vintage slot machine
Saquon Barkley becomes ninth running back to rush for 2,000 yards in a season
Unless you live alone, there's a good chance you've clashed with partners, roommates or other family members over just how warm your home should be in the winter. It's a debate as old as the HVAC system itself: What is the ideal thermostat setting to balance personal comfort and the bank? And now that the cold months are upon us, battles over the thermostat are sure to begin. Depending on what kind of HVAC system you have and how well you handle the cold, you could save some money by understanding the best method for programming your thermostat. So, before you go instigating more thermostat wars with others in your household, consider these tips from experts about proper home temperatures for the winter. What you should set your thermostat at in the winter Turns out, there's a magic number for what experts say you should set your thermostat to in the winter. That setting? 68 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the Department of Energy. If that's too specific, anywhere around 70 degrees is a good target when it gets cold, Ram Narayanamurthy, deputy director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Building Technologies Office, told USA TODAY. “A home that’s at 70 degrees is quite comfortable,” Narayanamurthy said. Turn the heat down when you're away But setting your thermostat to a specific temperature and never changing it won't be good for your heating bills . While around 70 degrees is ideal, it's unwise to set your thermostat to one temperature and never change it. Lower temperatures may be more comfortable when sleeping at night and can help keep your bill down when you're away from your home, Narayanamurthy cautioned. The Energy Department says that even turning thermostats back 7 to 10 degrees from their normal settings for 8 hours a day can save as much as 10% a year on homeowners' heating and cooling costs. And contrary to one prevailing misconception, your heating system doesn't work any harder to warm your house back up after you lower the heat for a set time. Narayanamurthy said he usually sets his at 64 degrees if he leaves his home for an extended period of time, though everyone's comfort levels may be different. “You don’t want your heater turning on all the time when no one’s at home,” he said. Don't set your thermostat too low Penny-pinchers may be tempted to set their thermostat at bracing levels and survive the winter by bundling up in layers or piling on blankets. While you'd have to set your home at a pretty low temperature for it to become a health risk, Narayanamurthy warns against going below 60 degrees. “You have to keep it really low to really get into a health concern," he said. "What you want to do is keep it at a reasonable temperature that’s not chilly.” The World Health Organization recommends keeping indoor temperatures between 64 and 75 degrees for healthy people. But for those who are very young, elderly, or who have health problems, the minimum temperature shouldn't dip below 68 degrees, the organization says. Heating and cooling: Check out USA TODAY Homefront for more HVAC tips for your home Space heaters can help, but use with caution Many homeowners may be tempted to rely on fireplaces, space heaters, electric blankets and wood-burning stoves to keep warm in the winter. According to Direct Energy , these types of secondary heating sources can help to slash costs since they offer heating to a more targeted area of your home at a fraction of the cost of cranking up the thermostat. But many of these options come with their own safety risks and similarly require routine maintenance, care and even replacement. Once a fire hazard, modern electric space heaters are much safer than they used to be with built-in safety features that turn the heaters off if they tip over, overheat, or have been left turned on for too long. Ways to save on heating bills Experts offer a variety of other tips that, altogether, could cut down on your bills and ensure your heating unit is working at maximum efficiency. Editor's note: A version of this story was last published in November 2023. Eric Lagatta covers breaking and trending news for USA TODAY. Reach him at elagatta@gannett.com
NoneBy KAREEM CHEHAYEB BEIRUT (AP) — In 2006, after a bruising monthlong war between Israel and Lebanon’s powerful Hezbollah militant group, the United Nations Security Council unanimously voted for a resolution to end the conflict and pave the way for lasting security along the border. But while there was relative calm for nearly two decades, Resolution 1701’s terms were never fully enforced. Now, figuring out how to finally enforce it is key to a U.S.-brokered ceasefire deal approved by Israel on Tuesday. In late September, after nearly a year of low-level clashes , the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah spiraled into all-out war and an Israeli ground invasion . As Israeli jets pound deep inside Lebanon and Hezbollah fires rockets deeper into northern Israel, U.N. and diplomatic officials again turned to the 2006 resolution in a bid to end the conflict. Years of deeply divided politics and regionwide geopolitical hostilities have halted substantial progress on its implementation, yet the international community believes Resolution 1701 is still the brightest prospect for long-term stability between Israel and Lebanon. Almost two decades after the last war between Israel and Hezbollah, the United States led shuttle diplomacy efforts between Lebanon and Israel to agree on a ceasefire proposal that renewed commitment to the resolution, this time with an implementation plan to try to bring the document back to life. What is UNSC Resolution 1701? In 2000, Israel withdrew its forces from most of southern Lebanon along a U.N.-demarcated “Blue Line” that separated the two countries and the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights, which most of the world considers occupied Syrian territory. U.N. peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL , increased their presence along the line of withdrawal. Resolution 1701 was supposed to complete Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon and ensure Hezbollah would move north of the Litani River, keeping the area exclusively under the Lebanese military and U.N. peacekeepers. Up to 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers would help to maintain calm, return displaced Lebanese and secure the area alongside the Lebanese military. The goal was long-term security, with land borders eventually demarcated to resolve territorial disputes. The resolution also reaffirmed previous ones that call for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon — Hezbollah among them. “It was made for a certain situation and context,” Elias Hanna, a retired Lebanese army general, told The Associated Press. “But as time goes on, the essence of the resolution begins to hollow.” Has Resolution 1701 been implemented? For years, Lebanon and Israel blamed each other for countless violations along the tense frontier. Israel said Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force and growing arsenal remained, and accused the group of using a local environmental organization to spy on troops. Lebanon complained about Israeli military jets and naval ships entering Lebanese territory even when there was no active conflict. “You had a role of the UNIFIL that slowly eroded like any other peacekeeping with time that has no clear mandate,” said Joseph Bahout, the director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy at the American University of Beirut. “They don’t have permission to inspect the area without coordinating with the Lebanese army.” UNIFIL for years has urged Israel to withdraw from some territory north of the frontier, but to no avail. In the ongoing war, the peacekeeping mission has accused Israel, as well as Hezbollah , of obstructing and harming its forces and infrastructure. Hezbollah’s power, meanwhile, has grown, both in its arsenal and as a political influence in the Lebanese state. The Iran-backed group was essential in keeping Syrian President Bashar Assad in power when armed opposition groups tried to topple him, and it supports Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Yemen. It has an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles, including precision-guided missiles pointed at Israel, and has introduced drones into its arsenal . Hanna says Hezbollah “is something never seen before as a non-state actor” with political and military influence. How do mediators hope to implement 1701 almost two decades later? Israel’s security Cabinet approved the ceasefire agreement late Tuesday, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office. The ceasefire is set to take hold at 4 a.m. local time Wednesday. Efforts led by the U.S. and France for the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah underscored that they still view the resolution as key. For almost a year, Washington has promoted various versions of a deal that would gradually lead to its full implementation. International mediators hope that by boosting financial support for the Lebanese army — which was not a party in the Israel-Hezbollah war — Lebanon can deploy some 6,000 additional troops south of the Litani River to help enforce the resolution. Under the deal, an international monitoring committee headed by the United States would oversee implementation to ensure that Hezbollah and Israel’s withdrawals take place. It is not entirely clear how the committee would work or how potential violations would be reported and dealt with. The circumstances now are far more complicated than in 2006. Some are still skeptical of the resolution’s viability given that the political realities and balance of power both regionally and within Lebanon have dramatically changed since then. “You’re tying 1701 with a hundred things,” Bahout said. “A resolution is the reflection of a balance of power and political context.” Now with the ceasefire in place, the hope is that Israel and Lebanon can begin negotiations to demarcate their land border and settle disputes over several points along the Blue Line for long-term security after decades of conflict and tension.
By MICHAEL R. SISAK NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for Sean “Diddy” Combs tried for a third time Friday to persuade a judge to let him leave jail while he awaits his sex trafficking trial, but a decision won’t come until next week. Judge Arun Subramanian said at a hearing that he will release his decision on Combs’ latest request for bail after Combs’ lawyers and federal prosecutors file letters addressing outstanding issues. Those letters are due at noon on Monday, Subramanian said. Combs’ lawyers pitched having him await trial under around-the-clock surveillance either his mansion on an island near Miami Beach or — after the judge scoffed at that location — an apartment on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. Their plan essentially amounts to putting Combs on house arrest, with strict limits on who he has contact with. But prosecutors argue that Combs has routinely flouted jail rules and can’t be trusted not to interfere with witnesses or the judicial process. “The argument that he’s a lawless person who doesn’t follow instructions isn’t factually accurate,” Combs lawyer Anthony Ricco argued. “The idea that he’s an out-of-control individual who has to be detained isn’t factually accurate.” Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he coerced and abused women for years with help from a network of associates and employees while silencing victims through blackmail and violence, including kidnapping, arson and physical beatings. His trial is slated to begin May 5. The Bad Boy Records founder remains locked up at a Brooklyn federal jail, where he spent his Nov. 4 birthday. Two other judges previously concluded that Combs would be a danger to the community if he is released and an appeals court judge last month denied Combs’ immediate release while a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weighs his bail request. Friday’s hearing was the second time Combs was in court this week. On Tuesday, a judge blocked prosecutors from using as evidence papers that were seized from his cell during jail-wide sweep for contraband and weapons at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. As he entered through a side door, Combs waved to relatives including his mother and several of his children in the courtroom gallery, tapping his hand to his heart and blowing kisses at them. He then hugged his lead attorney, Marc Agnifilo, before taking a seat at the defense table. He was not handcuffed or shackled and wore a beige jail uniform, occasionally pulling a pair of reading glasses from his pocket as he peered at papers in front of him. Prosecutors maintain that no bail conditions will mitigate the “risk of obstruction and dangerousness to others” of releasing Combs from jail. Prosecutors contend that while locked up the “I’ll Be Missing You” artist has orchestrated social media campaigns aimed at tainting the jury pool. They allege that he has also attempted to publicly leak materials he thinks would be helpful to his case and is contacting potential witnesses via third parties. “Simply put, the defendant cannot be trusted,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik argued. Combs’ lawyer Teny Geragos countered that, given the strict release conditions proposed, “it would be impossible for him not to follow rules.”Duncan Connors. PHOTO: PETER MCINTOSH Collective will is all that can overcome intolerance and bullying Duncan Connors writes. Recently, I wrote in the ODT on the rise of bullying and lying in every day life. Both concern power over others. However, we do not live in a vacuum. We live within society. Consent and indifference fuels toxicity. Catholic priest Fr David Ardagh Walter, (a founder of CND) once explained bad occurred not due to a surplus of evil, but an absence of good. We are all naturally good but the decision to not standing leads to great wrongdoing and injustice. We normalise bad behaviour. Normalisation is mostly an innocuous process. It is the adoption of something new: technology, the acceptance of activities once considered wrong. Society evolves and we move on. However, another aspect of normalisation that academics, historians, psychologists and sociologists have studied since the 20th century is how can advanced societies normalise the very worse conduct towards one another? Examples include the French Revolution, the Holocaust or the Soviet purges. More recently, we are now witnessing significant acceptance of aggressive and confrontational attitudes online by individuals such as the deeply unpleasant Andrew Tate. The once strange and unacceptable becomes familiar and tolerated. This is not necessarily a bad thing: I wrote this article on an Emirates flight on an Apple laptop. My boarding pass was on my phone. The same phone Mum uses to nag me from London. That is good normalisation, the acceptance by society of new technology. Society evolves and moves on. That's a good thing. But there is a darker side. In an age of extremes where vocal minorities at either end of the political spectrum dominate, we have become a ground down silent majority. The endless confrontational hoo-ha on the internet is a curse. The dam broke in 1994 with the election to the US congress of an angry, radical, right-wing and evangelical Republican Party led by the confrontational firebrand Newt Gingrich. They focused their ire on the permissive attitudes of the Clinton administration, the president’s family, friends and associates. Little did they know their actions would influence political parties abroad, in Australia and New Zealand, the British Brexit movement, the European far right and the internet conspiracy fuelled Maga movement supporting Donald Trump. While we have normalised many positive aspects of the internet, few predicted the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. One who did was academic and science fiction author David Brin. In his 1990 book Earth Brin predicted exactly how the internet would become toxic. He saw in the giddy rush to make fortunes from the implementation of this new technology, we would brush over the necessary process of thoughtful reflection as merely the rumblings of habitual party poopers. The best explanation comes from the work of the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci. He divided society into three elements; the rulers, the ruled and the bourgeoisie in between. He stated the following: the bourgeoisie will always do what the rulers want because a) they aspired to joining, even had pretensions of being, part of the ruling class, and b) they saw themselves as superior to the ruled, even though they are effectively part of the same cohort. Therefore, their support of the decisional class will always be forthcoming due to their self-interest and aspirations. All totalitarian regimes in history had substantial civil services comprised of the above, as well as the support of business and civil interest groups that benefit from the new regime. However, even in regular, democratic, developed nations, particularly in the politics of the workplace, the same cohort will support the ascendent and those in control. This can be innocuous but due to the factors outlined above, in recent years increasingly this had led to toxic and passive aggressive behaviour, if that is what is now considered acceptable. The consequence is stagnation as the creative people businesses and society need to generate new ideas and productivity tend to be singled out and marginalised. They walk away and we are all the poorer because of it. The solution? Simple: tolerance and understanding the view and lives of the other. How can this happen? I have no idea. It's down to society to change itself. This requires a collective process across all social boundaries and beliefs. I can only pray, hope, even plead and beg we can all look within ourselves and challenge our ways in an age of division born of toxicity and confrontation. — Duncan Connors is an Otago business academic.
Who was Jimmy Carter and what was his cause of death?First Gen, FEU renew clean power deal for 2 campuses
Surf Air Mobility Unveils Four-Phase Transformation Plan and Updated Investor PresentationThe article elaborates on the efforts by these Nordic nations to ensure civilian readiness for potential crises, including military conflicts, natural disasters, and disruptions to essential services. International media have seen the move as reflecting heightened security concerns in the wake of the ongoing Ukraine conflict. However, the move is part of broader regional efforts to bolster resilience amid increasing geopolitical and environmental instability. In Finland, the Ministry of the Interior released new guidance designed to prepare citizens for various crises, including long-term power outages, water shortages, and communication disruptions. The advice also covers coping with extreme weather events and potential military conflicts. The updated guidance reflects Finland’s growing emphasis on civilian preparedness as a cornerstone of national security, particularly in light of the country’s proximity to Russia and the evolving security landscape in Europe. Similarly, Sweden has begun distributing a revised version of its wartime preparedness booklet, Om krisen eller kriget kommer (If Crisis or War Comes), to all five million households. The fifth edition of this booklet, which was first introduced during World War II, places a stronger focus on readiness for war and extreme crises. It provides citizens with practical advice on stockpiling essential items such as water, diapers, medication, and baby food, as well as growing food at home. New sections include tips on managing evacuations, administering first aid, caring for pets, and supporting vulnerable populations. The guide also offers advice on how to talk to children about crises and cope with anxiety during emergencies. Original story was published by CNN on 18.11.2024 and can be found here . Educating young people about social media would be far more effective than a ban – Finland can show us how The debate around Australia’s proposed social media ban for under-16s was covered in an article by The Conversation on November 22. The article compares the move with Finland, as the Nordic country has been seen as a model for addressing digital literacy and online safety. While the ban in Australia aims to protect children, critics argue it is a reactive policy rather than a long-term solution. Concerns include the potential for social media platforms to become less regulated spaces where harmful content proliferates, and the risk of young people being unprepared to navigate digital risks once they turn 16. Finland integrates digital literacy into its national curriculum, teaching responsible online behaviour from a young age and embedding these lessons across all grade levels. Beyond schools, public libraries and community centers offer programs for adults, fostering lifelong digital skills. Finland’s anti-fake news initiative, launched in 2014, has also equipped citizens to counter misinformation. The article highlights how the Finnish education system emphasizes critical thinking, teaching students to identify bots, recognize manipulated images and videos, and detect half-truths or false profiles. This practical approach has consistently positioned Finland as a global leader in digital media literacy, ranking first out of 35 countries in resilience six times in a row. Original story was published by The Conversation on 22.11.2024 and can be found here . Finland withdraws from the Barents Euro-Arctic Council Finland’s decision to withdraw from the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC) after 2025 was covered in an article by High North News on November 21. The article explores the rationale behind the decision, citing changes in the European security landscape and the international environment, particularly in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Barents cooperation, established in 1993, was once an effective forum for regional collaboration, especially between Finland, Russia, and neighbouring Nordic countries. However, after Russia’s withdrawal from BEAC in 2023, Finland, along with Norway and Sweden, is reconsidering the utility of this format. Finland’s Foreign Minister, Elina Valtonen, emphasized that the Barents cooperation no longer meets contemporary needs and has led to overlapping structures. “Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Barents cooperation was an effective channel for Finland to interact with others in the northern regions. However, this form of cooperation no longer meets today’s needs, and it creates overlapping structures. Finland’s goal is a stable and prosperous Nordic region, and we will continue to invest in it through various forms of cooperation,” Elina Valtonen , Minister of Foreign Affairs, said. Moving forward, Finland plans to invest in strengthening cooperation with Norway and Sweden through other platforms, particularly through the Nordic Council of Ministers. A key initiative will involve developing a joint strategic agenda for the northern regions of Finland, Norway, and Sweden, focusing on security and regional stability. Finland’s exit from the BEAC will also include a departure from the agreement that established the International Barents Secretariat. Original story was published by High North News on 21.11.2024 and can be found here . Finland’s government is Robin Hood in reverse The austerity measures and tax reforms implemented by the Finland’s current government were covered in an article by Jacobin on November 21. The article observes how the Prime Minister Petteri Orpo ’s coalition government has embraced "authoritarian neoliberalism," characterized by a combination of austerity measures, social spending cuts, and tax reforms favouring the wealthy, all while undermining trade unions and civil liberties. The government, including the conservative National Coalition Party and far-right Finns Party, has drastically reduced spending on social services such as healthcare and social security, while introducing tax cuts for high earners. These cuts are expected to push tens of thousands of Finns into poverty and exacerbate inequality. This approach has been justified by the government as necessary to stimulate economic growth and reduce unemployment, but critics argue that it will only harm the most vulnerable sectors of society. The government has also targeted labour unions, weakening their power through new legislation designed to limit strikes and protests, which is seen as a way to curb workers’ rights and suppress collective action. The government’s anti-immigrant stance is also highlighted, particularly through legislation that gives authorities the power to block asylum seekers and tighten the requirements for migrant workers. Another concern highlighted in the article is the funding cuts to NGOs and public media, seen as serving the interests of private businesses and limiting dissenting voices. The article reflects how these austerity measures and far-right policies are becoming normalized in Finland, undermining the country’s social democratic foundations. Original story was published by Jacobin on 21.11.2024 and can be found here . Finland suspends foreign aid to Somalia over refusal to take back refugees Finland’s decision to temporarily suspend its foreign aid to Somalia due to the country’s refusal to take back refugees was covered in an article by The European Conservative on November 21. The article highlights the reason for this action as Somalia’s refusal to cooperate with Finland on the repatriation of Somali nationals who are living illegally in Finland. The decision was announced by Finland’s Minister for Foreign Trade and Development, Ville Tavio , on November 20, 2024. This suspension applies specifically to the development cooperation aid program, which typically allocates €8-9 million annually. However, it does not affect humanitarian aid, and certain funding programs may still be exempt from the suspension. The Finnish government has emphasized that the aid could be resumed if Somalia makes progress in cooperating with Finland on “re-admissions cooperation,” which involves the return of illegal migrants. “Return cooperation has not reached a sufficient level,” Ville Tavio said. “States must naturally strive to ensure that all those illegally in their country are returned when that can be done safely,” Tavio added. Original story was published by The European Conservative on 21.11.2024 and can be found here . HTCoimbatore round up
Our future rests on tech, skill acquisitionIndia on cusp of 6G boom, but 91% Telangana government schools lurk in digital dark age
By KAREEM CHEHAYEB BEIRUT (AP) — In 2006, after a bruising monthlong war between Israel and Lebanon’s powerful Hezbollah militant group, the United Nations Security Council unanimously voted for a resolution to end the conflict and pave the way for lasting security along the border. But while there was relative calm for nearly two decades, Resolution 1701’s terms were never fully enforced. Now, figuring out how to finally enforce it is key to a U.S.-brokered ceasefire deal approved by Israel on Tuesday. In late September, after nearly a year of low-level clashes , the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah spiraled into all-out war and an Israeli ground invasion . As Israeli jets pound deep inside Lebanon and Hezbollah fires rockets deeper into northern Israel, U.N. and diplomatic officials again turned to the 2006 resolution in a bid to end the conflict. Years of deeply divided politics and regionwide geopolitical hostilities have halted substantial progress on its implementation, yet the international community believes Resolution 1701 is still the brightest prospect for long-term stability between Israel and Lebanon. Almost two decades after the last war between Israel and Hezbollah, the United States led shuttle diplomacy efforts between Lebanon and Israel to agree on a ceasefire proposal that renewed commitment to the resolution, this time with an implementation plan to try to bring the document back to life. In 2000, Israel withdrew its forces from most of southern Lebanon along a U.N.-demarcated “Blue Line” that separated the two countries and the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights, which most of the world considers occupied Syrian territory. U.N. peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, known as UNIFIL , increased their presence along the line of withdrawal. Resolution 1701 was supposed to complete Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon and ensure Hezbollah would move north of the Litani River, keeping the area exclusively under the Lebanese military and U.N. peacekeepers. Up to 15,000 U.N. peacekeepers would help to maintain calm, return displaced Lebanese and secure the area alongside the Lebanese military. The goal was long-term security, with land borders eventually demarcated to resolve territorial disputes. The resolution also reaffirmed previous ones that call for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon — Hezbollah among them. “It was made for a certain situation and context,” Elias Hanna, a retired Lebanese army general, told The Associated Press. “But as time goes on, the essence of the resolution begins to hollow.” For years, Lebanon and Israel blamed each other for countless violations along the tense frontier. Israel said Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force and growing arsenal remained, and accused the group of using a local environmental organization to spy on troops. Lebanon complained about Israeli military jets and naval ships entering Lebanese territory even when there was no active conflict. “You had a role of the UNIFIL that slowly eroded like any other peacekeeping with time that has no clear mandate,” said Joseph Bahout, the director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy at the American University of Beirut. “They don’t have permission to inspect the area without coordinating with the Lebanese army.” UNIFIL for years has urged Israel to withdraw from some territory north of the frontier, but to no avail. In the ongoing war, the peacekeeping mission has accused Israel, as well as Hezbollah , of obstructing and harming its forces and infrastructure. Hezbollah’s power, meanwhile, has grown, both in its arsenal and as a political influence in the Lebanese state. The Iran-backed group was essential in keeping Syrian President Bashar Assad in power when armed opposition groups tried to topple him, and it supports Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Yemen. It has an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles, including precision-guided missiles pointed at Israel, and has introduced drones into its arsenal . Hanna says Hezbollah “is something never seen before as a non-state actor” with political and military influence. Israel’s security Cabinet approved the ceasefire agreement late Tuesday, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office. The ceasefire is set to take hold at 4 a.m. local time Wednesday. Efforts led by the U.S. and France for the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah underscored that they still view the resolution as key. For almost a year, Washington has promoted various versions of a deal that would gradually lead to its full implementation. International mediators hope that by boosting financial support for the Lebanese army — which was not a party in the Israel-Hezbollah war — Lebanon can deploy some 6,000 additional troops south of the Litani River to help enforce the resolution. Under the deal, an international monitoring committee headed by the United States would oversee implementation to ensure that Hezbollah and Israel’s withdrawals take place. It is not entirely clear how the committee would work or how potential violations would be reported and dealt with. The circumstances now are far more complicated than in 2006. Some are still skeptical of the resolution’s viability given that the political realities and balance of power both regionally and within Lebanon have dramatically changed since then. “You’re tying 1701 with a hundred things,” Bahout said. “A resolution is the reflection of a balance of power and political context.” Now with the ceasefire in place, the hope is that Israel and Lebanon can begin negotiations to demarcate their land border and settle disputes over several points along the Blue Line for long-term security after decades of conflict and tension.Forthright and fearless, the Nobel Prize winner took pot-shots at former prime minister Tony Blair and ex-US president George W Bush among others. His death came after repeated bouts of illness in which images of the increasingly frail former president failed to erase memories of his fierce spirit. Democrat James Earl “Jimmy” Carter Jr swept to power in 1977 with his Trust Me campaign helping to beat Republican president Gerald Ford. Serving as 39th US president from 1977 to 1981, he sought to make government “competent and compassionate” but was ousted by the unstoppable Hollywood appeal of a certain Ronald Reagan. A skilled sportsman, Mr Carter left his home of Plains, Georgia, to join the US Navy, returning later to run his family’s peanut business. A stint in the Georgia senate lit the touchpaper on his political career and he rose to the top of the Democratic movement. But he will also be remembered for a bizarre encounter with a deeply disgruntled opponent. The president was enjoying a relaxing fishing trip near his home town in 1979 when his craft was attacked by a furious swamp rabbit which reportedly swam up to the boat hissing wildly. The press had a field day, with one paper bearing the headline President Attacked By Rabbit. Away from encounters with belligerent bunnies, Mr Carter’s willingness to address politically uncomfortable topics did not diminish with age. He recently said that he would be willing to travel to North Korea for peace talks on behalf of US President Donald Trump. He also famously mounted a ferocious and personal attack on Tony Blair over the Iraq war, weeks before the prime minister left office in June 2007. Mr Carter, who had already denounced George W Bush’s presidency as “the worst in history”, used an interview on BBC radio to condemn Mr Blair for his tight relations with Mr Bush, particularly concerning the Iraq War. Asked how he would characterise Mr Blair’s relationship with Mr Bush, Mr Carter replied: “Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient. “I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world.” Mr Carter was also voluble over the Rhodesia crisis, which was about to end during his presidency. His support for Robert Mugabe at the time generated widespread criticism. He was said to have ignored the warnings of many prominent Zimbabweans, black and white, about what sort of leader Mugabe would be. This was seen by Mr Carter’s critics as “deserving a prominent place among the outrages of the Carter years”. Mr Carter has since said he and his administration had spent more effort and worry on Rhodesia than on the Middle East. He admitted he had supported two revolutionaries in Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo, and with hindsight said later that Mugabe had been “a good leader gone bad”, having at first been “a very enlightened president”. One US commentator wrote: “History will not look kindly on those in the West who insisted on bringing the avowed Marxist Mugabe into the government. “In particular, the Jimmy Carter foreign policy... bears some responsibility for the fate of a small African country with scant connection to American national interests.” In recent years Mr Carter developed a reputation as an international peace negotiator. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his commitment to finding peaceful solutions to international conflicts, his work with human rights and democracy initiatives, and his promotion of economic and social programmes. Mr Carter was dispatched to North Korea in August 2008 to secure the release of US citizen Aijalon Mahli Gomes, who had been sentenced to eight years of hard labour after being found guilty of illegally entering North Korea. He successfully secured the release of Mr Gomes. In 2010 he returned to the White House to greet President Barack Obama and discuss international affairs amid rising tensions on the Korean peninsula. Proving politics runs in the family, in 2013 his grandson Jason, a state senator, announced his bid to become governor in Georgia, where his famous grandfather governed before becoming president. He eventually lost to incumbent Republican Nathan Deal. Fears that Mr Carter’s health was deteriorating were sparked in 2015 when he cut short an election observation visit in Guyana because he was “not feeling well”. It would have been Mr Carter’s 39th trip to personally observe an international election. Three months later, on August 12, he revealed he had cancer which had been diagnosed after he underwent surgery to remove a small mass in his liver. Mr Obama was among the well-wishers hoping for Mr Carter’s full recovery after it was confirmed the cancer had spread widely. Melanoma had been found in his brain and liver, and Mr Carter underwent immunotherapy and radiation therapy, before announcing in March the following year that he no longer needed any treatment. In 2017, Mr Carter was taken to hospital as a precaution, after he became dehydrated at a home-building project in Canada. He was admitted to hospital on multiple occasions in 2019 having had a series of falls, suffering a brain bleed and a broken pelvis, as well as a stint to be treated for a urinary tract infection. Mr Carter spent much of the coronavirus pandemic largely at his home in Georgia, and did not attend Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration in 2021, but extended his “best wishes”. Former first lady Rosalynn Carter, the closest adviser to Mr Carter during his term as US president, died in November 2023. She had been living with dementia and suffering many months of declining health. “Rosalynn was my equal partner in everything I ever accomplished,” Mr Carter said in a statement following her death. “She gave me wise guidance and encouragement when I needed it. As long as Rosalynn was in the world, I always knew somebody loved and supported me.”
- Previous: ugga bugga slot machine
- Next: what is the best slot machine to play to win
