Tag: limits

  • Edu Dept Limits School Bag Weight, KG Class Exempt from Bags

    [ad_1]

    SRINAGAR: The School Education Department announced on Friday that students up to preschool will not be allowed to carry bags, and the weight of school bags for students of classes I and II shall not exceed 1.5 KGs.

    As per the news agency KNO, the Director of School Education Kashmir (DSEK) stated, “The weight of the school bags as per the policy should be 1.5Kg for students of Classes I and II, 3Kg for Classes III and IV.”

    According to the circular issued by the DSEK, the weight of school bags for classes VI and VII should be 4Kgs, and 5KGs for classes VIII and IX, followed by 5.5 KGs for class X.

    The circular also adds that no homework should be assigned to students up to the 2nd standard and that no formal books should be prescribed at Nursery, LKG, and UKG levels. The circular further stated that pre-primary students should not carry any bags except for a light carrier for a lunch box.

    DSEK emphasized that schools should not prescribe any other subjects except for Language and Arithmetic for class 1st and 2nd, Language, Environmental Science (EVS), and Arithmetic for class 3rd to 5th, and Language, Social Science, Mathematics, and Science for class 6th and 7th, or as prescribed by the affiliating authority.

    Furthermore, the circular stated that students should not be asked to bring additional books and extra material to school. Schools violating the provisions of rule 8A may face cancellation of affiliation and recognition by the government. (KNO)

    [ad_2]
    #Dept #Limits #School #Bag #Weight #Class #Exempt #Bags

    ( With inputs from : kashmirlife.net )

  • Biden finds his limits on Israel

    Biden finds his limits on Israel

    [ad_1]

    israel politics photo gallery 50765

    Over the weekend, Netanyahu fired his defense minister for opposing the overhaul — sparking more protests and exposing cracks in the ruling coalition. On Monday, as more coalition members reportedly threatened to quit, Netanyahu announced he was putting the overhaul on hold and would seek a compromise measure.

    Throughout the crisis, whose roots stretch back months, President Joe Biden and his aides tried to strike a balance with Israel: Keeping appeals and criticisms largely private, but going public on occasion with carefully worded statements designed to pressure Netanyahu to back off the overhaul plan. But those U.S. appeals didn’t seem to do the trick. Internal Israeli pressure has clearly been far more powerful.

    The big question now is how much influence the United States still has with Netanyahu and what level of pressure it’s willing to apply when Netanyahu or his party take future destabilizing actions.

    So the crisis is all about the judicial reform?

    No. Netanyahu returned to power late last year— after the latest in a series of seemingly endless elections — by aligning himself with extreme right-wing figures, some of whom have racist, misogynist and homophobic views.

    This has alarmed more moderate and left-leaning Israelis, whose political power is limited. Many worry that the far-right coalition now in charge of the country — some members of whom have extreme religious views — will undermine secular Israelis’ rights, not to mention those of Israeli Arabs, Palestinians and others.

    To top it off, many of his critics suspect that the main reason Netanyahu is pushing the judicial overhaul and other initiatives desired by his far-right partners is so that they will ultimately protect him from prosecution in Israeli courts, where he’s facing corruption charges.

    How are Biden and his aides reacting to all this?

    Very, very cautiously.

    For the most part, Biden administration officials have tried to keep their conversations with the Israelis private, and, even then, they tend to say things in carefully worded ways.

    The administration has — often in a coded manner — warned Netanyahu that he needs to protect Israeli democracy. The administration also has stressed its support for LGBTQ rights and Palestinian rights in ways designed to signal to Netanyahu that he should rein in his extremist allies.

    Administration officials have said they will hold Netanyahu responsible for his coalition, pointing out that he’s insisted he’s the one in charge. And top administration officials have refused to meet with far-right figures surrounding the Israeli prime minister.

    But the Biden administration also insists that its commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad. The president has long said he will not impose conditions on the billions of dollars in security aid the U.S. provides to Israel, and there’s no sign he’s changed his mind about that.

    While the administration insists that it does have some leverage over Israel — such as assisting it against attacks at the United Nations or helping it pursue deeper cooperation with some Arab states — the reality is that it has largely stuck to rhetoric as its main weapon.

    Is it working?

    Not really.

    Just days ago, Biden spoke to Netanyahu, and the White House readout of the call emphasized that Biden wanted Israel to find a compromise on the judicial reform issue because it’s critical to safeguarding Israeli democracy.

    “Democratic societies are strengthened by genuine checks and balances, and that fundamental changes should be pursued with the broadest possible base of popular support,” the readout said.

    It was an unusually frank call, the readout suggested, especially given the usual niceties involved in the relationship. But in the days after, there was no sign that Netanyahu had taken Biden’s warnings to heart.

    The Israeli leader proceeded ahead with the judicial reform plans. It wasn’t until Netanyahu’s coalition started to crack amid popular pressure that he began to rethink his stance this past weekend.

    What factors must Biden consider when dealing with Israel?

    First, there’s the pure national security aspect. Israel is a critical partner to the United States in the Middle East, especially when it comes to intelligence sharing about the various players in the region.

    This is especially important in regard to Iran, a longtime U.S. and Israeli adversary with a nuclear program.

    Second, there’s just a lot of history. The United States has always been a stalwart partner to Israel ever since it was created as a homeland for the Jewish people fleeing persecution in Europe and beyond.

    Biden has been, for decades, a champion of Israel. He genuinely loves the country and the many successes it has achieved in its short existence.

    Biden has often touted his friendship with Netanyahu, even when the latter has tested that friendship.

    Israel also is a rare democracy in the Middle East. Many U.S. officials also want to keep good ties with Israel in part to resolve the lingering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has left the Palestinian people in misery for decades.

    Third, there’s the question of how things could play out in America’s 2024 presidential campaign.

    For many years, there was broad bipartisan support for Israel in the United States, and any president who criticized the country risked being attacked by members of his own party. This is changing, somewhat.

    Generally speaking, Democrats are still strong supporters of Israel. But there has been growing worry in recent years among Democrats about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

    Netanyahu’s wholehearted embrace of former President Donald Trump angered many Democrats. His new government’s make-up also has alarmed even some of his strongest Democratic backers, suggesting Biden could feel pressure from his party to be tougher on Israel going forward.

    Is the calculus different for the GOP?

    Pro-Israel organizations are strong and politically active, and they command significant support from evangelical Christians in particular — an important Republican base.

    In a sign of how strident the GOP support is for Israel, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently told Axios that Washington shouldn’t weigh in on the judicial overhaul plan, calling it an Israel internal matter.

    Republicans eyeing the White House already are trying to prove their pro-Israel bona fides.

    Some, such as former Trump administration Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, won’t say if they support a future state for Palestinians, for instance. Nikki Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has touted her many efforts to protect Israel at the world body.

    But there are signs that Netanyahu’s overhaul plan goes too far for even some of Israel’s biggest supporters on the American right. Former Trump administration ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, is among those who’ve reportedly voiced concerns.

    How much does the U.S. really care about the Middle East right now, given threats from Russia and China?

    It still cares a lot.

    The United States has military bases in the Middle East, and the region remains a key source of oil and gas for the world — one even more critical given the damage Russia’s war in Ukraine has done to energy markets.

    Without question, the Biden administration believes the top threat to America’s long-term global power is China. But China — as well as Russia — is trying to gain influence in the Middle East amid perceptions that the United States is backing away from the region. That means the competition with those two countries will include the arena of the Middle East.

    For the Biden administration, one key goal is to push for a more peaceful Middle East, with the idea that a more stable Middle East means the United States can focus more on the grander challenges posed by China and Russia.

    [ad_2]
    #Biden #finds #limits #Israel
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Washington discovers the limits of the ‘techlash’

    Washington discovers the limits of the ‘techlash’

    [ad_1]

    silicon valley bank 80695

    In an op-ed in The New York Times, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a longtime advocate for the forced breakup of the largest tech firms, blamed Washington’s “weakening of financial rules” for SVB’s collapse. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a reliable critic of most things the tech industry does, blamed “bank executives” for SVB’s failure and praised the government’s bailout of depositors.

    Totally quiet were Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the key driver behind last cycle’s failed tech antitrust push, as well as Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) or Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who were responsible for identical antitrust legislation in the House.

    This is not the reception a lot of Valley insiders were expecting. In fact, a big theme on tech-investor Twitter over the weekend was that Washington would use — or perhaps was already using — their industry as a political football.

    “I believe that if Silicon Valley Bank were instead called Farmers Bank Of Santa Clara (they bank a lot of winegrowers!) we would have had this easily resolved,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman tweeted on Sunday. “Unfortunately it became somewhat political.”

    David Sacks, a venture capitalist with close ties to Twitter CEO Elon Musk,suggested that people “who want to dunk on tech and VCs” would cause SVB customers to lose their money. Sriram Krishnan, a partner at venture capitalist firm Andreessen Horowitz, proclaimed himself “stunned over a lack of concern for startups and innovation.” Venture capitalist Balaji Srinivasan warned that while tech “doesn’t need a bailout, it shouldn’t be arbitrarily snuffed out.”

    The tech investors’ fears proved unfounded: Two days after the bank’s failure, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced a bailout for SVB’s depositors.

    How’d they get it so wrong?

    Margaret O’Mara, chair of American history at the University of Washington and an expert on the interplay of politics and tech, said the VCs misread the room — and not for the first time.

    “This kind of adversarial, David and Goliath relationship that I think some of these tech moguls would like to set up [with Washington] — that’s not how it works,” O’Mara said. “It’s not how it’s worked in practice, and it’s not what’s going on today.”

    There was at least one exception to the general trend of politicians giving the tech industry a pass — Vivek Ramaswamy, a longshot candidate in the GOP presidential primary, accused Silicon Valley of “pushing the idea that SVB depositors need to be rescued to prevent a run on other banks” and called for an “‘Occupy Silicon Valley’ movement” if a bailout materialized.

    But neither lawmakers nor the many advocacy groups regularly critical of the tech platforms claimed the industry was at fault (and that’s despite emerging evidence that suggests tech founders and CEOs may have goaded each other into a bank run through a series of private Slack messages).

    O’Mara said intensifying feelings of suspicion and contempt for the federal government in Silicon Valley caused a group of what she called “extremely online venture capitalists” to believe Washington would blame and punish the tech industry for SVB’s collapse.

    “There’s always been a bit of, ‘Oh, the government is going to come in and ruin the innovative magic that made Silicon Valley what it is. Government bureaucrats don’t understand what we do,’’’ O’Mara said. “It’s taken on this kind of culture war tone in recent years.”

    While that perception is largely inaccurate — O’Mara said light regulations, beneficial tax policies and a flood of federal R&D dollars have “made Silicon Valley what it is” — she said it persists because tech executives and investors largely fail to recognize (or understand) Washington’s role.

    “That’s another hallmark, unfortunately, of the Valley,” said O’Mara. She noted that many of the tech industry’s leading lights are programmers with a “savant-like focus, who have done nothing but that all their lives.”

    “They have had so little interest in, or respect for, regulatory mechanisms that they actually don’t know these things,” O’Mara said. “And they presume they’re dysfunctional.”

    When asked whether she thinks the bailout will force the industry’s top investors to rethink their view of Washington, O’Mara’s answer was succinct.

    “No,” she said.



    [ad_2]
    #Washington #discovers #limits #techlash
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Biden to put Arctic waters off limits to new oil leases as Willow decision looms

    Biden to put Arctic waters off limits to new oil leases as Willow decision looms

    [ad_1]

    correction biden drilling 42133

    The White House has been mulling the Willow decision for weeks. The deliberations have focused on the legal constraints posed by the fact that Conoco has held some leases for decades and “has certain valid, existing rights granted by prior Administrations, limiting the Biden Administration’s options,” the official continued.

    Stopping new oil leases, plus other measures meant to conserve the Arctic from new drilling, is meant as a “fire wall” to protect 16 million acres of land and water in the state, said the official.

    The Sierra Club environmental group gave tempered support to any new rules.

    “These unparalleled protections for Alaskan landscapes and waters are the right decision at the right time, and we thank the Biden Administration for taking this significant step,” Sierra Club Lands Protection Program Director Athan Manuel said in a prepared statement. “However, the benefits of these protections can be undone just as quickly by approval of oil and gas projects on public lands, and right now, no proposal poses a bigger threat to lands, wildlife, communities, and our climate than ConocoPhillips’ Willow project.”

    [ad_2]
    #Biden #put #Arctic #waters #limits #oil #leases #Willow #decision #looms
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • J&K admin unveils Rules for levy, assessment and collection of property tax in limits of municipal councils and committees

    J&K admin unveils Rules for levy, assessment and collection of property tax in limits of municipal councils and committees

    [ad_1]

    Srinagar, Feb 21: The administration of Jammu & Kashmir Union Territory on Tuesday unveiled Rules for levying, assessment and collection of property tax in the limits of municipal councils and committees of the UT.

    The Housing & Urban Development Department today notified “The Jammu and Kashmir Property Tax (Other Municipalities) Rules, 2023 “.

    According to the notification, a copy of which is in possession of news agency—Kashmir News Observer (KNO), these rules, which would be applicable within the limits of municipal councils and municipal committees, shall come into force from April 01, 2023.

    The Rules define the procedure for calculation of property tax.

    According to the Rules, the Taxable Annual Value (TAV) of a property under the Municipal Act-2000 and the property tax due thereon for a financial year shall be calculated in accordance with a formula given in schedule-I to these rules.

    The Rules state that the property tax on residential property would be 5% of Taxable Annual Value (TAV) while that of non-residential property be 6 % of Taxable Annual Value (TAV).

    The property tax calculated in respect of a building shall hold for a block of three years unless any change to such calculation is necessitated on account of the circumstances envisaged in the Act for allowing revision in such calculation, the Rules state.

    “The first block shall commence from 1ST April 2023, and shall continue to remain in force till 3 1 March 2026. The blocks shall be similarly calculated thereafter, “read the Rules.

    According to the Rules, new buildings coming up after the commencement of the block shall have their property tax liability calculated with reference to the 1st day of the relevant block, and irrespective of their having completed three years, their liability to tax shall be calculated anew from the date of commencement of the new block of three years for the Corporation as a whole.

    “Where a building is liable to property tax for only a part of the year, the tax due shall be proportional to the number of completed months and parts of month not completed shall be ignored,” the Rules state.

    According to the Rules, vacant lands, not appurtenant to a structure/building shall be exempt from property tax if there is a Master Plan in force in the area, under which any construction/development on such vacant land is disallowed or if they have been put to agricultural use.

    “Similarly, all the properties of the municipality and all places of worship, including temples, masjids, Gurdwaras, Churches, Ziarats, etc. and cremation and burial grounds shall be exempt from payment of property tax,” the Rules state.

    The Rules state that all properties owned by the Government of India / UT government shall be exempted from payment of property tax.

    “However, service charge at the rate 3% of the taxable annual value shall be payable to the Municipality in respect of such properties,” the Rules state—(KNO)

    [ad_2]
    #admin #unveils #Rules #levy #assessment #collection #property #tax #limits #municipal #councils #committees

    ( With inputs from : roshankashmir.net )

  • LIC, SBI’s exposure within permitted limits: Sitharaman on Adani issue

    LIC, SBI’s exposure within permitted limits: Sitharaman on Adani issue

    [ad_1]

    Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Friday responded to the Adani-Hindenburg issue in an interview with News18, citing the statements of the SBI and the LIC.

    She also reiterated that their exposure to Adani Group stocks is well within permitted limits and that they are still profitable despite falling valuations.

    Amid continued disruptions in both houses of Parliament over US-based research firm Hindenburg’s allegations against Adani group, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pralhad Joshi on Friday said that the government has nothing to do with the matter and the opposition is raising it as it is bereft of issues.

    Speaking to reporters in Parliament, Joshi, when asked about the government’s stand on the Adani group issue, said that the government has got nothing to do with the matter.

    “Government has nothing to do with it (Adani group issue)… The opposition is disrupting the house as it has no other issues,” the Parliamentary Affairs minister said.

    Subscribe us on The Siasat Daily - Google News

    [ad_2]
    #LIC #SBIs #exposure #permitted #limits #Sitharaman #Adani #issue

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • California lawmakers face Supreme Court limits as they weigh response to Lunar New Year shooting

    California lawmakers face Supreme Court limits as they weigh response to Lunar New Year shooting

    [ad_1]

    “California is going to have a tough time in the coming years maintaining its current gun laws, much less enacting and defending new ones,” said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor specializing in gun policy.

    The new framework established by the Supreme Court stands in the way of significant actions that lawmakers may want to pursue after a gunman opened fire with an assault weapon during a Lunar New Year celebration in Monterey Park on Saturday night, killing 11 people and wounding nine.

    It was the largest mass shooting in Los Angeles County and many questions, including a motive and whether the weapon or magazine violated state laws, were still unanswered.

    That didn’t stop calls for more restrictions on guns, in California and other states, amid the outpouring of grief and shock in Monterey Park, where a makeshift memorial of flowers and candles was expanding outside the dance hall in the majority Asian-American suburb.

    “Even here in California where we have been pushing for aggressive gun laws, we know that it’s not enough,” said Dave Min, a Democratic candidate for Congress in neighboring Orange County. “Guns come in from other states. They can be illegally procured as apparently happened here.”

    Democratic lawmakers aren’t letting the prospect of conservative judges deter them from passing more laws, said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Woodland Hills), who chairs the body’s Gun Violence Prevention Working Group.

    Among the newly-proposed bills this year is another run at an excise tax on ammunition, which failed to get enough votes last year, even in a Democratic supermajority.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta recently filed a brief backing the New York statute, arguing states must retain the authority to set their own gun laws.

    “If there’s going to be litigation, which is likely, we have a lot of faith and confidence in our attorney general,” Bonta said.

    In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative majority Supreme Court opinion established a new constitutional standard for gun restrictions — and reset disputes over California laws. Measures that had previously passed legal muster were sent back to lower courts. The California Department of Justice is now defending them under a different set of rules.

    “Bruen has created ongoing work for the state of California to prevent others from dismantling the strongest-in-the nation gun safety laws,” said Ari Freilich, the state policy director for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The Supreme Court’s Bruen standard has in some concrete ways basically started the clock over again.”

    California’s ban on assault weapons is entangled in a court fight. So are state laws banning high-capacity magazines, regulating ammunition purchases, and barring 18-to-20-year-olds from buying semi automatic weapons.

    State officials are no stranger to legal challenges, but the new precedent set by the court dramatically changes the landscape — and gun advocates know it, Winkler said.

    Second Amendment groups are seizing the moment, filing lawsuits in the hopes that restrictions get tossed out by the high court. And they very well could.

    The restrictions have not eradicated gun violence from California streets. Past and present lawmakers put the blame in part on relatively lax federal laws and in other states.

    “While California has strong gun laws that prohibit the purchase of assault weapons and extended magazines, the gun industry is all too ready to flood neighboring states with the weapons — highlighting the need for accountability of the firearms industry at a national level,” said Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group, in a statement.

    Following the shooting in Monterey Park, Gov. Gavin Newsom indicated the problem transcended state policy.

    “No other country in the world is terrorized by this constant stream of gun violence,” Newsom said on Twitter. “We need real gun reform at a national level.”

    But with Republicans holding the House, Winkler said there’s “virtually no chance” of gun control legislation out of Congress.

    Democratic lawmakers in California say they are not giving up, but crafting legislation with an eye to the courts. Gabriel has introduced a bill to impose new excise taxes on the sale of guns and ammunition, which he says will fund school safety measures and expand violence prevention programs.

    “We’re not going to sit on our hands,” he said.

    [ad_2]
    #California #lawmakers #face #Supreme #Court #limits #weigh #response #Lunar #Year #shooting
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )