Gen Z and many millennials are already thinking in planetary terms, putting people ahead of states. It is time for the rest of us to catch up.

It’s time to get honest about the Biden doctrine

Taiwan took centre stage as Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping met for a virtual meet. The talks were held in a cordial manner but the tensions remained palpable. Xi Jinping warned on Taiwan, saying that the US was playing with fire.

Biden-Xi meet: China warns United States about 'playing with fire' on Taiwan

In a bizarre move, a high school in the United States has removed washroom doors citing safety concerns. But the development has in turn led to privacy issues. &nbsp;

The high school is located in Austin, Texas. The principal of the educational institution decided to remove restroom doors to check drug use and other "significant behavioural events" that occurred this year, said a report. &nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/majority-of-americans-are-cutting-ties-with-anti-vaxxer-family-members-survey-429470" hreflang="en">Majority of Americans are cutting ties with anti-vaxxer family members: Survey</a>

In a letter to parents explaining her decision, Christina Steele Hantgin, principal, Austin ISD’s Travis Early College High School, admitted that she could have done a better job by communicating about her plans, said a CBS Austin report. &nbsp;&nbsp;

In the letter, Hantgin said that there have been behavioural events and "conduct violations" inside restrooms, which include around 90% of drug offenses. &nbsp;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
In Austin, Texas there have been doors in the bathroom removed. This happened due to drug offenses. The incidents have decreased, but is this the right way to go? Where does the privacy go? How do we stop drug offenses in schools? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SWO332?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SWO332</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/2021SWO332?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#2021SWO332</a>
— SWO332 (@swo332sophomore) <a href="https://twitter.com/swo332sophomore/status/1460277646709997575?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Since the removal of the doors, there have been no incidents, added Hantgin.&nbsp;Another report said that no stall in the washroom can be viewed from the hallway outside. &nbsp;

The move has not gone down well with several netizens, who raised privacy issues.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/huge-catch-44-million-worth-cocaine-found-in-onion-ring-cargo-at-uk-border-429524" hreflang="en">Huge catch: $44 million worth cocaine found in onion ring cargo at UK border</a>

As per KXAN.com, the school seems to have exhausted other methods in dealing with the safety issues. &nbsp;

Another strategy could have been locking bathroom doors, which could not be monitored. But as per the report, the process was taking up a lot of time. &nbsp;

"My number one priority is safety. Removing the doors is one of many strategies we are planning or implementing to keep our campus a safe learning environment," added Hantgin, in the letter, as per the report. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

In a bizarre move, a high school in the United States has removed washroom doors citing safety concerns. But the development has in turn led to privacy issues. The high school is located in Austin, Texas.

In a bizarre move, a high school in the United States has removed washroom doors citing safety concerns. But the development has in turn led to privacy issues. The high school is located in Austin, Texas. The principal of the educational institution decided to remove restroom doors to check drug use and other "significant behavioural events" that occurred this year, said a report. Also Read | Majority of Americans are cutting ties with anti-vaxxer family members: Survey In a letter to parents explaining her decision, Christina Steele Hantgin, principal, Austin ISD’s Travis Early College High School, admitted that she could have done a better job by communicating about her plans, said a CBS Austin report. In the letter, Hantgin said that there have been behavioural events and "conduct violations" inside restrooms, which include around 90% of drug offenses. In Austin, Texas there have been doors in the bathroom removed. This happened due to drug offenses. The incidents have decreased, but is this the right way to go? Where does the privacy go? How do we stop drug offenses in schools? #SWO332 #2021SWO332 — SWO332 (@swo332sophomore) November 15, 2021 × Since the removal of the doors, there have been no incidents, added Hantgin. Another report said that no stall in the washroom can be viewed from the hallway outside. The move has not gone down well with several netizens, who raised privacy issues. Also Read | Huge catch: $44 million worth cocaine found in onion ring cargo at UK border As per KXAN.com, the school seems to have exhausted other methods in dealing with the safety issues. Another strategy could have been locking bathroom doors, which could not be monitored. But as per the report, the process was taking up a lot of time. "My number one priority is safety. Removing the doors is one of many strategies we are planning or implementing to keep our campus a safe learning environment," added Hantgin, in the letter, as per the report. (With inputs from agencies)

For ‘safety concerns’, high school in US removes washroom doors: Report

The reports in US and Taiwanese media that Taiwan is among invitees to the 'Summit of Democracy' to be hosted by US President Joe Biden could emerge as a flashpoint between Beijing and Washington.

China&nbsp;claims Taiwan as part of its mainland, and had repeatedly asked the US not to play role in Taiwan’s independence. Media reports about the virtual summit of Biden with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on Tuesday said the latter warned the US against "playing with fire", or crossing "the red line" on Taiwan. Official statements from either side is awaited.

While the official list is yet to be released by the government, US news outlet Politico had recently compiled a <a href="https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017c-ec87-df97-a9ff-fcffee940000">list</a> of potential invitees for the Democracy summit, in which Taiwan’s name has been included among over 100 countries or governments.

Taiwanese media quoted its foreign ministry spokesperson Joanne Ou as saying that the island&nbsp;had been in talks with the US about the invitation and was “looking forward to share its democratic experience.”

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-raises-taiwan-issue-during-virtual-meet-xi-warns-dont-play-with-fire-429694">&nbsp;Biden raises Taiwan issue during virtual meet, Xi warns don’t 'play with fire'</a>

More than 20 relevant Taiwanese ministries and committees and the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy have actively taken stock of the progress of democracy and human rights-related work in recent years and have initiated a number of relevant projects, Taiwan news outlet Liberty Times quoted Ou as saying.

Ou further thanked the US government for reiterating its support for Taiwan’s democracy and said the foreign ministry will continue to coordinate with its American counterparts, according to the report.

The agenda for the Democracy Summit, which is scheduled to take place virtually from December 9-10, has not been finalised.

The event is part of Biden’s foreign policy which seeks to put the United States back into the global leadership to meet the authoritarian forces, led by China and Russia.

Much of the planning process is confidential, according to a report in Politico. All current plans are tentative, it said.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-raises-taiwan-issue-during-virtual-meet-xi-warns-dont-play-with-fire-429694">&nbsp;</a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/insisting-china-play-by-the-rules-of-the-road-biden-xi-virtual-summit-seeks-to-settle-tense-relationship-429637">Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship</a>

Taiwan, a self-governing democratic island off the southeast coast of China, has been one of the flashpoints of US-China relations.

Beijing claims that the province is part of the mainland, with Chinese leaders threatening to take it by force if it makes any moves toward formal independence.

In recent years, China has ramped up military activities near Taiwan, with a&nbsp;record number of planes intruding&nbsp;into the island's air defence identification zone in early October.

US has repeatedly expressed support to Taiwan and had described China’s military activities as “aggression”.

Earlier in the day, during an online meet, President Joe Biden again raked up the issue of Taiwan, saying that opposes “unilateral efforts” to change the status quo or undermine peace across Taiwan—a remark not taken well by China.

According to Chinese state media, Xi warned Biden that US support for Taiwanese independence would be “like playing with fire”.

“Taiwanese authorities have repeatedly tried to rely on the US for independence,” Xi was quoted as saying by state media agency Xinhua.

(With inputs from agencies)

The reports in US and Taiwanese media that Taiwan is among invitees to the 'Summit of Democracy' to be hosted by US President Joe Biden could emerge as a flashpoint between Beijing and Washington.

The reports in US and Taiwanese media that Taiwan is among invitees to the 'Summit of Democracy' to be hosted by US President Joe Biden could emerge as a flashpoint between Beijing and Washington. China claims Taiwan as part of its mainland, and had repeatedly asked the US not to play role in Taiwan’s independence. Media reports about the virtual summit of Biden with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on Tuesday said the latter warned the US against "playing with fire", or crossing "the red line" on Taiwan. Official statements from either side is awaited. While the official list is yet to be released by the government, US news outlet Politico had recently compiled a list of potential invitees for the Democracy summit, in which Taiwan’s name has been included among over 100 countries or governments. Taiwanese media quoted its foreign ministry spokesperson Joanne Ou as saying that the island had been in talks with the US about the invitation and was “looking forward to share its democratic experience.” Also read | Biden raises Taiwan issue during virtual meet, Xi warns don’t 'play with fire' More than 20 relevant Taiwanese ministries and committees and the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy have actively taken stock of the progress of democracy and human rights-related work in recent years and have initiated a number of relevant projects, Taiwan news outlet Liberty Times quoted Ou as saying. Ou further thanked the US government for reiterating its support for Taiwan’s democracy and said the foreign ministry will continue to coordinate with its American counterparts, according to the report. The agenda for the Democracy Summit, which is scheduled to take place virtually from December 9-10, has not been finalised. The event is part of Biden’s foreign policy which seeks to put the United States back into the global leadership to meet the authoritarian forces, led by China and Russia. Much of the planning process is confidential, according to a report in Politico. All current plans are tentative, it said. Also read | Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship Taiwan, a self-governing democratic island off the southeast coast of China, has been one of the flashpoints of US-China relations. Beijing claims that the province is part of the mainland, with Chinese leaders threatening to take it by force if it makes any moves toward formal independence. In recent years, China has ramped up military activities near Taiwan, with a record number of planes intruding into the island's air defence identification zone in early October. US has repeatedly expressed support to Taiwan and had described China’s military activities as “aggression”. Earlier in the day, during an online meet, President Joe Biden again raked up the issue of Taiwan, saying that opposes “unilateral efforts” to change the status quo or undermine peace across Taiwan—a remark not taken well by China. According to Chinese state media, Xi warned Biden that US support for Taiwanese independence would be “like playing with fire”. “Taiwanese authorities have repeatedly tried to rely on the US for independence,” Xi was quoted as saying by state media agency Xinhua. (With inputs from agencies)

Another flashpoint? Reports that Taiwan is among invitee list of US ‘Democracy Summit’ could rile China

In a shocking incident, a two-year-old kid was found playing with an alligator near a creek outside the Cantina restaurant in Jacksonville. &nbsp;

The father, Joe Brenner, immediately took the child away from the drain after noticing&nbsp;that the animal he was playing with was an alligator. The animal, who was stuck in the drain, was trying to come out. &nbsp;

It was sheer luck that the child escaped unhurt. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/500-people-feel-sting-as-rare-storm-brings-scorpions-flood-in-egypt-429692" hreflang="en">500 people feel sting as rare storm brings scorpions’ flood in Egypt</a>

Earlier, the child had witnessed an animal in the drain and believed that it was a tortoise. &nbsp;

The father was in a state of shock at the time of the incident but it seems that his timely action saved an untoward incident. &nbsp;

The father got to know that the animal was an alligator when he went to check on his son, who was playing near the drain. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/now-three-snow-leopards-fall-prey-to-covid-at-childrens-zoo-in-us-429548" hreflang="en">Now, three snow leopards fall prey to Covid at children’s zoo in US</a>

Later, the Animal Rescue team was informed about the animal, who rescued it. The authorities are now looking to understand how the alligator reached the drain in the city. &nbsp;

In a similar incident, which happened in Yorkshire, England recently, a woman saw a four-feet-long crocodile roaming outside her house. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

In a shocking incident, a two-year-old kid was found playing with an alligator near a creek outside the Cantina restaurant in Jacksonville. The father, Joe Brenner, immediately took the child away from the drain after noticing that the animal he was playing with was an alligator.

In a shocking incident, a two-year-old kid was found playing with an alligator near a creek outside the Cantina restaurant in Jacksonville. The father, Joe Brenner, immediately took the child away from the drain after noticing that the animal he was playing with was an alligator. The animal, who was stuck in the drain, was trying to come out. It was sheer luck that the child escaped unhurt. Also Read: 500 people feel sting as rare storm brings scorpions’ flood in Egypt Earlier, the child had witnessed an animal in the drain and believed that it was a tortoise. The father was in a state of shock at the time of the incident but it seems that his timely action saved an untoward incident. The father got to know that the animal was an alligator when he went to check on his son, who was playing near the drain. Also Read: Now, three snow leopards fall prey to Covid at children’s zoo in US Later, the Animal Rescue team was informed about the animal, who rescued it. The authorities are now looking to understand how the alligator reached the drain in the city. In a similar incident, which happened in Yorkshire, England recently, a woman saw a four-feet-long crocodile roaming outside her house. (With inputs from agencies)

Close shave? Two-year-old safe after playing with alligator in US   

US President Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping exchanged strong views on issues like Taiwan and human rights during a one-on-one online summit.

The three-and-half-hour session lasted “longer than expected”, a US official told reporters, adding, “the conversation was respectful and straightforward.”

During the meet, Biden told Xi that the US strongly opposes “unilateral efforts” to change the status quo or undermine peace across Taiwan—a remark not taken well by China.

According to Chinese state media, Xi warned Biden that US support for Taiwanese independence would be “like playing with fire”.

“Taiwanese authorities have repeatedly tried to rely on the US for independence,” Xi was quoted as saying by state media agency Xinhua.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-china-virtual-summit-biden-seeks-guardrails-against-conflict-xi-calls-for-better-communication-429645">US-China virtual summit: Biden seeks 'guardrails' against conflict, Xi calls for better communication</a>

“Some people in the US intend to use Taiwan to control China. This trend is very dangerous and is like playing with fire, and those who play with fire will get burned,” he said.

Biden also raised “concerns” over wider issues of human rights abuses and mass repression against the Uyghurs in the northwest region of Xinjiang.

Xi called on the two countries to respect each other's social systems and development paths, respect each other's core interests and major concerns, and respect each other's right to development.

“We need to treat each other as equals, keep differences under control, and seek common ground while reserving differences,” Xinhua news agency quoted Xi as saying.

Xi stressed peaceful coexistence between the two countries, saying that no conflict and no confrontation is a line that both sides must hold.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/insisting-china-play-by-the-rules-of-the-road-biden-xi-virtual-summit-seeks-to-settle-tense-relationship-429637">Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship</a>

Both Biden and Xi emphasized the need for working together on major global issues, especially Covid-19 and climate change.

Speaking from the White House to Xi on a television screen, Biden said it was their "responsibility as leaders of China and the United States to ensure that the competition between our countries does not veer into conflict, whether intended or unintended."

Xi, speaking from Beijing, called Biden "my old friend," but said their countries had to work more closely.

"We face multiple challenges together. As the world's two largest economies and permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and the United States need to increase communication and cooperation," he said, speaking through an interpreter in brief public remarks, before they went behind closed doors.

The two leaders have spoken by phone twice since Biden's inauguration in January but with Xi refusing to travel abroad because of the pandemic, an online video meeting was the only option short of an in-person summit.

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping exchanged strong views on issues like Taiwan and human rights during a one-on-one online summit. The three-and-half-hour session lasted “longer than expected”, a US official told reporters, adding, “the conversation was respectful and straightforward.

US President Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping exchanged strong views on issues like Taiwan and human rights during a one-on-one online summit. The three-and-half-hour session lasted “longer than expected”, a US official told reporters, adding, “the conversation was respectful and straightforward.” During the meet, Biden told Xi that the US strongly opposes “unilateral efforts” to change the status quo or undermine peace across Taiwan—a remark not taken well by China. According to Chinese state media, Xi warned Biden that US support for Taiwanese independence would be “like playing with fire”. “Taiwanese authorities have repeatedly tried to rely on the US for independence,” Xi was quoted as saying by state media agency Xinhua. Also read | US-China virtual summit: Biden seeks 'guardrails' against conflict, Xi calls for better communication “Some people in the US intend to use Taiwan to control China. This trend is very dangerous and is like playing with fire, and those who play with fire will get burned,” he said. Biden also raised “concerns” over wider issues of human rights abuses and mass repression against the Uyghurs in the northwest region of Xinjiang. Xi called on the two countries to respect each other's social systems and development paths, respect each other's core interests and major concerns, and respect each other's right to development. “We need to treat each other as equals, keep differences under control, and seek common ground while reserving differences,” Xinhua news agency quoted Xi as saying. Xi stressed peaceful coexistence between the two countries, saying that no conflict and no confrontation is a line that both sides must hold. Also read | Insisting China 'play by the rules of the road', Biden-Xi virtual summit seeks to settle tense relationship Both Biden and Xi emphasized the need for working together on major global issues, especially Covid-19 and climate change. Speaking from the White House to Xi on a television screen, Biden said it was their "responsibility as leaders of China and the United States to ensure that the competition between our countries does not veer into conflict, whether intended or unintended." Xi, speaking from Beijing, called Biden "my old friend," but said their countries had to work more closely. "We face multiple challenges together. As the world's two largest economies and permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and the United States need to increase communication and cooperation," he said, speaking through an interpreter in brief public remarks, before they went behind closed doors. The two leaders have spoken by phone twice since Biden's inauguration in January but with Xi refusing to travel abroad because of the pandemic, an online video meeting was the only option short of an in-person summit. (With inputs from agencies)

Biden raises Taiwan issue during virtual meet, Xi warns don’t 'play with fire'

A day ahead of the online meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping, China has warned the United States against interfering in the matters related to “Taiwan’s independence”.

Biden and Xi will be meeting virtually on Tuesday morning (Beijing time) —Monday evening in Washington—for the first time since Biden became the president. The meeting comes in the backdrop of rising tensions over Taiwan, trade, human rights and other issues.

In a phone with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Saturday to discuss preparations for the meeting, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned of the dangers of US actions that might seem supportive of “Taiwan independence”.

“Any connivance of and support for the ‘Taiwan independence’ forces undermines peace across the Taiwan Strait and would only boomerang in the end,” Wang told Blinken, according to a readout of the call released by China on Saturday.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/president-biden-chinese-president-xi-plan-to-hold-virtual-summit-white-house-418758">President Biden, Chinese President Xi plan to hold virtual summit: White House</a>

that “any connivance of and support for the Taiwan independence forces undermines peace across the Taiwan Strait and would only boomerang in the end.”

An editorial in the English language China Daily on Monday said that it was likely that Xi would impress upon Biden that Beijing is resolved to “realise national reunification in the foreseeable future no matter the cost”.

“The Taiwan question is the ultimate red line of China”, wrote a Monday editorial by Global Times, a tabloid published by the ruling Communist Party's People's Daily.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-says-xi-jinping-did-not-turn-down-meeting-offer-413150">Biden says Xi Jinping did not turn down meeting offer</a>

“In order to reduce the risk of a strategic collision between China and the U.S., the latter must take a step back from the Taiwan question and show its restraint,” it wrote.

Chinese State media outlets are briefed by authorities on important issues such as China-US relations and have been accurate in reflecting the priorities of Chinese leaders.

Washington has repeatedly signalled its support for Taiwan. On October 28, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen confirmed that the American troops are stationed in the island nation and are imparting training on the Taipei military troops.

Speaking with CNN on Tuesday, Tsai said the threat from Beijing is growing “every day”, while expressing confidence that US will defend the island against the Chinese attack.

Last week, Xi had warned against the return of Cold War-era tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, while referring to US’ involvement in Taiwanese’s affairs.

(With inputs from agencies)

A day ahead of the online meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping, China has warned the United States against interfering in the matters related to “Taiwan’s independence”.

A day ahead of the online meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping, China has warned the United States against interfering in the matters related to “Taiwan’s independence”. Biden and Xi will be meeting virtually on Tuesday morning (Beijing time) —Monday evening in Washington—for the first time since Biden became the president. The meeting comes in the backdrop of rising tensions over Taiwan, trade, human rights and other issues. In a phone with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Saturday to discuss preparations for the meeting, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned of the dangers of US actions that might seem supportive of “Taiwan independence”. “Any connivance of and support for the ‘Taiwan independence’ forces undermines peace across the Taiwan Strait and would only boomerang in the end,” Wang told Blinken, according to a readout of the call released by China on Saturday. Also read | President Biden, Chinese President Xi plan to hold virtual summit: White House that “any connivance of and support for the Taiwan independence forces undermines peace across the Taiwan Strait and would only boomerang in the end.” An editorial in the English language China Daily on Monday said that it was likely that Xi would impress upon Biden that Beijing is resolved to “realise national reunification in the foreseeable future no matter the cost”. “The Taiwan question is the ultimate red line of China”, wrote a Monday editorial by Global Times, a tabloid published by the ruling Communist Party's People's Daily. Also read | Biden says Xi Jinping did not turn down meeting offer “In order to reduce the risk of a strategic collision between China and the U.S., the latter must take a step back from the Taiwan question and show its restraint,” it wrote. Chinese State media outlets are briefed by authorities on important issues such as China-US relations and have been accurate in reflecting the priorities of Chinese leaders. Washington has repeatedly signalled its support for Taiwan. On October 28, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen confirmed that the American troops are stationed in the island nation and are imparting training on the Taipei military troops. Speaking with CNN on Tuesday, Tsai said the threat from Beijing is growing “every day”, while expressing confidence that US will defend the island against the Chinese attack. Last week, Xi had warned against the return of Cold War-era tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, while referring to US’ involvement in Taiwanese’s affairs. (With inputs from agencies)

Ahead of Biden & Xi’s virtual meeting, China warns US to back off on Taiwan support

President of the United States Joe Biden is all set for a virtual meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Taiwan is expected to feature prominently in the talks. China plans to build pressure on the US to 'step back' on the Taiwan issue. Will Biden concede?

Gravitas: Joe Biden to meet Xi Jinping 'virtually' | Taiwan to feature prominently in talks

In a bizarre claim, a man has said that he was seduced by a dolphin when he was working at a water park in Florida and that used to have regular sexual intercourse with the mammal.

63-year-old Malcolm Brenner claimed he had a relationship with the playful cetacean while&nbsp;working at a theme park in Sarasota in the 1970s. The ‘affair’ is said to have lasted around 6 months.

Brenner, a college student at the time, was given unrestricted access to Dolly's pool when he was tasked with photographing her.

He told The Mirror that it was the dolphin who “came on” to him while they were swimming.

He added that he initially discouraged the “attempts” made by the dolphin, who was named Dolly, but eventually grew fond of her.

He said they managed to "evade" a male dolphin living in her enclosure to snatch some alone time when the park closed.

“There's something quite transcendental about making love with a dolphin," adding: "I called it a relationship because that's what it was.,” Brenner said.

He then claimed that the dolphin “committed suicide” nine months after it was relocated to another amusement park.

Brenner said he fell into a five-year depression following Dolly's death.

Notably, this is not the first sexual encounter Brenner had with an animal. He admitted that he tried to have intercourse with his family dog as a teenager.

In 2010, Brenner's book Wet Goddess, which is thought to be a largely autobiographical account of his tryst with Dolly, was released.

(With inputs from agencies)

In a bizarre claim, a man has said that he was seduced by a dolphin when he was working at a water park in Florida and that used to have regular sexual intercourse with the mammal.

In a bizarre claim, a man has said that he was seduced by a dolphin when he was working at a water park in Florida and that used to have regular sexual intercourse with the mammal. 63-year-old Malcolm Brenner claimed he had a relationship with the playful cetacean while working at a theme park in Sarasota in the 1970s. The ‘affair’ is said to have lasted around 6 months. Brenner, a college student at the time, was given unrestricted access to Dolly's pool when he was tasked with photographing her. He told The Mirror that it was the dolphin who “came on” to him while they were swimming. He added that he initially discouraged the “attempts” made by the dolphin, who was named Dolly, but eventually grew fond of her. He said they managed to "evade" a male dolphin living in her enclosure to snatch some alone time when the park closed. “There's something quite transcendental about making love with a dolphin," adding: "I called it a relationship because that's what it was.,” Brenner said. He then claimed that the dolphin “committed suicide” nine months after it was relocated to another amusement park. Brenner said he fell into a five-year depression following Dolly's death. Notably, this is not the first sexual encounter Brenner had with an animal. He admitted that he tried to have intercourse with his family dog as a teenager. In 2010, Brenner's book Wet Goddess, which is thought to be a largely autobiographical account of his tryst with Dolly, was released. (With inputs from agencies)

US: 63-year-old man claims he had 6-month 'affair' with dolphin

Trespassing near the lion exhibit can be dangerous and can result in loss of life. This advisory seems to be futile for 32-year-old Myah Autry. &nbsp;

Two years ago, Autry was charged with trespassing near the lion exhibit and taunting the animals at the Bronx Zoo. The woman has done it again.&nbsp;She is wanted for the same act done last week, said New York City police. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/23000-mice-euthanised-in-2020-by-rutgers-university-reveal-leaked-documents-429282" hreflang="en">23,000 mice euthanised in 2020 by Rutgers University, reveal leaked documents</a>

The police have sought the public’s help on Friday night in locating Autry. She is accused of trespassing in a fenced-in area near the lion exhibit on Thursday, said authorities. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Carole Baskin goes to the Bronx zoo. <a href="https://t.co/7ULWa10JNg">pic.twitter.com/7ULWa10JNg</a>
— JAWs (@JawsLoves) <a href="https://twitter.com/JawsLoves/status/1459493460931747843?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

In a cellphone video, which has been obtained by WNBC-TV, a woman can be seen wearing a red dress and leopard-print shawl. The woman is standing across a moat from a lion. She is trying to talk to it while holding roses and tossing money. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/star-dolphin-winter-of-dolphin-tale-fame-died-of-twisted-intestines-says-aquarium-429269" hreflang="en">Star dolphin Winter, of 'Dolphin Tale' fame, died of twisted intestines, says aquarium</a>

In a statement, a zoo spokesperson said, “This situation involves one individual, who is determined to harass our lions with no regard for her safety, or the safety of our staff and our guests, and no regard for the well-being of the lions.” &nbsp; &nbsp;

“The Bronx Zoo has a zero-tolerance policy in matters, such as this and will aggressively seek prosecution against this individual and anyone who violates park safety rules,” the spokesperson added. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Trespassing near the lion exhibit can be dangerous and can result in loss of life. This advisory seems to be futile for 32-year-old Myah Autry. Two years ago, Autry was charged with trespassing near the lion exhibit and taunting the animals at the Bronx Zoo.

Trespassing near the lion exhibit can be dangerous and can result in loss of life. This advisory seems to be futile for 32-year-old Myah Autry. Two years ago, Autry was charged with trespassing near the lion exhibit and taunting the animals at the Bronx Zoo. The woman has done it again. She is wanted for the same act done last week, said New York City police. Also Read: 23,000 mice euthanised in 2020 by Rutgers University, reveal leaked documents The police have sought the public’s help on Friday night in locating Autry. She is accused of trespassing in a fenced-in area near the lion exhibit on Thursday, said authorities. Carole Baskin goes to the Bronx zoo. pic.twitter.com/7ULWa10JNg — JAWs (@JawsLoves) November 13, 2021 × In a cellphone video, which has been obtained by WNBC-TV, a woman can be seen wearing a red dress and leopard-print shawl. The woman is standing across a moat from a lion. She is trying to talk to it while holding roses and tossing money. Also Read: Star dolphin Winter, of 'Dolphin Tale' fame, died of twisted intestines, says aquarium In a statement, a zoo spokesperson said, “This situation involves one individual, who is determined to harass our lions with no regard for her safety, or the safety of our staff and our guests, and no regard for the well-being of the lions.” “The Bronx Zoo has a zero-tolerance policy in matters, such as this and will aggressively seek prosecution against this individual and anyone who violates park safety rules,” the spokesperson added. (With inputs from agencies)

Watch: Woman trespasses near lion exhibit again, holds roses, tosses money at Bronx Zoo in US

Amid heightened tensions, leaders of the world's two largest economies, Xi Jinping and US president Joe Biden are set to meet virtually. The most anticipated meet is expected to be one of the most extensive ones under the Biden administration.

What to expect from Joe Biden- Xi Jinping's virtual summit?

Opting to not escalate the ongoing tensions in the Black Sea, Russian president Vladimir Putin revealed that he rejected a defence ministry proposal to hold military drills in response to naval activity in the Black Sea region.

US military drills in Black Sea, 'No need to escalate tensions,' says Russian prez Vladimir Putin

Amid heightened tensions, leaders of the world's two largest leaders Xi Jinping and US prez Joe Biden are set to meet virtually. The most anticipated meet is expected to be one of the most extensive ones under the Biden administration.

Ahead of Joe Biden and Xi Jinping's virtual meet, China warns US on Taiwan support

After causing a havoc among human populations, COVID-19 seems to have also started to take its toll on the animals too.&nbsp;

At the Lincoln children’s zoo in Nebraska, three snow leopards have died of Covid complications.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0" height="780" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Flincolnchildrenszoo%2Fphotos%2Fa.92084936159%2F10158197811946160%2F&amp;show_text=true&amp;width=500" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="500"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

In a recent Facebook post, the zoo made the announcement. It said that three leopards, named as Ranney, Everest, and Makalu, died. &nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-woman-trespasses-near-lion-exhibit-again-holds-roses-tosses-money-at-bronx-zoo-in-us-429413" hreflang="en">Watch: Woman trespasses near lion exhibit again, holds roses, tosses money at Bronx Zoo in US</a>

The zoo described the development as “truly heartbreaking”.&nbsp;

“Ranney, Everest and Makalu were beloved by our entire community inside and outside of the zoo. This loss is truly heartbreaking, and we are all grieving together,” the statement said. &nbsp;

The zoo had started treating the leopards and two Sumatran tigers for the virus last month. The tigers, Axl and Kumar, have made a recovery, the zoo said.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ultra-rare-cotton-candy-coloured-lobster-found-in-casco-bay-us-429444" hreflang="en">Ultra-rare cotton candy-coloured lobster found in Casco Bay, US</a>

The zoo is open to the public and continues to take necessary measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to humans and animals.&nbsp;

In the US, zoos, including the St Louis zoo and the Denver zoo, have been battling Covid outbreaks among animals.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) &nbsp;

After causing a havoc among human populations, COVID-19 seems to have also started to take its toll on the animals too. At the Lincoln children’s zoo in Nebraska, three snow leopards have died of Covid complications.

After causing a havoc among human populations, COVID-19 seems to have also started to take its toll on the animals too. At the Lincoln children’s zoo in Nebraska, three snow leopards have died of Covid complications. × In a recent Facebook post, the zoo made the announcement. It said that three leopards, named as Ranney, Everest, and Makalu, died. Also Read | Watch: Woman trespasses near lion exhibit again, holds roses, tosses money at Bronx Zoo in US The zoo described the development as “truly heartbreaking”. “Ranney, Everest and Makalu were beloved by our entire community inside and outside of the zoo. This loss is truly heartbreaking, and we are all grieving together,” the statement said. The zoo had started treating the leopards and two Sumatran tigers for the virus last month. The tigers, Axl and Kumar, have made a recovery, the zoo said. Also Read: Ultra-rare cotton candy-coloured lobster found in Casco Bay, US The zoo is open to the public and continues to take necessary measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to humans and animals. In the US, zoos, including the St Louis zoo and the Denver zoo, have been battling Covid outbreaks among animals. (With inputs from agencies)

Now, three snow leopards fall prey to Covid at children’s zoo in US

US military drills in Black Sea waters, Russia increases troops at border

MacKenzie Scott stepped out of the long shadow of her former husband, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, by handing out billions of dollars in grants over the past two years to charities, community colleges, food banks and progressive nonprofits led by people of colour.

Advising her was a team of consultants at a firm that is hardly known outside philanthropic circles but highly influential within them: The Bridgespan Group.

Spun out of the consulting firm Bain &amp; Company as a nonprofit, Bridgespan is one of a host of groups that arose in the early 2000s as a new wave of giving led by tech billionaires was beginning to crest. Two decades later, the consultants working behind the scenes are more important than ever.

Scott pulled back the curtain a bit in June — when among the 286 groups receiving more than $2.7 billion in donations were a host of organizations that are basically the plumbing and wiring of the nonprofit world. Among them were the Center for Effective Philanthropy, Charity Navigator and Bridgespan itself, which said it would use its gift mainly to pursue research meant to benefit the sector as a whole.

“We work with the nonprofits on classic kinds of strategic issues, getting clarity on what they’re trying to do, putting their resources to work,” said Imtiyaz Hussein, who goes by Taz and is a Bridgespan partner who leads the group’s nonprofit advising practice. “I frame the heart of what we try to do as providing decision-making support for organizations.”

Proponents say the advisers make the field more effective. Critics question whether consultants, even at nonprofits with good intentions, are the right solution for the charitable sector.

“The tool kit of the consulting business is based on crunching massive amounts of quantitative data and analyzing it. What it’s bad at understanding is human life,” said Anand Giridharadas, author of “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World” and who early in his career worked for the consultant McKinsey &amp; Company. “I think these folks, whether they’re well-meaning or not, find it hard to leave their vocation and worldview and basic frameworks at some kind of coat check.”

Bridgespan may not be a household name, but its reach in philanthropic circles is significant. The group advises the biggest names in the field: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation on the philanthropy side, and the YMCA of the USA, the Salvation Army and even the Sesame Workshop on the nonprofit side.

And for donors looking to outsource overhead while still giving responsibly, consultants fill the gap between Jack Dorsey’s spreadsheet of gifts and a full-blown foundation with offices on Fifth Avenue.

“Bridgespan occupies a unique perch in the landscape of professional-services organizations serving foundations and high-net-worth families,” said Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation. Walker, who has worked with Bridgespan since he was with the Abyssinian Development Corporation two decades ago, said no firm had been more influential in the past 20 years.

When a group of billionaires and scholars gathered last year to brainstorm reforms for the charitable sector, they met at Bridgespan’s offices in New York. When the Open Society Foundations, by most measures the second-biggest foundation in the United States after Gates, recently began a significant restructuring, it brought in Bridgespan.

And, of course, there is Scott, who shook up the world of philanthropy with donations of more than $8 billion in 11 months.

But some philanthropy experts say relying on consultants can skew which groups get the most funding. “Consultants at places like Bridgespan are setting the menu of what philanthropists can and should do,” said Megan Tompkins-Stange, an assistant professor of public policy and scholar of philanthropy at the University of Michigan. “The organizations that are stamped with the managerial brand are more likely to get funding.”

Bridgespan was started in 2000 by three men with ties to the for-profit management consultant Bain &amp; Company, including Bain’s then-worldwide managing partner Thomas Tierney. The founders received $1.3 million from the consulting firm and $5.5 million from a group of foundations to see if a dedicated nonprofit could do a better job than for-profit consultants dabbling in pro bono work.

Bridgespan got its start during an era of “venture philanthropy” and “philanthrocapitalism.” In essence, the billionaires knew best and they were going to bring their vaunted analytic practices to the world of nonprofits. A whole crop of groups came up at around the same time, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, the Center for Effective Philanthropy and the consultants FSG among them. (All received funding from Scott in her last round of giving.)

Bridgespan itself received a gift from Scott. Bridgespan’s latest tax filing for the year 2020 showed contributions and grants leaping to $74.7 million from $12.5 million the year before, nearly doubling the group’s total assets as of the end of last year. Bridgespan said the increase reflected a five-year capital campaign with multiple donors and not just Scott’s grant.

Giving away money used to be approached as a distinct enterprise from making money. The strategies, language and reams of analytics do not always translate to the nonprofit world, where “return on investment” could be harder to quantify.

“We were getting into bidding wars. ‘I can serve 500 kids for a million dollars.’ ‘I can serve 500 kids for $400,000,’ ” said Geoffrey Canada, president of Harlem Children’s Zone and one of Bridgespan’s first clients. He said he found his initial encounter with the group “predictably demeaning — they come in, lay out charts, don’t give you the chance to answer back.”

What was different from other firms his nonprofit worked with, he said, was that Bridgespan took his “brutally honest” feedback to heart. In turn, they persuaded him to abandon the bidding wars and ask for more money, trusting the donors to respect his candour.

Attitudes toward billionaire philanthropy shifted after the Great Recession, with populists on the left and right more suspicious of the ultrawealthy. Yet, management consulting for philanthropists and nonprofits continued to thrive. That is partly because the pie keeps growing.

From 2000 to 2018, assets held by private foundations more than doubled, according to the research group Candid, to $950 billion from $421 billion. Total giving tripled over the same period, the most recent for which complete data is available, rising to $72 billion from $23 billion, according to Candid, which also received a grant from Scott.

Instead of establishing big foundations, many of the richest Americans now want to use limited-liability companies, such as Laurene Powell-Jobs, and donor-advised funds, which Scott has used for some of her gifts.

“Bridgespan seems exceptionally able and well-disposed to take advantage of the shift from big family foundations to LLCs that don’t want staff but are still giving away a huge sum of money,” said Rob Reich, co-director of the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society at Stanford University.

Groups such as Bridgespan can also step into the gap and serve as outsourced staff for new foundations finding their footing.

In March, the recently formed Asian American Foundation had just five full-time employees. After the killing of eight people at Atlanta-area spas, six of Asian descent, the group was inundated with pledges and commitments, including millions more from prominent board members including Joseph Tsai, owner of the Brooklyn Nets, and a further $1 billion committed to their cause by foundations, corporations and individuals in an eight-week period.

Bridgespan's Hussein served as an informal adviser, joining calls with board members.

The foundation brought on a team from Bridgespan full time over the summer. “My ask of them was understanding what is happening in the field and what are things we should be paying attention to. Where were the gaps?” said foundation president Sonal Shah. The Bridgespan team provided a thorough analysis of Asian American and Pacific Islander organizations in the United States.

“I think it was over a four-week period, which is not a small thing to do in a month,” Shah said.

Shah said she appreciated the fact that the team from Bridgespan was staffed fully with people of Asian descent. Hussein said that was intentional. He drew from Bridgespan’s internal affinity group, people with “firsthand experience of what it means to be othered, what it means to have the model minority myth,” Hussein said.

That was not the case in the group’s early days, said Walker, of the Ford Foundation.

“When I first met Bridgespan, it was primarily white men at the top, and that’s not a surprise given their origin,” Walker said. “I had a Zoom call with the Bridgespan team on a matter last spring, and a majority of the people on the little Hollywood Squares on the Zoom were people of colour and women.”

Bridgespan’s self-reported diversity figures show two-thirds of the group’s staff are women. White people make up less than half of the overall staff, as well as less than half of those in leadership positions.

Both Walker and Jeff Bradach, one of Bridgespan’s founders, used the word “journey” to describe the group’s embrace of diversity and inclusion as central tenets of the work. Bradach, who was managing partner until October, when he stepped down from the top post, stressed in an interview that this was still a work in progress and that Bridgespan had made mistakes in the past.

For instance, one of Bridgespan’s big pushes was for donors to make “big bets” rather than spreading the money around. But that standard tends to favour big institutions. “If in your criteria, you say, ‘We only fund people that do random control trials,’ if you have these barriers to capital on general operating support, then a whole bunch of organizations led by people of colour have actually never been given the money to do that,” Bradach said.

Scott has made it a priority to give to such previously underfunded groups. But she has no website or headquarters or way to apply for grants, leaving groups scrambling for a way to get on her radar. People in the field noticed, for instance, that Bridgespan has advised the YMCA and Scott gave grants to YMCA’s across the country last year.

While avoiding directly discussing Scott’s giving per company policy, Bradach rejected the notion that nonprofits could work with Bridgespan as a way of getting the attention of the big donors they advise. Bradach said that just 5% of the nonprofits that Bridgespan’s philanthropic clients gave to were also Bridgespan clients.

In that 5% of cases, Bridgespan policy is to tell the donor that it also represents the nonprofit. The notion among nonprofits that they could cosy up to Bridgespan and then receive huge sums from Scott is wrong, Bradach said, and also betrays a misunderstanding of how much sway Bridgespan has over the donors it helps. “It’s not,” he said, “a black box that they’re kind of scratching their head going, ‘I can’t wait to see what comes.’”

MacKenzie Scott stepped out of the long shadow of her former husband, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, by handing out billions of dollars in grants over the past two years to charities, community colleges, food banks and progressive nonprofits led by people of colour.

MacKenzie Scott stepped out of the long shadow of her former husband, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, by handing out billions of dollars in grants over the past two years to charities, community colleges, food banks and progressive nonprofits led by people of colour. Advising her was a team of consultants at a firm that is hardly known outside philanthropic circles but highly influential within them: The Bridgespan Group. Spun out of the consulting firm Bain & Company as a nonprofit, Bridgespan is one of a host of groups that arose in the early 2000s as a new wave of giving led by tech billionaires was beginning to crest. Two decades later, the consultants working behind the scenes are more important than ever. Scott pulled back the curtain a bit in June — when among the 286 groups receiving more than $2.7 billion in donations were a host of organizations that are basically the plumbing and wiring of the nonprofit world. Among them were the Center for Effective Philanthropy, Charity Navigator and Bridgespan itself, which said it would use its gift mainly to pursue research meant to benefit the sector as a whole. “We work with the nonprofits on classic kinds of strategic issues, getting clarity on what they’re trying to do, putting their resources to work,” said Imtiyaz Hussein, who goes by Taz and is a Bridgespan partner who leads the group’s nonprofit advising practice. “I frame the heart of what we try to do as providing decision-making support for organizations.” Proponents say the advisers make the field more effective. Critics question whether consultants, even at nonprofits with good intentions, are the right solution for the charitable sector. “The tool kit of the consulting business is based on crunching massive amounts of quantitative data and analyzing it. What it’s bad at understanding is human life,” said Anand Giridharadas, author of “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World” and who early in his career worked for the consultant McKinsey & Company. “I think these folks, whether they’re well-meaning or not, find it hard to leave their vocation and worldview and basic frameworks at some kind of coat check.” Bridgespan may not be a household name, but its reach in philanthropic circles is significant. The group advises the biggest names in the field: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation on the philanthropy side, and the YMCA of the USA, the Salvation Army and even the Sesame Workshop on the nonprofit side. And for donors looking to outsource overhead while still giving responsibly, consultants fill the gap between Jack Dorsey’s spreadsheet of gifts and a full-blown foundation with offices on Fifth Avenue. “Bridgespan occupies a unique perch in the landscape of professional-services organizations serving foundations and high-net-worth families,” said Darren Walker, president of the Ford Foundation. Walker, who has worked with Bridgespan since he was with the Abyssinian Development Corporation two decades ago, said no firm had been more influential in the past 20 years. When a group of billionaires and scholars gathered last year to brainstorm reforms for the charitable sector, they met at Bridgespan’s offices in New York. When the Open Society Foundations, by most measures the second-biggest foundation in the United States after Gates, recently began a significant restructuring, it brought in Bridgespan. And, of course, there is Scott, who shook up the world of philanthropy with donations of more than $8 billion in 11 months. But some philanthropy experts say relying on consultants can skew which groups get the most funding. “Consultants at places like Bridgespan are setting the menu of what philanthropists can and should do,” said Megan Tompkins-Stange, an assistant professor of public policy and scholar of philanthropy at the University of Michigan. “The organizations that are stamped with the managerial brand are more likely to get funding.” Bridgespan was started in 2000 by three men with ties to the for-profit management consultant Bain & Company, including Bain’s then-worldwide managing partner Thomas Tierney. The founders received $1.3 million from the consulting firm and $5.5 million from a group of foundations to see if a dedicated nonprofit could do a better job than for-profit consultants dabbling in pro bono work. Bridgespan got its start during an era of “venture philanthropy” and “philanthrocapitalism.” In essence, the billionaires knew best and they were going to bring their vaunted analytic practices to the world of nonprofits. A whole crop of groups came up at around the same time, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, the Center for Effective Philanthropy and the consultants FSG among them. (All received funding from Scott in her last round of giving.) Bridgespan itself received a gift from Scott. Bridgespan’s latest tax filing for the year 2020 showed contributions and grants leaping to $74.7 million from $12.5 million the year before, nearly doubling the group’s total assets as of the end of last year. Bridgespan said the increase reflected a five-year capital campaign with multiple donors and not just Scott’s grant. Giving away money used to be approached as a distinct enterprise from making money. The strategies, language and reams of analytics do not always translate to the nonprofit world, where “return on investment” could be harder to quantify. “We were getting into bidding wars. ‘I can serve 500 kids for a million dollars.’ ‘I can serve 500 kids for $400,000,’ ” said Geoffrey Canada, president of Harlem Children’s Zone and one of Bridgespan’s first clients. He said he found his initial encounter with the group “predictably demeaning — they come in, lay out charts, don’t give you the chance to answer back.” What was different from other firms his nonprofit worked with, he said, was that Bridgespan took his “brutally honest” feedback to heart. In turn, they persuaded him to abandon the bidding wars and ask for more money, trusting the donors to respect his candour. Attitudes toward billionaire philanthropy shifted after the Great Recession, with populists on the left and right more suspicious of the ultrawealthy. Yet, management consulting for philanthropists and nonprofits continued to thrive. That is partly because the pie keeps growing. From 2000 to 2018, assets held by private foundations more than doubled, according to the research group Candid, to $950 billion from $421 billion. Total giving tripled over the same period, the most recent for which complete data is available, rising to $72 billion from $23 billion, according to Candid, which also received a grant from Scott. Instead of establishing big foundations, many of the richest Americans now want to use limited-liability companies, such as Laurene Powell-Jobs, and donor-advised funds, which Scott has used for some of her gifts. “Bridgespan seems exceptionally able and well-disposed to take advantage of the shift from big family foundations to LLCs that don’t want staff but are still giving away a huge sum of money,” said Rob Reich, co-director of the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society at Stanford University. Groups such as Bridgespan can also step into the gap and serve as outsourced staff for new foundations finding their footing. In March, the recently formed Asian American Foundation had just five full-time employees. After the killing of eight people at Atlanta-area spas, six of Asian descent, the group was inundated with pledges and commitments, including millions more from prominent board members including Joseph Tsai, owner of the Brooklyn Nets, and a further $1 billion committed to their cause by foundations, corporations and individuals in an eight-week period. Bridgespan's Hussein served as an informal adviser, joining calls with board members. The foundation brought on a team from Bridgespan full time over the summer. “My ask of them was understanding what is happening in the field and what are things we should be paying attention to. Where were the gaps?” said foundation president Sonal Shah. The Bridgespan team provided a thorough analysis of Asian American and Pacific Islander organizations in the United States. “I think it was over a four-week period, which is not a small thing to do in a month,” Shah said. Shah said she appreciated the fact that the team from Bridgespan was staffed fully with people of Asian descent. Hussein said that was intentional. He drew from Bridgespan’s internal affinity group, people with “firsthand experience of what it means to be othered, what it means to have the model minority myth,” Hussein said. That was not the case in the group’s early days, said Walker, of the Ford Foundation. “When I first met Bridgespan, it was primarily white men at the top, and that’s not a surprise given their origin,” Walker said. “I had a Zoom call with the Bridgespan team on a matter last spring, and a majority of the people on the little Hollywood Squares on the Zoom were people of colour and women.” Bridgespan’s self-reported diversity figures show two-thirds of the group’s staff are women. White people make up less than half of the overall staff, as well as less than half of those in leadership positions. Both Walker and Jeff Bradach, one of Bridgespan’s founders, used the word “journey” to describe the group’s embrace of diversity and inclusion as central tenets of the work. Bradach, who was managing partner until October, when he stepped down from the top post, stressed in an interview that this was still a work in progress and that Bridgespan had made mistakes in the past. For instance, one of Bridgespan’s big pushes was for donors to make “big bets” rather than spreading the money around. But that standard tends to favour big institutions. “If in your criteria, you say, ‘We only fund people that do random control trials,’ if you have these barriers to capital on general operating support, then a whole bunch of organizations led by people of colour have actually never been given the money to do that,” Bradach said. Scott has made it a priority to give to such previously underfunded groups. But she has no website or headquarters or way to apply for grants, leaving groups scrambling for a way to get on her radar. People in the field noticed, for instance, that Bridgespan has advised the YMCA and Scott gave grants to YMCA’s across the country last year. While avoiding directly discussing Scott’s giving per company policy, Bradach rejected the notion that nonprofits could work with Bridgespan as a way of getting the attention of the big donors they advise. Bradach said that just 5% of the nonprofits that Bridgespan’s philanthropic clients gave to were also Bridgespan clients. In that 5% of cases, Bridgespan policy is to tell the donor that it also represents the nonprofit. The notion among nonprofits that they could cosy up to Bridgespan and then receive huge sums from Scott is wrong, Bradach said, and also betrays a misunderstanding of how much sway Bridgespan has over the donors it helps. “It’s not,” he said, “a black box that they’re kind of scratching their head going, ‘I can’t wait to see what comes.’”

The consulting firm that billionaires turn to when they give away money

Rarest of rare things are always fascinating. The same holds true for an ultra-rare lobster fished out of the water recently. &nbsp;

In Maine’s Casco Bay, a lobsterman, Bill Coppersmith, found a lobster of the colour of cotton candy in his net last week. &nbsp;

This lobster colour is rare and has not been seen for years. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/star-dolphin-winter-of-dolphin-tale-fame-died-of-twisted-intestines-says-aquarium-429269" hreflang="en">Star dolphin Winter, of 'Dolphin Tale' fame, died of twisted intestines, says aquarium</a>

In a video about the catch, Mark Murrell, CEO, Get Maine Lobster, said, "It is so rare; there's only 1 in 100 million caught." &nbsp;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Meet Haddie! She is a Cotton Candy lobster who was caught by Lobsterman Bill. She is named after Bills granddaughter. The odds of a Cotton Candy lobster being caught is 1 in 100 Million! Know of an aquarium that she could call home? Send us a DM! <a href="https://t.co/I8P38qElef">pic.twitter.com/I8P38qElef</a>
— Get Maine Lobster 🦞 (@getmainelobster) <a href="https://twitter.com/getmainelobster/status/1458127262767849476?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 9, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The lobster has been named ‘Haddie’ by Coppersmith after his granddaughter. For over 40 years, Coppersmith has been catching crustaceans. &nbsp;

The cotton candy-coloured lobster will soon be shipped to the Seacoast Science Centre in Rye, New Hampshire. It will live out the rest of its days there. &nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-woman-trespasses-near-lion-exhibit-again-holds-roses-tosses-money-at-bronx-zoo-in-us-429413" hreflang="en">Watch: Woman trespasses near lion exhibit again, holds roses, tosses money at Bronx Zoo in US</a>

It is unclear how many cotton candy-coloured lobsters are present in the wild, as per National Geographic. &nbsp;

This unique colour is due to a genetic condition, known as leucism, where there is a partial loss of pigmentation, say scientists. &nbsp;

In 2018, a Canadian lobsterman had also caught a lobster lacking pigmentation in this way. According to the Portland Press-Herald, it was then donated to the Huntsman Marine Science Centre aquarium in Saint Andrews. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Rarest of rare things are always fascinating. The same holds true for an ultra-rare lobster fished out of the water recently. In Maine’s Casco Bay, a lobsterman, Bill Coppersmith, found a lobster of the colour of cotton candy in his net last week.

Rarest of rare things are always fascinating. The same holds true for an ultra-rare lobster fished out of the water recently. In Maine’s Casco Bay, a lobsterman, Bill Coppersmith, found a lobster of the colour of cotton candy in his net last week. This lobster colour is rare and has not been seen for years. Also Read: Star dolphin Winter, of 'Dolphin Tale' fame, died of twisted intestines, says aquarium In a video about the catch, Mark Murrell, CEO, Get Maine Lobster, said, "It is so rare; there's only 1 in 100 million caught." Meet Haddie! She is a Cotton Candy lobster who was caught by Lobsterman Bill. She is named after Bills granddaughter. The odds of a Cotton Candy lobster being caught is 1 in 100 Million! Know of an aquarium that she could call home? Send us a DM! pic.twitter.com/I8P38qElef — Get Maine Lobster 🦞 (@getmainelobster) November 9, 2021 × The lobster has been named ‘Haddie’ by Coppersmith after his granddaughter. For over 40 years, Coppersmith has been catching crustaceans. The cotton candy-coloured lobster will soon be shipped to the Seacoast Science Centre in Rye, New Hampshire. It will live out the rest of its days there. Also Read | Watch: Woman trespasses near lion exhibit again, holds roses, tosses money at Bronx Zoo in US It is unclear how many cotton candy-coloured lobsters are present in the wild, as per National Geographic. This unique colour is due to a genetic condition, known as leucism, where there is a partial loss of pigmentation, say scientists. In 2018, a Canadian lobsterman had also caught a lobster lacking pigmentation in this way. According to the Portland Press-Herald, it was then donated to the Huntsman Marine Science Centre aquarium in Saint Andrews. (With inputs from agencies)

Ultra-rare cotton candy-coloured lobster found in Casco Bay, US

Travellers of a boat were in for a shocking surprise lately when a python was discovered aboard the vessel in Florida, United States. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The reptile seems to have sneaked aboard and lurked undetected until the sailboat completed a near-100-mile voyage, said the police department. &nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/birds-in-amazon-turning-smaller-longer-winged-courtesy-climate-change-study-429020" hreflang="en">Birds in Amazon turning smaller, longer-winged, courtesy climate change: Study</a>

The seven-feet-long snake was found by the crew in the shower of the boat after the vessel docked at Marco Island on the south-west Florida Gulf coast on Friday. &nbsp;

The boat had taken the trip from Indian Key, which is at a distance of around 95 miles around the southern tip of the state. &nbsp;

According to a press release, the police responded to a call for the snake on the boat at Rose marina and transferred the reptile to a local wildlife handler Bobby Monroe. &nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-8-big-cats-test-positive-for-covid-19-at-st-louis-zoo-428910" hreflang="en">US: 8 big cats test positive for COVID-19 at St. Louis Zoo</a>

The police department of Marco Island shared multiple pictures of uniformed officer Prigge on the boat with the python in his arm. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Officers responded to a call for a snake on a boat at Rose marina today, Officer Prigge was able to capture the python and release it to local wildlife handler Bobby Monroe!!<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarcoIsland?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MarcoIsland</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MIPD?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MIPD</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SWFL?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SWFL</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BetterTogether?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BetterTogether</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Snakes?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Snakes</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Python?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Python</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Florida?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Florida</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Boat?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Boat</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Marina?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Marina</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Police?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Police</a> <a href="https://t.co/BRS7BvoaQn">pic.twitter.com/BRS7BvoaQn</a>
— Marco Island PD (@MarcoIslandPD) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarcoIslandPD/status/1459247865759477764?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 12, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

On Twitter, Marco Island PD said, “Officers responded to a call for a snake on a boat at Rose marina today, Officer Prigge was able to capture the python and release it to local wildlife handler Bobby Monroe!!” &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) &nbsp;&nbsp;

Travellers of a boat were in for a shocking surprise lately when a python was discovered aboard the vessel in Florida, United States. The reptile seems to have sneaked aboard and lurked undetected until the sailboat completed a near-100-mile voyage, said the police department.

Travellers of a boat were in for a shocking surprise lately when a python was discovered aboard the vessel in Florida, United States. The reptile seems to have sneaked aboard and lurked undetected until the sailboat completed a near-100-mile voyage, said the police department. Also Read | Birds in Amazon turning smaller, longer-winged, courtesy climate change: Study The seven-feet-long snake was found by the crew in the shower of the boat after the vessel docked at Marco Island on the south-west Florida Gulf coast on Friday. The boat had taken the trip from Indian Key, which is at a distance of around 95 miles around the southern tip of the state. According to a press release, the police responded to a call for the snake on the boat at Rose marina and transferred the reptile to a local wildlife handler Bobby Monroe. Also Read | US: 8 big cats test positive for COVID-19 at St. Louis Zoo The police department of Marco Island shared multiple pictures of uniformed officer Prigge on the boat with the python in his arm. Officers responded to a call for a snake on a boat at Rose marina today, Officer Prigge was able to capture the python and release it to local wildlife handler Bobby Monroe!!#MarcoIsland #MIPD #SWFL #BetterTogether #Snakes #Python #Florida #Boat #Marina #Police pic.twitter.com/BRS7BvoaQn — Marco Island PD (@MarcoIslandPD) November 12, 2021 × On Twitter, Marco Island PD said, “Officers responded to a call for a snake on a boat at Rose marina today, Officer Prigge was able to capture the python and release it to local wildlife handler Bobby Monroe!!” (With inputs from agencies)

7-feet-long python takes 100-mile ride on sailboat along Florida coast in US

Ahead of the much-awaited Biden-Xi meet the United States has warned China over its pressure on Taiwan. The U.S. State department in a statement said that secretary of state Antony Blinken spoke with foreign minister Wang Yi, and "Expressed concern regarding china's continued military, diplomatic, and economic pressure against Taiwan".

United States warns China over its pressure on Taiwan

In the last days of the battle against the Islamic State group in Syria, when members of the once-fierce caliphate were cornered in a dirt field next to a town called Baghuz, a U.S. military drone circled high overhead, hunting for military targets. But it saw only a large crowd of women and children huddled against a river bank.

Without warning, a U.S. F-15E attack jet streaked across the drone’s high-definition field of vision and dropped a 500-pound bomb on the crowd. Then a jet dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another.

It was March 18, 2019. At the U.S. military’s busy Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, uniformed personnel watching the live drone footage looked on in stunned disbelief.

“Who dropped that?” a confused analyst typed on a secure chat system being used by those monitoring the drone. Another responded, “We just dropped on 50 women and children.”

An initial battle damage assessment quickly found that the number of dead was actually about 70.

The Baghuz strike was one of the largest civilian casualty incidents of the war against the Islamic State, but it has never been publicly acknowledged by the U.S. military. The details, reported here for the first time, show that the death toll was almost immediately apparent to military officials. A legal officer flagged the strike as a possible war crime that required an investigation. But at nearly every step, the military made moves that concealed the catastrophic strike. The death toll was downplayed. Reports were delayed, sanitized and classified. U.S.-led coalition forces bulldozed the blast site. And top leaders were not notified.

The Defense Department’s independent inspector general began an inquiry, but the report containing its findings was stalled and stripped of any mention of the strike.

“Leadership just seemed so set on burying this,” said Gene Tate, an evaluator who worked on the case for the inspector general’s office and agreed to discuss the aspects that were not classified.

Tate, a former Navy officer who had worked for years as a civilian analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Counterterrorism Center before moving to the inspector general’s office, said he criticized the lack of action and was eventually forced out of his job.

The details of the strikes were pieced together by The New York Times over months from confidential documents and descriptions of classified reports as well as interviews with personnel directly involved and officials with top secret security clearances who discussed the incident on the condition that they not be named.

The Times investigation found that the bombing had been called in by a classified U.S. special operations unit, Task Force 9, which was in charge of ground operations in Syria. The task force operated in such secrecy that at times it did not inform even its own military partners of its actions. In the case of the Baghuz bombing, the U.S. Air Force command in Qatar had no idea the strike was coming.

After the strike, an alarmed Air Force intelligence officer in the operations center called over an Air Force lawyer in charge of determining the legality of strikes. The lawyer ordered the F-15E squadron and the drone crew to preserve all video and other evidence. He went upstairs and reported the strike to his chain of command, saying it was a possible violation of the law of armed conflict — a war crime — and regulations required a thorough, independent investigation.

But a thorough, independent investigation never happened.

This past week, after the Times sent its findings to U.S. Central Command, which oversaw the air war in Syria, the command acknowledged the strikes for the first time, saying 80 people were killed but the airstrikes were justified. It said the bombs killed 16 fighters and four civilians. As for the other 60 people killed, the statement said it was not clear that they were civilians, in part because women and children in the Islamic State sometimes took up arms.

The only assessment done immediately after the strike was performed by the same ground unit that ordered the strike. It determined that the bombing was lawful because it killed only a small number of civilians while targeting Islamic State fighters in an attempt to protect coalition forces. Therefore, no formal war crime notification, criminal investigation or disciplinary action was warranted.

But the Air Force lawyer, Lt. Col. Dean Korsak, believed he had witnessed possible war crimes and repeatedly pressed his leadership and Air Force criminal investigators to act. When they did not, he alerted the Defense Department’s independent inspector general. Two years after the strike, seeing no evidence that the watchdog agency was taking action, Korsak emailed the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Korsak did not respond to requests for comment.

A Secret Task Force

The United States portrayed the air war against the Islamic State as the most precise and humane bombing campaign in its history. The military said every report of civilian casualties was investigated and the findings reported publicly, creating what the military called a model of accountability.

But the strikes on Baghuz tell a different story.

The details suggest that while the military put strict rules in place to protect civilians, the Special Operations task force repeatedly used other rules to skirt them.

Even in the extraordinary case of Baghuz — which would rank third on the military’s worst civilian casualty events in Syria if 64 civilian deaths were acknowledged — regulations for reporting and investigating the potential crime were not followed, and no one was held accountable.

Nearly 1,000 strikes hit targets in Syria and Iraq in 2019, using 4,729 bombs and missiles. The official military tally of civilian dead for that entire year is only 22, and the strikes from March 18 are nowhere on the list.

The battle at Baghuz represented the end of a nearly five-year U.S.-led campaign to defeat the Islamic State in Syria. On the ground, Task Force 9 coordinated offensives and airstrikes. The unit included soldiers from the 5th Special Forces Group and the Army’s elite commando team Delta Force.

Over time, some officials overseeing the air campaign began to believe that the task force was systematically circumventing the safeguards created to limit civilian deaths.

The process was supposed to run through several checks and balances. Drones with high-definition cameras studied potential targets, sometimes for days or weeks. Analysts pored over intelligence data to differentiate combatants from civilians. And military lawyers were embedded with strike teams to ensure that targeting complied with the law of armed conflict.

But there was a quick and easy way to skip much of that oversight: claiming imminent danger.

The law of armed conflict — the rule book that lays out the military’s legal conduct in war — allows troops in life-threatening situations to sidestep the strike team lawyers, analysts and other bureaucracy and call in strikes directly from aircraft under what military regulations call an “inherent right of self-defense.”

Task Force 9 typically played only an advisory role in Syria, and its soldiers were usually well behind the front lines. Even so, by late 2018, about 80% of all airstrikes it was calling in claimed self-defense.

The rules allowed U.S. troops and local allies to invoke it when facing not just direct enemy fire, but anyone displaying “hostile intent.” Under that definition, something as mundane as a car driving miles from friendly forces could in some cases be targeted. The task force interpreted the rules broadly, the former officer said.

CIA officers working in Syria grew so alarmed over the task force’s strikes that agents reported their concern to the Department of Defense inspector general, which investigated the claims and produced a report. The results of that report are top secret, but a former task force officer said the CIA officers alleged that in about 10 incidents, the secretive task force hit targets knowing civilians would be killed. The former officer said the report determined that all the strikes were legal.

The inspector general declined to release the report or discuss its findings.

A Fatal Strike

The camp at Baghuz was effectively the Islamic State’s Alamo — a last stand where hard-core militants vowed to fight to the death. The coalition had laid siege, hoping to starve the fighters out. In six weeks, 29,000 people, most of them women and children, surrendered. On March 18, drone footage showed the camp still harbored large numbers of people suspected of being fighters and their families.

Coalition drones had scoured the camp 24 hours a day for weeks and knew nearly every inch, including the daily movements of groups of women and children.

What happened on the morning of March 18 is in dispute.

That day Islamic State fighters trapped in the camp launched a predawn counteroffensive, according to Central Command, which oversaw Task Force 9. It said hundreds of Islamic State fighters started firing rifles and grenade launchers and sending forward fighters with suicide vests. The coalition pummeled the fighters with airstrikes — so many that by midmorning, the coalition had used all the missiles on its drones. Only one U.S. drone, controlled by the task force, was left in the area, and it was unarmed.

At about 10 a.m., local Syrian forces reported they were under fire and in danger of being overrun and called for an airstrike, Central Command said. The task force drone tracked a group of fighters as they made their way through the camp to the area where the women and children sheltered.

A 5th Special Forces Group officer in the task force looked at the drone footage and did not see any civilians. But the drone he relied on had only a standard-definition camera. Central Command said there were no high-definition drones in the area that could get a better view of the target.

The Special Forces officer gave the order to fire. With no precision missiles left, the ground commander called in 500- and 2,000-pound bombs. The strike log classified the strike as self-defense.

In fact, a high-definition drone was available. The task force did not use it. Circling above, it was streaming footage of the same patch of ground to the operations center in Qatar. Because the task force operated at a high level of secrecy, the people in Qatar watching the high-definition drone were not aware the task force was about to call in a strike.

Central Command said the task force did not know that the better drone was overhead.

The high-definition drone recorded a very different scene from what was described by Central Command this past week. In it, two or three men — not 16 — wander through the frame. They have rifles but do not appear to be maneuvering, engaging coalition forces or acting in a way that would seem to justify a self-defense strike with 2,000-pound bombs. A chat log used by analysts who were watching the footage noted the presence of women, children and a man with a gun but did not mention any active combat.

Moments after the task force called in the strike, an F-15E attack plane hit the spot with a 500-pound bomb. Five minutes later, when ground forces saw people fleeing the blast site, the F-15E dropped two 2,000-pound bombs on the survivors. The entire attack took 12 minutes.

A Failed Investigation

Defense Department regulations require any “possible, suspected or alleged” violation of the law of armed conflict to be reported immediately to the combatant commander in charge as well as criminal investigators, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense and the secretary of the Army.

After viewing the footage, Korsak ordered the units involved to preserve nine pieces of evidence, including video, and reported the strike to his chain of command. He also notified the command of concerns that the unit appeared to be covering up the alleged war crimes violations by adding details to the strike log that would justify a self-defense strike. Commanders did not take action.

Coalition forces overran the camp that day and defeated the Islamic State a few days later.

Civilian observers who came to the area of the strike the next day found piles of dead women and children.

Satellite images from four days later show the sheltered bank and area around it appeared to have been bulldozed.

Concerned that details of the airstrike would be buried as well, Korsak alerted the Air Force’s version of the FBI, the Office of Special Investigations. A major responded that agents probably would not look into it.

The Air Force Office of Special Investigations declined to comment.

Korsak again pressed his chain of command to act, informing his command’s chief legal officer in a memo in May 2019 that regulations required an investigation. His superiors did not open an investigation.

Unwilling to let the issue drop, Korsak filed a hotline complaint with the inspector general’s office in August 2019.

A four-person team in the office was already looking into shortcomings in the civilian casualty reporting processes in Syria and quickly set up an interview in a secure setting. After reviewing the high-definition footage and interviewing Korsak, the team, which included Tate, told superiors in the inspector general’s office that the allegation of a war crime was “extremely credible.”

But like the Air Force lawyer’s earlier effort, Tate’s team soon hit roadblocks. Central Command was slow to turn over evidence. Tate obtained video from several drones flying over Baghuz that day but could not locate the footage from the task force drone that called in the strike.

Tate studied the task force’s casualty report, but it did not match what he saw on video. The civilian deaths stated in the report were “an impossibly small number,” he said.

The final section of the casualty report was reserved for the legal opinion. In one version of the report that Tate was sent by the staff at Operation Inherent Resolve, the Baghdad-based military command overseeing operations in Iraq and Syria, a task force lawyer and an operations officer wrote that a violation of the law of armed conflict may have taken place. In another copy that came from Central Command, he said, that opinion had been removed.

Tate could find no evidence that the Joint Chiefs, the defense secretary or criminal investigators had been alerted, as required.

Within days of interviewing Korsak, Tate’s team took their findings to supervisors and told them the office was required to alert those officials and criminal investigation agencies. Tate said his supervisors took no action. The team pressed leaders numerous times over the next several months, and in January 2020, Tate’s team leader drafted a memo that would formally alert authorities. It only needed to be signed by the deputy inspector general overseeing the team. Tate said the supervisor did not sign it.

In the months that followed in 2020, the team finished its report on broader issues in the civilian casualty reporting process, but as it went through the editing and approval process, all mentions of the Baghuz strike were cut.

Tate became increasingly pointed in criticizing the leadership of the inspector general’s office. In October 2020, he said he was forced out of his position and escorted from the building by security.

A spokesperson for the inspector general’s office disputed Tate’s account. She said that it alerted the proper authorities at Central Command shortly after receiving the first hotline complaint in 2019. The spokesperson said the office also notified criminal investigators about the strike in October 2020, 14 months after receiving the hotline call.

Tate refused to give up. He contacted the Senate Armed Services Committee in May and sent a 10-page letter describing the strike and what he viewed as a “systematic failure” on civilian casualty reporting. The committee then contacted Korsak, who replied with a detailed email.

Tate waited for months for the committee to call back and give him an indication that it was actively looking at the case. This past week, he said with a sigh that he was still waiting.

In the last days of the battle against the Islamic State group in Syria, when members of the once-fierce caliphate were cornered in a dirt field next to a town called Baghuz, a U.

In the last days of the battle against the Islamic State group in Syria, when members of the once-fierce caliphate were cornered in a dirt field next to a town called Baghuz, a U.S. military drone circled high overhead, hunting for military targets. But it saw only a large crowd of women and children huddled against a river bank. Without warning, a U.S. F-15E attack jet streaked across the drone’s high-definition field of vision and dropped a 500-pound bomb on the crowd. Then a jet dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another. It was March 18, 2019. At the U.S. military’s busy Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, uniformed personnel watching the live drone footage looked on in stunned disbelief. “Who dropped that?” a confused analyst typed on a secure chat system being used by those monitoring the drone. Another responded, “We just dropped on 50 women and children.” An initial battle damage assessment quickly found that the number of dead was actually about 70. The Baghuz strike was one of the largest civilian casualty incidents of the war against the Islamic State, but it has never been publicly acknowledged by the U.S. military. The details, reported here for the first time, show that the death toll was almost immediately apparent to military officials. A legal officer flagged the strike as a possible war crime that required an investigation. But at nearly every step, the military made moves that concealed the catastrophic strike. The death toll was downplayed. Reports were delayed, sanitized and classified. U.S.-led coalition forces bulldozed the blast site. And top leaders were not notified. The Defense Department’s independent inspector general began an inquiry, but the report containing its findings was stalled and stripped of any mention of the strike. “Leadership just seemed so set on burying this,” said Gene Tate, an evaluator who worked on the case for the inspector general’s office and agreed to discuss the aspects that were not classified. Tate, a former Navy officer who had worked for years as a civilian analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Counterterrorism Center before moving to the inspector general’s office, said he criticized the lack of action and was eventually forced out of his job. The details of the strikes were pieced together by The New York Times over months from confidential documents and descriptions of classified reports as well as interviews with personnel directly involved and officials with top secret security clearances who discussed the incident on the condition that they not be named. The Times investigation found that the bombing had been called in by a classified U.S. special operations unit, Task Force 9, which was in charge of ground operations in Syria. The task force operated in such secrecy that at times it did not inform even its own military partners of its actions. In the case of the Baghuz bombing, the U.S. Air Force command in Qatar had no idea the strike was coming. After the strike, an alarmed Air Force intelligence officer in the operations center called over an Air Force lawyer in charge of determining the legality of strikes. The lawyer ordered the F-15E squadron and the drone crew to preserve all video and other evidence. He went upstairs and reported the strike to his chain of command, saying it was a possible violation of the law of armed conflict — a war crime — and regulations required a thorough, independent investigation. But a thorough, independent investigation never happened. This past week, after the Times sent its findings to U.S. Central Command, which oversaw the air war in Syria, the command acknowledged the strikes for the first time, saying 80 people were killed but the airstrikes were justified. It said the bombs killed 16 fighters and four civilians. As for the other 60 people killed, the statement said it was not clear that they were civilians, in part because women and children in the Islamic State sometimes took up arms. The only assessment done immediately after the strike was performed by the same ground unit that ordered the strike. It determined that the bombing was lawful because it killed only a small number of civilians while targeting Islamic State fighters in an attempt to protect coalition forces. Therefore, no formal war crime notification, criminal investigation or disciplinary action was warranted. But the Air Force lawyer, Lt. Col. Dean Korsak, believed he had witnessed possible war crimes and repeatedly pressed his leadership and Air Force criminal investigators to act. When they did not, he alerted the Defense Department’s independent inspector general. Two years after the strike, seeing no evidence that the watchdog agency was taking action, Korsak emailed the Senate Armed Services Committee. Korsak did not respond to requests for comment. A Secret Task Force The United States portrayed the air war against the Islamic State as the most precise and humane bombing campaign in its history. The military said every report of civilian casualties was investigated and the findings reported publicly, creating what the military called a model of accountability. But the strikes on Baghuz tell a different story. The details suggest that while the military put strict rules in place to protect civilians, the Special Operations task force repeatedly used other rules to skirt them. Even in the extraordinary case of Baghuz — which would rank third on the military’s worst civilian casualty events in Syria if 64 civilian deaths were acknowledged — regulations for reporting and investigating the potential crime were not followed, and no one was held accountable. Nearly 1,000 strikes hit targets in Syria and Iraq in 2019, using 4,729 bombs and missiles. The official military tally of civilian dead for that entire year is only 22, and the strikes from March 18 are nowhere on the list. The battle at Baghuz represented the end of a nearly five-year U.S.-led campaign to defeat the Islamic State in Syria. On the ground, Task Force 9 coordinated offensives and airstrikes. The unit included soldiers from the 5th Special Forces Group and the Army’s elite commando team Delta Force. Over time, some officials overseeing the air campaign began to believe that the task force was systematically circumventing the safeguards created to limit civilian deaths. The process was supposed to run through several checks and balances. Drones with high-definition cameras studied potential targets, sometimes for days or weeks. Analysts pored over intelligence data to differentiate combatants from civilians. And military lawyers were embedded with strike teams to ensure that targeting complied with the law of armed conflict. But there was a quick and easy way to skip much of that oversight: claiming imminent danger. The law of armed conflict — the rule book that lays out the military’s legal conduct in war — allows troops in life-threatening situations to sidestep the strike team lawyers, analysts and other bureaucracy and call in strikes directly from aircraft under what military regulations call an “inherent right of self-defense.” Task Force 9 typically played only an advisory role in Syria, and its soldiers were usually well behind the front lines. Even so, by late 2018, about 80% of all airstrikes it was calling in claimed self-defense. The rules allowed U.S. troops and local allies to invoke it when facing not just direct enemy fire, but anyone displaying “hostile intent.” Under that definition, something as mundane as a car driving miles from friendly forces could in some cases be targeted. The task force interpreted the rules broadly, the former officer said. CIA officers working in Syria grew so alarmed over the task force’s strikes that agents reported their concern to the Department of Defense inspector general, which investigated the claims and produced a report. The results of that report are top secret, but a former task force officer said the CIA officers alleged that in about 10 incidents, the secretive task force hit targets knowing civilians would be killed. The former officer said the report determined that all the strikes were legal. The inspector general declined to release the report or discuss its findings. A Fatal Strike The camp at Baghuz was effectively the Islamic State’s Alamo — a last stand where hard-core militants vowed to fight to the death. The coalition had laid siege, hoping to starve the fighters out. In six weeks, 29,000 people, most of them women and children, surrendered. On March 18, drone footage showed the camp still harbored large numbers of people suspected of being fighters and their families. Coalition drones had scoured the camp 24 hours a day for weeks and knew nearly every inch, including the daily movements of groups of women and children. What happened on the morning of March 18 is in dispute. That day Islamic State fighters trapped in the camp launched a predawn counteroffensive, according to Central Command, which oversaw Task Force 9. It said hundreds of Islamic State fighters started firing rifles and grenade launchers and sending forward fighters with suicide vests. The coalition pummeled the fighters with airstrikes — so many that by midmorning, the coalition had used all the missiles on its drones. Only one U.S. drone, controlled by the task force, was left in the area, and it was unarmed. At about 10 a.m., local Syrian forces reported they were under fire and in danger of being overrun and called for an airstrike, Central Command said. The task force drone tracked a group of fighters as they made their way through the camp to the area where the women and children sheltered. A 5th Special Forces Group officer in the task force looked at the drone footage and did not see any civilians. But the drone he relied on had only a standard-definition camera. Central Command said there were no high-definition drones in the area that could get a better view of the target. The Special Forces officer gave the order to fire. With no precision missiles left, the ground commander called in 500- and 2,000-pound bombs. The strike log classified the strike as self-defense. In fact, a high-definition drone was available. The task force did not use it. Circling above, it was streaming footage of the same patch of ground to the operations center in Qatar. Because the task force operated at a high level of secrecy, the people in Qatar watching the high-definition drone were not aware the task force was about to call in a strike. Central Command said the task force did not know that the better drone was overhead. The high-definition drone recorded a very different scene from what was described by Central Command this past week. In it, two or three men — not 16 — wander through the frame. They have rifles but do not appear to be maneuvering, engaging coalition forces or acting in a way that would seem to justify a self-defense strike with 2,000-pound bombs. A chat log used by analysts who were watching the footage noted the presence of women, children and a man with a gun but did not mention any active combat. Moments after the task force called in the strike, an F-15E attack plane hit the spot with a 500-pound bomb. Five minutes later, when ground forces saw people fleeing the blast site, the F-15E dropped two 2,000-pound bombs on the survivors. The entire attack took 12 minutes. A Failed Investigation Defense Department regulations require any “possible, suspected or alleged” violation of the law of armed conflict to be reported immediately to the combatant commander in charge as well as criminal investigators, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense and the secretary of the Army. After viewing the footage, Korsak ordered the units involved to preserve nine pieces of evidence, including video, and reported the strike to his chain of command. He also notified the command of concerns that the unit appeared to be covering up the alleged war crimes violations by adding details to the strike log that would justify a self-defense strike. Commanders did not take action. Coalition forces overran the camp that day and defeated the Islamic State a few days later. Civilian observers who came to the area of the strike the next day found piles of dead women and children. Satellite images from four days later show the sheltered bank and area around it appeared to have been bulldozed. Concerned that details of the airstrike would be buried as well, Korsak alerted the Air Force’s version of the FBI, the Office of Special Investigations. A major responded that agents probably would not look into it. The Air Force Office of Special Investigations declined to comment. Korsak again pressed his chain of command to act, informing his command’s chief legal officer in a memo in May 2019 that regulations required an investigation. His superiors did not open an investigation. Unwilling to let the issue drop, Korsak filed a hotline complaint with the inspector general’s office in August 2019. A four-person team in the office was already looking into shortcomings in the civilian casualty reporting processes in Syria and quickly set up an interview in a secure setting. After reviewing the high-definition footage and interviewing Korsak, the team, which included Tate, told superiors in the inspector general’s office that the allegation of a war crime was “extremely credible.” But like the Air Force lawyer’s earlier effort, Tate’s team soon hit roadblocks. Central Command was slow to turn over evidence. Tate obtained video from several drones flying over Baghuz that day but could not locate the footage from the task force drone that called in the strike. Tate studied the task force’s casualty report, but it did not match what he saw on video. The civilian deaths stated in the report were “an impossibly small number,” he said. The final section of the casualty report was reserved for the legal opinion. In one version of the report that Tate was sent by the staff at Operation Inherent Resolve, the Baghdad-based military command overseeing operations in Iraq and Syria, a task force lawyer and an operations officer wrote that a violation of the law of armed conflict may have taken place. In another copy that came from Central Command, he said, that opinion had been removed. Tate could find no evidence that the Joint Chiefs, the defense secretary or criminal investigators had been alerted, as required. Within days of interviewing Korsak, Tate’s team took their findings to supervisors and told them the office was required to alert those officials and criminal investigation agencies. Tate said his supervisors took no action. The team pressed leaders numerous times over the next several months, and in January 2020, Tate’s team leader drafted a memo that would formally alert authorities. It only needed to be signed by the deputy inspector general overseeing the team. Tate said the supervisor did not sign it. In the months that followed in 2020, the team finished its report on broader issues in the civilian casualty reporting process, but as it went through the editing and approval process, all mentions of the Baghuz strike were cut. Tate became increasingly pointed in criticizing the leadership of the inspector general’s office. In October 2020, he said he was forced out of his position and escorted from the building by security. A spokesperson for the inspector general’s office disputed Tate’s account. She said that it alerted the proper authorities at Central Command shortly after receiving the first hotline complaint in 2019. The spokesperson said the office also notified criminal investigators about the strike in October 2020, 14 months after receiving the hotline call. Tate refused to give up. He contacted the Senate Armed Services Committee in May and sent a 10-page letter describing the strike and what he viewed as a “systematic failure” on civilian casualty reporting. The committee then contacted Korsak, who replied with a detailed email. Tate waited for months for the committee to call back and give him an indication that it was actively looking at the case. This past week, he said with a sigh that he was still waiting.

How the US hid an airstrike that killed dozens of civilians in Syria

The ongoing pandemic continues to cast its shadow over the job market in the United States. According to a latest report--- a record-high 4.4 million people have left their jobs in September alone.

US: Ongoing pandemic continues to cast its shadow over the job market

Women in the United States have been at receiving end of tough abortion laws for quite some time. Now, they are getting charged with manslaughter after having miscarriage. &nbsp;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Why is there ZERO MEDIA COVERAGE of Brittney Poolaw’s conviction of manslaughter for having a miscarriage?!? 
 
Could it be because she’s an Indigenous woman? 
 
Obviously. <a href="https://t.co/l0ULUmx4hA">pic.twitter.com/l0ULUmx4hA</a>
— Nahanni Fontaine (@NahanniFontaine) <a href="https://twitter.com/NahanniFontaine/status/1450645161248133123?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 20, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The development has attracted sharp reactions from several corners of the country. Some victims of these repressive rulings are Brittney Poolaw, etc. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/truth-or-dare-21-yr-old-makes-confession-during-game-gets-jail-for-killing-elderly-woman-428922" hreflang="en">Truth or dare? 21-yr-old makes confession during game, gets jail for killing elderly woman</a>

In January 2020, Poolaw was about four months pregnant when she lost her baby in the hospital. In this October, she was convicted and sentenced to four years in jail for the first-degree manslaughter of her unborn son.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Brittney Poolaw was convicted of 1st degree manslaughter for suffering a miscarriage. 
 
Bringing the U.S. one step closer to Gilead. <a href="https://t.co/I1COJ8wNe1">https://t.co/I1COJ8wNe1</a>
— 49erGirl4Ever (@Big_BrotherHBIC) <a href="https://twitter.com/Big_BrotherHBIC/status/1454825718559358978?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 31, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The woman’s suffering began with losing her baby to a miscarriage and seems to be continuing with the outrageous conviction and jail term over the death of the foetus. &nbsp;

She is not alone, a 21-year-old Native American woman from Oklahoma was also convicted of manslaughter after having a miscarriage some time back. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/grave-mistake-kurdish-politicians-wife-gets-jail-for-a-typo-in-miscarriage-form-in-turkey-428894" hreflang="en">Grave mistake? Kurdish politician’s wife gets jail for a typo in miscarriage form in Turkey</a>

The eye-opening plight of the woman has caught the attention of several people. &nbsp;

Some people noted that Poolaw was convicted during pregnancy loss awareness month in the US, while some netizens compared it to Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel The Handmaid's Tale. &nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
October is National Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month, and Brittney Poolaw is facing 4 years in prison for something that happens in 1 in 4 pregnancies. <a href="https://t.co/ibu5Kv98EF">https://t.co/ibu5Kv98EF</a>
— Nicole Marna (@nicole_menges) <a href="https://twitter.com/nicole_menges/status/1449240270407491585?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

However, Poolaw had admitted to using illicit drugs while being pregnant at the time of seeking treatment at hospital. The medical examiner's report also found traces of methamphetamine in baby's liver and brain. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Women in the United States have been at receiving end of tough abortion laws for quite some time. Now, they are getting charged with manslaughter after having miscarriage.

Women in the United States have been at receiving end of tough abortion laws for quite some time. Now, they are getting charged with manslaughter after having miscarriage. Why is there ZERO MEDIA COVERAGE of Brittney Poolaw’s conviction of manslaughter for having a miscarriage?!? Could it be because she’s an Indigenous woman? Obviously. pic.twitter.com/l0ULUmx4hA — Nahanni Fontaine (@NahanniFontaine) October 20, 2021 × The development has attracted sharp reactions from several corners of the country. Some victims of these repressive rulings are Brittney Poolaw, etc. Also Read: Truth or dare? 21-yr-old makes confession during game, gets jail for killing elderly woman In January 2020, Poolaw was about four months pregnant when she lost her baby in the hospital. In this October, she was convicted and sentenced to four years in jail for the first-degree manslaughter of her unborn son. Brittney Poolaw was convicted of 1st degree manslaughter for suffering a miscarriage. Bringing the U.S. one step closer to Gilead. https://t.co/I1COJ8wNe1 — 49erGirl4Ever (@Big_BrotherHBIC) October 31, 2021 × The woman’s suffering began with losing her baby to a miscarriage and seems to be continuing with the outrageous conviction and jail term over the death of the foetus. She is not alone, a 21-year-old Native American woman from Oklahoma was also convicted of manslaughter after having a miscarriage some time back. Also Read: Grave mistake? Kurdish politician’s wife gets jail for a typo in miscarriage form in Turkey The eye-opening plight of the woman has caught the attention of several people. Some people noted that Poolaw was convicted during pregnancy loss awareness month in the US, while some netizens compared it to Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel The Handmaid's Tale. October is National Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month, and Brittney Poolaw is facing 4 years in prison for something that happens in 1 in 4 pregnancies. https://t.co/ibu5Kv98EF — Nicole Marna (@nicole_menges) October 16, 2021 × However, Poolaw had admitted to using illicit drugs while being pregnant at the time of seeking treatment at hospital. The medical examiner's report also found traces of methamphetamine in baby's liver and brain. (With inputs from agencies)

Women face tough time as miscarriages lead to manslaughter charge in US

us-1

Us, News on Us, stories on Us, articles on Us, Us stories at Wion, Us news, Us latest news

us 1

Planned pan-European payments network to compete with U.S. Mastercard and Visa