The Glorious History and Origins of Tottenham Hotspur
Tottenham Hotspur was established in 1882 with the intention of giving nearby children a venue for enjoying the game. The team swiftly advanced through English football’s tiers after its modest start, securing a spot in the Football League in 1908. The club was founded on the principles of sportsmanship, teamwork, and a dedication to serving the neighborhood.
Triumphs and Challenges: The Journey of the Lilywhites
Some of the club’s most memorable events were observed at White Hart Lane, the club’s ancient home. Spurs enjoyed its greatest success during the 1960s, winning the league title and, in 1963, becoming the first British club to take home a significant European trophy, the European Cup Winners’ Cup. The reputation of Tottenham Hotspur as a serious contender was cemented throughout this time.
A Bright Future: Spurs’ Aspirations and Impact on Football
The trophy cabinet of Tottenham Hotspur is filled with league championships, FA Cups, and other awards. The team has a devoted fanbase both locally and abroad because to their offensive football and flair-driven style of play. The supporters will always remember the FA Cup victories in especially, notably the illustrious double in 1961.
After a celebrated and improved vocation traversing north of twenty years, Gianluigi Buffon, the notorious Italian goalkeeper, has authoritatively declared his retirement from proficient football. Buffon’s takeoff from the pitch denotes the conclusion of an important time period for fans and aficionados around the world.
Changing to Another Part
While hanging up his gloves, Buffon burns through no time in setting out on another excursion. The football symbol has uncovered his post-retirement plans, which will see him taking on an especially intriguing job inside the domain of football.
Joining the Instructing Staff
Buffon’s new undertaking will see him changing from a player to a guide, as he ventures into an instructing position. The specific subtleties of his job inside the instructing staff are yet to be revealed, yet it is normal that his abundance of involvement and experiences will incredibly help the up and coming age of football gifts.
Passing on an Inheritance
Buffon’s choice to dive into training does not shock those acquainted with his energy for the game and his obligation to its development. With a profession that ranges from winning the FIFA World Cup with the Italian public group to various homegrown association titles and European distinctions, Buffon’s immense information and comprehension of the game make him a significant resource for any training arrangement.
Another Section Starts
As Buffon takes on this new job, football fans anxiously expect to observe his effect off the field. While his nonattendance from the goal lines will without a doubt be felt, his presence uninvolved is supposed to make a permanent imprint on the fate of the game.
The Heritage Lives On
Gianluigi Buffon’s retirement implies the conclusion of a significant time period in football, yet it likewise represents the continuation of his heritage in an alternate limit. As he embraces his new job inside the training domain, Buffon’s impact and commitments to the delightful game are ready to persevere for a long time into the future.
End
Gianluigi Buffon’s choice to resign from proficient football and change into an instructing job is a demonstration of his persevering through affection for the game. With a surprising profession behind him and a thrilling new part ahead, Buffon’s process keeps on dazzling fans overall as he leaves on this new and motivating undertaking.
Introduction: Nelson Mandela: Inspiring Life of a Heroic Leader | Biography and Legacy
Celebrating Nelson Mandela: Honoring the Inspiring Life of a Heroic Leader on His Birth Anniversary, 18 July Nelson Mandela International Day.
In this article, we delve into the extraordinary life and enduring legacy of Nelson Mandela, a renowned global icon born on 18 July 1918, Mvezo South Africa. From his humble beginnings in rural South Africa to his unwavering fight against apartheid and subsequent presidency, Mandela’s story is a testament to the triumph of justice, equality, and human rights. Join us as we explore the key milestones and significant contributions of this remarkable leader, whose unwavering commitment to peace and reconciliation continues to inspire millions around the world.
Early Life and Education of Nelson Mandela
Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was born on July 18, 1918, in the village of Mvezo, Transkei, South Africa. Coming from the Xhosa tribe, Mandela grew up in a society deeply affected by racial inequality and oppression. Despite the challenging circumstances, he showed remarkable academic promise and eventually attended the University of Fort Hare, where he pursued a Bachelor of Arts degree.
Activism Against Apartheid
Mandela’s journey as an activist against apartheid began in the 1940s. He joined the African National Congress (ANC), a political party that fought for the rights of black South Africans, and became increasingly involved in advocating for racial equality. Recognizing the power of nonviolent resistance, Mandela played a pivotal role in organizing peaceful protests, boycotts, and strikes.
However, as the apartheid regime intensified its oppressive measures, Mandela realized that more robust action was necessary. He co-founded the ANC’s armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), in 1961, leading a campaign of sabotage against government institutions. These actions ultimately resulted in his arrest and subsequent imprisonment.
Imprisonment and Robben Island
On June 12, 1964, Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment for charges of sabotage and conspiracy against the state. He was incarcerated on Robben Island, a remote prison off the coast of Cape Town. Mandela’s imprisonment lasted for 27 years, during which he endured numerous hardships but remained resilient in his pursuit of justice.
While imprisoned, Mandela became a symbol of resistance against apartheid. His unwavering determination, coupled with international pressure, eventually led to his release on February 11, 1990, marking a pivotal moment in South African history.
Negotiations and Presidency
Following his release, Mandela dedicated himself to achieving a peaceful transition to democracy in South Africa. He led negotiations with then-President F.W. de Klerk, resulting in the dismantling of apartheid and the country’s first multiracial elections. In 1994, Nelson Mandela became the first black president of South Africa, a historic milestone that symbolized the triumph over racial injustice.
Legacy and Impact
Nelson Mandela’s impact extended far beyond his presidency. His leadership and vision laid the foundation for a new South Africa built on principles of equality, justice, and reconciliation. Mandela worked tirelessly to promote social harmony and healing, establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to address the atrocities committed during apartheid.
His commitment to peace and human rights earned him international acclaim, leading to numerous awards and honors, including the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. Mandela’s unwavering dedication to freedom and equality serves as an inspiration not only to South Africans but to people worldwide.
Conclusion : Inspiring the World
Nelson Mandela’s life exemplifies the transformative power of perseverance and forgiveness. From his early activism to his presidency, his unwavering commitment to justice and equality continues to inspire a better future for all.
Nelson Mandela’s life journey embodies the indomitable spirit of a true hero. From his early activism to his remarkable presidency, he tirelessly fought for justice, equality, and human rights. Mandela’s legacy continues to inspire individuals and nations alike, reminding us of the transformative power of forgiveness, reconciliation, and the pursuit of a better world for all.
A word of advice for anyone who has worked hard to acquire a reputation they cherish: if Boris Johnson approaches, if he comes anywhere near, run a mile. Richard Sharp is the latest proof that, even out of office, Johnson continues to act as reputational napalm, laying waste to careers and turning good names bad.
Sharp joins a long list that includes Christopher Geidt, who had the poison task of serving as Johnson’s adviser on ethics; Allegra Stratton, whom the former prime minister said had “sickened” him when she joked about a party in Downing Street, even though he had attended several himself; and the one-time rising star civil servant and current cabinet secretary, Simon Case, quoted this week as having said of Johnson, “I don’t know what more I can do to stand up to a prime minister who lies”. Each entered Johnson’s circle as a respected figure; each was diminished by their contact with the reverse Midas, the man who rots everything he touches.
One question left by Sharp’s resignation as chair of the BBC is: what took him so long? He hardly needed to wait for today’s report by Adam Heppinstall KC, with its verdict that Sharp’s failure to disclose his role in brokering an £800,000 loan arrangement for Johnson represented “a breach of the governance code”, to know that he could not possibly continue in a job whose defining duty is to maintain the independence of the BBC. As the former director general John Birt said a month ago, Sharp was “unsuitable” for the role, thanks to “navigating a loan for the prime minister at exactly the same time as applying for the job at the BBC. It’s the cosiness of that arrangement that made it unsuitable, and I wish the cabinet secretary had called it out.” (The cabinet secretary being Case, serially Midased by Johnson.)
According to those inside the BBC, Sharp had been a capable chair. But the manner of his appointment meant he could never do the job properly. Witness last month’s row over Gary Lineker’s tweet, aimed at Suella Braverman’s language on migrants. That was a moment when you might expect the chair to lead from the front, publicly explaining either why impartiality is central to the BBC’s mission or why it was vital that the BBC not succumb to government pressure – or both. Instead, Sharp was mute and invisible, too hopelessly compromised as the man who had helped bail out a fiscally incontinent Tory prime minister to say a word.
It’s baffling that all of this did not occur to Sharp himself long ago – including right at the start, when he submitted his job application and was required to identify any conflicts, or perceived conflicts, of interest. The fact that he didn’t mention his role in the Johnson loan, even though he had discussed the issue with Case, suggests he knew that it looked bad – that it would give rise to the “perception that Mr Sharp would not be independent from the former prime minister, if appointed,” as Heppinstall puts it. Given he knew the importance of perceived, as well as actual, neutrality for the BBC, that silence was itself disqualifying.
‘Many have been diminished by their contact with Boris Johnson the reverse Midas, the man who rots everything he touches.’ Photograph: Charles McQuillan/PA
His grudging resignation statement suggests the penny has still not dropped. Dominic Raab may have started a fashion for passive-aggressive Friday departures, because Sharp was insistent that his breach of the rules was “inadvertent and not material”. Still, he invited our admiration for his decision “to prioritise the interests of the BBC” since “this matter may well be a distraction from the corporation’s good work were I to remain in post”. Er, yes, just a bit. Again, if preventing a distraction was Sharp’s concern, he should have gone the moment this story broke. As it is, he’s left multiple questions still to answer – including whether Johnson should not have recused himself from the appointment process on the grounds that he had an egregious conflict of interest, given that he knew Sharp had helped him out with the loan.
What’s needed now is not just a new BBC chair, but a new way of doing things. Even if he hadn’t got involved in Johnson’s personal finances, Sharp was hardly a non-partisan figure. He is a longtime, high-value donor to the Tory party, to the tune of £400,000. True, political parties, Labour included, have been appointing allies and chums to this role since the 1960s, but that practice needs to stop. Lineker distilled the case nicely: “The BBC chairman should not be selected by the government of the day. Not now, not ever.”
This goes wider than the BBC: there’s a slew of public jobs that might appear to be independently appointed, but that are quietly filled on the nod, or whim, of Downing Street. But it’s with the BBC that independence matters acutely. To understand why, look across the Atlantic.
This week’s announcement by Joe Bidenthat he will seek a second term had to fight for media attention with the firing of Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson. That’s because Carlson had become second only to Donald Trump in influence over the Republican party, able to make senior elected officials and aspirant presidential candidates bend to his agenda and ideological obsessions – even when mainstreaming previously fringe, and racist, ideas like the “great replacement theory”, with its claim of a deliberate, if shadowy, plot to replace white Americans with a more diverse and pliant electorate.
Fox News itself, with its repeated amplification of the big lie of a stolen election, is partly responsible for why nearly two-thirds of Republican voters do not believe a demonstrable fact: namely, that Biden won office in a free and fair contest in 2020. Today’s America is a land of epistemic tribalism: knowledge is not shared across the society, but rather dependent on political affiliation. There are red state facts and blue state facts, and which you believe comes down to which media you consume – which social media accounts you follow, which TV networks you watch.
In Britain, there have been efforts to lead us down that gloomy path. There are partisan, polemical TV channels now, desperate to do to Britain what Fox has done to America. And Johnson was Trumpian in his contempt for the truth, determined to create a world of Brexit facts that would exist in opposition to the real one. But if those efforts have largely failed – and if Johnson was eventually undone by his lies – that is partly down to the stubborn persistence in this country of a source of information that is regarded by most people as, yes, flawed and, yes, inconsistent, but broadly reliable and fair. Trust levels in the BBC are not what they were, and that demands urgent attention, but it is striking nonetheless that, according to a Reuters Institute study, aside from local news, BBC News is the most trusted news brand in the US. It seems that in an intensely polarised landscape, people thirst for a non-partisan source.
The BBC should be defended – and that process starts with governments treating it as the publicly funded broadcaster it is, rather than the state broadcaster some wrongly imagine it to be. That means giving up the power to pick its boss – and getting politicians out of the way. The BBC is a precious thing – so precious, we might not fully appreciate it until it’s gone.
[ad_2]
#Richard #Sharp #Boris #Johnsons #toxic #legacy #politicians #pick #boss #BBC #Jonathan #Freedland
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
“People who you’ve read about or know about – there they are looking right at you.” Art curator Kara Vander Weg is talking with me about global art gallery Gagosian’s major new Richard Avedon retrospective, in which 150 individuals – ranging from the younger Barbara Bush to Khloé Kardashian to Spike Lee to Elton John to Renata Adler to Vander Weg herself – each selected a single Avedon photo to celebrate. She’s explaining the intimacy that she believes sets Avedon’s photos apart. “His subjects are looking right at you, and you can look right at them. You can’t help but react to the human right there in front of you.”
Avedon was monumental for the size of his photos, which tended to be printed in life-size or larger, leading to the effect that Vanger Weg described, where viewers can look right at his subjects and have an encounter that feels extremely intimate. “It’s a really interesting relationship between art and the viewer,” she told me. “Avedon must have known. He would work for months and months with models trying to find the right sizes of images. He must of known that humans in the room would relate to the images in a really special way. That’s what it is about these photographs, you’re looking in the eyes of another person. You can’t help but connect.”
In addition to being monumental for his size, Avedon was also monumental for his range – from heads of state to celebrities to art creators, fashion models, writers, musicians and even a beekeeper, his output feels almost impossibly capacious. “He spanned so many different genres,” said Derek Blasberg, another curator with Gasgosian who has been integral in putting together Avedon 100. “He shot almost every important figure of the second half of the 20th century.”
Showing from 4 May through 24 June, Avedon 100 will dominate Gagosian’s gallery space in New York’s Chelsea district. The show does feel enormous, with showstoppers from one area after another, be it politics, fashion, film, literature, street scenes, music. “What is awesome about this show is that it’s an enormous look at all of Avedon,” said Blasberg. “It spans from the earliest days of him touching a camera.” That includes what Blasberg deemed “arguably the first mirror selfie”, a side-by-side photo Avedon made with author James Baldwin. The 1946 image definitely has the aesthetics of a selfie, with Baldwin smiling into the mirror, eyes pointed toward the lens, while Avedon squints down into the viewfinder, his camera looking eerily like an iPhone.
Richard Avedon and James Baldwin, Harlem, New York, 1946 Photograph: Richard Avedon/Photograph(s) by Richard Avedon. The Richard Avedon Foundation
From the small to the large, the show also features two gigantic murals – one of Andy Warhol posing with members of The Factory (10ft high by 31ft wide) and one of poet Allen Ginsberg with members of his extended family (9ft by 20ft). “The two large murals are a tour de force,” said Vander Weg. “They were printed before any kind of digital printing, so it was a massive job to get them done correctly.” Indeed, these murals are among the largest fine art photos ever printed, and in their time they pushed the boundaries of what was possible with the photographic medium.
Vander Weg went on to explain that Gagosian “had a specific day dedicated to just installing those two murals. They were brought in rolled up, and then they were unrolled under supervision”. During Avedon’s lifetime the murals would not have been exhibited under glass, but since the photographer’s death in 2004 they have grown immeasurably more precious, and now glass is required. That’s because, according to Vander Weg, Avedon’s will contained a clause against printing any more of his photos. In addition, the Avedon Foundation, which now authenticates and licenses all of the photographer’s work, is known to go after anyone attempting to sell unauthenticated Avedon prints. “Collectors like knowing that there’s a finite body of work,” said Vander Weg. “Each one is signed and stamped on the back, making them precious objects.”
Cindy Crawford for Versace, hair by Yannick D’Is, makeup by François Nars, New York, 1994 Photograph: Photograph(s) by Richard Avedon. The Richard Avedon Foundation
Many of the individuals invited to help curate the show – particularly those from the fashion world – ended up selecting images of themselves. There’s Tom Ford looking gregarious and confident – the fashion designer said he adored the image so much that he ended up using it on the back cover of his first book. Supermodel Naomi Campbell chose a full-body, naked shot of herself encrusted with sand, a powerful, intent stare on her face. Quintessential supermodel Cindy Crawford chose a nine-exposure series that captured her flinging her hair around, looks of playful rapture beaming from her face. And Stephanie Seymour picked a shot of her in a sheer dress in a pose reminiscent of a ballet dancer, her pregnant belly clearly visible.
“Seymour said that working with Avedon was like a graduate program in modeling,” said Blasberg. “It was awesome to hear models talk what it was like to work with him. Linda Evangelista said that nobody did lighting like him.”
Although Avedon 100 certainly offers plenty of opportunities to view the powerful and the famous, Vander Weg also noted that many of the photographs involve anonymous or unknown individuals. For the image she curated, she picked one of a young boy, from an unpublished series for Life magazine done in 1949. “What’s really interesting about the whole series is that they’re not known sitters. They’re just everyday people, not posing. Yet he manages to give them all a dignity and a glamorous presentation. He knew so well how to frame, what would make them look their best. I look at that boy and think about the determination of many people who come to New York City. I really connect to it. You look at the eyes, and you think ‘this kid is going somewhere.’”
Richard Avedon. Photograph: Eamonn McCabe/The Guardian
In an intimate, fun touch, each image comes with a brief text composed by the curator, where they offer often personal stories explaining why they chose what they did. Blasberg shared with me that he chose the Warhol Factory mural because, as a kid growing up in St Louis, it made him realize there was so much more to the world. “I remember the first time I saw that image, I was so struck by it. Over the years I’ve dived more and more into what was behind that photo. For a little boy from Missouri to see a glorification of male beauty – it made me think I have to get to New York. I wanted to be one of those cool kids in that shop.” Decades later and an art world insider, Blasberg finds “working on this show has been a total surreal career highlight.”
Avedon 100 feels like a one-of-a-kind event because it’s such a large-scale show, bringing together so many strands of an enormous career. It’s a fitting testament to a major American creator. In the words of Vander Weg, “People have grown up seeing these images, but to see them in a room all together is something else. One man’s incredibly interesting, varied life – it will be a very powerful experience.”
[ad_2]
#Richard #Avedon #major #names #celebrate #legacy #unique #photographer
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
Tucker Carlson, the far-right TV host whose embrace of racist conspiracy theories came to signify a shift further towards the right at Fox News, leaves behind a legacy of mainstreaming extremism after exiting the channel, and speculation is turning to any next step in an incendiary career.
The departure of Carlson, Fox News’ most-watched and highest-profile host, came as a shock. It is the second seismic moment at the news channel in a matter of days, after Fox News agreed to pay a $787.5m settlement to Dominion Voting Systems last week after airing election conspiracy theories.
Fox News announced the split in a terse statement on Monday, stating that the channel and Carlson had “agreed to part ways”. But the pithiness of the statement barely hinted at the dubious repercussions of Carlson’s seven-year tenure as a regular host: a spell in which he seemed to grow into a force that Fox News wouldn’t, or couldn’t, control.
“Tucker Carlson basically leaves a superhighway to the rightwing fever swamps,” said Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters for America, an organization that monitors rightwing media.
“Tucker took things from what otherwise would have been considered the fringes: Infowars [a far-right conspiracy theory website], these white nationalist communities online, he took that content and laundered it into the Fox News ecosystem, and basically built up an appetite for this amongst the Fox News audience.
“And once they sort of got a taste for blood, that’s all they wanted. That’s going to be a challenge for Fox moving forward, but what’s his legacy? His legacy is bloodthirstiness and bigotry.”
Carlson’s eponymous show, which aired at 8pm ET, averaged more than 3 million viewers a night, and was generally the most watched cable news program.
The 53-year-old might have been an unlikely hero to Fox News’ coastal-elite loathing audience. A multimillionaire who was privately educated in California, Switzerland and the Waspy environs of New England, Carlson hosted most of his shows from a specially built studio in Maine, where he spends much of the year (he also has a home in Florida).
Yet night after night, millions tuned in to watch Carlson’s furious, reddening face, under a neatly parted, country club hairstyle, as he fed viewers a daily dose of fury and victimhood and painted a dystopian picture of America.
Among Carlson’s most passionately pursued topics was the idea – contrary to all able evidence – that white people were being persecuted in the US.
Rupert Murdoch reportedly forced Carlson out in connection with a discrimination lawsuit. Photograph: Mary Altaffer/AP
Across his tenure at Fox News, Carlson pushed the concept of the great replacement theory – which states that a range of liberals, Democrats and Jewish people are working to replace white voters in western countries with people of color, in an effort to achieve political aims – in more than 400 of his shows, a New York Times analysis found.
“No singular voice in rightwing media has done more to elevate this racist conspiracy theory than Tucker,” Joy Reid, a MSNBC host, said in 2022, and his peddling of the claim brought multiple calls for him to be fired across the years, all of which Fox News ignored.
“Carlson positioned himself as the voice of the Maga base of the party and really leaned into the kinds of conspiracy theories, the white nationalist ideas that he thought would appeal to that base,” said Nicole Hemmer, a political historian at Vanderbilt University and author of Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics.
“He really was able to give a voice to this kind of grievance that Donald Trump was so good at tapping into. It was Tucker Carlson who was out there saying: ‘They’re coming for you, white people.’”
Far-right host Tucker Carlson leaves Fox News in surprise announcement – video report
Fox News gave no indication as to the reason for splitting with Carlson, but on Monday the Los Angeles Times reported that Rupert Murdoch, the omnipotent chairman of Fox Corporation – the parent company of Fox News – had forced Carlson out of the news channel in relation to a looming discrimination lawsuit.
Another thing that may not have helped were the embarrassing disclosures of Carlson’s text messages and emails, published as part of the Dominion lawsuit. Those messages revealed that privately Carlson held very different views from those he espoused on air, including about Donald Trump.
“I hate him passionately,” Carlson said of the former president, describing Trump’s behavior in the weeks following the 2020 election as “disgusting”.
In another text, Carlson said of “the last four years” under Trump: “We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There isn’t really an upside to Trump.”
It is difficult to say what comes next for Carlson. Newsmax and One America News Network, two other rightwing cable news channels, could be possible homes, but they have a much smaller audience, and would probably be unable to match Fox News’ salary.
“I don’t think he goes to a competing cable network,” Carusone said.
“He’s too sensitive to ratings and that would be an embarrassment – they could never match the ratings, they could never give him the reach.”
One thing that is likely, however, is that Carlson “attacks Fox”, Carusone said.
“He wasn’t shy about attacking his colleagues and management when he was at a company – he’s certainly not going to be shy about attacking them now,” Carusone said.
The idea of an aggressive response is “tightly tied into his brand”, Carusone said “And he’s also just a venomous, spiteful guy, so the reflex will be to take a shot.”
Carlson’s unexpected departure meant he had no opportunity to say goodbye to his viewers. On Friday, in what turned out to be his last show, he had once more voiced that issue which is so close to his heart: the great replacement theory.
“The defining strategic insight of the modern Democratic party is they don’t really need to convince anyone of anything,” Carlson said in his monologue on Friday’s show.
“What matters is demographics. To import enough people from elsewhere, people who are financially dependent on you in order to live.”
Perhaps Carlson can take some comfort in knowing that his persona on Fox died as he lived: sitting in a TV studio, looking upset, and pushing a racist conspiracy theory to an increasingly rabid rightwing audience.
[ad_2]
#Tucker #Carlson #leaves #toxic #legacy #Fox #News #Whats
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
The Florida House approved it on a 70-40 vote on Thursday. The state Senate approved it last week.
The six-week ban will help DeSantis show conservative voters in a primary contest that he’s solidly anti-abortion, but it also carries big risks in a general election. Republicans overall underperformed during the 2022 midterm elections, in part because Democrats and swing voters turned out in response to the high court’s abortion ruling.
Florida now joins at least 12 other states — including Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky and Louisiana — that have approved bans on abortions after six weeks, a point at which many people don’t yet know they’re pregnant. The Florida legislation provides exceptions for victims of rape, incest and human trafficking up to 15 weeks as long as they provide proof such as a police report. At least 13 other states have enacted near-total bans on the procedure.
The GOP-led Legislature’s move comes almost a week after a federal judge in Texas suspended the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone, signaling that the battle over reproductive healthcare will continue long after the Supreme Court’s decision last year to overturn the constitutional right to abortion under Roe v. Wade. Late Wednesday, a federal appeals court ruled that the pill can remain on the market but restricted its availability.
Even after DeSantis signs the bill, the new six-week ban will face an additional hurdle at the Florida Supreme Court. The state’s high court is currently weighing a challenge to last year’s 15-week ban, with plaintiffs arguing the law violates a decades-old state privacy clause that previous justices cited in upholding abortion protections. The state is enforcing the 15-week ban as the court considers the challenge.
The six-week ban, once signed into law, will not go into effect until the court rules in the case because the legislation has a trigger provision that makes it dependent on the court’s ruling.
Much like the U.S. Supreme Court, Florida’s high court is dominated by conservatives after DeSantis appointed four of the court’s seven justices. Many court watchers expect the justices to uphold the 15-week ban.
“Here in the state of Florida we care deeply about life and we care about the most vulnerable in our society – babies in the womb,” said state Rep. Jennifer Canady, a Republican from Lakeland who co-sponsored the legislation in the House.
Canady also highlighted some of the other provisions in the bill, including providing $5 million to the state Department of Health for programs that promote causes such as contraception, and $15 million for programs that support mothers who give birth.
One of the most outspoken critics of the bill was state Rep. Anna Eskamani (D-Orlando), who told lawmakers that she grew up poor and first received contraception from Planned Parenthood when she was a teenager. She said the 6-week ban would unfairly punish poor women who can’t afford to travel out of state to have an abortion after six weeks.
“I’m a firm believer that bodily autonomy should not be dictated by how much money you have or where you live,” Eskamani, who previously worked at Planned Parenthood, said. “Those with means — we’ll figure out a way, but others won’t be able to do that.”
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre in a statement called the ban “extreme and dangerous” and said the administration “will continue to fight to protect access to abortion and defend reproductive rights.”
While House lawmakers were considering the bill, a group of abortion-rights protesters in the chamber shouted “abortion is healthcare!” before GOP Speaker Paul Renner cleared the room. Once outside the chamber, the demonstrators chanted “Hands off our bodies.”
Last year, when lawmakers voted on the 15-week ban, Capitol Police arrested a Planned Parenthood organizer on a charge of disorderly conduct and issued warnings to 25 others who were protesting. This year’s crowd appeared smaller and there were no arrests.
A handful of Florida Republicans who represent primarily Democratic areas voted against the ban but were outliers and like state Democrats, had no power to stop the GOP supermajority from approving the legislation.
House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell of Tampa warned that Florida’s maternal death rate would increase if the 6-week ban becomes law and added that Republicans pushed through legislation even though voters don’t want it.
“It’s an imposition of the will of the minority on the majority,” Driskell said. “Do we not listen to our constituents and the people of Florida for what they’re asking for?”
[ad_2]
#Florida #lawmakers #vote #states #legacy #abortion #refuge
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
New York: As April Fool’s Day came and passed, the blue check marks on Twitter remained for legacy verified accounts and Elon Musk was yet to remove them and make those users pay $8 (Rs 900 a month in India) to remain verified.
Almost all legacy Blue check marks were intact on Monday, two days after the Musk deadline.
A new verified tagline for legacy Blue users now reads: “This account is verified because it is subscribed to Twitter Blue or is a legacy verified account”.
Twitter CEO on Sunday said that verification of accounts will help a lot.
“We are adding the date of verification to the profile. Note, only date since paid verification counts, since there was so much corruption in the past with legacy checkmarks,” he tweeted.
Musk has removed just one blue badge – that for the account of the New York Times which posted that it will not pay $8 for the verified Blue service with verification.
“Oh ok, we’ll take it off then,” the Twitter CEO posted.
However, Twitter can still remove legacy Blue check marks (unless it was indeed an April Fool’s Day prank).
According to Musk, only verified accounts will be allowed to appear in ‘For You recommendations’, starting April 15.
“Starting April 15, only verified accounts will be eligible to be in For You recommendations. This is the only realistic way to address advanced AI bot swarms taking over. It is otherwise a hopeless losing battle. Voting in polls will require verification for the same reason, he said last week.
“That said, it’s ok to have verified bot accounts if they follow terms of service and don’t impersonate a human,” Musk added.
Meanwhile, a report recently revealed that half of Blue service subscribers have less than 1,000 followers on the platform.
Twitter is also reportedly planning to give a $1,000 checkmark free to the top 10,000 organisations by follower count.
“We’re talking about thousands of people whose care will be delayed or new travel plans have to be made,” Florida Rep. Anna Eskamani, a Democrat who previously worked at Planned Parenthood, said. “It shows this is truly a bill to be cruel just to be cruel.”
Florida last year banned people from getting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. But that law is still much less restrictive than other states across the South.
Florida’s proposal signals that the battle over reproductive rights will continue long after the high court’s decision and will be a major factor in the 2024 election cycle , especially as DeSantis eyes a likely presidential bid. DeSantis’ support for the bill shows he’s eager to continue courting the right wing of the GOP, regardless of how further restricting abortion will be received during a general election.
But Florida’s legislation also highlights how a network of providers in the state, who created an infrastructure to help patients from Georgia, Mississippi and elsewhere get abortions in the state, will need to change tactics if the six-week ban is approved.
Monthly reports obtained from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration show that 6,708 people came from outside the state to get an abortion last year, a more than 37 percent increase compared to 2021. The sharpest increase in visitors began after the Supreme Court ruling was handed down. There were 3,917 out-of-state abortions last year between June 1 and Dec. 31, a more than 140-percent increase compared to the same time period in 2021.
More than 82,000 people total received abortions in 2022.
Clara Trullenque, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of South, East and North Florida, said caseloads at clinics along the state’s northern border quadrupled after the high court ruling.
“Our health centers in Tallahassee and Jacksonville receive more patients from other states where abortion access is even more restricted than it is in Florida,” Trullenque said in an email. “We are continuing to hire additional staff, extend hours and make every accommodation we can to ensure we can serve all of our patients.”
Amber Gavin, a vice president for A Woman’s Choice, an abortion clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said a patchwork of national funding organizations, regional abortion support groups and local clinics emerged to help manage the skyrocketing number of patients.
“We’re working really closely with local and national abortion funds to make sure people who reach out to us can get care they need and that we get the care we need,” Gavin said. “There’s specialized funding to make sure they are able to get the funds to get their care.”
A Woman’s Choice’s clinic also provides information to patients from outside Florida who are looking to the Sunshine State for help. Its website states: “Need Help? We help with feeds, travel, and more. We provide abortion care from everywhere. In fact, your abortion could be fully covered if your State has banned or Severely Restricted Abortion Care, including: AL, AK, GA, KY, LA, MS, MO, OK, TN, and WV.”
Another complication is Florida’s 24-hour wait period law. A state circuit court ruling threw out a lawsuit challenging a requirement that people wait a day between an initial clinic visit and receiving an abortion. Gavin said that rule requires most out-of-state patients to make a two-day trip to Florida, and the subsequent costs of airfare, lodging, and child care quickly pile up.
“It’s already a barrier to have to come here,” Gavin said. “We’re talking about folks who are having to take off one to two days at work, the cost of travel and lodging.”
Data provided by AHCA, the state health agency, shows that most people who came to the state for an abortion over the past few years hailed from Alabama and Georgia but the number of clinics in North Florida has since dropped. In May of last year, AHCA shut down the only clinic in Pensacola after at least three patients suffered complications that were investigated for malpractice. With the Pensacola clinic closed, people were forced to seek access in already overwhelmed offices in Tallahassee and Jacksonville.
“They’ve just been coming from all over,” Gavin said.
The June Supreme Court ruling that led to the explosion of out-of-state visitors prompted regional support and logistics organizations, such as the Atlanta-based ARC Southeast, to reallocate the dollars it receives from much larger abortion fundraising groups to switch from covering doctor’s bills to paying for travel and lodging.
ARC Southeast Healthline Manager Elsie Vazquez said before the Roe ruling, only a small fraction of the money her group received went to those logistical costs. Now, at least half of that money goes toward those ancillary costs, which she called “practical support.”
“Due to the bans in many of the [southeast] states, hundreds of folks are having to travel long distances to get care,” Vazquez said. “And it’s one of the biggest barriers they face apart from paying for their abortion.”
[ad_2]
#Republicans #Floridas #abortionhaven #legacy
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The assault weapons bill set Feinstein against the NRA. Her quest to uncover intelligence abuses spurred an extraordinarily contentious fight with a less predictable foe: a Democratic administration.
As chair of the powerful Intelligence Committee, Feinstein was determined to examine the Central Intelligence Agency’s program of detention and interrogation after the Sept. 11 attacks. She pursued the investigation during President Barack Obama’s administration, clashing bitterly with a fellow Democrat over reckoning with America’s wartime conduct. The result: The public can read the bulk of a 700-plus page executive summary cataloguing how the CIA’s torture and detention of terrorism suspects did not produce valuable intelligence and was more brutal than the agency had publicly acknowledged.
“The major lesson of this report is that regardless of the pressures and the need to act, the Intelligence Community’s actions must always reflect who we are as a nation, and adhere to our laws and standards,” Feinstein wrote in a foreword. Instead, CIA personnel, aided by two outside contractors, decided to initiate a program of indefinite secret detention and the use of brutal interrogation techniques in violation of U.S. law, treaty obligations, and our values.”
Initially, CIA director (and fellow Californian) Leon Panetta worked with Feinstein and her staffers by sharing a tranche of documents that Senate staffers pored over inside a secure facility in northern Virginia. After three years of work, they sent a damning report to the White House.
“I really felt that Senator Feinstein, as chair of the Intelligence oversight committee, understood the responsibility to not only determine what happened but also to determine the lessons from that period in time,” Panetta said in an interview.
That collaborative spirit evaporated by the time John Brennan became CIA director in 2013. Brennan disputed the report’s conclusions, contradicting an internal agency summary and delaying publication. A larger conflict erupted over access: Brennan’s counsel filed a report with the Department of Justice alleging Senate staffers had accessed CIA documents without authorization; lawmakers accused the CIA of tapping into Senate staff computers.
It came to a head in March of 2014. Feinstein delivered a Senate floor speech describing how she learned “chilling” and “horrible” details of an “un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation” that entailed “significant CIA wrongdoing.” She demanded the CIA apologize for breaching the computers Senate staff were using, which Brennan ultimately did after an inspector general’s report vindicated Feinstein.
In the ensuing months, Feinstein would negotiate the fine points of redactions with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, who flew to San Francisco to meet with her. She faced blowback until the very end. Just days before the committee published its executive report, Secretary of State John Kerry lobbied Feinstein to hold off. She did not. Now the report is an indelible part of her record and a primary document of the country’s history.
“I think it was Dianne’s hope that, if she persisted and she presented what happened, that although it would be difficult, although it would offend a lot of people in the process, that nevertheless she would serve the national interest,” Panetta said. “She knew what needed to be done, and she was experienced enough to know how the bureaucracy can be a barrier to finding the truth.”
[ad_2]
#Dianne #Feinsteins #legacy #defined #moments
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
