Iran on Monday said that focus of the talks to revive 2015 nuclear deal should be lifting sanctions on the Islamic republic and 'guarantees' that the US will re-enter the deal. The talks are set to resume.

The negotiations have been on to salvage the deal in late November after a five-month hiatus following the election of ultraconservative Iran President Ebrahim Raisi.

The historic nuclear deal with Iran and world powers was reached in 2015. But former US president Donald Trump who took office after Barack Obama, unilaterally took the US out of the deal putting in jeopardy its future. The withdrawal of US was followed by crippling sanctions on Iran.

Iran has reported progress in the talks, but European diplomats have warned they are "rapidly reaching the end of the road".

US negotiator Rob Malley has said there are only "weeks" left to revive the deal, if the Islamic republic continues its current pace of nuclear activities.

The talks are expected to get underway in the Austrian capital at 6:00 pm (1700 GMT), according to a source close to the negotiations.

Ahead of the resumption, Iran's Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said the agenda on Monday should be "the issue of guarantees and verification" on the lifting of US sanctions if it returns to the accord.

"The most important thing for us is to reach a point where we can verify that Iranian oil will be sold easily and without any limits, that the money for this oil will be transferred in foreign currency to Iranian bank accounts, and that we will be able to benefit from all the revenues," he said, quoted on Monday by state news agency IRNA.

The opening of the eighth round of the talks involves delegations from Iran and the other countries that remain party to the landmark accord -- Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.

The multilateral nuclear deal reached in 2015 offered Iran a lifting of economic sanctions in return for strict curbs on its nuclear activities.

The goal was to make it practically impossible for Iran to build an atomic bomb, while allowing it to pursue a civilian nuclear programme.

US President Joe Biden has said he is willing to return to the deal as long as Iran also resumes the original terms.

(With inputs from agencies)

Iran on Monday said that focus of the talks to revive 2015 nuclear deal should be lifting sanctions on the Islamic republic and 'guarantees' that the US will re-enter the deal.

Iran on Monday said that focus of the talks to revive 2015 nuclear deal should be lifting sanctions on the Islamic republic and 'guarantees' that the US will re-enter the deal. The talks are set to resume. The negotiations have been on to salvage the deal in late November after a five-month hiatus following the election of ultraconservative Iran President Ebrahim Raisi. The historic nuclear deal with Iran and world powers was reached in 2015. But former US president Donald Trump who took office after Barack Obama, unilaterally took the US out of the deal putting in jeopardy its future. The withdrawal of US was followed by crippling sanctions on Iran. Iran has reported progress in the talks, but European diplomats have warned they are "rapidly reaching the end of the road". US negotiator Rob Malley has said there are only "weeks" left to revive the deal, if the Islamic republic continues its current pace of nuclear activities. The talks are expected to get underway in the Austrian capital at 6:00 pm (1700 GMT), according to a source close to the negotiations. Ahead of the resumption, Iran's Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said the agenda on Monday should be "the issue of guarantees and verification" on the lifting of US sanctions if it returns to the accord. "The most important thing for us is to reach a point where we can verify that Iranian oil will be sold easily and without any limits, that the money for this oil will be transferred in foreign currency to Iranian bank accounts, and that we will be able to benefit from all the revenues," he said, quoted on Monday by state news agency IRNA. The opening of the eighth round of the talks involves delegations from Iran and the other countries that remain party to the landmark accord -- Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. The multilateral nuclear deal reached in 2015 offered Iran a lifting of economic sanctions in return for strict curbs on its nuclear activities. The goal was to make it practically impossible for Iran to build an atomic bomb, while allowing it to pursue a civilian nuclear programme. US President Joe Biden has said he is willing to return to the deal as long as Iran also resumes the original terms. (With inputs from agencies)

As talks to salvage nuclear deal resume, Iran wants assurances

From Israel to Saudi Arabia to Iran, China is striking massive deals on security and infrastructure in West Asia. Is a recoiling America ceding space to China? Will Beijing get entangled in West Asia's protracted conflicts? Palki Sharma tells you.

Gravitas: China's expanding footprint in West Asia

Stymied by Republicans on voting rights legislation, Sen. Chuck Schumer on Monday gave the clearest sign yet that he would try to force a fundamental change in Senate rules if needed to enact federal laws to offset voting restrictions being imposed by Republican-led legislatures around the country.

In a letter to colleagues, Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, said that the Senate would take up stalled voting rights legislation as early as the first week of January and that if Republicans continued to filibuster, the Senate would “consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation.”

But it is not clear how far Democrats will be willing or able to go in working around the 60-vote requirement for most legislation and finding a way to pass voting rights legislation with a simple majority. While several formerly reluctant senators have in recent weeks endorsed rules change for voting issues, at least two Democratic senators — Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — have resisted.

Alarmed by state laws being enacted in the aftermath of the 2020 election that seem aimed at making it more difficult for people, particularly minorities, to vote, Democrats have tried repeatedly this year to set federal standards for early and mail-in voting and curb partisan gerrymandering, among other provisions. But they have been consistently thwarted by a Republican blockade.

To this point, Democrats have not pressed the issue. But Schumer’s new stance shows that he is ready to take the next step and start a rules fight on the Senate floor though he has so far lacked the 50 Democratic votes needed to force through a change over Republican opposition.

Schumer’s move seems intended to change the dynamic of the debate and put new pressure on his colleagues to back a change. Schumer’s frustration boiled over in his letter, saying it was unfair to let states set new rules through partisan majority votes while Republicans were preventing the Senate from doing the same.

“I would ask you to consider this question,” he wrote. “If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the state level with only a simple majority vote, but not allow the United States Senate to do the same?”

Schumer has in the past said mainly that “all options are on the table” when it comes to pressing voting rights legislation, refraining from a direct threat on Senate rules.

A group of more moderate Senate Democrats have been engaged in negotiations on rules changes with Manchin and Sinema and have reported some progress but no breakthrough. While Manchin on Sunday shattered Democratic plans to push forward on a sweeping social policy and climate change bill, he opened the door a crack to potential changes in Senate rules.

“If you can make the Senate work better, the rules are something we’ve changed over the years; 232 years, there’s been rule changes,” Manchin said Sunday on Fox News. But he also suggested that he might be interested in more modest changes than Schumer and others are contemplating, saying he would continue to support the 60-vote, supermajority threshold to overcome a filibuster.

Sinema has also drawn a line against partisan changes in the rules, but Democrats say they believe she would not want to be the lone holdout if Manchin were persuaded to relent on the legislative filibuster.

Democrats knowledgeable about the internal deliberations say that many possible changes are under consideration, including weakening the filibuster against the preliminary “motion to proceed” to bring legislation to the floor for consideration. But in a more significant move, Democrats say they are also discussing a change that would clear the way for final action on a bill through a simple majority vote after guaranteeing opponents the opportunity to alter the legislation through a significant number of amendments.

Instituting such a change would require the support of all 50 Democrats and the vote of Vice President Kamala Harris presiding to break a tie in the 50-50 Senate.

Democrats say such a filibuster “carve out” would apply only to issues grounded in constitutional rights such as voting, but Republicans and others say it would inevitably be extended to other legislation, diminishing the overall power of the filibuster.

The Democratic voting rights and rules change push would meet universal resistance from Republicans. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, last week accused Democrats of “rattling swords about changing the structure of the Senate” and commended Manchin for opposing it.

“Changing the structure of the Senate in order to achieve a partisan advantage is a mistake for the Senate and a mistake for our country,” he said.

Once used rarely, the filibuster has become a routine aspect of the Senate in recent decades and virtually all legislation now has to clear a 60-vote hurdle just to be debated on the floor, severely limiting what business can be taken up.

Outraged over Republicans blocking President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees through regular filibusters, Democrats in 2013 took the procedural steps to allow most nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote. Republicans countered in 2017 by extending that rule to Supreme Court nominees, enabling President Donald Trump to install three high court justices.

In a statement in the letter directed at Manchin, Schumer noted that Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a Senate stalwart whose seat Manchin occupies, said in 1979 that sometimes Senate rules that seemed appropriate “must be changed to reflect changed circumstance.”

“I believe our constituents deserve to know which senators choose to hide behind ill-conceived and abused rules and which senators prefer to restore Senate floor procedures to better align with the founders’ intentions,” Schumer wrote.

Stymied by Republicans on voting rights legislation, Sen. Chuck Schumer on Monday gave the clearest sign yet that he would try to force a fundamental change in Senate rules if needed to enact federal laws to offset voting restrictions being imposed by Republican-led legislatures around the country.

Stymied by Republicans on voting rights legislation, Sen. Chuck Schumer on Monday gave the clearest sign yet that he would try to force a fundamental change in Senate rules if needed to enact federal laws to offset voting restrictions being imposed by Republican-led legislatures around the country. In a letter to colleagues, Schumer, D-N.Y., the majority leader, said that the Senate would take up stalled voting rights legislation as early as the first week of January and that if Republicans continued to filibuster, the Senate would “consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation.” But it is not clear how far Democrats will be willing or able to go in working around the 60-vote requirement for most legislation and finding a way to pass voting rights legislation with a simple majority. While several formerly reluctant senators have in recent weeks endorsed rules change for voting issues, at least two Democratic senators — Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — have resisted. Alarmed by state laws being enacted in the aftermath of the 2020 election that seem aimed at making it more difficult for people, particularly minorities, to vote, Democrats have tried repeatedly this year to set federal standards for early and mail-in voting and curb partisan gerrymandering, among other provisions. But they have been consistently thwarted by a Republican blockade. To this point, Democrats have not pressed the issue. But Schumer’s new stance shows that he is ready to take the next step and start a rules fight on the Senate floor though he has so far lacked the 50 Democratic votes needed to force through a change over Republican opposition. Schumer’s move seems intended to change the dynamic of the debate and put new pressure on his colleagues to back a change. Schumer’s frustration boiled over in his letter, saying it was unfair to let states set new rules through partisan majority votes while Republicans were preventing the Senate from doing the same. “I would ask you to consider this question,” he wrote. “If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the state level with only a simple majority vote, but not allow the United States Senate to do the same?” Schumer has in the past said mainly that “all options are on the table” when it comes to pressing voting rights legislation, refraining from a direct threat on Senate rules. A group of more moderate Senate Democrats have been engaged in negotiations on rules changes with Manchin and Sinema and have reported some progress but no breakthrough. While Manchin on Sunday shattered Democratic plans to push forward on a sweeping social policy and climate change bill, he opened the door a crack to potential changes in Senate rules. “If you can make the Senate work better, the rules are something we’ve changed over the years; 232 years, there’s been rule changes,” Manchin said Sunday on Fox News. But he also suggested that he might be interested in more modest changes than Schumer and others are contemplating, saying he would continue to support the 60-vote, supermajority threshold to overcome a filibuster. Sinema has also drawn a line against partisan changes in the rules, but Democrats say they believe she would not want to be the lone holdout if Manchin were persuaded to relent on the legislative filibuster. Democrats knowledgeable about the internal deliberations say that many possible changes are under consideration, including weakening the filibuster against the preliminary “motion to proceed” to bring legislation to the floor for consideration. But in a more significant move, Democrats say they are also discussing a change that would clear the way for final action on a bill through a simple majority vote after guaranteeing opponents the opportunity to alter the legislation through a significant number of amendments. Instituting such a change would require the support of all 50 Democrats and the vote of Vice President Kamala Harris presiding to break a tie in the 50-50 Senate. Democrats say such a filibuster “carve out” would apply only to issues grounded in constitutional rights such as voting, but Republicans and others say it would inevitably be extended to other legislation, diminishing the overall power of the filibuster. The Democratic voting rights and rules change push would meet universal resistance from Republicans. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, last week accused Democrats of “rattling swords about changing the structure of the Senate” and commended Manchin for opposing it. “Changing the structure of the Senate in order to achieve a partisan advantage is a mistake for the Senate and a mistake for our country,” he said. Once used rarely, the filibuster has become a routine aspect of the Senate in recent decades and virtually all legislation now has to clear a 60-vote hurdle just to be debated on the floor, severely limiting what business can be taken up. Outraged over Republicans blocking President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees through regular filibusters, Democrats in 2013 took the procedural steps to allow most nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote. Republicans countered in 2017 by extending that rule to Supreme Court nominees, enabling President Donald Trump to install three high court justices. In a statement in the letter directed at Manchin, Schumer noted that Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a Senate stalwart whose seat Manchin occupies, said in 1979 that sometimes Senate rules that seemed appropriate “must be changed to reflect changed circumstance.” “I believe our constituents deserve to know which senators choose to hide behind ill-conceived and abused rules and which senators prefer to restore Senate floor procedures to better align with the founders’ intentions,” Schumer wrote.

Schumer will try to change Senate rules if GOP stalls voting bill

A senior US official said on Monday that there was 'no magic button' to release Afghan funds which are frozen in America. He was speaking in Islamabad a day after Organisation of Islamic Cooperation&nbsp;(OIC) summit. The summit was focussed on situation in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

Afghanistan has been going through an economic crisis ever since the Taliban captured power in August this year. The country's funds in the US have been frozen. Even after 100 days in power, Taliban government has not been able to gain worldwide recognition. International Monetary Fund (IMF) has suspended ties with the country.

There are demands, especially from Afghanistan's neighbour Pakistan to address the situation.

Though he indicated that total unfreeze of Afghan funds was unlikely in near future, the senior US official said that US has worked quietly to ensure that cash flows into Afghanistan with a view to ease humanitarian situation. He said that about 200 million dollars were shifted via UN to private banks.&nbsp;

Banking sector in Afghanistan is on the verge of collapse.

The official expressed 'serious concerns' about Taliban government. The government, formed after collapse of previous one led by Ashraf Ghani, has number of people who are on United Nations' list of terrorists.&nbsp;

Representatives of the government were given travel exemptions to facilitate their global travel for peace negotiations. The diplomat said that there would be a 'clean roll over' of these exemptions.

He stressed that the US did not see eye to eye with Taliban over number of issues that included women's rights and free media.

During the recently concluded OIC summit in Islamabad, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan made a case for stable Afghanistan arguing that if Taliban government was not supported, it would not be able to take effective counter-terrorism measures and neighbouring countries like Pakistan may suffer from terror spillover.

Former Afghan president Hamid Karzai slammed Pakistani stance as 'propaganda' and said that it was Afghanistan that had suffered due to terror spillover from Pakistan.

A senior US official said on Monday that there was 'no magic button' to release Afghan funds which are frozen in America. He was speaking in Islamabad a day after Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit.

A senior US official said on Monday that there was 'no magic button' to release Afghan funds which are frozen in America. He was speaking in Islamabad a day after Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit. The summit was focussed on situation in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been going through an economic crisis ever since the Taliban captured power in August this year. The country's funds in the US have been frozen. Even after 100 days in power, Taliban government has not been able to gain worldwide recognition. International Monetary Fund (IMF) has suspended ties with the country. There are demands, especially from Afghanistan's neighbour Pakistan to address the situation. Though he indicated that total unfreeze of Afghan funds was unlikely in near future, the senior US official said that US has worked quietly to ensure that cash flows into Afghanistan with a view to ease humanitarian situation. He said that about 200 million dollars were shifted via UN to private banks. Banking sector in Afghanistan is on the verge of collapse. The official expressed 'serious concerns' about Taliban government. The government, formed after collapse of previous one led by Ashraf Ghani, has number of people who are on United Nations' list of terrorists. Representatives of the government were given travel exemptions to facilitate their global travel for peace negotiations. The diplomat said that there would be a 'clean roll over' of these exemptions. He stressed that the US did not see eye to eye with Taliban over number of issues that included women's rights and free media. During the recently concluded OIC summit in Islamabad, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan made a case for stable Afghanistan arguing that if Taliban government was not supported, it would not be able to take effective counter-terrorism measures and neighbouring countries like Pakistan may suffer from terror spillover. Former Afghan president Hamid Karzai slammed Pakistani stance as 'propaganda' and said that it was Afghanistan that had suffered due to terror spillover from Pakistan.

'No magic button' to release Afghan funds: Senior US official

In an effort to curb the addiction epidemic that killed a record 100,000 Americans last year, the United States on Wednesday imposed sanctions on Chinese painkiller makers.

Due to the increasing trend of people who are struggling with addiction, turning to cheaper drugs purchased online from overseas, President Joe Biden signed an executive order that makes it easier for the United States to target foreign drug traffickers.

In addition, Biden created the US Council on Transnational Organized Crime, which will coordinate between departments to combat transnational crime.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-develops-new-software-to-predict-actions-that-can-trigger-outsized-chinese-reactions-437252" hreflang="en">US develops new software to predict actions that can trigger 'outsized' Chinese reactions</a>

President Biden's executive order allows the United States to target foreign drug makers directly rather than targeting cartels and other criminal organisations, which were historically the focus of US efforts.

According to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the action "will help disrupt the global supply chain and the financial networks that enable synthetic opioids and precursor chemicals to reach the United States,"

Treasury Department sanctions were imposed on four Chinese chemical companies and Chuen Fat Yip, whom it described as "one of the largest, if not the largest, producers of anabolic steroids in the world."

Additionally, the State Department is also offering a reward of up to $5 million for the arrest of the 68-year-old Chuen, believed to reside in Wuhan.

Earlier this month, US authorities seized bitcoin equivalent to $2.3 million traced to Chuen, Dallas prosecutors reported.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-lifts-barriers-to-prescribing-addiction-treatment-drug-380949">US lifts barriers to prescribing addiction treatment drug</a>

As per federal charges filed in 2018, his company produced some $280 million worth of anabolic steroids over a five-year period and sent ingredients for the painkiller fentanyl around the world in small packages.

In addition, two Mexican criminal drug groups and one Brazilian group were sanctioned by the Treasury Department.

As a result of the sanctions, any assets that the groups and Chuen may have in the United States will be blocked and all transactions from the United States will be criminalised.

The online purchases of fake painkillers and smuggled drugs from overseas have caused an increase in painkiller addiction over the past few years.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/thailand-legalises-kratom-popular-plant-based-pain-reliever-408098">Thailand legalises kratom, popular plant-based pain reliever</a>

Over 100,000 people died in America in the year through April from overdoses of painkillers. This was initially attributed to how the pharmaceutical industry eagerly promoted their use, and how readily available they became to people in despair.

Despite increased production of fentanyl tablets exported into the United States by Mexican drug traffickers, a 2020 report said the majority of the material originated in China, some of which was sent directly to Mexico.

In the report, it was noted that India, known for its pharmaceutical industry, was also becoming a source of illicit painkillers.

"I think it's very simple that a lot of the precursors to synthetic opioids originate in China," a Biden administration official said of Wednesday's actions.

"And it was important for us to send a signal on that front."

Watch |&nbsp;'Painkiller addiction': An epidemic affecting millions in the US

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/painkiller-addiction-an-epidemic-affecting-millions-in-the-us-437578/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Following heavy pressure from the United States, China banned fentanyl in April 2019.

Chinese makers however quickly branched out into selling precursors to fentanyl. These precursors are not banned and frequently have legal uses, according to a report published last year by the Center for Advanced Defense Studies.

According to the report, Chinese sellers often sell the ingredients openly on the web, thereby securing credibility and customers.

(With inputs from agencies)

In an effort to curb the addiction epidemic that killed a record 100,000 Americans last year, the United States on Wednesday imposed sanctions on Chinese painkiller makers.

In an effort to curb the addiction epidemic that killed a record 100,000 Americans last year, the United States on Wednesday imposed sanctions on Chinese painkiller makers. Due to the increasing trend of people who are struggling with addiction, turning to cheaper drugs purchased online from overseas, President Joe Biden signed an executive order that makes it easier for the United States to target foreign drug traffickers. In addition, Biden created the US Council on Transnational Organized Crime, which will coordinate between departments to combat transnational crime. Also read | US develops new software to predict actions that can trigger 'outsized' Chinese reactions President Biden's executive order allows the United States to target foreign drug makers directly rather than targeting cartels and other criminal organisations, which were historically the focus of US efforts. According to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the action "will help disrupt the global supply chain and the financial networks that enable synthetic opioids and precursor chemicals to reach the United States," Treasury Department sanctions were imposed on four Chinese chemical companies and Chuen Fat Yip, whom it described as "one of the largest, if not the largest, producers of anabolic steroids in the world." Additionally, the State Department is also offering a reward of up to $5 million for the arrest of the 68-year-old Chuen, believed to reside in Wuhan. Earlier this month, US authorities seized bitcoin equivalent to $2.3 million traced to Chuen, Dallas prosecutors reported. Also read | US lifts barriers to prescribing addiction treatment drug As per federal charges filed in 2018, his company produced some $280 million worth of anabolic steroids over a five-year period and sent ingredients for the painkiller fentanyl around the world in small packages. In addition, two Mexican criminal drug groups and one Brazilian group were sanctioned by the Treasury Department. As a result of the sanctions, any assets that the groups and Chuen may have in the United States will be blocked and all transactions from the United States will be criminalised. The online purchases of fake painkillers and smuggled drugs from overseas have caused an increase in painkiller addiction over the past few years. Also read | Thailand legalises kratom, popular plant-based pain reliever Over 100,000 people died in America in the year through April from overdoses of painkillers. This was initially attributed to how the pharmaceutical industry eagerly promoted their use, and how readily available they became to people in despair. Despite increased production of fentanyl tablets exported into the United States by Mexican drug traffickers, a 2020 report said the majority of the material originated in China, some of which was sent directly to Mexico. In the report, it was noted that India, known for its pharmaceutical industry, was also becoming a source of illicit painkillers. "I think it's very simple that a lot of the precursors to synthetic opioids originate in China," a Biden administration official said of Wednesday's actions. "And it was important for us to send a signal on that front." Watch | 'Painkiller addiction': An epidemic affecting millions in the US Following heavy pressure from the United States, China banned fentanyl in April 2019. Chinese makers however quickly branched out into selling precursors to fentanyl. These precursors are not banned and frequently have legal uses, according to a report published last year by the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. According to the report, Chinese sellers often sell the ingredients openly on the web, thereby securing credibility and customers. (With inputs from agencies)

'Painkiller epidemic': US targets Chinese firms for addiction that claimed 100,000 lives last year

A natural calamity brings destruction to any community. People are always helpless when the elements decide to turn from their nurturing selves to destructing ones. It's recovery from troubles that defines human spirit and small things give a boost to the communities which are holding hands to stand up again after a calamity.

The state of Kentucky is US is gathering itself after it was hit by a tornado. The storm was deadliest in Kentucky's history. As people recover from damage to their property and things, some unbelievable stories are coming to light.

Michaela Copeland, a woman who had kept her wedding photos in her parents' house was devastated when they were lost as the tornado hit. Her parents stayed in Mayfield, a town one of the hardest hit. She got the photos eventually but not before a surprise.

Strong winds of the tornado had flown some of her photographs to Breckinridge County, a town 225 km (140 miles) away!

In the aftermath of the tornado, people in the region formed Facebook groups to better co-ordinate the rescue and salvage effort. These groups also shared information about lost items.

Three of Michaela Copeland's photos were uploaded on one such groups 'Quad State Tornado Found Items'. People started tagging her, much to her surprise over the fact the pics were carried by the winds for nore than 200 kms away.

"When I found out and was tagged in each photo that was found, I got chills down my spine and thought it was so bizarre. Finding one is one thing but three is crazy," she said. She was quoted by BBC.

US President Joe Biden on Wednesday visited hardest hit area in Kentucky.

In storm-ravaged Mayfield, Biden received a briefing from Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear and emergency response officials about the recovery effort. Biden said it was remarkable how the area's communities had come together to help each other out.

"There's no red tornadoes, there's no blue tornadoes," he said, referring to the colors associated with Democrats and Republicans.

The president's goal was to survey storm damage and make sure the U.S. government is doing everything it can to deliver assistance as quickly as possible to the hard-hit areas, White House deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on the flight from Washington.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has sent search-and-rescue and emergency response teams to Kentucky, along with teams to help survivors register for assistance.

(With inputs from agencies)

A natural calamity brings destruction to any community. People are always helpless when the elements decide to turn from their nurturing selves to destructing ones.

A natural calamity brings destruction to any community. People are always helpless when the elements decide to turn from their nurturing selves to destructing ones. It's recovery from troubles that defines human spirit and small things give a boost to the communities which are holding hands to stand up again after a calamity. The state of Kentucky is US is gathering itself after it was hit by a tornado. The storm was deadliest in Kentucky's history. As people recover from damage to their property and things, some unbelievable stories are coming to light. Michaela Copeland, a woman who had kept her wedding photos in her parents' house was devastated when they were lost as the tornado hit. Her parents stayed in Mayfield, a town one of the hardest hit. She got the photos eventually but not before a surprise. Strong winds of the tornado had flown some of her photographs to Breckinridge County, a town 225 km (140 miles) away! In the aftermath of the tornado, people in the region formed Facebook groups to better co-ordinate the rescue and salvage effort. These groups also shared information about lost items. Three of Michaela Copeland's photos were uploaded on one such groups 'Quad State Tornado Found Items'. People started tagging her, much to her surprise over the fact the pics were carried by the winds for nore than 200 kms away. "When I found out and was tagged in each photo that was found, I got chills down my spine and thought it was so bizarre. Finding one is one thing but three is crazy," she said. She was quoted by BBC. US President Joe Biden on Wednesday visited hardest hit area in Kentucky. In storm-ravaged Mayfield, Biden received a briefing from Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear and emergency response officials about the recovery effort. Biden said it was remarkable how the area's communities had come together to help each other out. "There's no red tornadoes, there's no blue tornadoes," he said, referring to the colors associated with Democrats and Republicans. The president's goal was to survey storm damage and make sure the U.S. government is doing everything it can to deliver assistance as quickly as possible to the hard-hit areas, White House deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on the flight from Washington. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has sent search-and-rescue and emergency response teams to Kentucky, along with teams to help survivors register for assistance. (With inputs from agencies)

Photos lost in Kentucky tornado found in town 225 kms away

When Virgil Abloh died last week at the age of 41, I thought of my father. Many in the Black community did. We thought of all the other Black men we’ve loved and lost too early: our friends, our fathers, our brothers. And we thought about ourselves.

To know Blackness is to know death, as close to us as breath is to being. For two years, Mr. Abloh, a fashion designer and icon, hid his diagnosis of cardiac angiosarcoma, a rare type of cancer, from the public. It’s a story reminiscent of Chadwick Boseman’s, who died from colon cancer in 2020 following his diagnosis in 2016. Their privacy about their struggles is a shattering kind of silence.

What was it like to be Mr. Abloh in those two years that he knew he was ill? Was he watching the clock, the minute hands meeting glorious, terrifying hours, like my father did, like I do?

It is a silence familiar to those who share air, space and lifetimes with Black men who have gone too soon — the actor Michael K. Williams, the rappers Nipsey Hussle and Young Dolph, and George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Eric Garner among them. It is a silence most familiar if you are born a Black man in America.

None of us know when we are going to die. There is no crystal ball, no psychic hotline, no palm reading that can predict the moment of our death or tell us what awaits on the other side. But as Black men in the United States, we do know we are likely to die sooner than most. And when we are confronted with constant peril and trauma, in every hospital visit, every encounter with law enforcement, every too-long stare, every grainy bystander video capturing our last breaths, we are not only prone to be scared of death, but are prone to be scared to death.

Black men are not alone in this — the health care outcomes for Black women show similar inequity. Black women are 60 percent more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have high blood pressure and three times as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as white women are.

I lost my father in September, but I had been expecting his death for years. Trauma and suffering are relative, but my father suffered more than most. Drafted into the Army in 1968, he left Vietnam in 1970 with a Bronze Medal. Afterward, he would often tell my mother that he wasn’t sure if he had murdered any children while on active duty. Loving and brave, boisterous and dangerous, my father was a bomb waiting to explode.

Later, my father suffered from dementia, bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. These were consequences not only of Vietnam but also of Pensacola, Fla., still segregated when my father grew up there in the 1950s and ’60s. At the age of 72, my father died of natural causes. But I think my father died because he was tired of living. Because he was tired of a country that neglected him from the moment he was born. Charles Lorenzo Daniels Jr. died because as a Black man in America, he was taught to prepare for his death long before it happened.

In the wake of my father’s health issues and Mr. Boseman’s death, I thought about my own. So this past summer, at the age of 38, I finally went to see a doctor. It was the first time I’d been to see a primary care physician in over two decades. Cancer and heart disease are among the leading causes of death for Black men, and African Americans are more likely to get, and more likely than other groups to die from, colorectal cancer, which killed Mr. Boseman. Preventive care is the best defense from this and many other illnesses and ailments. My visit to the doctor was a belated but necessary act of self-preservation.

Like too many Black men, I’ve struggled with suicidal ideations, with an undying fear of not being enough or being too much, and with the gap between Black life and the death I feel constantly looming. This is all a heavy burden to carry, and racism and internalized masculinity norms can reduce Black men’s willingness to seek help. Depressed African American men are less likely to seek mental health treatment, compared with depressed white men. Our masculinity, and the fragility surrounding the ego it upholds, can keep us from asking for and receiving the help we need.

We must break our silence and begin the process of opening ourselves up to one another and the ones we love. If we continue to hide our pain, our grief, our heartache in the shadows, we will continue to mourn prematurely our brothers, our fathers, our friends.

As I watched a video of the rapper DMX comforting his daughter on an amusement ride, which went viral after his death, I wondered: Did he feel death biting at his neck that sunny day?

I wonder whether every Black man who dies in the public eye will make me think of my father. Probably. My hope is that those thoughts will not linger in silence, but will instead be as loud, as bright and as burning as all the names of all the Black men gone too soon — including my father, Charles Lorenzo Daniels Jr.

When Virgil Abloh died last week at the age of 41, I thought of my father. Many in the Black community did. We thought of all the other Black men we’ve loved and lost too early: our friends, our fathers, our brothers.

When Virgil Abloh died last week at the age of 41, I thought of my father. Many in the Black community did. We thought of all the other Black men we’ve loved and lost too early: our friends, our fathers, our brothers. And we thought about ourselves. To know Blackness is to know death, as close to us as breath is to being. For two years, Mr. Abloh, a fashion designer and icon, hid his diagnosis of cardiac angiosarcoma, a rare type of cancer, from the public. It’s a story reminiscent of Chadwick Boseman’s, who died from colon cancer in 2020 following his diagnosis in 2016. Their privacy about their struggles is a shattering kind of silence. What was it like to be Mr. Abloh in those two years that he knew he was ill? Was he watching the clock, the minute hands meeting glorious, terrifying hours, like my father did, like I do? It is a silence familiar to those who share air, space and lifetimes with Black men who have gone too soon — the actor Michael K. Williams, the rappers Nipsey Hussle and Young Dolph, and George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Eric Garner among them. It is a silence most familiar if you are born a Black man in America. None of us know when we are going to die. There is no crystal ball, no psychic hotline, no palm reading that can predict the moment of our death or tell us what awaits on the other side. But as Black men in the United States, we do know we are likely to die sooner than most. And when we are confronted with constant peril and trauma, in every hospital visit, every encounter with law enforcement, every too-long stare, every grainy bystander video capturing our last breaths, we are not only prone to be scared of death, but are prone to be scared to death. Black men are not alone in this — the health care outcomes for Black women show similar inequity. Black women are 60 percent more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have high blood pressure and three times as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as white women are. I lost my father in September, but I had been expecting his death for years. Trauma and suffering are relative, but my father suffered more than most. Drafted into the Army in 1968, he left Vietnam in 1970 with a Bronze Medal. Afterward, he would often tell my mother that he wasn’t sure if he had murdered any children while on active duty. Loving and brave, boisterous and dangerous, my father was a bomb waiting to explode. Later, my father suffered from dementia, bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. These were consequences not only of Vietnam but also of Pensacola, Fla., still segregated when my father grew up there in the 1950s and ’60s. At the age of 72, my father died of natural causes. But I think my father died because he was tired of living. Because he was tired of a country that neglected him from the moment he was born. Charles Lorenzo Daniels Jr. died because as a Black man in America, he was taught to prepare for his death long before it happened. In the wake of my father’s health issues and Mr. Boseman’s death, I thought about my own. So this past summer, at the age of 38, I finally went to see a doctor. It was the first time I’d been to see a primary care physician in over two decades. Cancer and heart disease are among the leading causes of death for Black men, and African Americans are more likely to get, and more likely than other groups to die from, colorectal cancer, which killed Mr. Boseman. Preventive care is the best defense from this and many other illnesses and ailments. My visit to the doctor was a belated but necessary act of self-preservation. Like too many Black men, I’ve struggled with suicidal ideations, with an undying fear of not being enough or being too much, and with the gap between Black life and the death I feel constantly looming. This is all a heavy burden to carry, and racism and internalized masculinity norms can reduce Black men’s willingness to seek help. Depressed African American men are less likely to seek mental health treatment, compared with depressed white men. Our masculinity, and the fragility surrounding the ego it upholds, can keep us from asking for and receiving the help we need. We must break our silence and begin the process of opening ourselves up to one another and the ones we love. If we continue to hide our pain, our grief, our heartache in the shadows, we will continue to mourn prematurely our brothers, our fathers, our friends. As I watched a video of the rapper DMX comforting his daughter on an amusement ride, which went viral after his death, I wondered: Did he feel death biting at his neck that sunny day? I wonder whether every Black man who dies in the public eye will make me think of my father. Probably. My hope is that those thoughts will not linger in silence, but will instead be as loud, as bright and as burning as all the names of all the Black men gone too soon — including my father, Charles Lorenzo Daniels Jr.

As a black man in America, I feel death looming every day

I take no joy in sounding the alarm, but I do so as a proud Democrat who has won three statewide races in a rural, red state — the Democrats are in trouble in rural America, and their struggles there could doom the party in 2022.

The warning signs were already there in 2020 when Democrats fell short in congressional and state races despite electing Joe Biden president. I know because I was on the ballot for U.S. Senate and lost. In the last decade and a half, we’ve seen Senate seats flip red in Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, and more. Democrats have lost more than 900 state legislative seats around the country since 2008. And in this year’s governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, we saw the Democratic vote in rural areas plummet, costing the party one seat and nearly losing us the other. It was even worse for Democrats down ballot, as Democrats lost state legislative, county, and municipal seats.

The core problem is a familiar one — Democrats are out of touch with the needs of the ordinary voter. In 2021, voters watched Congress debate for months the cost of an infrastructure bill while holding a social spending bill hostage. Both measures contain policies that address the challenges Americans across the country face. Yet to anyone outside the Beltway, the infighting and procedural brinkmanship haven’t done a lick to meet their needs at a moment of health challenges, inflation and economic struggles. You had Democrats fighting Democrats, letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and desperately needed progress was delayed. It’s no wonder rural voters think Democrats are not focused on helping them.

I was re-elected as Montana’s governor in 2016 at the same time Donald Trump took our state by more than 20 points. It’s never easy for Democrats to get elected in Montana, because Democrats here are running against not only the opponent on the ballot, but also against conservative media’s (and at times our own) typecast of the national Democratic brand: coastal, overly educated, elitist, judgmental, socialist — a bundle of identity groups and interests lacking any shared principles. The problem isn’t the candidates we nominate. It’s the perception of the party we belong to.

To overcome these obstacles, Democrats need to show up, listen, and respect voters in rural America by finding common ground instead of talking down to them. Eliminating student loans isn’t a top-of-mind matter for the two-thirds of Americans lacking a college degree. Being told that climate change is the most critical issue our nation faces rings hollow if you’re struggling to make it to the end of the month. And the most insulting thing is being told what your self-interest should be.

Get out of the cities and you will learn we have a libertarian streak, with a healthy distrust of government. We listen when folks talk about opportunity and fairness, not entitlements. We expect government to play a role in our having a fair shot at a better life, not solve all our problems.

We need to frame our policies, not in terms of grand ideological narratives, but around the material concerns of voters. Despite our differences and no matter where we live, we generally all want the same things: a decent job, a safe place to call home, good schools, clean air and water, and the promise of a better life for our kids and grandkids.

For me, that meant talking about Obamacare not as an entitlement, but as a way to save rural hospitals and keep local communities and small businesses afloat. It meant talking about expanding apprenticeships, not just lowering the costs of college. It meant framing public lands as a great equalizer and as a driver for small business. It meant talking about universal pre-K not as an abstract policy goal, but being essential for our children and for keeping parents in the work force. It meant talking about climate change not just as a crisis, but as an opportunity to create good jobs, preserve our outdoor heritage, and as a promise not to leave communities behind.

These lessons apply broadly, not just to swing states. We need to do the hard work of convincing voters that we are fighting for every American, regardless of party or where they live, or it’ll only get worse for us in the 2022 midterms and beyond.

It’s in the void of inaction and failure to solve problems real people face that racially tinged cultural fights, like we saw in Virginia, take hold. My children are in high school and have never heard of critical race theory — nor have their teachers. What voters want to know is that Democrats will fight for racial justice and to improve the lives of rural Americans, no matter the color of their skin. After all, that’s what we’ve always done.

In the parts of America that are completely rural, there are nine infants and toddlers for every day care slot, one in eight lacks health insurance, and for one in four, over half of income goes to rent. High-speed internet has eluded many parts of our country. Voters in my state may have grown cynical about the legislative process, infighting and eye-popping price tags in Washington, but enacting the Build Back Better bill, along with the bipartisan infrastructure bill, gives Democrats something to run on: proof that we have voters’ backs, including those who live in rural America.

It’s time for Democrats to get uncomfortable and go beyond friendly urban and suburban settings to hear directly from folks in small towns who are trying to run a business, pay the bills, and maintain access to health care. They have stories to tell and ideas to share, and we should listen. When then-candidate Barack Obama spent the Fourth of July 2008 in Butte, Mont., he didn’t go there because Butte was suddenly key to winning in November, but showing up there sent a loud and clear message to places like Butte all across our country that he gives a damn about us.

Butte and Scranton may be a long way from each other geographically, but they’re not that far apart in terms of working-class roots, values and attitudes. President Biden can help rural Americans know and believe Democrats are tackling the challenges they face. Democrats need to get off the polling and consultant calls, get into the community and engage voters directly: Do you have a decent job that covers the bills and leaves a little left over? Can you afford your home and pay for health care? Do you feel safe? Do you believe we are doing right for your kids, educationally, environmentally and economically? Do you see a path forward toward a better life for you and your family?

Fighting for every American means that, whether you live in Manhattan, N.Y. or Manhattan, Mont., you have an opportunity to climb the economic ladder and a temporary safety net to catch you if you stumble. Too often the Democratic Party comes off as a buffet line of policies, each prepared for a different group of voters. If we talk about — and work to address — the issues that people discuss around their kitchen table or at the fence line, the issues that fill endless hours of cable television become a hell of a lot less relevant. Our kitchen tables might look and feel different, but we need to learn to talk in a way that makes sense around everyone’s table.

Voters are facing real challenges — and so is our country. They need to know that Democrats are listening, working, and fighting for them. The voters deserve that level of respect and need to know we have their back.

I take no joy in sounding the alarm, but I do so as a proud Democrat who has won three statewide races in a rural, red state — the Democrats are in trouble in rural America, and their struggles there could doom the party in 2022.

I take no joy in sounding the alarm, but I do so as a proud Democrat who has won three statewide races in a rural, red state — the Democrats are in trouble in rural America, and their struggles there could doom the party in 2022. The warning signs were already there in 2020 when Democrats fell short in congressional and state races despite electing Joe Biden president. I know because I was on the ballot for U.S. Senate and lost. In the last decade and a half, we’ve seen Senate seats flip red in Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, and more. Democrats have lost more than 900 state legislative seats around the country since 2008. And in this year’s governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, we saw the Democratic vote in rural areas plummet, costing the party one seat and nearly losing us the other. It was even worse for Democrats down ballot, as Democrats lost state legislative, county, and municipal seats. The core problem is a familiar one — Democrats are out of touch with the needs of the ordinary voter. In 2021, voters watched Congress debate for months the cost of an infrastructure bill while holding a social spending bill hostage. Both measures contain policies that address the challenges Americans across the country face. Yet to anyone outside the Beltway, the infighting and procedural brinkmanship haven’t done a lick to meet their needs at a moment of health challenges, inflation and economic struggles. You had Democrats fighting Democrats, letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and desperately needed progress was delayed. It’s no wonder rural voters think Democrats are not focused on helping them. I was re-elected as Montana’s governor in 2016 at the same time Donald Trump took our state by more than 20 points. It’s never easy for Democrats to get elected in Montana, because Democrats here are running against not only the opponent on the ballot, but also against conservative media’s (and at times our own) typecast of the national Democratic brand: coastal, overly educated, elitist, judgmental, socialist — a bundle of identity groups and interests lacking any shared principles. The problem isn’t the candidates we nominate. It’s the perception of the party we belong to. To overcome these obstacles, Democrats need to show up, listen, and respect voters in rural America by finding common ground instead of talking down to them. Eliminating student loans isn’t a top-of-mind matter for the two-thirds of Americans lacking a college degree. Being told that climate change is the most critical issue our nation faces rings hollow if you’re struggling to make it to the end of the month. And the most insulting thing is being told what your self-interest should be. Get out of the cities and you will learn we have a libertarian streak, with a healthy distrust of government. We listen when folks talk about opportunity and fairness, not entitlements. We expect government to play a role in our having a fair shot at a better life, not solve all our problems. We need to frame our policies, not in terms of grand ideological narratives, but around the material concerns of voters. Despite our differences and no matter where we live, we generally all want the same things: a decent job, a safe place to call home, good schools, clean air and water, and the promise of a better life for our kids and grandkids. For me, that meant talking about Obamacare not as an entitlement, but as a way to save rural hospitals and keep local communities and small businesses afloat. It meant talking about expanding apprenticeships, not just lowering the costs of college. It meant framing public lands as a great equalizer and as a driver for small business. It meant talking about universal pre-K not as an abstract policy goal, but being essential for our children and for keeping parents in the work force. It meant talking about climate change not just as a crisis, but as an opportunity to create good jobs, preserve our outdoor heritage, and as a promise not to leave communities behind. These lessons apply broadly, not just to swing states. We need to do the hard work of convincing voters that we are fighting for every American, regardless of party or where they live, or it’ll only get worse for us in the 2022 midterms and beyond. It’s in the void of inaction and failure to solve problems real people face that racially tinged cultural fights, like we saw in Virginia, take hold. My children are in high school and have never heard of critical race theory — nor have their teachers. What voters want to know is that Democrats will fight for racial justice and to improve the lives of rural Americans, no matter the color of their skin. After all, that’s what we’ve always done. In the parts of America that are completely rural, there are nine infants and toddlers for every day care slot, one in eight lacks health insurance, and for one in four, over half of income goes to rent. High-speed internet has eluded many parts of our country. Voters in my state may have grown cynical about the legislative process, infighting and eye-popping price tags in Washington, but enacting the Build Back Better bill, along with the bipartisan infrastructure bill, gives Democrats something to run on: proof that we have voters’ backs, including those who live in rural America. It’s time for Democrats to get uncomfortable and go beyond friendly urban and suburban settings to hear directly from folks in small towns who are trying to run a business, pay the bills, and maintain access to health care. They have stories to tell and ideas to share, and we should listen. When then-candidate Barack Obama spent the Fourth of July 2008 in Butte, Mont., he didn’t go there because Butte was suddenly key to winning in November, but showing up there sent a loud and clear message to places like Butte all across our country that he gives a damn about us. Butte and Scranton may be a long way from each other geographically, but they’re not that far apart in terms of working-class roots, values and attitudes. President Biden can help rural Americans know and believe Democrats are tackling the challenges they face. Democrats need to get off the polling and consultant calls, get into the community and engage voters directly: Do you have a decent job that covers the bills and leaves a little left over? Can you afford your home and pay for health care? Do you feel safe? Do you believe we are doing right for your kids, educationally, environmentally and economically? Do you see a path forward toward a better life for you and your family? Fighting for every American means that, whether you live in Manhattan, N.Y. or Manhattan, Mont., you have an opportunity to climb the economic ladder and a temporary safety net to catch you if you stumble. Too often the Democratic Party comes off as a buffet line of policies, each prepared for a different group of voters. If we talk about — and work to address — the issues that people discuss around their kitchen table or at the fence line, the issues that fill endless hours of cable television become a hell of a lot less relevant. Our kitchen tables might look and feel different, but we need to learn to talk in a way that makes sense around everyone’s table. Voters are facing real challenges — and so is our country. They need to know that Democrats are listening, working, and fighting for them. The voters deserve that level of respect and need to know we have their back.

Democrats are in trouble in rural America. But there’s a way out

Russia said on Sunday that a US spy plane nearly caused a 'mid-air' collision with a Russian commercial flight. Moscow said that that the 'catastrophe' was avoided when the Russian plane dived to avoid the collision.

On Friday morning a NATO CL600 reconnaissance aircraft descended rapidly in airspace above Black Sea. The descent took place across the planned route for Aeroflot passenger plane. The commercial plane was going from Tel Aviv to Moscow and there were 142 people on board, as per Russia's Federal Air Transport Agency's statement.

The Aeroflot flight reportedly had to drop 500 metres (1,600 feet) to keep its distance from the reconnaissance aircraft, which the pilots saw from the cockpit with the naked eye.

A second plane, a smaller CL650 aircraft, flying from the Black Sea resort Sochi to Skopje, the capital of Northern Macedonia, also had to divert to avoid the spy plane, the Russian air transport authority said Saturday.

"The direction and altitude of the commercial flights were immediately altered" to avoid a collision, the agency said, adding that the unknown plane did not respond to radio hails from air traffic control.

While the Federal Air Transport Agency did not say which nation had operated the spy plane, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova indicated on Sunday that the reconnaissance aircraft belonged to the United States.

"The actions of the US Air Force have created a threat to civil aviation," Zakharova said on messaging app Telegram.

"If now a catastrophe in the airspace over the open waters of the Black Sea has been averted, this does not mean that the United States and NATO can continue to risk people's lives with impunity."

The Federal Air Transport Agency said it would lodge a diplomatic protest.

"Increased activity by NATO aircraft near Russia's borders, including above the Black Sea, creates a risk of dangerous accidents involving civilian aircraft," the agency said.

The incident came as tensions rise between Russia and Western nations, which accuse Moscow of massing troops on its border with Ukraine in preparation for a possible invasion.

Russia has denied it has any such plans, in turn accusing NATO countries of "provocations" including military exercises near its borders.

(With inputs from agencies)

Russia said on Sunday that a US spy plane nearly caused a 'mid-air' collision with a Russian commercial flight. Moscow said that that the 'catastrophe' was avoided when the Russian plane dived to avoid the collision.

Russia said on Sunday that a US spy plane nearly caused a 'mid-air' collision with a Russian commercial flight. Moscow said that that the 'catastrophe' was avoided when the Russian plane dived to avoid the collision. On Friday morning a NATO CL600 reconnaissance aircraft descended rapidly in airspace above Black Sea. The descent took place across the planned route for Aeroflot passenger plane. The commercial plane was going from Tel Aviv to Moscow and there were 142 people on board, as per Russia's Federal Air Transport Agency's statement. The Aeroflot flight reportedly had to drop 500 metres (1,600 feet) to keep its distance from the reconnaissance aircraft, which the pilots saw from the cockpit with the naked eye. A second plane, a smaller CL650 aircraft, flying from the Black Sea resort Sochi to Skopje, the capital of Northern Macedonia, also had to divert to avoid the spy plane, the Russian air transport authority said Saturday. "The direction and altitude of the commercial flights were immediately altered" to avoid a collision, the agency said, adding that the unknown plane did not respond to radio hails from air traffic control. While the Federal Air Transport Agency did not say which nation had operated the spy plane, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova indicated on Sunday that the reconnaissance aircraft belonged to the United States. "The actions of the US Air Force have created a threat to civil aviation," Zakharova said on messaging app Telegram. "If now a catastrophe in the airspace over the open waters of the Black Sea has been averted, this does not mean that the United States and NATO can continue to risk people's lives with impunity." The Federal Air Transport Agency said it would lodge a diplomatic protest. "Increased activity by NATO aircraft near Russia's borders, including above the Black Sea, creates a risk of dangerous accidents involving civilian aircraft," the agency said. The incident came as tensions rise between Russia and Western nations, which accuse Moscow of massing troops on its border with Ukraine in preparation for a possible invasion. Russia has denied it has any such plans, in turn accusing NATO countries of "provocations" including military exercises near its borders. (With inputs from agencies)

Russia says US spy plane threatened to cause mid-air collision

While highlighting major trends that are shaping the geopolitics in the Indian Ocean Regin, India’s external affairs minister S Jaishankar on Saturday talked about China’s rise and the changing American strategic posture to adjust itself in the multipolar world.

Jaishankar was speaking at the two-day 5th Indian Ocean Conference in Abu Dabi, ending on December 5. The theme of the Indian Ocean Conference 2021 is “Indian Ocean: Ecology, Economy, Epidemic”.

“We are meeting after a bit of a gap due to Covid. In that period, a number of developments have taken place that has a direct bearing on the well-being of the Indian Ocean Region,” he said.

“A starting point could be the trend lines that have influenced the evolution of the Indian Ocean in recent years. First and foremost is the changing American strategic posture. Since 2008 we’ve witnessed greater caution in US power projection and an effort to correct its overextension,” he added.

He pointed out that the US is moving towards greater realism and is adjusting to multipolarity and rebalancing and re-examining the balance between its domestic revival and commitments abroad.

“It may have taken different forms and been articulated in very different ways, but there’s a larger consistency over 3 administration that they themselves may not readily recognise. It is expressed in footprint and posture, terms of engagement, the extent of involvement and nature of initiatives,” Jaishankar said.

Also read |&nbsp;I<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-keeping-close-eye-on-chinese-activities-in-indian-ocean-says-newly-appointed-navy-chief-433967">ndia keeping close eye on Chinese activities in Indian Ocean, says newly appointed Navy Chief</a>

“This makes it a more active partner beyond orthodox constructs, given how strong its influence is on the Indian Ocean, this cannot but have implications. We must also bear in mind the uniqueness of the US polity and&nbsp;its ability to re-invent itself,” he added.

Talking about the emergence of China on the global stage, Jaishankar said, “Second major trend is the rise of China. Even otherwise, the emergence of power at the global level is extraordinary happening. That it’s a different kind of polity enhances a sense of change. The USSR may have borne some similarities, but never had centrality to the global economy that China has today.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/jaishankar-says-india-china-going-through-bad-patch-beijing-lacks-credible-explanation-for-lac-actions-430668">Jaishankar says India, China going through 'bad patch,' Beijing lacks credible explanation for LAC actions</a>

“Consequences of China's growing capabilities are particularly profound because of extrapolation of its domestic seamlessness to the world outside. As a result, whether it's connectivity, technology or trade, there's now an ongoing debate on the changing nature of power and influence,” he added.

Over two days, senior leaders from Indian Ocean littoral countries will cover the issues related to the region in the pre-conference workshops and plenary sessions, the India Foundation said.

There will be around 200 delegates and over 50 speakers from 30 countries. The inaugural address will be delivered by President of Sri Lanka Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the think-tank said.

The conference is being organised in collaboration with the RSIS Singapore, Institute of National Security Studies, Sri Lanka, and the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research, UAE, it added.

(With inputs from agencies)

While highlighting major trends that are shaping the geopolitics in the Indian Ocean Regin, India’s external affairs minister S Jaishankar on Saturday talked about China’s rise and the changing American strategic posture to adjust itself in the multipolar world.

While highlighting major trends that are shaping the geopolitics in the Indian Ocean Regin, India’s external affairs minister S Jaishankar on Saturday talked about China’s rise and the changing American strategic posture to adjust itself in the multipolar world. Jaishankar was speaking at the two-day 5th Indian Ocean Conference in Abu Dabi, ending on December 5. The theme of the Indian Ocean Conference 2021 is “Indian Ocean: Ecology, Economy, Epidemic”. “We are meeting after a bit of a gap due to Covid. In that period, a number of developments have taken place that has a direct bearing on the well-being of the Indian Ocean Region,” he said. “A starting point could be the trend lines that have influenced the evolution of the Indian Ocean in recent years. First and foremost is the changing American strategic posture. Since 2008 we’ve witnessed greater caution in US power projection and an effort to correct its overextension,” he added. He pointed out that the US is moving towards greater realism and is adjusting to multipolarity and rebalancing and re-examining the balance between its domestic revival and commitments abroad. “It may have taken different forms and been articulated in very different ways, but there’s a larger consistency over 3 administration that they themselves may not readily recognise. It is expressed in footprint and posture, terms of engagement, the extent of involvement and nature of initiatives,” Jaishankar said. Also read | India keeping close eye on Chinese activities in Indian Ocean, says newly appointed Navy Chief “This makes it a more active partner beyond orthodox constructs, given how strong its influence is on the Indian Ocean, this cannot but have implications. We must also bear in mind the uniqueness of the US polity and its ability to re-invent itself,” he added. Talking about the emergence of China on the global stage, Jaishankar said, “Second major trend is the rise of China. Even otherwise, the emergence of power at the global level is extraordinary happening. That it’s a different kind of polity enhances a sense of change. The USSR may have borne some similarities, but never had centrality to the global economy that China has today.” Also read | Jaishankar says India, China going through 'bad patch,' Beijing lacks credible explanation for LAC actions “Consequences of China's growing capabilities are particularly profound because of extrapolation of its domestic seamlessness to the world outside. As a result, whether it's connectivity, technology or trade, there's now an ongoing debate on the changing nature of power and influence,” he added. Over two days, senior leaders from Indian Ocean littoral countries will cover the issues related to the region in the pre-conference workshops and plenary sessions, the India Foundation said. There will be around 200 delegates and over 50 speakers from 30 countries. The inaugural address will be delivered by President of Sri Lanka Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the think-tank said. The conference is being organised in collaboration with the RSIS Singapore, Institute of National Security Studies, Sri Lanka, and the Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research, UAE, it added. (With inputs from agencies)

Rise of China, USA's realignment: India’s Jaishankar talks on changing geopolitics in Indian Ocean

President Joe Biden came away from his summit with China’s President Xi Jinping on Nov. 15 committed to prosecuting what he called “simple, straightforward competition” with China. Yet Beijing is already beating the United States and its allies in one crucial domain: data.

Data is the oil of the 21st century, the indispensable resource that will fuel artificial-intelligence algorithms, economic strength and national power. The wellspring of this data is all of us: our health records and genetic sequences, our online habits, the supply chain flows of our businesses, the terabytes of imagery guzzled by phones, drones and autonomous cars.

The competition for global influence in the 21st century will require protecting and harnessing this data to achieve commercial, technological and military advantages. So far, China is winning, and the West is barely even engaged.

Through a latticework of recent laws and regulations, Mr. Xi has been hard at work making the Chinese Communist Party the world’s most powerful data broker. How does Beijing do that? By walling Chinese data off from the world, exerting new extraterritorial power over global data flows and putting foreign companies operating in China in a legal bind — all while absorbing other countries’ data by means licit and illicit.

Mr. Xi knows that even locking down only Chinese data, representing the patterns and behavior of some 1.4 billion people, would hobble Beijing’s rivals in the quest for global economic superiority.

The Biden administration has spoken about the importance of data in our competition with China. But no visible strategy has emerged. That threatens Americans’ privacy, economic competitiveness, national security and future global standing. This will be a major test of America’s China policy in 2022.

Washington’s blind spot to the centrality of big data in Beijing’s ambitions and to the ways our own data are being exploited in service of those ambitions is perplexing at a time when American politicians are growing more concerned about the collection and potential exploitation of big data by U.S. tech giants.

It is further perplexing because Americans in bipartisan fashion also are wising up to the ways that Beijing exploits and weaponizes other U.S. resources, like our capital markets.

That’s evident in how Washington is finally — if fitfully — beginning to address the self-destructive flow of U.S. dollars into China’s military and global surveillance apparatus. While these sorts of measures still need to be scaled up dramatically, at least policymakers now have some tools to curb Beijing’s easy access to U.S. capital.

Not so when it comes to data, where Beijing believes that it has a free hand and that the West is too distracted or feckless to respond meaningfully. Mr. Xi is thinking and acting big, and has been since his first days in power.

In 2013, shortly after assuming the presidency in Beijing, Mr. Xi declared: “The vast ocean of data, just like oil resources during industrialization, contains immense productive power and opportunities. Whoever controls big data technologies will control the resources for development and have the upper hand.”

Since then, Beijing has been building the framework to ensure that mass accumulations of data serve the Chinese Communist Party’s strategic interests.

A series of laws implemented in 2017 asserted the party’s power to gain access to private data on Chinese networks, whether in China or associated with Chinese firms such as Huawei overseas.

Now Beijing has quietly enacted a new set of laws — first the Data Security Law in September, followed in November by the Personal Information Protection Law — that go even further by demanding not just access to private data but also effective control over it.

This has a huge impact on foreign firms operating in China. Not only must their Chinese data stay in China and be accessible by the state, but Beijing now demands control over whether they can send it to their own headquarters; to a corporate lab in, say, California; or to a foreign government that has made a law enforcement or regulatory request.

Beijing’s new laws may make it criminal to comply with foreign sanctions against China that involve data — like shutting off banking or cloud services to a Chinese entity linked to human rights atrocities. In these cases, foreign firms can comply with U.S. law, or they can comply with Chinese law, but not both.

The impact of these laws is clear. Tesla, Apple and others have opted to build dedicated Chinese data centers — sometimes in partnership with Chinese state entities, lest they lose access to the large Chinese consumer market. Goldman Sachs faced pressure against sending memos to its U.S. headquarters.

Beijing’s recent actions complement its longstanding efforts to buy, steal and otherwise acquire data from foreign sources worldwide. Beijing hacks multinational corporate databases. It runs “talent recruitment” programs at foreign universities and firms. It buys foreign companies, such as an Italian maker of military drones. It funds its own data-driven start-ups in open foreign markets like Silicon Valley.

The approach is nakedly nonreciprocal. It relies on access to foreign data while denying foreigners access to Chinese data — and appears to assume that foreign governments won’t respond. The United States, after all, has no comprehensive federal approach to data governance, while the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation is focused mostly on consumer privacy.

Will American and allied policymakers develop approaches to limit strategic data flows to China? For now, the Biden administration’s answer is: maybe.

“Our strategic competitors see big data as a strategic asset,” the U.S. national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said this summer, “and we have to see it the same way.”

This is clear and compelling language. But data did not appear to be high on Mr. Biden’s agenda with Mr. Xi, judging from official readouts of the summit.

And to date, U.S. policy remedies are idle and insufficient.

In June, the administration issued an executive order embracing a new regulatory process to restrict cross-border data flows on national security grounds. But the new process hasn’t yet been put to use — not against Chinese drones, Chinese access to U.S. data centers and biotech labs, or other potential targets.

In the meantime, U.S. diplomats’ and trade negotiators’ engagement on data issues is dominated by bitter fights with European regulators over privacy rules for American tech giants. The far greater threat from Beijing goes largely unaddressed.

The good news is that if democratic nations get their act together, they may be in a better position than Beijing, which complicates its own progress through apparent paranoia.

In recent months, Mr. Xi has cracked down on private Chinese tech giants such as Alibaba and Tencent, forcing them to relinquish their data troves to state-controlled third parties. This crackdown, which helped erase more than $1 trillion in market value, will make these companies less innovative now that they no longer control their data.

But banking on Chinese authoritarian overreach to preserve America’s edge is no strategy.

A smarter approach would begin domestically, with actual (and robust) implementation of the Biden administration’s June executive order. This would entail blocking or unwinding arrangements by which large volumes of sensitive U.S. data flow to China, whether through medical records, cellphone apps or other channels — all of which are basically unregulated right now.

Democratic allies must also work together to promote data sharing among themselves while limiting flows to China. A blueprint was introduced by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. This idea, called Data Free Flow With Trust, ought to become allied policy.

For upward of a generation, Beijing has been coldly effective in designing a strategy of global data mercantilism: data hoarding for me, data relinquishing for thee.

If Washington and its allies don’t organize a strong response, Mr. Xi will succeed in commanding the heights of future global power.

President Joe Biden came away from his summit with China’s President Xi Jinping on Nov. 15 committed to prosecuting what he called “simple, straightforward competition” with China.

President Joe Biden came away from his summit with China’s President Xi Jinping on Nov. 15 committed to prosecuting what he called “simple, straightforward competition” with China. Yet Beijing is already beating the United States and its allies in one crucial domain: data. Data is the oil of the 21st century, the indispensable resource that will fuel artificial-intelligence algorithms, economic strength and national power. The wellspring of this data is all of us: our health records and genetic sequences, our online habits, the supply chain flows of our businesses, the terabytes of imagery guzzled by phones, drones and autonomous cars. The competition for global influence in the 21st century will require protecting and harnessing this data to achieve commercial, technological and military advantages. So far, China is winning, and the West is barely even engaged. Through a latticework of recent laws and regulations, Mr. Xi has been hard at work making the Chinese Communist Party the world’s most powerful data broker. How does Beijing do that? By walling Chinese data off from the world, exerting new extraterritorial power over global data flows and putting foreign companies operating in China in a legal bind — all while absorbing other countries’ data by means licit and illicit. Mr. Xi knows that even locking down only Chinese data, representing the patterns and behavior of some 1.4 billion people, would hobble Beijing’s rivals in the quest for global economic superiority. The Biden administration has spoken about the importance of data in our competition with China. But no visible strategy has emerged. That threatens Americans’ privacy, economic competitiveness, national security and future global standing. This will be a major test of America’s China policy in 2022. Washington’s blind spot to the centrality of big data in Beijing’s ambitions and to the ways our own data are being exploited in service of those ambitions is perplexing at a time when American politicians are growing more concerned about the collection and potential exploitation of big data by U.S. tech giants. It is further perplexing because Americans in bipartisan fashion also are wising up to the ways that Beijing exploits and weaponizes other U.S. resources, like our capital markets. That’s evident in how Washington is finally — if fitfully — beginning to address the self-destructive flow of U.S. dollars into China’s military and global surveillance apparatus. While these sorts of measures still need to be scaled up dramatically, at least policymakers now have some tools to curb Beijing’s easy access to U.S. capital. Not so when it comes to data, where Beijing believes that it has a free hand and that the West is too distracted or feckless to respond meaningfully. Mr. Xi is thinking and acting big, and has been since his first days in power. In 2013, shortly after assuming the presidency in Beijing, Mr. Xi declared: “The vast ocean of data, just like oil resources during industrialization, contains immense productive power and opportunities. Whoever controls big data technologies will control the resources for development and have the upper hand.” Since then, Beijing has been building the framework to ensure that mass accumulations of data serve the Chinese Communist Party’s strategic interests. A series of laws implemented in 2017 asserted the party’s power to gain access to private data on Chinese networks, whether in China or associated with Chinese firms such as Huawei overseas. Now Beijing has quietly enacted a new set of laws — first the Data Security Law in September, followed in November by the Personal Information Protection Law — that go even further by demanding not just access to private data but also effective control over it. This has a huge impact on foreign firms operating in China. Not only must their Chinese data stay in China and be accessible by the state, but Beijing now demands control over whether they can send it to their own headquarters; to a corporate lab in, say, California; or to a foreign government that has made a law enforcement or regulatory request. Beijing’s new laws may make it criminal to comply with foreign sanctions against China that involve data — like shutting off banking or cloud services to a Chinese entity linked to human rights atrocities. In these cases, foreign firms can comply with U.S. law, or they can comply with Chinese law, but not both. The impact of these laws is clear. Tesla, Apple and others have opted to build dedicated Chinese data centers — sometimes in partnership with Chinese state entities, lest they lose access to the large Chinese consumer market. Goldman Sachs faced pressure against sending memos to its U.S. headquarters. Beijing’s recent actions complement its longstanding efforts to buy, steal and otherwise acquire data from foreign sources worldwide. Beijing hacks multinational corporate databases. It runs “talent recruitment” programs at foreign universities and firms. It buys foreign companies, such as an Italian maker of military drones. It funds its own data-driven start-ups in open foreign markets like Silicon Valley. The approach is nakedly nonreciprocal. It relies on access to foreign data while denying foreigners access to Chinese data — and appears to assume that foreign governments won’t respond. The United States, after all, has no comprehensive federal approach to data governance, while the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation is focused mostly on consumer privacy. Will American and allied policymakers develop approaches to limit strategic data flows to China? For now, the Biden administration’s answer is: maybe. “Our strategic competitors see big data as a strategic asset,” the U.S. national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said this summer, “and we have to see it the same way.” This is clear and compelling language. But data did not appear to be high on Mr. Biden’s agenda with Mr. Xi, judging from official readouts of the summit. And to date, U.S. policy remedies are idle and insufficient. In June, the administration issued an executive order embracing a new regulatory process to restrict cross-border data flows on national security grounds. But the new process hasn’t yet been put to use — not against Chinese drones, Chinese access to U.S. data centers and biotech labs, or other potential targets. In the meantime, U.S. diplomats’ and trade negotiators’ engagement on data issues is dominated by bitter fights with European regulators over privacy rules for American tech giants. The far greater threat from Beijing goes largely unaddressed. The good news is that if democratic nations get their act together, they may be in a better position than Beijing, which complicates its own progress through apparent paranoia. In recent months, Mr. Xi has cracked down on private Chinese tech giants such as Alibaba and Tencent, forcing them to relinquish their data troves to state-controlled third parties. This crackdown, which helped erase more than $1 trillion in market value, will make these companies less innovative now that they no longer control their data. But banking on Chinese authoritarian overreach to preserve America’s edge is no strategy. A smarter approach would begin domestically, with actual (and robust) implementation of the Biden administration’s June executive order. This would entail blocking or unwinding arrangements by which large volumes of sensitive U.S. data flow to China, whether through medical records, cellphone apps or other channels — all of which are basically unregulated right now. Democratic allies must also work together to promote data sharing among themselves while limiting flows to China. A blueprint was introduced by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. This idea, called Data Free Flow With Trust, ought to become allied policy. For upward of a generation, Beijing has been coldly effective in designing a strategy of global data mercantilism: data hoarding for me, data relinquishing for thee. If Washington and its allies don’t organize a strong response, Mr. Xi will succeed in commanding the heights of future global power.

China, the most powerful data broker in the world, is winning the war against the US

The lines are getting longer at the Halal Guys food cart in the heart of Manhattan. The number of international visitors buying Statue of Liberty tickets has jumped more than 50%. And a few thousand more people are walking through Times Square.

After more than 18 months, the United States reopened its borders Nov. 8 to vaccinated foreign travelers. Early indications suggest that they have been trickling back to New York, the top American destination city for international tourists.

But many businesses that depend on international visitors, including hotel operators and restaurants, see signs that even more tourists could start streaming in as the year-end holiday season approaches, providing a badly needed boost as the city’s labor force struggles to recover from the pandemic.

The tourism industry has increasingly become a pillar of New York’s economy. A record 66.6 million travelers visited the city in 2019, and their spending supported hundreds of thousands of jobs, from restaurant workers to museum security guards to bus drivers.

Some airlines reported that their first flights carrying tourists to New York in 20 months were fully booked.

“It really seems like the city is happy to show itself to the world again,” said Christiaan Vander Kuylen, who arrived recently from Brussels. “The energy is amazing.”

This was Vander Kuylen’s first trip to New York. He came to reunite with his partner, who moved here four months ago.

Vander Kuylen, 25, ate at Katz’s Delicatessen on the Lower East Side and watched “Moulin Rouge” on Broadway. He also shopped for jeans and sneakers in SoHo, a neighborhood where retailers have been pummeled by the drop in tourism.

For the city’s tourism officials, the return has been cause for optimism, even as they have projected only 2.8 million foreign travelers will visit New York this year, a steep plunge from the 13.5 million who visited in 2019.

Before the pandemic, about half of all credit-card sales at the city’s major department stores came from tourists. International visitors tend to spend more and book longer trips. They represent 20% of visitors to New York City, but account for half of the spending. Hotels especially depend on overseas travelers to fill up rooms on weeknights.

In 2019, the biggest groups of international travelers to New York came from the United Kingdom, China, Canada and Brazil.

Tourism projections were dampened by the fact that China still has severe restrictions on travelers leaving the country. In the years before the pandemic, each Chinese tourist in New York spent an average of $3,000, almost 60% higher than the average for international visitors, according to the New York state comptroller’s office.

Still, the return of other overseas travelers has already had an outsized effect on businesses like BO’s Bagels in Harlem, which had been a popular stop for European visitors during tours of Harlem churches.

Starting about a week ago, Andrew Martinez, the owner, noticed a flood of visitors to the store who did not speak English and ordered unusual combinations, like smoked salmon with Nutella on a bagel. Foot traffic was 30% higher than normal.

The demand made him feel more comfortable about adding two new employees, both of whom started within the last week.

“It saved us,” Martinez, 48, said. “In the last week, it felt like I woke up from a coma and everything was just normal.”

At Battery Park in lower Manhattan, the number of people boarding boats to visit the Statue of Liberty rose to about 5,500 a day in the second week of November, from about 3,500 a day before the U.S. borders reopened, said Michael Burke, chief operating officer of Statue Cruises. Overseas traffic to its ticket-booking website jumped more than 60% in recent weeks, he said.

In interviews with more than a dozen international visitors in New York City, many said they immediately booked tickets after the travel ban lifted to visit family or meet with business associates.

Dave Hughes, the chief executive of a startup in Scotland, traveled from Glasgow, stopping in New York before heading to business meetings in Phoenix and Boston. Shortly after his flight landed, he went to his favorite Lower East Side bar, Milano’s Bar, where he was thrilled to see bartenders and other regulars he knew.

Before the pandemic, Hughes, 38, traveled several times a year to New York. This time, he was startled by the thinner crowds in Times Square and the vacant storefronts throughout the city.

“Walking around and not getting jostled by tourists with bags was definitely different,” he said.

On Nov. 13, the first Saturday after international tourists returned, more than 272,000 people walked through Times Square, a 1.2% increase from the prior Saturday, according to the Times Square Alliance, a business advocacy group. A comparable day in 2019 had about 330,000 pedestrians.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has also announced that Times Square will welcome the crowds back to its traditional New Year’s Eve ball drop, which he said was “further evidence to the world that we are 100% back.” (Attendees must be fully vaccinated.)

Just north of Times Square, at the Halal Guys food cart, business was up about 20% during the first weekend with international visitors, according to its chief marketing officer, Andrew Eck. Foreign tourists traditionally made up about 30% of customers at the cart, which was famous for the long lines of people waiting for its chicken and beef rice platters — and has now become a global franchise.

Still, some hotel and restaurant owners were cautious in their assessments, saying the reopening may have come too late to draw significant numbers of international visitors before next year.

“I personally think it’s going to be a bit of a slower burn,” said Mandy Oser, who has operated Ardesia Wine Bar in Hell’s Kitchen since 2009.

Business at Ardesia has improved steadily since Broadway theaters started reopening in September, but Oser is still waiting for a surge of tourists. Oser said she was looking forward to the arrival of an influencer from the Netherlands, who she hoped would spread word of Ardesia’s wine and cheese pairings.

Even without tourists, Oser expects business to be robust in December as local customers have been booking holiday parties and clamoring for New Year’s Eve reservations.

In the week ending Nov. 14, more than 214,000 people attended Broadway shows, an 11% increase from the prior week, according to the Broadway League, a trade organization representing producers and theater owners. It was not clear how much of the increase was because of international travelers, who typically make up one-fifth of attendees.

At Q4 Hotel, a hostel in Queens that relies almost exclusively on foreign travelers, bookings are nearly sold out for the end of November and December, according to Aaron Lajara, a hotel manager. The hostel, which has shared rooms for up to eight people, shut down for 19 months before reopening in October.

During that period, Lajara, 29, survived on unemployment benefits and federal stimulus checks.

“Financially, it was a struggle,” he said. “I was excited mentally to come back to work.”

Tourists will have more lodging options because several hotels reopened in the last month under pressure from a new local law that required them to pay $500 a week in severance to laid-off workers unless they opened their doors and rehired at least 25% of their employees.

Two of the biggest hotels in the city — the Hilton and the Grand Hyatt in midtown Manhattan — reopened this fall. But several are still closed, leaving thousands of hotel workers unemployed.

It will likely take longer for larger tour groups, a lucrative source of income for tourist destinations, to return in full force. A spokesman for the Sept. 11 memorial said international groups are booking tickets for spring 2022.

Tourism overall is not expected to return to 2019 levels until 2024, according to projections from the city’s tourism agency.

Andy Sydor, a certified tour guide for more than two decades, is living off his savings from 2019, when he worked every day in June and July. That period was so overcrowded, he said, that there were sometimes three-hour waits to enter the Statue of Liberty.

In recent months, Sydor, 58, has led private tours of Brooklyn, where he can make $50 an hour, with visitors from states like Oklahoma and Florida. But he has not yet booked an international group during the pandemic.

“If I saw even a single international booking, I’d be a little more excited,” he said.

John Fitzpatrick, who owns two Fitzpatrick hotels in midtown, said the first wave of visitors from overseas seemed to have been headed to the homes of relatives for long-awaited reunions.

“Even if they’re coming to see family, they’re still coming into the city to shop,” he said.

Another wave of tourists is on its way, Fitzpatrick said, judging by his bookings. He said all 250 of his rooms were sold out for the first weekend in December, with a large number of guests from Ireland.

“It’s coming,” he said.

The lines are getting longer at the Halal Guys food cart in the heart of Manhattan. The number of international visitors buying Statue of Liberty tickets has jumped more than 50%.

The lines are getting longer at the Halal Guys food cart in the heart of Manhattan. The number of international visitors buying Statue of Liberty tickets has jumped more than 50%. And a few thousand more people are walking through Times Square. After more than 18 months, the United States reopened its borders Nov. 8 to vaccinated foreign travelers. Early indications suggest that they have been trickling back to New York, the top American destination city for international tourists. But many businesses that depend on international visitors, including hotel operators and restaurants, see signs that even more tourists could start streaming in as the year-end holiday season approaches, providing a badly needed boost as the city’s labor force struggles to recover from the pandemic. The tourism industry has increasingly become a pillar of New York’s economy. A record 66.6 million travelers visited the city in 2019, and their spending supported hundreds of thousands of jobs, from restaurant workers to museum security guards to bus drivers. Some airlines reported that their first flights carrying tourists to New York in 20 months were fully booked. “It really seems like the city is happy to show itself to the world again,” said Christiaan Vander Kuylen, who arrived recently from Brussels. “The energy is amazing.” This was Vander Kuylen’s first trip to New York. He came to reunite with his partner, who moved here four months ago. Vander Kuylen, 25, ate at Katz’s Delicatessen on the Lower East Side and watched “Moulin Rouge” on Broadway. He also shopped for jeans and sneakers in SoHo, a neighborhood where retailers have been pummeled by the drop in tourism. For the city’s tourism officials, the return has been cause for optimism, even as they have projected only 2.8 million foreign travelers will visit New York this year, a steep plunge from the 13.5 million who visited in 2019. Before the pandemic, about half of all credit-card sales at the city’s major department stores came from tourists. International visitors tend to spend more and book longer trips. They represent 20% of visitors to New York City, but account for half of the spending. Hotels especially depend on overseas travelers to fill up rooms on weeknights. In 2019, the biggest groups of international travelers to New York came from the United Kingdom, China, Canada and Brazil. Tourism projections were dampened by the fact that China still has severe restrictions on travelers leaving the country. In the years before the pandemic, each Chinese tourist in New York spent an average of $3,000, almost 60% higher than the average for international visitors, according to the New York state comptroller’s office. Still, the return of other overseas travelers has already had an outsized effect on businesses like BO’s Bagels in Harlem, which had been a popular stop for European visitors during tours of Harlem churches. Starting about a week ago, Andrew Martinez, the owner, noticed a flood of visitors to the store who did not speak English and ordered unusual combinations, like smoked salmon with Nutella on a bagel. Foot traffic was 30% higher than normal. The demand made him feel more comfortable about adding two new employees, both of whom started within the last week. “It saved us,” Martinez, 48, said. “In the last week, it felt like I woke up from a coma and everything was just normal.” At Battery Park in lower Manhattan, the number of people boarding boats to visit the Statue of Liberty rose to about 5,500 a day in the second week of November, from about 3,500 a day before the U.S. borders reopened, said Michael Burke, chief operating officer of Statue Cruises. Overseas traffic to its ticket-booking website jumped more than 60% in recent weeks, he said. In interviews with more than a dozen international visitors in New York City, many said they immediately booked tickets after the travel ban lifted to visit family or meet with business associates. Dave Hughes, the chief executive of a startup in Scotland, traveled from Glasgow, stopping in New York before heading to business meetings in Phoenix and Boston. Shortly after his flight landed, he went to his favorite Lower East Side bar, Milano’s Bar, where he was thrilled to see bartenders and other regulars he knew. Before the pandemic, Hughes, 38, traveled several times a year to New York. This time, he was startled by the thinner crowds in Times Square and the vacant storefronts throughout the city. “Walking around and not getting jostled by tourists with bags was definitely different,” he said. On Nov. 13, the first Saturday after international tourists returned, more than 272,000 people walked through Times Square, a 1.2% increase from the prior Saturday, according to the Times Square Alliance, a business advocacy group. A comparable day in 2019 had about 330,000 pedestrians. Mayor Bill de Blasio has also announced that Times Square will welcome the crowds back to its traditional New Year’s Eve ball drop, which he said was “further evidence to the world that we are 100% back.” (Attendees must be fully vaccinated.) Just north of Times Square, at the Halal Guys food cart, business was up about 20% during the first weekend with international visitors, according to its chief marketing officer, Andrew Eck. Foreign tourists traditionally made up about 30% of customers at the cart, which was famous for the long lines of people waiting for its chicken and beef rice platters — and has now become a global franchise. Still, some hotel and restaurant owners were cautious in their assessments, saying the reopening may have come too late to draw significant numbers of international visitors before next year. “I personally think it’s going to be a bit of a slower burn,” said Mandy Oser, who has operated Ardesia Wine Bar in Hell’s Kitchen since 2009. Business at Ardesia has improved steadily since Broadway theaters started reopening in September, but Oser is still waiting for a surge of tourists. Oser said she was looking forward to the arrival of an influencer from the Netherlands, who she hoped would spread word of Ardesia’s wine and cheese pairings. Even without tourists, Oser expects business to be robust in December as local customers have been booking holiday parties and clamoring for New Year’s Eve reservations. In the week ending Nov. 14, more than 214,000 people attended Broadway shows, an 11% increase from the prior week, according to the Broadway League, a trade organization representing producers and theater owners. It was not clear how much of the increase was because of international travelers, who typically make up one-fifth of attendees. At Q4 Hotel, a hostel in Queens that relies almost exclusively on foreign travelers, bookings are nearly sold out for the end of November and December, according to Aaron Lajara, a hotel manager. The hostel, which has shared rooms for up to eight people, shut down for 19 months before reopening in October. During that period, Lajara, 29, survived on unemployment benefits and federal stimulus checks. “Financially, it was a struggle,” he said. “I was excited mentally to come back to work.” Tourists will have more lodging options because several hotels reopened in the last month under pressure from a new local law that required them to pay $500 a week in severance to laid-off workers unless they opened their doors and rehired at least 25% of their employees. Two of the biggest hotels in the city — the Hilton and the Grand Hyatt in midtown Manhattan — reopened this fall. But several are still closed, leaving thousands of hotel workers unemployed. It will likely take longer for larger tour groups, a lucrative source of income for tourist destinations, to return in full force. A spokesman for the Sept. 11 memorial said international groups are booking tickets for spring 2022. Tourism overall is not expected to return to 2019 levels until 2024, according to projections from the city’s tourism agency. Andy Sydor, a certified tour guide for more than two decades, is living off his savings from 2019, when he worked every day in June and July. That period was so overcrowded, he said, that there were sometimes three-hour waits to enter the Statue of Liberty. In recent months, Sydor, 58, has led private tours of Brooklyn, where he can make $50 an hour, with visitors from states like Oklahoma and Florida. But he has not yet booked an international group during the pandemic. “If I saw even a single international booking, I’d be a little more excited,” he said. John Fitzpatrick, who owns two Fitzpatrick hotels in midtown, said the first wave of visitors from overseas seemed to have been headed to the homes of relatives for long-awaited reunions. “Even if they’re coming to see family, they’re still coming into the city to shop,” he said. Another wave of tourists is on its way, Fitzpatrick said, judging by his bookings. He said all 250 of his rooms were sold out for the first weekend in December, with a large number of guests from Ireland. “It’s coming,” he said.

From Katz’s Deli to broadway, international tourists trickle back

State of Florida in the US on Tuesday officially cleared the names of four black men who had been wrongly convicted of sexually assaulting a white woman in the state. The 'crime' had been committed in 1949. The case is recognised as one of those involving gross misacrriage of justice in the US.

At the time of indictment and conviction of Ernest Thomas, Samuel Shepherd, Charles Greenlee and Walter Irvin there was no evidence against them but in Jim Crow-era Florida the men were convicted nonetheless. None of the men are alive today.

On Tuesday, Circuit Court Judge Heidi Davis in Lake County, Florida granted the State's motion to posthumously dismiss the indictments and convictions.

At the time of their conviction, the four men had come to be known as the "Groveland four" and were accused of sexually assaulting Norma Padgett in Groveland, Florida.

"I would not hate, but I will love and embrace all of those who did not know at the time that my father was a caring and loving and compassionate person that did not rape anybody. I stand here today to say thank you," said Carol Greenlee, daughter of Charles Greenlee in a press conference.

"For 72 years the families have been living with this and traveling with this journey waiting for today," said Bill Gladson, the state attorney. He was quoted by CNN.

State of Florida in the US on Tuesday officially cleared the names of four black men who had been wrongly convicted of sexually assaulting a white woman in the state.

State of Florida in the US on Tuesday officially cleared the names of four black men who had been wrongly convicted of sexually assaulting a white woman in the state. The 'crime' had been committed in 1949. The case is recognised as one of those involving gross misacrriage of justice in the US. At the time of indictment and conviction of Ernest Thomas, Samuel Shepherd, Charles Greenlee and Walter Irvin there was no evidence against them but in Jim Crow-era Florida the men were convicted nonetheless. None of the men are alive today. On Tuesday, Circuit Court Judge Heidi Davis in Lake County, Florida granted the State's motion to posthumously dismiss the indictments and convictions. At the time of their conviction, the four men had come to be known as the "Groveland four" and were accused of sexually assaulting Norma Padgett in Groveland, Florida. "I would not hate, but I will love and embrace all of those who did not know at the time that my father was a caring and loving and compassionate person that did not rape anybody. I stand here today to say thank you," said Carol Greenlee, daughter of Charles Greenlee in a press conference. "For 72 years the families have been living with this and traveling with this journey waiting for today," said Bill Gladson, the state attorney. He was quoted by CNN.

Four black men wrongly convicted in 70-year-old rape case get exonerated

An accidental discharge from a gun with a passenger created chaos at Atlanta airport on Sunday (November 20) with scared passengers even running on tarmac.

Three people suffered non-life-threatening injuries after the 1:30 p.m (1830GMT) firearm discharge in the security screening area at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said in a statement.

As per aviation analytics provider Official Airline Gude (OAG), Hartsfield-Jackson was the world's busiest airport in 2021.

Videos taken from the airport showed the ensuing situation as passengers had to wait for many hours in huge ticketing and security lines.

The incident took place when huge crowds of travellers were expected to be travelling in the Thanksgiving holiday season. pre-pandemic size crowds were expected at security checkpoints.

Person whose gun went off fled from the scene. Police and other authorities are searching for the person.

An accidental discharge from a gun with a passenger created chaos at Atlanta airport on Sunday (November 20) with scared passengers even running on tarmac. Three people suffered non-life-threatening injuries after the 1:30 p.

An accidental discharge from a gun with a passenger created chaos at Atlanta airport on Sunday (November 20) with scared passengers even running on tarmac. Three people suffered non-life-threatening injuries after the 1:30 p.m (1830GMT) firearm discharge in the security screening area at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said in a statement. As per aviation analytics provider Official Airline Gude (OAG), Hartsfield-Jackson was the world's busiest airport in 2021. Videos taken from the airport showed the ensuing situation as passengers had to wait for many hours in huge ticketing and security lines. The incident took place when huge crowds of travellers were expected to be travelling in the Thanksgiving holiday season. pre-pandemic size crowds were expected at security checkpoints. Person whose gun went off fled from the scene. Police and other authorities are searching for the person.

Accidental discharge of gun creates chaos at Atlanta airport

US envoy for Iran warned on Friday that Iran was approaching point of no return over revival of 2015 nuclear deal after Tehran boosted stocks of enriched uranium. Talks to revive Iran nuclear deal are to restart on November 29 in Vienna.

Robert Malley, US envoy for Iran said the country was making it "impossible" to gain any benefit from resuming the agreement.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said this week that Iran had again increased stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-envoy-to-iran-says-time-shrinking-for-nuclear-deal-430686/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"The time will come if Iran continues at this pace with the advancements they've made, (it) will make it impossible even if we were going to go back to the JCPOA to recapture the benefits," Malley told the Manama Dialogue conference in Bahrain.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was the agreement struck in 2015 under which Iran agreed to clear limits on its nuclear activities in return for an easing of sanctions.

"Iran's advances are spreading alarm across the region... that's what's making the clock tick faster and making all of us say that the time is short for a return to the JCPOA," Malley said.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-has-again-boosted-uranium-stockpile-iaea-reports-430382">Iran has again boosted uranium stockpile, IAEA reports</a>

On Wednesday, the US and its Gulf Arab allies accused Iran of causing a nuclear crisis and destabilising the region with its ballistic missile programme and support for armed militias.

Malley said the US shared a "commonality of purpose" with rivals Russia and China "because we want to avoid that crisis, all of us, the crisis that would be sparked if Iran continues on its current path".&nbsp;

"And I want to be clear, because there's no ambiguity about what they seem to be doing now, which is to drag their feet on the nuclear talks and accelerate the progress in their nuclear programme."

The US envoy said he was not encouraged by the statements from the new Iranian government of President Ebrahim Raisi, which earlier on Friday accused Washington of conducting a "propaganda campaign" against the country.

"If they stick to their public pronouncements, unfortunately we're not headed in the right direction... but let's wait to see what happens," he said, pledging that President Joe Biden would honour a revived deal.

"Our intent, our clear intent in coming back into the deal is to stick with the deal because we don't want to see a nuclear crisis," Malley said.

Iran had reacted angrily to a US pledge to take its Gulf Arab allies' interests into account in any revived nuclear deal with their arch rival.

"The US government, which is responsible for the current situation after withdrawing from the nuclear deal, is once again trying to provoke a crisis," foreign ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh charged.

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

US envoy for Iran warned on Friday that Iran was approaching point of no return over revival of 2015 nuclear deal after Tehran boosted stocks of enriched uranium.

US envoy for Iran warned on Friday that Iran was approaching point of no return over revival of 2015 nuclear deal after Tehran boosted stocks of enriched uranium. Talks to revive Iran nuclear deal are to restart on November 29 in Vienna. Robert Malley, US envoy for Iran said the country was making it "impossible" to gain any benefit from resuming the agreement. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said this week that Iran had again increased stockpile of highly enriched uranium. × "The time will come if Iran continues at this pace with the advancements they've made, (it) will make it impossible even if we were going to go back to the JCPOA to recapture the benefits," Malley told the Manama Dialogue conference in Bahrain. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was the agreement struck in 2015 under which Iran agreed to clear limits on its nuclear activities in return for an easing of sanctions. "Iran's advances are spreading alarm across the region... that's what's making the clock tick faster and making all of us say that the time is short for a return to the JCPOA," Malley said. Also Read | Iran has again boosted uranium stockpile, IAEA reports On Wednesday, the US and its Gulf Arab allies accused Iran of causing a nuclear crisis and destabilising the region with its ballistic missile programme and support for armed militias. Malley said the US shared a "commonality of purpose" with rivals Russia and China "because we want to avoid that crisis, all of us, the crisis that would be sparked if Iran continues on its current path". "And I want to be clear, because there's no ambiguity about what they seem to be doing now, which is to drag their feet on the nuclear talks and accelerate the progress in their nuclear programme." The US envoy said he was not encouraged by the statements from the new Iranian government of President Ebrahim Raisi, which earlier on Friday accused Washington of conducting a "propaganda campaign" against the country. "If they stick to their public pronouncements, unfortunately we're not headed in the right direction... but let's wait to see what happens," he said, pledging that President Joe Biden would honour a revived deal. "Our intent, our clear intent in coming back into the deal is to stick with the deal because we don't want to see a nuclear crisis," Malley said. Iran had reacted angrily to a US pledge to take its Gulf Arab allies' interests into account in any revived nuclear deal with their arch rival. "The US government, which is responsible for the current situation after withdrawing from the nuclear deal, is once again trying to provoke a crisis," foreign ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh charged. (With inputs from agencies)

'Time is short' for Iran to return to nuclear deal: US envoy

America's second senior-most general John Hyten has revealed more details about China's recent test of a hypersonic missile. The general has warned that China one day might be able to launch a surprise nuclear attack on America.

Can China mount a hypersonic missile attack on America? Senior US general sounds alarm

Myanmar military junta said on Monday that US journalist Danny Fenster was 'pardoned' on 'humanitarian grounds'. Fenster's release has&nbsp;come just three days after he was sentenced to 11 years in jail. He faced charges for incitement and breaches of immigration and terrorism laws. Soon after he was released from prison, he boarded a flight to the US.

"Great news. I heard @DannyFenster is out," Sonny Swe, the publisher of Frontier Myanmar, Fenster's employer, tweeted earlier.

Photos released by military junta's information team showed Fenster, flanked by two Myanmar military officials, signing a document in capital Naypyidaw.

Fenster's family released a statement and said that they were 'overjoyed'.

Fenster, 37, is managing editor of online magazine Frontier Myanmar and was arrested in May while trying to leave Myanmar, a country in chaos since a Feb. 1 military coup.

The United States welcomed his release, saying he had been "wrongfully detained."

"We are glad that Danny will soon be reunited with his family as we continue to call for the release of others who remain unjustly imprisoned in Burma," US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, using Myanmar's former name.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-journalist-danny-fenster-detained-in-myanmar-now-jailed-for-11-years-428652">US journalist Danny Fenster, detained in Myanmar, now jailed for 11 years</a>

He was the first Western journalist sentenced to prison in recent years in Myanmar, where the coup against the elected government led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi ended a decade of tentative steps towards democracy and triggered nationwide protests.

The military has arrested dozens of journalists among thousands detained after protests erupted nationwide.

(With inputs from agencies)

Myanmar military junta said on Monday that US journalist Danny Fenster was 'pardoned' on 'humanitarian grounds'. Fenster's release has come just three days after he was sentenced to 11 years in jail.

Myanmar military junta said on Monday that US journalist Danny Fenster was 'pardoned' on 'humanitarian grounds'. Fenster's release has come just three days after he was sentenced to 11 years in jail. He faced charges for incitement and breaches of immigration and terrorism laws. Soon after he was released from prison, he boarded a flight to the US. "Great news. I heard @DannyFenster is out," Sonny Swe, the publisher of Frontier Myanmar, Fenster's employer, tweeted earlier. Photos released by military junta's information team showed Fenster, flanked by two Myanmar military officials, signing a document in capital Naypyidaw. Fenster's family released a statement and said that they were 'overjoyed'. Fenster, 37, is managing editor of online magazine Frontier Myanmar and was arrested in May while trying to leave Myanmar, a country in chaos since a Feb. 1 military coup. The United States welcomed his release, saying he had been "wrongfully detained." "We are glad that Danny will soon be reunited with his family as we continue to call for the release of others who remain unjustly imprisoned in Burma," US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, using Myanmar's former name. Also Read | US journalist Danny Fenster, detained in Myanmar, now jailed for 11 years He was the first Western journalist sentenced to prison in recent years in Myanmar, where the coup against the elected government led by Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi ended a decade of tentative steps towards democracy and triggered nationwide protests. The military has arrested dozens of journalists among thousands detained after protests erupted nationwide. (With inputs from agencies)

Jailed US journalist Danny Fenster pardoned in Myanmar, sent home

The USA on Wednesday joined International Solar Alliance (ISA). With this, the US has become 101st country to become part of the grouping by signing the framework of the ISA. As its name suggests, the International Solar Alliance (ISA) seeks to bring about global energy transition to solar power.

John Kerry, U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate made the announcement on behalf of the US at COP26 climate summit on Wednesday. He met India's Minister for Environment Bhupender Yadav.

Yadav said that USA's entry into the ISA would further strengthen the grouping.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
COP26 Diary | US joins <a href="https://twitter.com/isolaralliance?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@isolaralliance</a> <a href="https://t.co/SE2K2rbRYT">https://t.co/SE2K2rbRYT</a>
— Bhupender Yadav (@byadavbjp) <a href="https://twitter.com/byadavbjp/status/1458447764556181507?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 10, 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>

“It has long been coming, and we are happy to join the International Solar Alliance, which Prime Minister Narendra Modi took the lead in making. We worked out the details and this is a process we are pleased to be a part of. This will be an important contribution to more rapid deployment of solar globally. It will be particularly important for developing countries,” said John Kerry.

Kerry even posted a tweet about it.

"Accelerating solar energy deployment globally is critical to keeping a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming within reach. The U.S. is pleased to join the @isolaralliance at #COP26. Thank you, Prime Minister @narendramodi and @byadavbjp for championing this important endeavor," he said in his tweet.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Accelerating solar energy deployment globally is critical to keeping a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming within reach. The U.S. is pleased to join the <a href="https://twitter.com/isolaralliance?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@isolaralliance</a> at <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/COP26?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#COP26</a>. Thank you, Prime Minister <a href="https://twitter.com/narendramodi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@narendramodi</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/byadavbjp?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@byadavbjp</a> for championing this important endeavor.
— Special Presidential Envoy John Kerry (@ClimateEnvoy) <a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateEnvoy/status/1458420862290386949?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 10, 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 US’ endorsement of ISA’s framework and approach is an heartening development, especially as our 101st member nation, which is a significant milestone in itself, demonstrating that nations across the world are recognizing the economic and climate mitigating value of solar, as well as this energy source’s potential as a catalyst for global energy transition,” said Dr. Ajay Mathur, Director General, the ISA.

India Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former French President Francois Hollande announced launch of the ISA on November 30, 2015. The announcement was made at 21st session of United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP-21) in Paris, France.

The USA on Wednesday joined International Solar Alliance (ISA). With this, the US has become 101st country to become part of the grouping by signing the framework of the ISA.

The USA on Wednesday joined International Solar Alliance (ISA). With this, the US has become 101st country to become part of the grouping by signing the framework of the ISA. As its name suggests, the International Solar Alliance (ISA) seeks to bring about global energy transition to solar power. John Kerry, U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate made the announcement on behalf of the US at COP26 climate summit on Wednesday. He met India's Minister for Environment Bhupender Yadav. Yadav said that USA's entry into the ISA would further strengthen the grouping. COP26 Diary | US joins @isolaralliance https://t.co/SE2K2rbRYT — Bhupender Yadav (@byadavbjp) November 10, 2021 × “It has long been coming, and we are happy to join the International Solar Alliance, which Prime Minister Narendra Modi took the lead in making. We worked out the details and this is a process we are pleased to be a part of. This will be an important contribution to more rapid deployment of solar globally. It will be particularly important for developing countries,” said John Kerry. Kerry even posted a tweet about it. "Accelerating solar energy deployment globally is critical to keeping a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming within reach. The U.S. is pleased to join the @isolaralliance at #COP26. Thank you, Prime Minister @narendramodi and @byadavbjp for championing this important endeavor," he said in his tweet. Accelerating solar energy deployment globally is critical to keeping a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming within reach. The U.S. is pleased to join the @isolaralliance at #COP26. Thank you, Prime Minister @narendramodi and @byadavbjp for championing this important endeavor. — Special Presidential Envoy John Kerry (@ClimateEnvoy) November 10, 2021 × “The US’ endorsement of ISA’s framework and approach is an heartening development, especially as our 101st member nation, which is a significant milestone in itself, demonstrating that nations across the world are recognizing the economic and climate mitigating value of solar, as well as this energy source’s potential as a catalyst for global energy transition,” said Dr. Ajay Mathur, Director General, the ISA. India Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former French President Francois Hollande announced launch of the ISA on November 30, 2015. The announcement was made at 21st session of United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP-21) in Paris, France.

USA joins India-led International Solar Alliance, becomes 101st country to do so

Infrastructure funding has traditionally been a broadly bipartisan issue on Capitol Hill, but President Joe Biden’s sweeping infrastructure bill passed Friday night mostly along party lines.

Only 19 members of Congress broke with their parties on the bill, which passed 228-206 with Democrats largely supporting the legislation and Republicans mostly opposed.

So who were those 19 lawmakers — 13 Republicans and six Democrats — who bucked their parties? They can be broken down roughly into three camps: Republicans who consulted with negotiators on the bill; Republicans who maintain the party’s traditional view that funding infrastructure is more important than fighting a president of a different party; and members of the liberal group known as the Squad.

The Squad

Six Democrats who are part of the progressive group known as “The Squad” — Jamaal Bowman of New York, Cori Bush of Missouri, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan — voted against Biden’s plan to spend $550 billion in new funds over 10 years to shore up roads, bridges and highways, improve internet access and modernize the nation’s power grid.

The Squad has grown from four to six members since 2019, when Ocasio-Cortez, the highest-profile progressive on Capitol Hill, entered Congress. Its members were among the leading supporters of the strategy to use the infrastructure bill as leverage for passing Biden’s broader agenda: a $1.85 trillion social safety net and climate change bill.

Ocasio-Cortez has argued that the provisions in Biden’s bill to fight climate change are needed to offset the impact on the environment from a surge in funding for construction projects.

Passing the infrastructure bill without the larger domestic policy package “makes our emissions &amp; climate crisis worse,” she wrote on Twitter in October. “It keeps us in the emissions red.”

Her position was shared by the nearly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus until centrist Democrats who had been holdouts on the broader bill pledged Friday night that they would vote for it no later than the week of Nov. 15, unless the Congressional Budget Office determines its costs are “inconsistent” with the $1.85 trillion estimate put forth by Biden’s staff.

While most progressives then agreed to vote for the bill, members of the Squad did not view the centrists’ assurances as good enough and chose to stick with their position of demanding both bills pass at the same time. Bush said that passing the infrastructure bill alone “jeopardized our leverage” on the broader bill — which includes monthly payments to families with children, universal prekindergarten, health care subsidies and a four-week paid family and medical leave program — and endangered progressives’ ability to “improve the livelihood of our health care workers, our children, our caregivers, our seniors, and the future of our environment.”

Still, Pressley cast her vote against the infrastructure bill after it had enough votes to pass.

That position infuriated some moderate Democrats. One of them, Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York, equated the opposition of left-leaning fellow New Yorkers like Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman with far-right Republicans like Lee Zeldin of New York for voting against a bill that would funnel billions of dollars into the state for subways, sewers and broadband.

“That doesn’t make any sense,” Suozzi, who is contemplating a run for governor, told reporters at a New York political conclave in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on Saturday. “These are two sides of the same coin: People so far out on the fringe instead of trying to get stuff done to help people and make people's lives better. That’s what people are sick and tired of.”

Republican ‘Problem Solvers’

Eight Republicans who voted in favor of the infrastructure bill — Don Bacon of Nebraska, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Andrew Garbarino of New York, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, John Katko of New York, Tom Reed of New York, Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey and Fred Upton of Michigan — were part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers who helped negotiate the infrastructure bill this summer, consulting with centrists in the Senate.

The group known as the Problem Solvers Caucus, including Fitzpatrick, the Republican co-chairman, had once hoped to deliver as many as 29 Republican House votes for the bill but saw members fall away once Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, and other top Republicans opposed it as they ramped up their campaign against Biden’s agenda.

Still, with improvements to highways, bridges, dams, public transit, rail, ports, airports, water quality and broadband coming to the districts, eight members of the group cast their votes in favor of the plan.

Garbarino, who represents part of Long Island, cited the benefits for New York — including $24.9 billion for highways, bridges and transit; $15 billion to replace lead service lines for drinking water; and $470 million for New York’s Kennedy, La Guardia, MacArthur and Republic airports — among his reasons for embracing the bill.

The vote “was about roads, bridges, and clean water,” he said. “It was about real people, and the tangible action Congress could take to better their lives by rebuilding and revitalizing our nation’s crumbling infrastructure.”

The Republicans who voted in favor of the bill faced backlash from some hard-right members of their party. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posted their office phone numbers on Twitter and accused them of handing over their “voting cards to Nancy Pelosi to pass Joe Biden’s communist takeover of America.”

Republican Traditionalists on Infrastructure

A final group of five House Republicans joined members of the Problem Solvers Caucus in bucking their party to support the bill. This group — Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Don Young of Alaska, Nicole Malliotakis of New York, David B. McKinley of West Virginia and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey — can be roughly defined as embracing the party’s traditionalist view of funding infrastructure.

Young, 88, is the Republican Party’s longest-serving member, having represented Alaska for 25 terms. He endorsed the bill in September, arguing the party has always supported funding roads and bridges and emphasizing that past infrastructure votes were “darn near” unanimous.

“We need infrastructure in this country now,” Young said. “This is the last opportunity we have to make sure those potholes are filled, those airports run right, that bridges are safe and our economy can continue to grow.”

Others, much newer to Congress, said they shared Young’s view on the issue.

Malliotakis, who is in her first term representing Staten Island, released a statement explaining her vote that listed various projects the funding could support in her community, including “completing the High-Occupancy Vehicles lane on the Staten Island Expressway,” fortifying coastal neighborhoods and expanding “our sewer systems to deal with the next Superstorm Sandy or Hurricane Ida.”

“Simply put, it’s this type of investment that will not only save city residents’ time and money, but also their properties and lives,” she said.

Infrastructure funding has traditionally been a broadly bipartisan issue on Capitol Hill, but President Joe Biden’s sweeping infrastructure bill passed Friday night mostly along party lines.

Infrastructure funding has traditionally been a broadly bipartisan issue on Capitol Hill, but President Joe Biden’s sweeping infrastructure bill passed Friday night mostly along party lines. Only 19 members of Congress broke with their parties on the bill, which passed 228-206 with Democrats largely supporting the legislation and Republicans mostly opposed. So who were those 19 lawmakers — 13 Republicans and six Democrats — who bucked their parties? They can be broken down roughly into three camps: Republicans who consulted with negotiators on the bill; Republicans who maintain the party’s traditional view that funding infrastructure is more important than fighting a president of a different party; and members of the liberal group known as the Squad. The Squad Six Democrats who are part of the progressive group known as “The Squad” — Jamaal Bowman of New York, Cori Bush of Missouri, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna S. Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan — voted against Biden’s plan to spend $550 billion in new funds over 10 years to shore up roads, bridges and highways, improve internet access and modernize the nation’s power grid. The Squad has grown from four to six members since 2019, when Ocasio-Cortez, the highest-profile progressive on Capitol Hill, entered Congress. Its members were among the leading supporters of the strategy to use the infrastructure bill as leverage for passing Biden’s broader agenda: a $1.85 trillion social safety net and climate change bill. Ocasio-Cortez has argued that the provisions in Biden’s bill to fight climate change are needed to offset the impact on the environment from a surge in funding for construction projects. Passing the infrastructure bill without the larger domestic policy package “makes our emissions & climate crisis worse,” she wrote on Twitter in October. “It keeps us in the emissions red.” Her position was shared by the nearly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus until centrist Democrats who had been holdouts on the broader bill pledged Friday night that they would vote for it no later than the week of Nov. 15, unless the Congressional Budget Office determines its costs are “inconsistent” with the $1.85 trillion estimate put forth by Biden’s staff. While most progressives then agreed to vote for the bill, members of the Squad did not view the centrists’ assurances as good enough and chose to stick with their position of demanding both bills pass at the same time. Bush said that passing the infrastructure bill alone “jeopardized our leverage” on the broader bill — which includes monthly payments to families with children, universal prekindergarten, health care subsidies and a four-week paid family and medical leave program — and endangered progressives’ ability to “improve the livelihood of our health care workers, our children, our caregivers, our seniors, and the future of our environment.” Still, Pressley cast her vote against the infrastructure bill after it had enough votes to pass. That position infuriated some moderate Democrats. One of them, Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York, equated the opposition of left-leaning fellow New Yorkers like Ocasio-Cortez and Bowman with far-right Republicans like Lee Zeldin of New York for voting against a bill that would funnel billions of dollars into the state for subways, sewers and broadband. “That doesn’t make any sense,” Suozzi, who is contemplating a run for governor, told reporters at a New York political conclave in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on Saturday. “These are two sides of the same coin: People so far out on the fringe instead of trying to get stuff done to help people and make people's lives better. That’s what people are sick and tired of.” Republican ‘Problem Solvers’ Eight Republicans who voted in favor of the infrastructure bill — Don Bacon of Nebraska, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Andrew Garbarino of New York, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, John Katko of New York, Tom Reed of New York, Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey and Fred Upton of Michigan — were part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers who helped negotiate the infrastructure bill this summer, consulting with centrists in the Senate. The group known as the Problem Solvers Caucus, including Fitzpatrick, the Republican co-chairman, had once hoped to deliver as many as 29 Republican House votes for the bill but saw members fall away once Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, and other top Republicans opposed it as they ramped up their campaign against Biden’s agenda. Still, with improvements to highways, bridges, dams, public transit, rail, ports, airports, water quality and broadband coming to the districts, eight members of the group cast their votes in favor of the plan. Garbarino, who represents part of Long Island, cited the benefits for New York — including $24.9 billion for highways, bridges and transit; $15 billion to replace lead service lines for drinking water; and $470 million for New York’s Kennedy, La Guardia, MacArthur and Republic airports — among his reasons for embracing the bill. The vote “was about roads, bridges, and clean water,” he said. “It was about real people, and the tangible action Congress could take to better their lives by rebuilding and revitalizing our nation’s crumbling infrastructure.” The Republicans who voted in favor of the bill faced backlash from some hard-right members of their party. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., posted their office phone numbers on Twitter and accused them of handing over their “voting cards to Nancy Pelosi to pass Joe Biden’s communist takeover of America.” Republican Traditionalists on Infrastructure A final group of five House Republicans joined members of the Problem Solvers Caucus in bucking their party to support the bill. This group — Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Don Young of Alaska, Nicole Malliotakis of New York, David B. McKinley of West Virginia and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey — can be roughly defined as embracing the party’s traditionalist view of funding infrastructure. Young, 88, is the Republican Party’s longest-serving member, having represented Alaska for 25 terms. He endorsed the bill in September, arguing the party has always supported funding roads and bridges and emphasizing that past infrastructure votes were “darn near” unanimous. “We need infrastructure in this country now,” Young said. “This is the last opportunity we have to make sure those potholes are filled, those airports run right, that bridges are safe and our economy can continue to grow.” Others, much newer to Congress, said they shared Young’s view on the issue. Malliotakis, who is in her first term representing Staten Island, released a statement explaining her vote that listed various projects the funding could support in her community, including “completing the High-Occupancy Vehicles lane on the Staten Island Expressway,” fortifying coastal neighborhoods and expanding “our sewer systems to deal with the next Superstorm Sandy or Hurricane Ida.” “Simply put, it’s this type of investment that will not only save city residents’ time and money, but also their properties and lives,” she said.

In infrastructure votes, 19 members broke with their party

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has pledged to get to the bottom of so-called 'Havana syndrome'. There are suspicions that the mysterious illness plaguing US diplomats worldover could be caused by Russian microwave attacks.

Blinken on Friday named two senior figures to lead the State Department's response.

Officially called anomalous health incidents (AHI), cases of Havana syndrome first surfaced in 2016 in the Cuban capital, with US and Canadian diplomats complaining of severe headaches, nausea and possible brain damage after hearing high-pitched sounds.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-signs-law-to-support-victims-of-havana-syndrome-419398">Biden signs law to support victims of 'Havana Syndrome'</a>

Since then the number of US officials in the diplomatic and intelligence corps reporting similar experiences in countries including China, Austria, Colombia and Russia, has risen to the low hundreds, according to reports.

"All of us in the US government, and especially we at the State Department, are intently focused on getting to the bottom of what and who is causing these incidents, caring for those who've been affected, and protecting our people," Blinken said.

He said that the State Department had arranged for treatment of those affected at Johns Hopkins University, and was collecting baseline data from US diplomats before they deploy to use in analyzing reported cases.

Blinken appointed veterans envoys Jonathan Moore to coordinate the overall response and Margaret Uyehara to ensure that anyone reporting symptoms got full medical care.

He also said the department is deploying new technology at embassies and missions to help evaluate and protect staff from threats that could be linked to cases.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-china-likely-to-reopen-consulates-shut-in-2020-says-report-426931">US-China likely to reopen consulates shut in 2020, says report</a>

"We're drawing on the full capacity of our intelligence community. We're enlisting the best scientific minds inside and outside of government" to understand the problem, he said.

But some scientists express doubts about the Russian attacks theory and say there is not one affliction or cause of the reported cases.

And some have even dismissed the spread of cases as a mass psychogenic phenomenon in which people begin to feel sick after they learn of a health threat.

(With inputs from agencies)

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has pledged to get to the bottom of so-called 'Havana syndrome'. There are suspicions that the mysterious illness plaguing US diplomats worldover could be caused by Russian microwave attacks.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has pledged to get to the bottom of so-called 'Havana syndrome'. There are suspicions that the mysterious illness plaguing US diplomats worldover could be caused by Russian microwave attacks. Blinken on Friday named two senior figures to lead the State Department's response. Officially called anomalous health incidents (AHI), cases of Havana syndrome first surfaced in 2016 in the Cuban capital, with US and Canadian diplomats complaining of severe headaches, nausea and possible brain damage after hearing high-pitched sounds. Also Read: Biden signs law to support victims of 'Havana Syndrome' Since then the number of US officials in the diplomatic and intelligence corps reporting similar experiences in countries including China, Austria, Colombia and Russia, has risen to the low hundreds, according to reports. "All of us in the US government, and especially we at the State Department, are intently focused on getting to the bottom of what and who is causing these incidents, caring for those who've been affected, and protecting our people," Blinken said. He said that the State Department had arranged for treatment of those affected at Johns Hopkins University, and was collecting baseline data from US diplomats before they deploy to use in analyzing reported cases. Blinken appointed veterans envoys Jonathan Moore to coordinate the overall response and Margaret Uyehara to ensure that anyone reporting symptoms got full medical care. He also said the department is deploying new technology at embassies and missions to help evaluate and protect staff from threats that could be linked to cases. Also Read: US-China likely to reopen consulates shut in 2020, says report "We're drawing on the full capacity of our intelligence community. We're enlisting the best scientific minds inside and outside of government" to understand the problem, he said. But some scientists express doubts about the Russian attacks theory and say there is not one affliction or cause of the reported cases. And some have even dismissed the spread of cases as a mass psychogenic phenomenon in which people begin to feel sick after they learn of a health threat. (With inputs from agencies)

Havana Syndrome: Blinken vows to solve mystery of illness affecting US diplomats

A New York law that imposes strict limits on carrying guns outside the home seemed unlikely to survive its encounter with the Supreme Court, based on questioning from the justices Wednesday.

The law requires people seeking a license to carry a handgun in public to show a “proper cause,” and a majority of the justices seemed prepared to say that it imposes an intolerable burden on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. But several justices seemed open to allowing the state to exclude guns from crowded public settings or other sensitive places.

The Second Amendment protects a constitutional right just as the First Amendment does, Chief Justice John Roberts said. People seeking to exercise either of those rights, he said, should not have to demonstrate to the government that they have a good reason or special need to do so.

“You don’t have to say, when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner or whatever, that, you know, your speech is particularly important,” he said. “So why do you have to show in this case, convince somebody, that you’re entitled to exercise your Second Amendment right?”

At the same time, Roberts was among the justices who asked whether guns could be barred at settings as varied as subways, protests, Yankee Stadium, Times Square on New Year’s Eve and college campuses in New York City.

The hearing “provided a road map for New York to follow,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.”

“The justices appeared convinced that restrictions on guns in sensitive places were constitutionally permissible, with Times Square and the subway as potential illustrations,” he said. “Perhaps we will see New York loosen its permitting requirements but strengthening the restrictions on sensitive places to make it very difficult for carry in New York City.”

Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, including two men who were denied licenses to carry handguns at all times, gave cautious answers to questions about restrictions on guns in sensitive places, saying those issues were not part of the dispute before the justices and should be resolved in future cases.

In general, though, and without defining what counts as “sensitive,” he said that “New York is entitled to have laws that say that you can’t have weapons in sensitive places.”

The main point, Clement said, was that “carrying a firearm outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right,” one allowed with few restrictions in 43 states. Those states, he said, included major cities like Phoenix, Houston and Chicago.

Justice Elena Kagan responded that “most people think that Chicago is, like, the world’s worst city with respect to gun violence.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the court should limit its ruling to what he called “the permitting regime.”

“We don’t have to answer all the sensitive places questions in this case, some of which will be challenging no doubt,” he said.

Barbara D. Underwood, New York’s solicitor general, told the court that limits on guns in sensitive places would not be a complete solution.

“You end up having a very big difficulty in specifying what all the places are that have the characteristics that should make them sensitive,” she said. “It has an attractive quality to it, but in implementation, I think it would be unsuccessful.”

But Underwood’s defense of New York’s licensing system did not seem to satisfy a majority of the justices.

She said that “unrestricted permits are more readily available in less populated areas,” setting off a discussion of where it is most valuable to have a gun for self-defense.

“If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves,” Roberts said, “that’s implicated when you’re in a high-crime area. It’s not implicated when you’re out in the woods.”

Underwood said it made sense to allow guns where there is little law enforcement presence. Roberts asked, “How many muggings take place in the forest?”

Justice Samuel Alito asked whether people who work late in Manhattan — “it might be somebody who cleans offices, it might be a doorman at an apartment, it might be a nurse or an orderly, it might be somebody who washes dishes” — would be granted a license if they said they had a dangerous commute through a high-crime area.

“They do not get licenses, is that right?” Alito asked.

Underwood said that was generally correct. “The core right to self-defense,” she said, “doesn’t allow for all to be armed for all possible confrontations in all places.”

There was much discussion of history, including repeated references to the Statute of Northampton of 1328, which appeared to forbid carrying arms to fairs and markets and is cited by some proponents of gun regulation as evidence that the founders did not intend the Second Amendment to preclude limits on the public carrying of firearms.

Clement said that statute was not understood to be “a general prohibition on carrying outside the home but was a prohibition on either carrying unusual and dangerous weapons or using common weapons in a way that terrorized the public.”

Underwood said the statute and the long history of regulating guns where people gather, including in the American colonies and in states at the time of the founding, supported New York’s law.

That point had been pressed by several prominent conservative lawyers, notably J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge, in a brief supporting New York. Drawing on originalism, the interpretive method embraced by the conservative legal movement, the brief argued that history showed that government regulations on the carrying of guns in public have been commonplace for centuries.

But several justices said the historical evidence was contested. Justice Stephen Breyer added that judges were ill-suited to the task of doing authentic historical research, calling what they do “law office history.”

“This is a wonderful case for showing both sides,” he said. “So I’m not sure how to deal with the history.”

Kavanaugh said the solution was to start with the text of the Second Amendment, which speaks of a right to keep and bear arms, suggesting that bearing arms happens outside the home.

“There will be tough questions, as the arguments revealed, about what the historical practice shows, but the default or baseline is the text,” he said.

The question of how the Second Amendment applies to carrying guns in public is an open one. When the Supreme Court established an individual right to own guns in 2008 by a 5-4 vote in District of Columbia v. Heller, it addressed only the right to keep firearms in the home for self-defense.

At the same time, it indicated that many kinds of gun regulations are permissible.

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, wrote for the majority.

The question the justices agreed to decide in Wednesday’s case, New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association v. Bruen, No. 20-843, was “whether the state’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

But the issue of restricting guns in sensitive places got a lot of attention at Wednesday’s argument. Roberts asked Clement, for instance, whether states could say “you’re not allowed to carry on a university campus.”

He said, “I think the answer to your question is yes.”

Kagan seemed to think that was an important concession. “You know, anybody can walk around the NYU campus,” she said, referring to New York University’s many buildings in and around Greenwich Village.

Clement responded, to laughter, that “NYU doesn’t have much of a campus.”

Kagan disagreed, as did Breyer. “To my mind,” he said, to more laughter, “I think NYU does have a campus.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about the masses of people who sometimes gather in Manhattan.

“Can’t we just say Times Square on New Year’s Eve is a sensitive place because now we’ve seen, you know, people are on top of each other?” she said. “We’ve had experience with violence, so we’re making a judgment, it’s a sensitive place.”

Underwood said that Times Square is, at least in the absence of a pandemic, always crowded. “When commerce is in full swing,” she said, “Times Square almost every night is shoulder-to-shoulder people.”

A New York law that imposes strict limits on carrying guns outside the home seemed unlikely to survive its encounter with the Supreme Court, based on questioning from the justices Wednesday.

A New York law that imposes strict limits on carrying guns outside the home seemed unlikely to survive its encounter with the Supreme Court, based on questioning from the justices Wednesday. The law requires people seeking a license to carry a handgun in public to show a “proper cause,” and a majority of the justices seemed prepared to say that it imposes an intolerable burden on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. But several justices seemed open to allowing the state to exclude guns from crowded public settings or other sensitive places. The Second Amendment protects a constitutional right just as the First Amendment does, Chief Justice John Roberts said. People seeking to exercise either of those rights, he said, should not have to demonstrate to the government that they have a good reason or special need to do so. “You don’t have to say, when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner or whatever, that, you know, your speech is particularly important,” he said. “So why do you have to show in this case, convince somebody, that you’re entitled to exercise your Second Amendment right?” At the same time, Roberts was among the justices who asked whether guns could be barred at settings as varied as subways, protests, Yankee Stadium, Times Square on New Year’s Eve and college campuses in New York City. The hearing “provided a road map for New York to follow,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” “The justices appeared convinced that restrictions on guns in sensitive places were constitutionally permissible, with Times Square and the subway as potential illustrations,” he said. “Perhaps we will see New York loosen its permitting requirements but strengthening the restrictions on sensitive places to make it very difficult for carry in New York City.” Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, including two men who were denied licenses to carry handguns at all times, gave cautious answers to questions about restrictions on guns in sensitive places, saying those issues were not part of the dispute before the justices and should be resolved in future cases. In general, though, and without defining what counts as “sensitive,” he said that “New York is entitled to have laws that say that you can’t have weapons in sensitive places.” The main point, Clement said, was that “carrying a firearm outside the home is a fundamental constitutional right,” one allowed with few restrictions in 43 states. Those states, he said, included major cities like Phoenix, Houston and Chicago. Justice Elena Kagan responded that “most people think that Chicago is, like, the world’s worst city with respect to gun violence.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the court should limit its ruling to what he called “the permitting regime.” “We don’t have to answer all the sensitive places questions in this case, some of which will be challenging no doubt,” he said. Barbara D. Underwood, New York’s solicitor general, told the court that limits on guns in sensitive places would not be a complete solution. “You end up having a very big difficulty in specifying what all the places are that have the characteristics that should make them sensitive,” she said. “It has an attractive quality to it, but in implementation, I think it would be unsuccessful.” But Underwood’s defense of New York’s licensing system did not seem to satisfy a majority of the justices. She said that “unrestricted permits are more readily available in less populated areas,” setting off a discussion of where it is most valuable to have a gun for self-defense. “If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves,” Roberts said, “that’s implicated when you’re in a high-crime area. It’s not implicated when you’re out in the woods.” Underwood said it made sense to allow guns where there is little law enforcement presence. Roberts asked, “How many muggings take place in the forest?” Justice Samuel Alito asked whether people who work late in Manhattan — “it might be somebody who cleans offices, it might be a doorman at an apartment, it might be a nurse or an orderly, it might be somebody who washes dishes” — would be granted a license if they said they had a dangerous commute through a high-crime area. “They do not get licenses, is that right?” Alito asked. Underwood said that was generally correct. “The core right to self-defense,” she said, “doesn’t allow for all to be armed for all possible confrontations in all places.” There was much discussion of history, including repeated references to the Statute of Northampton of 1328, which appeared to forbid carrying arms to fairs and markets and is cited by some proponents of gun regulation as evidence that the founders did not intend the Second Amendment to preclude limits on the public carrying of firearms. Clement said that statute was not understood to be “a general prohibition on carrying outside the home but was a prohibition on either carrying unusual and dangerous weapons or using common weapons in a way that terrorized the public.” Underwood said the statute and the long history of regulating guns where people gather, including in the American colonies and in states at the time of the founding, supported New York’s law. That point had been pressed by several prominent conservative lawyers, notably J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge, in a brief supporting New York. Drawing on originalism, the interpretive method embraced by the conservative legal movement, the brief argued that history showed that government regulations on the carrying of guns in public have been commonplace for centuries. But several justices said the historical evidence was contested. Justice Stephen Breyer added that judges were ill-suited to the task of doing authentic historical research, calling what they do “law office history.” “This is a wonderful case for showing both sides,” he said. “So I’m not sure how to deal with the history.” Kavanaugh said the solution was to start with the text of the Second Amendment, which speaks of a right to keep and bear arms, suggesting that bearing arms happens outside the home. “There will be tough questions, as the arguments revealed, about what the historical practice shows, but the default or baseline is the text,” he said. The question of how the Second Amendment applies to carrying guns in public is an open one. When the Supreme Court established an individual right to own guns in 2008 by a 5-4 vote in District of Columbia v. Heller, it addressed only the right to keep firearms in the home for self-defense. At the same time, it indicated that many kinds of gun regulations are permissible. “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, wrote for the majority. The question the justices agreed to decide in Wednesday’s case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, No. 20-843, was “whether the state’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.” But the issue of restricting guns in sensitive places got a lot of attention at Wednesday’s argument. Roberts asked Clement, for instance, whether states could say “you’re not allowed to carry on a university campus.” He said, “I think the answer to your question is yes.” Kagan seemed to think that was an important concession. “You know, anybody can walk around the NYU campus,” she said, referring to New York University’s many buildings in and around Greenwich Village. Clement responded, to laughter, that “NYU doesn’t have much of a campus.” Kagan disagreed, as did Breyer. “To my mind,” he said, to more laughter, “I think NYU does have a campus.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about the masses of people who sometimes gather in Manhattan. “Can’t we just say Times Square on New Year’s Eve is a sensitive place because now we’ve seen, you know, people are on top of each other?” she said. “We’ve had experience with violence, so we’re making a judgment, it’s a sensitive place.” Underwood said that Times Square is, at least in the absence of a pandemic, always crowded. “When commerce is in full swing,” she said, “Times Square almost every night is shoulder-to-shoulder people.”

Supreme Court appears likely to strike limits on carrying firearms

An American woman deported from Indonesia after serving prison time for her role in her mother's 2014 "suitcase" murder was arrested on Wednesday on conspiracy charges when her plane arrived in Chicago, U.S. authorities said.

Heather Mack, 26, conspired with her boyfriend to kill her mother, Sheila Von Wiese-Mack, stuff her body in a suitcase and load it into the trunk of a taxi during a vacation on the Indonesian island of Bali, the US&nbsp;Justice Department said.

Mack was scheduled to appear in US&nbsp;District Court in Chicago, her home city, on Wednesday, it added in a statement.

Indonesian authorities arrested Mack and her boyfriend, Tommy Schaefer, 28, after the August 2014 killing. Schaefer was sentenced in 2015 to 18 years for premeditated murder, while Mack, then 19, received a 10-year sentence for being an accessory to murder.

A 2017 US&nbsp;grand jury indictment that was unsealed on Wednesday alleged that Mack and Schaefer came up with their plan to kill Von Wiese-Mack before they left the United States for Bali, and that Schaefer asked his cousin, Ryan Bibbs, about ways of killing her.

Mack asked Bibbs if he knew anyone who would kill her mother for money, and he pleaded guilty in December 2016 to one count of conspiracy to commit foreign murder of a U.S. national, the Justice Department said.

Under the department's contention that her plan was conceived in the United States, Mack faces two U.S. counts of murder conspiracy and one of obstruction, and a maximum statutory penalty of life imprisonment if convicted of the conspiracy charges, the department said.

Mack was deported following her release from prison on Oct. 29 as her permit had expired, an Indonesian immigration official said. Schaefer remains in jail.

Mack's lawyer, Yulius Benyamin Seran, said she was accompanied on the plane to Chicago by her daughter, to whom she had given birth before her sentencing.

An American woman deported from Indonesia after serving prison time for her role in her mother's 2014 "suitcase" murder was arrested on Wednesday on conspiracy charges when her plane arrived in Chicago, U.

An American woman deported from Indonesia after serving prison time for her role in her mother's 2014 "suitcase" murder was arrested on Wednesday on conspiracy charges when her plane arrived in Chicago, U.S. authorities said. Heather Mack, 26, conspired with her boyfriend to kill her mother, Sheila Von Wiese-Mack, stuff her body in a suitcase and load it into the trunk of a taxi during a vacation on the Indonesian island of Bali, the US Justice Department said. Mack was scheduled to appear in US District Court in Chicago, her home city, on Wednesday, it added in a statement. Indonesian authorities arrested Mack and her boyfriend, Tommy Schaefer, 28, after the August 2014 killing. Schaefer was sentenced in 2015 to 18 years for premeditated murder, while Mack, then 19, received a 10-year sentence for being an accessory to murder. A 2017 US grand jury indictment that was unsealed on Wednesday alleged that Mack and Schaefer came up with their plan to kill Von Wiese-Mack before they left the United States for Bali, and that Schaefer asked his cousin, Ryan Bibbs, about ways of killing her. Mack asked Bibbs if he knew anyone who would kill her mother for money, and he pleaded guilty in December 2016 to one count of conspiracy to commit foreign murder of a U.S. national, the Justice Department said. Under the department's contention that her plan was conceived in the United States, Mack faces two U.S. counts of murder conspiracy and one of obstruction, and a maximum statutory penalty of life imprisonment if convicted of the conspiracy charges, the department said. Mack was deported following her release from prison on Oct. 29 as her permit had expired, an Indonesian immigration official said. Schaefer remains in jail. Mack's lawyer, Yulius Benyamin Seran, said she was accompanied on the plane to Chicago by her daughter, to whom she had given birth before her sentencing.

US woman who aided Bali 'suitcase' murder arrested in Chicago

The forest fires regularly destroying the Western United States are the result of climate change caused largely by human activity, according to a study published Monday.

From 2001 to 2018, fires destroyed an average of 13,500 square kilometres (5,200 square miles) per year in the American west, double what they destroyed between 1984 and 2000.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eco-hypocrite-leaders-businessmen-arrive-in-fuel-guzzling-private-jets-at-cop26-425903" hreflang="en">'Eco-hypocrite': Leaders, businessmen arrive in fuel-guzzling private jets at COP26</a>

"It's happened so much faster than we previously anticipated," Rong Fu, who led the study published by the US National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), told the Los Angeles Times.

As a result of such a significant deterioration of weather conditions in such a short time, a team of American researchers led by Fu analyzed the "vapor pressure deficit" (VPD), which measures how dry the air is.

As an indicator of water in the atmosphere, the VPD represents the difference between the amount that is actually present in the atmosphere and the maximum amount that could exist in the atmosphere. As deficits grow, soil and plants lose more water, drying out and creating conditions that fuel fires.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cop26-climate-summit-world-leaders-pledge-to-end-deforestation-by-2030-425988">COP26 climate summit: World leaders pledge to end deforestation by 2030</a>

According to scientists, wildfires in the western United States are correlated with this deficit during the warm season. The study found that the number of high VPD days between May and September increased 94 per cent between 2001 and 2008 compared to the preceding period.

Fu and her colleagues calculated that "natural" atmospheric variations were responsible for only a 32 per cent increase in VPD. Global warming, which is largely the result of human activities, is responsible for the remaining 68 per cent of the increase in atmospheric water deficit.

"Prior to 2000, we can explain this fire weather pretty well just using weather patterns," said Fu, a climatologist at the University of California UCLA. "But now we can only explain 30 percent of what we see with fire weather."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/by-2030-climate-change-may-trigger-24-dip-in-global-corn-yields-says-study-426059">By 2030, climate change may trigger 24% dip in global corn yields, says study</a>

The study found that up to 88 per cent of anomalies in the VPD could be explained by anthropogenic or human origin warming.

According to the study, in August 2020, when California experienced the largest fire ever recorded in the region,&nbsp;the August Complex Fire, which burned nearly 4,200 square kilometres (1,600 square miles), anthropogenic warming was responsible for about half of the "unprecedented high" moisture deficit.

Climate experts claim that the planet has already warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times due to greenhouse gases generated by humans. The warming that has been caused primarily by burning fossil fuels has occurred largely in the last 50 years.

(With inputs from agencies)

The forest fires regularly destroying the Western United States are the result of climate change caused largely by human activity, according to a study published Monday.

The forest fires regularly destroying the Western United States are the result of climate change caused largely by human activity, according to a study published Monday. From 2001 to 2018, fires destroyed an average of 13,500 square kilometres (5,200 square miles) per year in the American west, double what they destroyed between 1984 and 2000. Also read | 'Eco-hypocrite': Leaders, businessmen arrive in fuel-guzzling private jets at COP26 "It's happened so much faster than we previously anticipated," Rong Fu, who led the study published by the US National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), told the Los Angeles Times. As a result of such a significant deterioration of weather conditions in such a short time, a team of American researchers led by Fu analyzed the "vapor pressure deficit" (VPD), which measures how dry the air is. As an indicator of water in the atmosphere, the VPD represents the difference between the amount that is actually present in the atmosphere and the maximum amount that could exist in the atmosphere. As deficits grow, soil and plants lose more water, drying out and creating conditions that fuel fires. Also read | COP26 climate summit: World leaders pledge to end deforestation by 2030 According to scientists, wildfires in the western United States are correlated with this deficit during the warm season. The study found that the number of high VPD days between May and September increased 94 per cent between 2001 and 2008 compared to the preceding period. Fu and her colleagues calculated that "natural" atmospheric variations were responsible for only a 32 per cent increase in VPD. Global warming, which is largely the result of human activities, is responsible for the remaining 68 per cent of the increase in atmospheric water deficit. "Prior to 2000, we can explain this fire weather pretty well just using weather patterns," said Fu, a climatologist at the University of California UCLA. "But now we can only explain 30 percent of what we see with fire weather." Also read | By 2030, climate change may trigger 24% dip in global corn yields, says study The study found that up to 88 per cent of anomalies in the VPD could be explained by anthropogenic or human origin warming. According to the study, in August 2020, when California experienced the largest fire ever recorded in the region, the August Complex Fire, which burned nearly 4,200 square kilometres (1,600 square miles), anthropogenic warming was responsible for about half of the "unprecedented high" moisture deficit. Climate experts claim that the planet has already warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times due to greenhouse gases generated by humans. The warming that has been caused primarily by burning fossil fuels has occurred largely in the last 50 years. (With inputs from agencies)

Study finds humans, climate change largely responsible for fires in US

Four manufacturers of prescription opioids won the pharmaceutical industry’s first major legal victory in the opioid crisis, turning aside claims by local California governments that they contributed substantially to the epidemic.

In a bench trial decision late Monday, a state judge flatly rejected a legal argument being employed in thousands of cases against the industry over its role in an epidemic of abuse that, according to federal data, has contributed to the deaths of some 500,000 people in the United States since the late 1990s and grown worse during the pandemic.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/jj-to-stop-selling-opioids-in-us-reaches-usd-230-mn-settlement-394318">J&amp;J to stop selling opioids in US, reaches USD 230 mn settlement</a>

“There is simply no evidence to show that the rise in prescriptions was not the result of the medically appropriate provision of pain medications to patients in need,” wrote Judge Peter Wilson of Orange County State Superior Court, who presided over a four-month bench trial.

The manufacturers include Johnson &amp; Johnson, which has a nationwide opioids settlement offer pending; Teva, a maker of generic opioids based in Israel; Allergan, a subsidiary of AbbVie; and Endo Pharmaceuticals.

Brought by the counties of Santa Clara, Los Angeles and Orange and the city of Oakland, the case, filed in 2014, was one of the first to demand that drug manufacturers be held accountable for the ongoing epidemic.

The legal issue before Wilson was whether the companies were liable for creating “a public nuisance,” an argument put forth by the local California governments as well as most plaintiffs pursuing cases against the industry in state and federal courts across the country.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/study-finds-that-humans-climate-change-are-largely-responsible-for-fires-in-us-west-426227" hreflang="en">Study finds that humans, climate change are largely responsible for fires in US west</a>

Even if the companies perpetrated false or misleading marketing, wrote Wilson, “any adverse downstream consequences flowing from&nbsp;medically&nbsp;appropriate&nbsp;prescriptions cannot constitute an actionable public nuisance.” He also emphasized that neither he nor the companies disputed the gravity of the opioid epidemic.

Essentially, he said that the plaintiffs could not distinguish the rise in legitimate prescriptions of federally approved pain medications from those prescriptions that were illegitimate or otherwise ill-gotten.

Even if the judge could infer that the rise in opioid prescriptions must have logically included the medically inappropriate ones, he wrote, the plaintiffs did not offer evidence to show that, “without rank speculation,” the volume of those prescriptions helped create the public nuisance and, if so, to what extent.

The ruling underscored what legal experts have asserted from the outset about the opioid litigation: that apportioning responsibility will be very difficult because opioids pass through so many entities — including manufacturers, medical supply distributors, doctors and pharmacies, including big-box retailers — before reaching a patient. Crucially, the medication is federally approved. Moreover, establishing a nexus between the corporate entities and the substantial illegal trafficking of opioids is also very challenging.

Adam Zimmerman, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who studies mass litigation, said that it was difficult to predict whether the ruling was an outlier because so few cases have been decided among thousands that are employing similar legal strategies by both sides. Nevertheless, he said: “It’s the first defense win so it suggests that maybe as these cases are litigated instead of being settled there are opportunities for defendants to score victories.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/tokyo-train-attack-man-dressed-as-joker-wanted-to-kill-lots-of-people-426163" hreflang="en">Tokyo train attack: Man dressed as 'Joker' wanted to 'kill lots of people'</a>

He noted that the plaintiffs’ approach was to rely heavily on statistical modelling of pill volume, overdoses and deaths rather than producing individual prescriptions and tying them to outcomes.

“The defendants have said over and over again that the plaintiffs need to establish with precision exactly what illegal marketing behaviour of theirs caused the opioid epidemic or whether the crisis would have just emerged anyway,” Zimmerman said. But other judges, he said, may find the plaintiffs’ macro approach persuasive.

Indeed an Oklahoma state judge presiding over a 2019 bench trial against Johnson &amp; Johnson ruled against the company, finding it liable for $465 million, a decision that is currently on appeal. In July, the company proposed a nationwide settlement of $5 billion over nine years, pending approval by plaintiffs in thousands of cases. At the time, the California plaintiffs chose not to participate because of their ongoing trial.

Wilson’s decision is labelled “tentative,” a procedural term, although in practice it is final. The plaintiffs have already announced they will appeal and noted that this is just one state case among thousands that have been filed.

“The people of California will have their opportunity to pursue justice on appeal and ensure no opioid manufacturer can engage in reckless corporate practices that compromise public health in the state for their own profit,” the lawyers said in a statement.

The plaintiffs originally named Purdue Pharma as the first defendant in the case, but the company filed for bankruptcy protection and restructuring.

The remaining companies in the case hailed the ruling.

“The court’s thorough and thoughtful opinion reflects the evidence as it came in over months of testimony,” Endo said in a written statement. “Endo did not make false or misleading statements, and Endo’s lawful conduct did not cause the widespread public nuisance at issue in plaintiffs’ complaint.”

Teva said, in a statement, that “a clear win for the many patients in the US&nbsp;who suffer from opioid addiction will only come when comprehensive settlements are finalized and resources are made available to all who need them.”

Watch |&nbsp;Four drug firms agree to pay $26bn in proposed US opioid settlement

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/four-drug-firms-agree-to-pay-26bn-in-proposed-us-opioid-settlement-399662/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Teva and Allergan are currently on trial in New York, the first jury trial in an opioids case; both Endo and Johnson &amp; Johnson have already settled in that case. Pharmacy chains are facing a jury trial in a federal Ohio court. A recently concluded bench trial brought by local West Virginia governments against distributors awaits a federal judge’s decision. Washington state’s trial against Johnson &amp; Johnson is scheduled for early next year.

Johnson &amp; Johnson, referring to its pharmaceutical division, Janssen, which made its opioids, said: “The well-reasoned tentative decision reflects the facts of the case: Janssen’s actions relating to the marketing and promotion of its important prescription pain medications were appropriate and responsible and did not cause any public nuisance.”

Four manufacturers of prescription opioids won the pharmaceutical industry’s first major legal victory in the opioid crisis, turning aside claims by local California governments that they contributed substantially to the epidemic.

Four manufacturers of prescription opioids won the pharmaceutical industry’s first major legal victory in the opioid crisis, turning aside claims by local California governments that they contributed substantially to the epidemic. In a bench trial decision late Monday, a state judge flatly rejected a legal argument being employed in thousands of cases against the industry over its role in an epidemic of abuse that, according to federal data, has contributed to the deaths of some 500,000 people in the United States since the late 1990s and grown worse during the pandemic. Also read | J&J to stop selling opioids in US, reaches USD 230 mn settlement “There is simply no evidence to show that the rise in prescriptions was not the result of the medically appropriate provision of pain medications to patients in need,” wrote Judge Peter Wilson of Orange County State Superior Court, who presided over a four-month bench trial. The manufacturers include Johnson & Johnson, which has a nationwide opioids settlement offer pending; Teva, a maker of generic opioids based in Israel; Allergan, a subsidiary of AbbVie; and Endo Pharmaceuticals. Brought by the counties of Santa Clara, Los Angeles and Orange and the city of Oakland, the case, filed in 2014, was one of the first to demand that drug manufacturers be held accountable for the ongoing epidemic. The legal issue before Wilson was whether the companies were liable for creating “a public nuisance,” an argument put forth by the local California governments as well as most plaintiffs pursuing cases against the industry in state and federal courts across the country. Also read | Study finds that humans, climate change are largely responsible for fires in US west Even if the companies perpetrated false or misleading marketing, wrote Wilson, “any adverse downstream consequences flowing from medically appropriate prescriptions cannot constitute an actionable public nuisance.” He also emphasized that neither he nor the companies disputed the gravity of the opioid epidemic. Essentially, he said that the plaintiffs could not distinguish the rise in legitimate prescriptions of federally approved pain medications from those prescriptions that were illegitimate or otherwise ill-gotten. Even if the judge could infer that the rise in opioid prescriptions must have logically included the medically inappropriate ones, he wrote, the plaintiffs did not offer evidence to show that, “without rank speculation,” the volume of those prescriptions helped create the public nuisance and, if so, to what extent. The ruling underscored what legal experts have asserted from the outset about the opioid litigation: that apportioning responsibility will be very difficult because opioids pass through so many entities — including manufacturers, medical supply distributors, doctors and pharmacies, including big-box retailers — before reaching a patient. Crucially, the medication is federally approved. Moreover, establishing a nexus between the corporate entities and the substantial illegal trafficking of opioids is also very challenging. Adam Zimmerman, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who studies mass litigation, said that it was difficult to predict whether the ruling was an outlier because so few cases have been decided among thousands that are employing similar legal strategies by both sides. Nevertheless, he said: “It’s the first defense win so it suggests that maybe as these cases are litigated instead of being settled there are opportunities for defendants to score victories.” Also read | Tokyo train attack: Man dressed as 'Joker' wanted to 'kill lots of people' He noted that the plaintiffs’ approach was to rely heavily on statistical modelling of pill volume, overdoses and deaths rather than producing individual prescriptions and tying them to outcomes. “The defendants have said over and over again that the plaintiffs need to establish with precision exactly what illegal marketing behaviour of theirs caused the opioid epidemic or whether the crisis would have just emerged anyway,” Zimmerman said. But other judges, he said, may find the plaintiffs’ macro approach persuasive. Indeed an Oklahoma state judge presiding over a 2019 bench trial against Johnson & Johnson ruled against the company, finding it liable for $465 million, a decision that is currently on appeal. In July, the company proposed a nationwide settlement of $5 billion over nine years, pending approval by plaintiffs in thousands of cases. At the time, the California plaintiffs chose not to participate because of their ongoing trial. Wilson’s decision is labelled “tentative,” a procedural term, although in practice it is final. The plaintiffs have already announced they will appeal and noted that this is just one state case among thousands that have been filed. “The people of California will have their opportunity to pursue justice on appeal and ensure no opioid manufacturer can engage in reckless corporate practices that compromise public health in the state for their own profit,” the lawyers said in a statement. The plaintiffs originally named Purdue Pharma as the first defendant in the case, but the company filed for bankruptcy protection and restructuring. The remaining companies in the case hailed the ruling. “The court’s thorough and thoughtful opinion reflects the evidence as it came in over months of testimony,” Endo said in a written statement. “Endo did not make false or misleading statements, and Endo’s lawful conduct did not cause the widespread public nuisance at issue in plaintiffs’ complaint.” Teva said, in a statement, that “a clear win for the many patients in the US who suffer from opioid addiction will only come when comprehensive settlements are finalized and resources are made available to all who need them.” Watch | Four drug firms agree to pay $26bn in proposed US opioid settlement Teva and Allergan are currently on trial in New York, the first jury trial in an opioids case; both Endo and Johnson & Johnson have already settled in that case. Pharmacy chains are facing a jury trial in a federal Ohio court. A recently concluded bench trial brought by local West Virginia governments against distributors awaits a federal judge’s decision. Washington state’s trial against Johnson & Johnson is scheduled for early next year. Johnson & Johnson, referring to its pharmaceutical division, Janssen, which made its opioids, said: “The well-reasoned tentative decision reflects the facts of the case: Janssen’s actions relating to the marketing and promotion of its important prescription pain medications were appropriate and responsible and did not cause any public nuisance.”

Opioid makers win major victory in California trial

A new idea is gaining currency among some politicians and policymakers in Washington: The United States is in a “Cold War” with China. It’s a bad idea — bad on history, bad on politics, bad for our future.

The Biden administration has wisely pushed back on the framing. But the president’s actions suggest that his strategy for dealing with China may indeed suffer from Cold War thinking, which locks our minds into the traditional two-dimensional chess model.

Competition with China, though, is a three-dimensional game. And if we continue to play two-dimensional chess, we will lose.

While neither the conflict with the Soviet Union nor the current competition with China has led to all-out combat, the games are very different. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was a direct military and ideological threat to the United States. We had almost no economic or social connections: Containment was a feasible objective.

Because the game was based on a simple two-dimensional premise — that the only fight was between their respective militaries — each side depended on the other not to pull the trigger. But with China, the three-dimensional game features a distribution of power at each level — military, economic and social — not just one.

That is why the Cold War metaphor, although convenient, is lazy and potentially dangerous. It obscures and misleads us by underestimating the real challenge we face — and offering ineffective strategies.

On the economic level, the United States and China are deeply interdependent. The United States had more than half a trillion dollars in trade with China in 2020. While some voices in Washington talk about “decoupling,” it would be foolish to think we can separate our economy completely from China without enormous costs. And we should not expect other countries to do so either, since China is reportedly now the largest trading partner of more countries than the United States.

The social fabrics of the United States and China are also deeply intertwined: There are millions of social connections, from students and tourists and others, between the two countries. And it’s physically impossible to decouple ecological issues like pandemics and climate change.

Interdependence is a double-edged sword. It creates networks of sensitivity to what is happening in another country that can encourage caution. But it also creates vulnerabilities that both Beijing and Washington can try to manipulate as tools of influence.

Despite the above factors, a two-dimensional mind-set assumes the United States can take on China largely because of its military superiority. While China is modernizing its forces, the United States is still the only truly global power. (Though it’s unclear how long that will last.) We must carefully plot our horizontal moves — like improving relations with India and reinforcing our alliance with Japan — on the traditional military board of chess to maintain the balance of power in Asia. At the same time, we cannot continue to ignore the different power relations on the economic or transnational boards — and how those levels interact. If we do, we will suffer.

On the economic board, the distribution of power is multipolar, with the United States, China, Europe and Japan the largest players. And on the transnational board, when it comes to issues such as climate change and pandemics, nongovernmental actors play powerful roles and no country is in control.

And yet, the United States has an inadequate trade policy for East Asia, which leaves the field to China. On transnational issues, the United States risks letting sour relations with Beijing jeopardize climate goals. China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has warned America not to expect climate negotiations to remain an oasis in a desert of overall relations.

No country can solve transnational issues like climate change and pandemics alone. And so the politics of ecological interdependence involve power with as well as over others.

The political competition today is also different. The United States and its allies are not threatened by the export of communism in the same way they were in the days of Stalin or Mao. There is less proselytizing; few today take to the streets in favor of “Xi Jinping thought.”

Instead, China manipulates the system of deep economic and political interdependence to support its authoritarian government and to influence opinion in democracies to counter and pre-empt criticism. For evidence of that, we just have to look at China’s economic punishment of our allies Norway and Australia for daring to knock China on human rights. A three-dimensional strategy would recognize and respond to the fact that these actions taken by China create opportunities for us to take supportive steps that will in turn increase our influence. Trade agreements would help, as does the recent agreement to export our nuclear submarine technology to Australia.

For better and worse, we are locked in a “cooperative rivalry” with China that requires a strategy that can accomplish those two contradictory things — compete and cooperate — at the same time.

At home, the United States must reinforce its technological advantages by increasing support for research and development. On the military board, this means restructuring traditional forces to incorporate new technologies and strengthening the aforementioned alliances.

On the economic board, American withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership left a gaping hole in an important area of trade. And on transnational issues we need to strengthen and develop institutions and international treaties — such as the World Health Organization and the Paris climate accord — to cope with health and climate issues.

Pessimists look at China’s population size and economic growth rates and believe they will prevail. But if we treat our allies as assets, the combined military strength and economic wealth of Western-aligned democracies — the United States, Europe, Japan — will far exceed that of China well into this century.

President Biden is correct that Cold War rhetoric has more negative than positive effects. But he also needs to ensure that his China strategy suits the three-dimensional game.

A new idea is gaining currency among some politicians and policymakers in Washington: The United States is in a “Cold War” with China. It’s a bad idea — bad on history, bad on politics, bad for our future.

A new idea is gaining currency among some politicians and policymakers in Washington: The United States is in a “Cold War” with China. It’s a bad idea — bad on history, bad on politics, bad for our future. The Biden administration has wisely pushed back on the framing. But the president’s actions suggest that his strategy for dealing with China may indeed suffer from Cold War thinking, which locks our minds into the traditional two-dimensional chess model. Competition with China, though, is a three-dimensional game. And if we continue to play two-dimensional chess, we will lose. While neither the conflict with the Soviet Union nor the current competition with China has led to all-out combat, the games are very different. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was a direct military and ideological threat to the United States. We had almost no economic or social connections: Containment was a feasible objective. Because the game was based on a simple two-dimensional premise — that the only fight was between their respective militaries — each side depended on the other not to pull the trigger. But with China, the three-dimensional game features a distribution of power at each level — military, economic and social — not just one. That is why the Cold War metaphor, although convenient, is lazy and potentially dangerous. It obscures and misleads us by underestimating the real challenge we face — and offering ineffective strategies. On the economic level, the United States and China are deeply interdependent. The United States had more than half a trillion dollars in trade with China in 2020. While some voices in Washington talk about “decoupling,” it would be foolish to think we can separate our economy completely from China without enormous costs. And we should not expect other countries to do so either, since China is reportedly now the largest trading partner of more countries than the United States. The social fabrics of the United States and China are also deeply intertwined: There are millions of social connections, from students and tourists and others, between the two countries. And it’s physically impossible to decouple ecological issues like pandemics and climate change. Interdependence is a double-edged sword. It creates networks of sensitivity to what is happening in another country that can encourage caution. But it also creates vulnerabilities that both Beijing and Washington can try to manipulate as tools of influence. Despite the above factors, a two-dimensional mind-set assumes the United States can take on China largely because of its military superiority. While China is modernizing its forces, the United States is still the only truly global power. (Though it’s unclear how long that will last.) We must carefully plot our horizontal moves — like improving relations with India and reinforcing our alliance with Japan — on the traditional military board of chess to maintain the balance of power in Asia. At the same time, we cannot continue to ignore the different power relations on the economic or transnational boards — and how those levels interact. If we do, we will suffer. On the economic board, the distribution of power is multipolar, with the United States, China, Europe and Japan the largest players. And on the transnational board, when it comes to issues such as climate change and pandemics, nongovernmental actors play powerful roles and no country is in control. And yet, the United States has an inadequate trade policy for East Asia, which leaves the field to China. On transnational issues, the United States risks letting sour relations with Beijing jeopardize climate goals. China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has warned America not to expect climate negotiations to remain an oasis in a desert of overall relations. No country can solve transnational issues like climate change and pandemics alone. And so the politics of ecological interdependence involve power with as well as over others. The political competition today is also different. The United States and its allies are not threatened by the export of communism in the same way they were in the days of Stalin or Mao. There is less proselytizing; few today take to the streets in favor of “Xi Jinping thought.” Instead, China manipulates the system of deep economic and political interdependence to support its authoritarian government and to influence opinion in democracies to counter and pre-empt criticism. For evidence of that, we just have to look at China’s economic punishment of our allies Norway and Australia for daring to knock China on human rights. A three-dimensional strategy would recognize and respond to the fact that these actions taken by China create opportunities for us to take supportive steps that will in turn increase our influence. Trade agreements would help, as does the recent agreement to export our nuclear submarine technology to Australia. For better and worse, we are locked in a “cooperative rivalry” with China that requires a strategy that can accomplish those two contradictory things — compete and cooperate — at the same time. At home, the United States must reinforce its technological advantages by increasing support for research and development. On the military board, this means restructuring traditional forces to incorporate new technologies and strengthening the aforementioned alliances. On the economic board, American withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership left a gaping hole in an important area of trade. And on transnational issues we need to strengthen and develop institutions and international treaties — such as the World Health Organization and the Paris climate accord — to cope with health and climate issues. Pessimists look at China’s population size and economic growth rates and believe they will prevail. But if we treat our allies as assets, the combined military strength and economic wealth of Western-aligned democracies — the United States, Europe, Japan — will far exceed that of China well into this century. President Biden is correct that Cold War rhetoric has more negative than positive effects. But he also needs to ensure that his China strategy suits the three-dimensional game.

When it comes to China, don’t call it a ‘Cold War’

US Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Milley emphatically said on Wednesday that US 'absolutely' had the ability to defend Taiwan if it is attacked by China and is called on to do so.

However, the top Pentagon general also warned that Chinese military had made stunning technological advances in a short time signified by its recent globe-circling hypersonic missile test, leaving the world poised to enter an era of increased strategic instability.&nbsp;

Milley told the Aspen Security Forum he did not expect China would take military action against Taiwan, which Beijing views as a breakaway province, in the next 24 months.

"Having said that, though, the Chinese are clearly and unambiguously building the capability to provide those options to the national leadership if they so choose at some point in the future," he said.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-warns-nuclear-talks-would-fail-unless-biden-provides-guarantees-426395">Iran warns nuclear talks would fail unless Biden provides guarantees</a>

When asked if the Pentagon would be capable of defending the island, he replied there was no question it could.

"We absolutely have the capability to do all kinds of things around the world, to include that if required," Milley said.&nbsp;

"We absolutely have the capability. There's no question about that."

He said the United States rightly maintains a policy of "strategic ambiguity" about what it would do if the Chinese military sought to seize control of the island.&nbsp;

He added the United States believes the differences between China and Taiwan should be resolved peacefully based on the will of the people on both sides.

"We are just interested in a peaceful outcome," Milley said.

(With inputs from agencies)

US Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Milley emphatically said on Wednesday that US 'absolutely' had the ability to defend Taiwan if it is attacked by China and is called on to do so.

US Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Milley emphatically said on Wednesday that US 'absolutely' had the ability to defend Taiwan if it is attacked by China and is called on to do so. However, the top Pentagon general also warned that Chinese military had made stunning technological advances in a short time signified by its recent globe-circling hypersonic missile test, leaving the world poised to enter an era of increased strategic instability. Milley told the Aspen Security Forum he did not expect China would take military action against Taiwan, which Beijing views as a breakaway province, in the next 24 months. "Having said that, though, the Chinese are clearly and unambiguously building the capability to provide those options to the national leadership if they so choose at some point in the future," he said. Also Read | Iran warns nuclear talks would fail unless Biden provides guarantees When asked if the Pentagon would be capable of defending the island, he replied there was no question it could. "We absolutely have the capability to do all kinds of things around the world, to include that if required," Milley said. "We absolutely have the capability. There's no question about that." He said the United States rightly maintains a policy of "strategic ambiguity" about what it would do if the Chinese military sought to seize control of the island. He added the United States believes the differences between China and Taiwan should be resolved peacefully based on the will of the people on both sides. "We are just interested in a peaceful outcome," Milley said. (With inputs from agencies)

'Absolutely', says top Pentagon general about US ability to defend Taiwan

Having stumbled in their attempts to raise taxes on the wealthy in the conventional way, Democrats in Congress moved to unconventional measures.

The proposal was to tax billionaires on their so-called unrealized gains — the growth in the value of assets, such as stocks and real estate, that have not yet been sold. To understand why lawmakers might look to a group of more than 700 billionaires to underwrite a massive spending program, consider this statistic: Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, billionaires have seen a 70 percent increase in their wealth, from nearly $3 trillion to an almost incomprehensible $5 trillion, according to Forbes data analyzed by Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality and the Common Good.

Unsurprisingly, critics, the ultrawealthy and even some Democrats decried the idea as novel, untested and dangerous. Other experts worried about whether it would be too difficult to value billionaires’ assets or if the proposal could pass constitutional muster. These attacks ultimately killed the idea in Washington.

But a billionaire’s tax is not nearly as novel and untested as it sounds. The main concepts already exist in the tax code. It just happens that these provisions currently serve the interests of the ultrawealthy class, who have so far skirted most taxes aimed at wealth rather than income.

The ultrawealthy live starkly different financial lives from other people. They hardly make anything in wages, or what the rest of us know as income. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos has typically pulled down a middle-class base salary of around $80,000. Others, like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Google’s Larry Page, have, at various points, taken a symbolic $1 in salary.

But many ultrawealthy Americans have figured out how to fund a lavish lifestyle without owing any income tax. Their wealth is almost entirely in assets like stocks, such as the Tesla shares that account for the vast majority of Elon Musk’s $270 billion plus in wealth. Our tax code levies a 23.8 percent tax on capital gains for those with the highest incomes, but only when an asset is sold. Their holdings can grow by billions of dollars a year, but the wealthy owe nothing as long as they hang on to their shares. When they need money, they borrow it, as Mr. Ellison and Mr. Musk have done to the tune of billions, pledging the value of shares as collateral. It has been called “Buy, Borrow, Die,” and it’s a wonderful system for the superrich.

This system allows them to enjoy luxury cars, yachts, homes on multiple continents and occasional trips to outer space while reporting, in some cases, a salary of a dollar a year or less to the Internal Revenue Service.

This is why the ultrawealthy are able to pay negligible amounts in taxes, especially compared with the growth in their wealth, as ProPublica reported earlier this year, as part of our series “The Secret I.R.S. Files.” In 2018, Mr. Musk paid $0 in federal income taxes. (He declined to discuss his taxes with ProPublica.)

The proposal would have taxed billionaires on those unrealized gains. If shares of Amazon or Facebook or Berkshire Hathaway rise 20 percent in a year, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg or Warren Buffett, respectively, would owe taxes on that gain — even if they don’t sell a single share. Assets that are harder to value, such as privately held companies or real estate, would also be subject to tax.

Part of the objection to the billionaire’s tax was that it is a dramatic change from the current tax system, which taxes people only when they realize gains.

That’s untrue. There are several provisions in the current tax code through which unrealized gains are taxed.

Here’s one example of something in the code today. Certain hedge fund managers can do what’s called a 475 election, a maneuver named after Section 475 of the tax code. Using this provision, their entire fund is taxed on its market value at the end of the year. They have to pay taxes on gains, whether they sell the underlying stock or not. Are these hedge fund managers nuts? Nope. They do it because it confers several benefits for certain types of funds (particularly those doing rapid-fire trading every nanosecond), including freeing them from complying with trading rules they may find onerous.

Hedge fund managers are intimately familiar with the concept of placing a value on unrealized gains. Their compensation depends on it. Each year, they get a small percentage, typically 2 percent, of the assets they manage. If they do well and the fund goes up, they get a performance fee, often 20 percent of the increase in the fund’s value. How do they determine that 20 percent? They figure out the unrealized gains. On Dec. 31, they tell their clients that their assets went up and get paid 20 percent of that amount. If those stocks fall on Jan. 1, they don’t have to give the money back.

The mirror image of unrealized gains also exists in the tax code. Today, businesses that buy equipment get to take a deduction intended to approximate the amount that it loses in value each year. This concept is called depreciation. In other words, you get a deduction based on an estimate, not when you sell something. You could call it an unrealized loss.

And then there’s the wealth tax on unrealized gains that millions of Americans already pay: property taxes, which every owner of a house or apartment is responsible for. Property taxes are a town or city’s estimate of the value of your home or land, almost always in a year you didn’t sell.

The proposal is not a wealth tax, but it has a similar goal of raising money only from the ultrawealthy. Its elegance is that it equates the gain in wealth with income. In theory, a wealth tax, which has its own complexities and constitutional questions, could be layered on top.

When people complain that the new billionaire tax is unconstitutional, they may be forgetting about all of these provisions that exist today that do similar things.

Another argument against such a tax is that it would be too hard to enforce because it’s difficult to value assets accurately. Stock markets reflect a clear value for publicly held companies, but the value of privately held companies, real estate holdings, art and other assets is harder to determine.

That may have been more true 40 years ago, but there are now entire industries dedicated to valuing private assets. Commercial real estate, for example, relies on the work of research and investment banking companies that analyze and value office buildings. And if banks are willing to lend to the ultrawealthy against their assets, presumably they are comfortable valuing them. If all these entities can do it, so can the I.R.S.

It’s a measure of how much the political conversation about wealth inequality has shifted that this new tax was even considered seriously. While a tax on billionaires for their unrealized gains is not as new as people want to pretend, it clearly would be complex to implement. Perhaps, however, not as complex as getting all Democrats on board.

Having stumbled in their attempts to raise taxes on the wealthy in the conventional way, Democrats in Congress moved to unconventional measures. The proposal was to tax billionaires on their so-called unrealized gains — the growth in the value of assets, such as stocks and real estate, that have not yet been sold.

Having stumbled in their attempts to raise taxes on the wealthy in the conventional way, Democrats in Congress moved to unconventional measures. The proposal was to tax billionaires on their so-called unrealized gains — the growth in the value of assets, such as stocks and real estate, that have not yet been sold. To understand why lawmakers might look to a group of more than 700 billionaires to underwrite a massive spending program, consider this statistic: Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, billionaires have seen a 70 percent increase in their wealth, from nearly $3 trillion to an almost incomprehensible $5 trillion, according to Forbes data analyzed by Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality and the Common Good. Unsurprisingly, critics, the ultrawealthy and even some Democrats decried the idea as novel, untested and dangerous. Other experts worried about whether it would be too difficult to value billionaires’ assets or if the proposal could pass constitutional muster. These attacks ultimately killed the idea in Washington. But a billionaire’s tax is not nearly as novel and untested as it sounds. The main concepts already exist in the tax code. It just happens that these provisions currently serve the interests of the ultrawealthy class, who have so far skirted most taxes aimed at wealth rather than income. The ultrawealthy live starkly different financial lives from other people. They hardly make anything in wages, or what the rest of us know as income. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos has typically pulled down a middle-class base salary of around $80,000. Others, like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Oracle’s Larry Ellison and Google’s Larry Page, have, at various points, taken a symbolic $1 in salary. But many ultrawealthy Americans have figured out how to fund a lavish lifestyle without owing any income tax. Their wealth is almost entirely in assets like stocks, such as the Tesla shares that account for the vast majority of Elon Musk’s $270 billion plus in wealth. Our tax code levies a 23.8 percent tax on capital gains for those with the highest incomes, but only when an asset is sold. Their holdings can grow by billions of dollars a year, but the wealthy owe nothing as long as they hang on to their shares. When they need money, they borrow it, as Mr. Ellison and Mr. Musk have done to the tune of billions, pledging the value of shares as collateral. It has been called “Buy, Borrow, Die,” and it’s a wonderful system for the superrich. This system allows them to enjoy luxury cars, yachts, homes on multiple continents and occasional trips to outer space while reporting, in some cases, a salary of a dollar a year or less to the Internal Revenue Service. This is why the ultrawealthy are able to pay negligible amounts in taxes, especially compared with the growth in their wealth, as ProPublica reported earlier this year, as part of our series “The Secret I.R.S. Files.” In 2018, Mr. Musk paid $0 in federal income taxes. (He declined to discuss his taxes with ProPublica.) The proposal would have taxed billionaires on those unrealized gains. If shares of Amazon or Facebook or Berkshire Hathaway rise 20 percent in a year, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg or Warren Buffett, respectively, would owe taxes on that gain — even if they don’t sell a single share. Assets that are harder to value, such as privately held companies or real estate, would also be subject to tax. Part of the objection to the billionaire’s tax was that it is a dramatic change from the current tax system, which taxes people only when they realize gains. That’s untrue. There are several provisions in the current tax code through which unrealized gains are taxed. Here’s one example of something in the code today. Certain hedge fund managers can do what’s called a 475 election, a maneuver named after Section 475 of the tax code. Using this provision, their entire fund is taxed on its market value at the end of the year. They have to pay taxes on gains, whether they sell the underlying stock or not. Are these hedge fund managers nuts? Nope. They do it because it confers several benefits for certain types of funds (particularly those doing rapid-fire trading every nanosecond), including freeing them from complying with trading rules they may find onerous. Hedge fund managers are intimately familiar with the concept of placing a value on unrealized gains. Their compensation depends on it. Each year, they get a small percentage, typically 2 percent, of the assets they manage. If they do well and the fund goes up, they get a performance fee, often 20 percent of the increase in the fund’s value. How do they determine that 20 percent? They figure out the unrealized gains. On Dec. 31, they tell their clients that their assets went up and get paid 20 percent of that amount. If those stocks fall on Jan. 1, they don’t have to give the money back. The mirror image of unrealized gains also exists in the tax code. Today, businesses that buy equipment get to take a deduction intended to approximate the amount that it loses in value each year. This concept is called depreciation. In other words, you get a deduction based on an estimate, not when you sell something. You could call it an unrealized loss. And then there’s the wealth tax on unrealized gains that millions of Americans already pay: property taxes, which every owner of a house or apartment is responsible for. Property taxes are a town or city’s estimate of the value of your home or land, almost always in a year you didn’t sell. The proposal is not a wealth tax, but it has a similar goal of raising money only from the ultrawealthy. Its elegance is that it equates the gain in wealth with income. In theory, a wealth tax, which has its own complexities and constitutional questions, could be layered on top. When people complain that the new billionaire tax is unconstitutional, they may be forgetting about all of these provisions that exist today that do similar things. Another argument against such a tax is that it would be too hard to enforce because it’s difficult to value assets accurately. Stock markets reflect a clear value for publicly held companies, but the value of privately held companies, real estate holdings, art and other assets is harder to determine. That may have been more true 40 years ago, but there are now entire industries dedicated to valuing private assets. Commercial real estate, for example, relies on the work of research and investment banking companies that analyze and value office buildings. And if banks are willing to lend to the ultrawealthy against their assets, presumably they are comfortable valuing them. If all these entities can do it, so can the I.R.S. It’s a measure of how much the political conversation about wealth inequality has shifted that this new tax was even considered seriously. While a tax on billionaires for their unrealized gains is not as new as people want to pretend, it clearly would be complex to implement. Perhaps, however, not as complex as getting all Democrats on board.

A Billionaire’s tax isn’t as crazy as it sounds

The US mounted pressure on Iran on Friday by slapping sanctions on Iranian drone programme. This move from US Treasury has come ahead of resumption of negotiations over country's nuclear programme.

US Treasury said Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps have used lethal unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to attack US forces and international shipping in the Gulf region.

"The drones have also been supplied to Hezbollah, Hamas, and Yemen's Houthis, and have also been seen in Ethiopia, "where the escalating crisis threatens to destabilize the broader region," the Treasury said.

The sanctions singled out Brigadier General Saeed Aghajani, who leads the Revolutionary Guards' UAV Command.

The Treasury said that Aghajani was behind a 2019 drone attack on an oil refinery in Saudi Arabia as well as the July 29, 2021 attack on a commercial ship off the coast of Oman that saw two crewman killed.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-agrees-to-restart-nuclear-talks-as-pressure-grows-424842">Iran agrees to restart nuclear talks as pressure grows</a>

Also named to the sanctions blacklist were two companies, Kimia Part Sivan and Oje Parvaz Mado Nafar, which provide components for and help develop the armed UAVs of the Revolutionary Guards.

“Iran’s proliferation of UAVs across the region threatens international peace and stability," Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said in a statement.

“Treasury will continue to hold Iran accountable for its irresponsible and violent acts," he said.

The sanctions came nine days after an attack on a US military base in Al-Tanf, Syria that involved drones.

The Pentagon has not identified the source of that incident, which did not cause any injuries, but says generally that Iran has provided drones for such attacks around the region.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/dangerously-close-to-weapons-grade-iaea-warns-against-iranian-expansion-of-uranium-424009">'Dangerously close to weapons-grade': IAEA warns against Iranian expansion of uranium</a>

"We have seen these kinds of attacks in the past from -- from Shia militia groups, which we know are backed and supported by Iran," Pentagon Spokesman John Kirby said on Monday.

The sanctions were also announced just two days after Iran said it will resume talks with world powers in November on reviving a nuclear deal.

That commitment came after a five-month gap which saw mounting warnings that international patience was wearing thin with Tehran.

(With inputs from agencies)

The US mounted pressure on Iran on Friday by slapping sanctions on Iranian drone programme. This move from US Treasury has come ahead of resumption of negotiations over country's nuclear programme.

The US mounted pressure on Iran on Friday by slapping sanctions on Iranian drone programme. This move from US Treasury has come ahead of resumption of negotiations over country's nuclear programme. US Treasury said Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps have used lethal unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to attack US forces and international shipping in the Gulf region. "The drones have also been supplied to Hezbollah, Hamas, and Yemen's Houthis, and have also been seen in Ethiopia, "where the escalating crisis threatens to destabilize the broader region," the Treasury said. The sanctions singled out Brigadier General Saeed Aghajani, who leads the Revolutionary Guards' UAV Command. The Treasury said that Aghajani was behind a 2019 drone attack on an oil refinery in Saudi Arabia as well as the July 29, 2021 attack on a commercial ship off the coast of Oman that saw two crewman killed. Also Read | Iran agrees to restart nuclear talks as pressure grows Also named to the sanctions blacklist were two companies, Kimia Part Sivan and Oje Parvaz Mado Nafar, which provide components for and help develop the armed UAVs of the Revolutionary Guards. “Iran’s proliferation of UAVs across the region threatens international peace and stability," Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said in a statement. “Treasury will continue to hold Iran accountable for its irresponsible and violent acts," he said. The sanctions came nine days after an attack on a US military base in Al-Tanf, Syria that involved drones. The Pentagon has not identified the source of that incident, which did not cause any injuries, but says generally that Iran has provided drones for such attacks around the region. Also Read | 'Dangerously close to weapons-grade': IAEA warns against Iranian expansion of uranium "We have seen these kinds of attacks in the past from -- from Shia militia groups, which we know are backed and supported by Iran," Pentagon Spokesman John Kirby said on Monday. The sanctions were also announced just two days after Iran said it will resume talks with world powers in November on reviving a nuclear deal. That commitment came after a five-month gap which saw mounting warnings that international patience was wearing thin with Tehran. (With inputs from agencies)

US slaps sanctions on Iran drone programme ahead of nuclear talks

An American woman jailed in 2015 with her boyfriend for&nbsp;murdering her mother and stuffing the remains in a&nbsp;suitcase&nbsp;on the Indonesian island of Bali was released from prison on Friday after serving a chunk of her 10-year sentence.

Swarmed by reporters, Heather Mack left Bali's Kerobokan prison early on Friday. She did not say anything. Her lawyer, Yulius Benyamin Seran, who was not seen with Mack, declined to comment when contacted by Reuters.

Arrested in 2014 in a case that captured global attention due to its grisly nature, Tommy Schaefer was sentenced to 18 years for premeditated&nbsp;murder, while Mack received a 10-year sentence for being an accessory to&nbsp;murder.

Kerobokan prison chief for women inmates Lili said on Friday that Mack was given a 34-month remission. She said Mack was religious and participated in fashion and dance activities in prison.

Lawyer Yulius told AFP in August that Mack would be deported back to the U.S. upon her release.

Mack and Schaefer's case was investigated by Indonesian authorities for four months, along with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In 2015, Schaefer, then 21, said in court he had killed Sheila von Wiese-Mack in self-defence in the St. Regis Hotel in Bali after she attacked him in anger because she objected to the couple's relationship.

Mack was 19 at the time of sentencing in 2015.

Von Wiese-Mack's body was found at the hotel with bruises on her arms and broken fingers. Evidence submitted to court included CCTV footage showing Schaefer and Heather Mack speaking to a taxi driver after dropping the bloodied&nbsp;suitcase.

Mack and her mother had a troubled relationship and von Wiese-Mack had frequently reported that her daughter punched and bit her, according to police reports cited by Chicago media.

An American woman jailed in 2015 with her boyfriend for murdering her mother and stuffing the remains in a suitcase on the Indonesian island of Bali was released from prison on Friday after serving a chunk of her 10-year sentence.

An American woman jailed in 2015 with her boyfriend for murdering her mother and stuffing the remains in a suitcase on the Indonesian island of Bali was released from prison on Friday after serving a chunk of her 10-year sentence. Swarmed by reporters, Heather Mack left Bali's Kerobokan prison early on Friday. She did not say anything. Her lawyer, Yulius Benyamin Seran, who was not seen with Mack, declined to comment when contacted by Reuters. Arrested in 2014 in a case that captured global attention due to its grisly nature, Tommy Schaefer was sentenced to 18 years for premeditated murder, while Mack received a 10-year sentence for being an accessory to murder. Kerobokan prison chief for women inmates Lili said on Friday that Mack was given a 34-month remission. She said Mack was religious and participated in fashion and dance activities in prison. Lawyer Yulius told AFP in August that Mack would be deported back to the U.S. upon her release. Mack and Schaefer's case was investigated by Indonesian authorities for four months, along with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 2015, Schaefer, then 21, said in court he had killed Sheila von Wiese-Mack in self-defence in the St. Regis Hotel in Bali after she attacked him in anger because she objected to the couple's relationship. Mack was 19 at the time of sentencing in 2015. Von Wiese-Mack's body was found at the hotel with bruises on her arms and broken fingers. Evidence submitted to court included CCTV footage showing Schaefer and Heather Mack speaking to a taxi driver after dropping the bloodied suitcase. Mack and her mother had a troubled relationship and von Wiese-Mack had frequently reported that her daughter punched and bit her, according to police reports cited by Chicago media.

US woman who assisted Bali 'suitcase' murder released from jail

Lawmakers on Tuesday grilled executives from YouTube, Snap and TikTok about mounting concerns that their platforms can harm children and teenagers.

A bipartisan group of senators expressed concerns that the companies’ software steered young people toward inappropriate posts, mishandled consumer data and did not do enough to spot dangerous content on their platforms. Lawmakers repeatedly said their staff had been able to find harmful content — including posts related to self-harm and pornography — inside the companies’ products, sometimes while logged in as a teenager.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., opened the hearing by accusing the companies of drawing young people further and further into their products.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hate-easiest-way-to-grow-on-facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-testifies-before-uk-parliament-423970">Hate easiest way to grow on Facebook: Whistleblower Frances Haugen testifies before UK parliament</a>

“Everything that you do is to add users, especially kids, and keep them on your apps for longer,” said Blumenthal, who leads the subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee holding the hearing.

The companies sent executives with political experience to answer the questions. TikTok was represented by Michael Beckerman, its head of public policy for the Americas who used to lead a top lobbying group for internet companies. Leslie Miller, YouTube’s vice president for government affairs and public policy and a former Democratic political aide, appeared on behalf of the streaming site. Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, sent Jennifer Stout, its vice president for global public policy and John Kerry’s former deputy chief of staff.

Two weeks ago, Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager who leaked thousands of pages of internal documents, told the committee how the company knew that its products made teenagers feel worse about themselves. The decision to invite executives from other companies reflects how the lawmakers’ concerns go beyond Facebook and its photo app, Instagram, to include other major platforms across the web.

The companies quickly tried to distance themselves from each other, while arguing they were already taking significant steps to protect child users.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-whistleblower-brings-campaign-to-europe-after-disclosures-424161">Facebook whistleblower brings campaign to Europe after disclosures</a>

Stout said that Snapchat was an “antidote to social media” and stressed the differences between Snapchat and Instagram. She said that her company’s app focused on connecting people who already knew each other in real life, rather than feeding them a constant stream of content from strangers. And she said it focused on privacy, making images and messages delete by default.

She also stressed that Snapchat moderates the public content it promotes more heavily than other social media companies. Human moderators review content from publishers before promoting it in Discover, the public section of Snapchat that contains news and entertainment, Stout said. Content on Spotlight, Snap’s creator program that promotes videos from its users, is reviewed by artificial intelligence before being distributed, and reviewed by human moderators before it can be watched by more than 25 users, Stout added.

Beckerman said that TikTok was different from other platforms that focus more on direct communication between users. “It’s about uplifting, entertaining content,” he said. “People love it.”

He said that policymakers should look at the systems that verify whether users were old enough to use a product, suggesting that legislation should include language on age verification “across apps.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/inside-the-big-facebook-leak-423804">Inside the big Facebook leak</a>

Lawmakers also hammered Beckerman about whether TikTok’s Chinese ownership could expose consumer data to Beijing. Critics have long argued that the company would be obligated to turn Americans’ data over to the Chinese government if asked.

“Access controls for our data is done by our US&nbsp;teams,” said Beckerman. “And as independent researchers, independent experts have pointed out, the data that TikTok has on the app is not of a national security importance and is of low sensitivity.”

Senators repeatedly tried to prod the companies to commit to more transparency for researchers to investigate the health and safety of their platforms as well as support for elements of potential privacy legislation.

Miller of YouTube refused to be pinned down in a series of exchanges with senators. When Blumenthal asked whether the companies would allow independent researchers access to algorithms, data sets and data privacy practices, Miller responded, “It would depend on the details, but we’re always looking to partner with experts in these important fields.”

Watch |&nbsp;Gravitas: How Facebook profits from hate

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-how-facebook-profits-from-hate-424259/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Blumenthal shot back that YouTube’s answer “indicates certainly a strong hesitancy if not resistance to providing access.”

Similarly, Miller seemed reluctant to commit to aspects of potential privacy legislation such as a proposed update to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Specifically, she waffled on whether YouTube would support a ban on targeted advertising for children or curbs on adding “likes” or comments on videos — even as Miller said that the company already did not permit such features on children’s content.

The companies frequently argued that they were already taking the kind of steps that could be required by laws in the future.

“We believe that regulation is necessary but given the speed at which technology develops and the rate at which regulation can be implemented, regulation alone can’t get the job done,” Stout said.

Lawmakers resisted efforts by the executives to paint their employers as the exception to concerns about children's safety online.

“I understand from your testimony that your defense is: We’re not Facebook,” Blumenthal said. “Being different from Facebook is not a defense. That bar is in the gutter.”

Lawmakers on Tuesday grilled executives from YouTube, Snap and TikTok about mounting concerns that their platforms can harm children and teenagers. A bipartisan group of senators expressed concerns that the companies’ software steered young people toward inappropriate posts, mishandled consumer data and did not do enough to spot dangerous content on their platforms.

Lawmakers on Tuesday grilled executives from YouTube, Snap and TikTok about mounting concerns that their platforms can harm children and teenagers. A bipartisan group of senators expressed concerns that the companies’ software steered young people toward inappropriate posts, mishandled consumer data and did not do enough to spot dangerous content on their platforms. Lawmakers repeatedly said their staff had been able to find harmful content — including posts related to self-harm and pornography — inside the companies’ products, sometimes while logged in as a teenager. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., opened the hearing by accusing the companies of drawing young people further and further into their products. Also read | Hate easiest way to grow on Facebook: Whistleblower Frances Haugen testifies before UK parliament “Everything that you do is to add users, especially kids, and keep them on your apps for longer,” said Blumenthal, who leads the subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee holding the hearing. The companies sent executives with political experience to answer the questions. TikTok was represented by Michael Beckerman, its head of public policy for the Americas who used to lead a top lobbying group for internet companies. Leslie Miller, YouTube’s vice president for government affairs and public policy and a former Democratic political aide, appeared on behalf of the streaming site. Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, sent Jennifer Stout, its vice president for global public policy and John Kerry’s former deputy chief of staff. Two weeks ago, Frances Haugen, a former Facebook product manager who leaked thousands of pages of internal documents, told the committee how the company knew that its products made teenagers feel worse about themselves. The decision to invite executives from other companies reflects how the lawmakers’ concerns go beyond Facebook and its photo app, Instagram, to include other major platforms across the web. The companies quickly tried to distance themselves from each other, while arguing they were already taking significant steps to protect child users. Also read | Facebook whistleblower brings campaign to Europe after disclosures Stout said that Snapchat was an “antidote to social media” and stressed the differences between Snapchat and Instagram. She said that her company’s app focused on connecting people who already knew each other in real life, rather than feeding them a constant stream of content from strangers. And she said it focused on privacy, making images and messages delete by default. She also stressed that Snapchat moderates the public content it promotes more heavily than other social media companies. Human moderators review content from publishers before promoting it in Discover, the public section of Snapchat that contains news and entertainment, Stout said. Content on Spotlight, Snap’s creator program that promotes videos from its users, is reviewed by artificial intelligence before being distributed, and reviewed by human moderators before it can be watched by more than 25 users, Stout added. Beckerman said that TikTok was different from other platforms that focus more on direct communication between users. “It’s about uplifting, entertaining content,” he said. “People love it.” He said that policymakers should look at the systems that verify whether users were old enough to use a product, suggesting that legislation should include language on age verification “across apps.” Also read | Inside the big Facebook leak Lawmakers also hammered Beckerman about whether TikTok’s Chinese ownership could expose consumer data to Beijing. Critics have long argued that the company would be obligated to turn Americans’ data over to the Chinese government if asked. “Access controls for our data is done by our US teams,” said Beckerman. “And as independent researchers, independent experts have pointed out, the data that TikTok has on the app is not of a national security importance and is of low sensitivity.” Senators repeatedly tried to prod the companies to commit to more transparency for researchers to investigate the health and safety of their platforms as well as support for elements of potential privacy legislation. Miller of YouTube refused to be pinned down in a series of exchanges with senators. When Blumenthal asked whether the companies would allow independent researchers access to algorithms, data sets and data privacy practices, Miller responded, “It would depend on the details, but we’re always looking to partner with experts in these important fields.” Watch | Gravitas: How Facebook profits from hate Blumenthal shot back that YouTube’s answer “indicates certainly a strong hesitancy if not resistance to providing access.” Similarly, Miller seemed reluctant to commit to aspects of potential privacy legislation such as a proposed update to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Specifically, she waffled on whether YouTube would support a ban on targeted advertising for children or curbs on adding “likes” or comments on videos — even as Miller said that the company already did not permit such features on children’s content. The companies frequently argued that they were already taking the kind of steps that could be required by laws in the future. “We believe that regulation is necessary but given the speed at which technology develops and the rate at which regulation can be implemented, regulation alone can’t get the job done,” Stout said. Lawmakers resisted efforts by the executives to paint their employers as the exception to concerns about children's safety online. “I understand from your testimony that your defense is: We’re not Facebook,” Blumenthal said. “Being different from Facebook is not a defense. That bar is in the gutter.”

YouTube, Snap and TikTok executives take their turn answering to Washington

President Joe Biden huddled with key Democrats on Sunday to iron out crucial spending and tax provisions as they raced to wrap up their expansive social safety net legislation before his appearance at a U.N. climate summit next week.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats were close to completing the bill, displaying confidence that the negotiations over issues like paid leave, tax increases and Medicare benefits that have bedeviled the party for months would soon end.

“We have 90% of the bill agreed to and written. We just have some of the last decisions to be made,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” adding that she hoped to pass an infrastructure bill that had already cleared the Senate and have a deal in hand on the social policy bill by the end of the week. “We’re pretty much there now.”

Her comments came as Biden met with Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, one of the critical centrist holdouts on the budget bill. The White House called the breakfast at Biden’s home in Wilmington, Delaware, a “productive discussion.”

For weeks, intraparty divisions over the scope and size of their marquee domestic policy plan have delayed an agreement on how to trim the initial $3.5 trillion blueprint Democrats passed this year. In order to bypass united Republican opposition and pass the final bill, Democrats are using an arcane budget process known as reconciliation, which shields fiscal legislation from a filibuster but would require every Senate Democrat to unite behind the plan in the evenly divided chamber. The party’s margins in the House are not much more forgiving.

Facing opposition over the $3.5 trillion price tag, White House and party leaders are coalescing around a cost of up to $2 trillion over 10 years. They have spent days negotiating primarily with Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., another centrist holdout.

House Democratic leaders hope to advance both a compromise reconciliation package and the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package. Liberals have so far balked at voting on the bipartisan deal until the more expansive domestic policy package — which is expected to address climate change, public education and health care — is agreed upon.

But Democrats are facing a new sense of urgency to finish the legislation before Biden’s trip to a major United Nations climate change conference, where he hopes to point to the bill as proof that the United States is serious about leading the effort to fight global warming.

“The president looked us in the eye, and he said: ‘I need this before I go and represent the United States in Glasgow. American prestige is on the line,’” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who met with Biden last week at the White House, said on "Fox News Sunday."

Democrats are also increasingly eager to deliver the bipartisan legislation to Biden’s desk before elections for governor in Virginia and New Jersey on Nov. 2, to show voters the party is making good on its promise to deliver sweeping social change. And a number of transportation programs will lapse at the end of the month without congressional action on either a stopgap extension or passage of the infrastructure bill, leading to possible furloughs.

The legislation is expected to include a one-year extension of payments to most families with children, first approved as part of the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief plan, as well as an increase in funds for Pell grants, support for home and elder care, and billions of dollars for affordable housing. It would also provide tax incentives to encourage use of wind, solar and other clean energy.

While aides cautioned that details were in flux, the plan is also expected to address a cap on how much taxpayers can deduct in state and local taxes, a key priority for Schumer and other lawmakers who represent higher-income residents of high-tax states affected by the limit.

Negotiators on Sunday were still haggling over a number of outstanding pieces, including the details of a federal paid and medical leave program — already cut to four weeks from 12 weeks — Medicaid expansion and a push to expand Medicare benefits to include dental, vision and hearing. With Manchin pushing for a $1.5 trillion price tag, Democratic officials are urging him to accept more spending in order to avoid dropping other programs.

Biden raised the prospect of an $800 voucher to help grant access to those benefits, but he said during a CNN town hall event Thursday that he believed Manchin and Sinema both had reservations about the program. Talks are also continuing with moderate Democrats in both chambers over a proposal that would help lower the cost of prescription drugs.

While Sinema has refused to embrace increasing either the corporate or individual tax rates, she has privately committed to enough proposals that would fully fund up to $2 trillion in spending. The details of those specific proposals, however, remain unclear.

Sinema and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have spoken repeatedly about a number of alternatives that would ensure that corporations and wealthy people pay more in taxes without addressing those rates, according to an aide, some of which Warren had initially proposed earlier this year.

Pelosi said Sunday that she expected Senate Democrats to unveil as soon as Monday a proposal that would raise hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for the bill with a wealth tax on American billionaires.

Liberals are also worried about the package’s ability to sufficiently address the toll of climate change, particularly after Biden publicly conceded that a $150 billion program to more quickly transition to clean energy would be altered because of fervent opposition from Manchin.

“Joe is open to my convincing him that I can use it to increase environmental progress without it being that particular deal,” Biden said during the CNN town hall.

“I know there will be disappointment as some of the threads in this social spending package get pulled out,” Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., said in a recent interview, adding that he had pressed Biden repeatedly on ensuring the strength of the package’s climate provisions. But, he added, “it’s just different on the climate side of this package — we will not have a second or third chance.”

President Joe Biden huddled with key Democrats on Sunday to iron out crucial spending and tax provisions as they raced to wrap up their expansive social safety net legislation before his appearance at a U.

President Joe Biden huddled with key Democrats on Sunday to iron out crucial spending and tax provisions as they raced to wrap up their expansive social safety net legislation before his appearance at a U.N. climate summit next week. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Democrats were close to completing the bill, displaying confidence that the negotiations over issues like paid leave, tax increases and Medicare benefits that have bedeviled the party for months would soon end. “We have 90% of the bill agreed to and written. We just have some of the last decisions to be made,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” adding that she hoped to pass an infrastructure bill that had already cleared the Senate and have a deal in hand on the social policy bill by the end of the week. “We’re pretty much there now.” Her comments came as Biden met with Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, one of the critical centrist holdouts on the budget bill. The White House called the breakfast at Biden’s home in Wilmington, Delaware, a “productive discussion.” For weeks, intraparty divisions over the scope and size of their marquee domestic policy plan have delayed an agreement on how to trim the initial $3.5 trillion blueprint Democrats passed this year. In order to bypass united Republican opposition and pass the final bill, Democrats are using an arcane budget process known as reconciliation, which shields fiscal legislation from a filibuster but would require every Senate Democrat to unite behind the plan in the evenly divided chamber. The party’s margins in the House are not much more forgiving. Facing opposition over the $3.5 trillion price tag, White House and party leaders are coalescing around a cost of up to $2 trillion over 10 years. They have spent days negotiating primarily with Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., another centrist holdout. House Democratic leaders hope to advance both a compromise reconciliation package and the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package. Liberals have so far balked at voting on the bipartisan deal until the more expansive domestic policy package — which is expected to address climate change, public education and health care — is agreed upon. But Democrats are facing a new sense of urgency to finish the legislation before Biden’s trip to a major United Nations climate change conference, where he hopes to point to the bill as proof that the United States is serious about leading the effort to fight global warming. “The president looked us in the eye, and he said: ‘I need this before I go and represent the United States in Glasgow. American prestige is on the line,’” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who met with Biden last week at the White House, said on "Fox News Sunday." Democrats are also increasingly eager to deliver the bipartisan legislation to Biden’s desk before elections for governor in Virginia and New Jersey on Nov. 2, to show voters the party is making good on its promise to deliver sweeping social change. And a number of transportation programs will lapse at the end of the month without congressional action on either a stopgap extension or passage of the infrastructure bill, leading to possible furloughs. The legislation is expected to include a one-year extension of payments to most families with children, first approved as part of the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief plan, as well as an increase in funds for Pell grants, support for home and elder care, and billions of dollars for affordable housing. It would also provide tax incentives to encourage use of wind, solar and other clean energy. While aides cautioned that details were in flux, the plan is also expected to address a cap on how much taxpayers can deduct in state and local taxes, a key priority for Schumer and other lawmakers who represent higher-income residents of high-tax states affected by the limit. Negotiators on Sunday were still haggling over a number of outstanding pieces, including the details of a federal paid and medical leave program — already cut to four weeks from 12 weeks — Medicaid expansion and a push to expand Medicare benefits to include dental, vision and hearing. With Manchin pushing for a $1.5 trillion price tag, Democratic officials are urging him to accept more spending in order to avoid dropping other programs. Biden raised the prospect of an $800 voucher to help grant access to those benefits, but he said during a CNN town hall event Thursday that he believed Manchin and Sinema both had reservations about the program. Talks are also continuing with moderate Democrats in both chambers over a proposal that would help lower the cost of prescription drugs. While Sinema has refused to embrace increasing either the corporate or individual tax rates, she has privately committed to enough proposals that would fully fund up to $2 trillion in spending. The details of those specific proposals, however, remain unclear. Sinema and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have spoken repeatedly about a number of alternatives that would ensure that corporations and wealthy people pay more in taxes without addressing those rates, according to an aide, some of which Warren had initially proposed earlier this year. Pelosi said Sunday that she expected Senate Democrats to unveil as soon as Monday a proposal that would raise hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for the bill with a wealth tax on American billionaires. Liberals are also worried about the package’s ability to sufficiently address the toll of climate change, particularly after Biden publicly conceded that a $150 billion program to more quickly transition to clean energy would be altered because of fervent opposition from Manchin. “Joe is open to my convincing him that I can use it to increase environmental progress without it being that particular deal,” Biden said during the CNN town hall. “I know there will be disappointment as some of the threads in this social spending package get pulled out,” Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., said in a recent interview, adding that he had pressed Biden repeatedly on ensuring the strength of the package’s climate provisions. But, he added, “it’s just different on the climate side of this package — we will not have a second or third chance.”

Biden meets with Manchin and Schumer as Democrats race to finish social policy bill

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