#need to do proposal for [major national conference] | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

inevitably-johnlocked · 1 year ago

Note

Helloooo!! I was wondering if you had any fanfic recommendations where John and Sherlock have to pretend they’re a couple for a case, and have to share a hotel room or something…?

Hey Nonny!

Ahh, I have JUST enough of my personal recs to do a list, and because I am behind on older lists I'm prepping, we're posting it! Going to add the MFLs I also tag-searched to this list as well, so we have a nice full list to post today!

As always, if anyone has a fic they want to add, please do!

Enjoy!

FAKE RELATIONSHIP / COUPLE FOR A CASE Pt. 7

See Also:

The Guardian: Senate Republicans block bill to ensure IVF access for second time

Daily Kos: After all that talk, Senate Republicans block bill to protect IVF

#IVF #US Senate #118th Congress #In Vitro Fertilization #Right To IVF Act #Reproductive Health #GOP Hypocrisy

5 notes · View notes

rabbitcruiser · 6 months ago

Text

International Tea Day

While everyone loves a cup of tea, many of the workers and producers of that tea face poor conditions and pay. Help raise awareness and keep tea fair.

The tea industry provides millions of people around the world with cups of tea in the morning. One of the biggest producers of tea, India, recognizes the importance of tea in its communities and as a commodity for commerce.

However, much of the working conditions for those within the tea industry still need much improvement. If you think this holiday was about drinking tea, well think again! International Tea Day is all about the tea workers and bringing civil rights into action. Let’s see how this holiday came to pass.

Do you love a good cup of tea? While International Tea Day can certainly involve paying homage to tea, we should pay homage to those working in the tea industry. The best way to do this is by helping to raise awareness regarding their working conditions so they can be improved.

History of International Tea Day

The International Tea Day campaign was launched in 2005 by the trade unions, small tea growers and civil society organizations in Asia and Africa to address the issues of living wages for workers and fair prices for small tea producers.

The International Tea Conference in New Delhi came out with an International Declaration on the rights of workers and small growers to help regulate uneven competition, land ownership, safety regulations, rights of women, social security and living wages. Another organization, The Tea Board of India, proposed International Tea Day in hopes of it becoming an official holiday to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

This was proposed by chairman Santosh Kumar Sarangi in 2015. According to the chairman, the proposal of India was supported by countries such as Canada, the United States, European Union, Sri Lanka, China, Japan, Kenya, and Malawi. While the holiday doesn’t have official status, the goal of this holiday is to recognize the vulnerable situations that tea producers in India have with current living conditions and worker-related policies.

The day also focuses on deliberating on urgent issues such as residues, climate change, technology and trends on production and consumption in the tea industry. To observe this day, over 150 representatives from tea organizations gather and conduct a seminar to discuss the pervading problems the tea industry has as well as problems faced within their own country.

International Tea Day Timeline

2737 BC Tea is discovered as a beverage

Legend has it that Chinese Emperor Shen Nung is sitting beneath a tea tree while a servant boiled water for drinking. Some leaves fall into the cup and begin the practice of drinking what is now called “tea”.

1610 Tea comes to Europe

It is believed that the Dutch were the first to bring tea to Europe, just a few years prior to the introduction of coffee by Venetians.

1773 The Boston Tea Party occurs

With the intention of revolting against the high taxes levied by the British government without providing any voice, residents of Massachusetts throw tea into the Boston Harbor. “No taxation without representation” is the major complaint.

2004 International Tea Day is created

At the World Social Forum, International Tea Day is conceived and then celebrated the following years in New Delhi and Sri Lanka, then later in other tea-producing places like Nepal, Viet Nam, Bangladesh and others.

2019 United Nations adopts International Tea Day

After some years of advocating for its observance, International Tea Day is adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at the suggestion of the FAO Intergovernmental Group on Tea.

How to Celebrate International Tea Day

If you’re a lover of tea, then do some research about some of your favorite companies. Try looking up tea brands that support fair trade, and possibly switch to those brands to make a difference in the way you buy products such as tea. Use the hashtag #internationalteaday to help recognize it as an official holiday and educate others about the tea industry if you’re interested.

You could also use International Tea Day to try a variety of tea you have never had before. Matcha, for example, is highly popular as of late. You need to shop with care, though! The first thing you need to take a look at is how the Matcha has been produced and sourced.

You need to ensure that all veins and stalks have been removed so that there is not any bitterness and only the finest leaves should be used. Secondly, the color of the matcha powder is a significant factor. The greener the color is, the better. This is because the leaves are forced to overproduce chlorophyll because Matcha is shade-grown, which causes the vibrant green shade.

If the Matcha is yellow or brown in color, this is a sign that the leaves have not been properly shaded or that branches and stalks have been included. The price is the third factor to consider. Like most things, if you want quality, you can expect to pay a little bit more.

If something seems too good to be true, the chances are that it is. The feel of Matcha is also important. It should be a fine powder that is very silky. Last but not least, the taste is obviously a crucial attribute when it comes to quality. It should have a clean and naturally sweet taste.

Why not make some delicious baked green tea treats on International Tea Day and have a bake sale to raise money and awareness regarding working conditions in the tea industry? Green tea recipes are available in their abundance. People are actively searching for different ways to enjoy green tea. While green tea is delicious when simply mixed with hot water, there is nothing wrong with switching it up from time to time, especially on International Tea Day!

An easy and delicious recipe is Matcha Meringue Kisses. To make this you will need Matcha, sugar, egg whites, and powdered sugar. Begin by sifting together the Matcha and the powder sugar, and then whip the egg whites until they have soft peaks. Gradually add the sugar and whip until stiff peaks. Gently fold the Matcha into this mixture and then transfer to a pastry bag. Pipe the mixture into small kisses onto a baking tray and then bake for around an hour.

Or, why not make Green Tea Donuts? For this, you need green tea, honey, melted butter, milk, egg, salt, baking powder, sugar, and cake flour. You whisk the green tea, salt, baking powder, sugar, and flour. Add the honey, melted butter, milk, and egg, and then whisk. Use a pastry bag to pipe the batter into the mould. Then, simply bake the donuts for eight minutes. You can make your own glaze to go on the top – chocolate goes well!

Other delicious baked treats to try include green tea muffins, brownies and shortbread!

International Tea Day FAQs

What is International Tea Day?

Created to celebrate and pay tribute to the countries that produce tea to supply to the world, starting in India and moving to other places like Sri Lanka, Malawi, Uganda, Bangladesh, Vietnam and more.

When was International Tea Day first celebrated?

International Tea Day first got its start in 2004 when it was celebrated in New Delhi. It grew over the years and by 2019 the day was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

How to celebrate International Tea Day?

A great way to observe this day is by learning a bit more about the nations who produce tea for the world. Also, don’t forget to order a cup of fair trade tea for one, or take a friend out to enjoy a cuppa together.

What is the theme of International Tea Day?

The theme for this day devoted to tea producers changes each year, but some of the past themes have included themes such as Tea and Fair Trade or Harnessing Benefits for All from Field to Cup.

When is International Tea Day celebrated?

Taking place on May 21 of each year, International Tea Day originally took place on December 15 from 2005 when it was often only celebrated by tea-producing countries. It changed to May 21 when the UN adopted the day.

Source

2 notes · View notes

catsconflictscopicsandchamomile · 8 months ago

Text

"this project could easily get a research grant, you already have way more to propose/pitch than the vast majority of students who pitch this stuff. I'll get some contacts for you by monday, this could be a steady paycheck"

"these are really interesting questions, give them the time you need, KEEP WORKING ON THEM, these will get you into the big national conference next year, and last through your masters. no, I mean like, they're not just "cool", these are of serious academic value"

"I've never seen anyone else ask this in this way before, except maybe one woman in the 1920s. here's her name. these are things that its really good for you to ask"

"No, I really love how you use "Mearcstapa" as a species name- it interplays very well with the text and the things you're exploring. keep doing it, I like that a lot"

...my dudes, my brothers in academia, my Old English prof, and my former TA/head of Old English club

I only "came up with" ANY of these questions/words by rotating Dean Winchester in my head like a vector image 24/7

I'm more confused than anything that these questions make BASIC SENSE, let alone have "serious academic value worthy of long-term/lifelong study"

IM TALKING ABOUT *DEAN* WHAT THE *FUCK*

#old english #academia #collegeblr #new level of impostor syndrome achieved: Whatever This Is #medieval studies #supernatural #dean winchester #HELP LMAO WHATS GOING ON #the further I push my studies into “no legit I'm just writing fanfic here” the more ppl are like “YOUR WORK IS VALUED AND DEEPLY INTERESTIN #NO.#MY WORK IS BECAUSE I WANT TO LICK JENSEN ACKLES' FRECKLES. GO AWAY COLLEGE PEOPLE IM A FCKING SPN FANGIRL

2 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 year ago

Text

The next test of whether top U.S. adversaries can erode its role as the leading global superpower will come in the form of a major diplomatic confab in South Africa.

Next week, leaders of the so-called BRICS group—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—will convene in Johannesburg for a major summit, where Moscow and Beijing aim to solidify a counterbalance to the Western-led international system. Both Russia and China are keen to breathe new life into the BRICS bloc to show the world that there are alternatives to the patchwork U.S.-led alliances and institutions that have dominated global affairs for decades.

There’s clearly a growing appetite among other countries for an alternative to the U.S.-led system: Some 40 countries, from Argentina to Saudi Arabia to Kazakhstan, have voiced interest in joining BRICS, while more than 67 world leaders and dignitaries were invited to next week’s summit.

“The global south will be watching next week’s BRICS summit closely in the hopes that the rising grouping of global and middle powers makes some progress in filling the considerable gaps left by America’s shoddy global governance,” said Sarang Shidore, director of the global south program at the Quincy Institute think tank. Even as emerging-market economies reel from the shocks of the pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine, Washington has offered little support, instead pursuing an aggressive campaign of interest rate hikes that has exacerbated economic turmoil around the world.

Next week’s summit harkens back to the days of the Bandung Conference, where 29 governments from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East assembled during the Cold War and laid the groundwork for the nonaligned movement. Like then, BRICS serves as an alternative, if inchoate, effort to push back against the hegemon of the day—albeit one that has been complicated by China’s and Russia’s membership.

“BRICS has tapped into a demand that wasn’t being met elsewhere,” said Rebecca Ray, a senior researcher at the Boston University Global Development Policy Center, who noted that countries that aren’t even applying for membership are attending the summit in Johannesburg. “The question is: What do they want their role to be in responding to that?”

There’s no clear answer yet. And experts don’t expect one to emerge from the upcoming summit, with few details yet released on the agenda or real deliverables. Complicating the matter is the fact that BRICS countries have vastly disparate national interests, and vague proposals to expand the bloc’s membership and economic influence seem poised to stumble out of the gate.

India and China are at loggerheads; South Africa is caught between a diplomatic rock and a hard place over its ties to Russia amid the war in Ukraine; and Brazil has done little to stick its neck out for Russia, despite its historically nonaligned foreign policy. All BRICS countries, even China, face economic headwinds that make any future plans to challenge the U.S.-led Group of 7’s spot at the top of the global economy more pipe dream than reality.

The grouping is currently in a “sweet spot, where it’s fulfilling its role, it helps members constrain the United States to some extent, [and] it strengthens ties between the BRICS,” said Oliver Stuenkel, a professor at the School of International Relations at Brazil’s Fundação Getulio Vargas. “But I think if there’s more ambitious projects, then it will inevitably strain this grouping and expose the divergences.”

For Russia, the BRICS summit is an opportunity to demonstrate that it no longer needs the West following Western efforts to isolate Moscow on the world stage in the wake of its bloody war in Ukraine. But that opportunity comes with an awkward footnote: Russian President Vladimir Putin is no longer attending in person as he has a warrant out for his arrest over war crimes in Ukraine from the International Criminal Court (ICC). South Africa, as a member of the ICC, would have been legally obligated to honor the arrest warrant.

China, meanwhile, is keen to position itself as the de facto leader of the global south and the friend of choice to countries worldwide that feel they have been undervalued or left behind by Washington and its most powerful and wealthy allies in Europe and Asia. Beijing has long pushed for the grouping’s enlargement, even though its ambitions have sparked pushback from other BRICS members.

“China is the only country that is not concerned at all about diluting the prestige of BRICS” by expanding it to more countries, Stuenkel said. “For China, I think it really makes sense to expand so that the BRICS can become an element in a more China-centric order—a Chinese-led system of different structures like the One Belt, One Road; the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; [and the] BRICS bank,” he said, referring to China’s leading global infrastructure investment program, the Chinese-backed multilateral lender, and the nascent New Development Bank established by BRICS countries just under a decade ago.

Yet Beijing has had a harder time getting the other BRICS members on board, further underscoring their competing visions of the group’s future. The idea of expansion has worried India and Brazil in particular, both of which have taken pride in the group’s exclusivity and fear that an open door will diminish its prestige.

“Brazil is very proud of its BRICS membership,” Stuenkel said. “If you’re part of a very exclusive club, it makes sense that you don’t want to see the club becoming open to everyone.”

One major proposal some leaders have floated ahead of the summit is developing a BRICS common currency to hedge against the U.S. dollar, although it is not on the summit’s agenda and experts are highly skeptical of the plan. Economist Jim O’Neill, who first coined the BRICS term in 2001, blasted the idea of a BRICS currency as “ridiculous” and “absurd” earlier this week.

“The idea that five countries with very divergent interests and trajectories can somehow form a coherent enough union to expand its membership and stand up this hare-brained idea of a BRICS currency seems really far-fetched to me,” said J. Peter Pham, a former U.S. diplomatic envoy to African regions during the Trump administration. “I don’t expect anything of substance to come out of this summit, unless you consider the lack of substance as itself politically substantive.”

Still, even without a common currency, Beijing has capitalized on the BRICS grouping to boost its long-standing bid to internationalize the renminbi and slash its dependence on the dollar. In the run-up to the BRICS summit, a growing number of countries, including Brazil and Argentina, have used the renminbi in trade to cope with a shortage of dollars and curry favor with Beijing. These efforts are set to continue long after Johannesburg, with BRICS countries expected to deliberate how to ramp up the use of local currencies in trade at the summit. They are also set to discuss a potential common payments system and committee focused on a joint currency—although experts don’t expect any challenges to the existing global financial architecture.

Talk of a BRICS common currency is “really a reflection of a desire among some segments of the world to have some counterweight to the U.S., the U.S. economy, the dollar,” said Daniel McDowell, an expert in international political economy at Syracuse University. But “I think most of this is just in fantasy land, because I don’t see any world in which it is really going to emerge in the way some people might hope.”

4 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 2 years ago

Photo

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 17, 2023 (Monday)

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 18, 2023

House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was in New York City today, trying to calm jitters among investors by explaining to members of the New York Stock Exchange that the Republicans will not allow the government to default on its debts even as he insisted that the Republican Party must use the debt ceiling to enact legislative policies it can’t win through normal political negotiations.

The debt ceiling is an artificial limit to how much the Treasury can borrow to pay existing obligations to which Congress has already committed. It has nothing to do with future spending, which is hammered out in budget negotiations.

But McCarthy has not offered a budget proposal because the Republican conference cannot agree on one. Yesterday, for example, McCarthy floated the idea of cuts to food assistance for millions of low-income Americans, which Senate Republicans want no part of. Unlike House members, many of whom represent such gerrymandered districts they feel insulated from any backlash to extreme proposals, Senators run at-large. For them, cutting food support while backing tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would be politically dangerous.

Instead, McCarthy is trying to use the threat of national default to extract the cuts extremist members of his conference want. The Biden administration has made it clear that it will not negotiate over paying the nation’s bills, especially since about a quarter of the debt was accumulated under former president Trump, $2 trillion of it thanks to tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. In those years, Congress raised the debt ceiling three times. Biden presented his own long, detailed budget, full of his own priorities, as a start to negotiations in March, and he says he is eager to sit down and hammer out the budget once McCarthy produces his own plan. McCarthy is trying to deflect from his inability to do that but is confusing the issue, suggesting that he has the right to negotiate instead over whether or not to pay our bills.

Since defaulting, or even approaching default, would devastate both the U.S. and the global economy, not even all Republicans back McCarthy’s threats. When Sara Eisen of CNBC asked McCarthy if he had the support of his party for what he is proposing, McCarthy answered, “I think I have the support of America,” and that he would “get the party behind it.”

Meanwhile, when asked about a potential default, Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told Tony Romm of the Washington Post, “It will be financial chaos…. Our fiscal problems will be meaningfully worse.… Our geopolitical standing in the world will be undermined.”

Today, McCarthy offered to kick the can down the road by a year, raising the debt ceiling so long as the Democrats agree to cuts that he described only vaguely. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) rejected this idea out of hand, saying: “If Speaker McCarthy continues in this direction, we are headed to default.” Schumer reiterated that the Democrats will be happy to negotiate with McCarthy over the budget when he can produce a detailed plan that can get the 218 votes it needs to pass the House. He noted that McCarthy’s vague proposals are “a recycled pile of the same things he’s been saying for months, none of which has moved the ball forward an inch.”

In part, McCarthy’s problem is that many of the members of his conference are in the majority for the first time. They are discovering that it is much easier to say no when opponents are in charge than it is to hammer coalitions together to advance realistic legislation. In the New York Times today, editorial board member Michelle Cottle called many of the current House Republicans “chaos monkeys” but noted that it is McCarthy’s fault that he gave them so much power by promising things he can’t deliver—like refusing to hike the debt ceiling without cuts—and by putting them at the head of important committees.

Ohio representative Jim Jordan, for example, sits at the head of the Judiciary Committee, as well as the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and his investigations so far have not produced the results he promised the Republican base. As Jesse Watters of the Fox News Channel put it last month: “Make me feel better, guys. Tell me this is going somewhere. Can I throw someone in prison? Can someone go to jail? Can someone get fined?”

Instead, Democrats on the committees have met Jordan’s wild rapid-fire accusations with facts that show the difference between unchallenged myth-making on right-wing media and actual governance. Today, at Jordan’s insistence, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing in New York City, a venue Jordan suggested was chosen to highlight how the policies of Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg had exacerbated violent crime, although in reality, Jordan’s attacks on Bragg for investigating former president Trump started even before Trump’s indictment in that jurisdiction.

Jordan set out to argue that Bragg was neglecting violent crime in New York City only to have Democrats point out that New York City is “not only safer than most large cities in America, it is safer than most cities of any size, and on a per capita basis, New York City is safer than most of the states of the members sitting...on the majority side,” as Jim Kessler, the co-founder and senior vice president for policy for Third Way, explained. Indeed, in 2020, Ohio’s murder rate was higher than the rate in New York City. Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) asked Jordan if the hearing could be moved to Ohio.

If one part of McCarthy’s problem is his extremist colleagues, another is that his argument is out of date. In what Catie Edmondson and Jim Tankersley of the New York Times called “a speech that was sprinkled with misleading statements and erroneous assertions,” McCarthy told the Wall Street executives, “We’re seeing in real time the effects of reckless government spending: record inflation and the hardship it causes….”

In reality, the inflation that plagued the U.S. as it reopened from the worst days of the Covid-19 pandemic has slowed dramatically, making it clear that the policies of the Biden administration are working. As Jennifer Rubin noted yesterday in the Washington Post, the annual inflation rate for producers is 2.7%—the lowest rate in more than two years—while consumer price increases are at their lowest point since May 2021: 5%. Gasoline prices have dropped 17.4% since the high prices that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The overall declines mark nine months of slowing inflation.

At the same time, labor force participation is at record high levels and unemployment is at a 50-year low of 3.5%. Black unemployment, which stands at 5%, has never been lower. Real incomes—that is, incomes after inflation is factored in—have risen 7% for those making $35,000 a year or less and 1.3% across the whole economy. Meanwhile, the deficit has dropped more than $1.7 trillion in two years.

The successes of Biden’s policies would seem worth considering in negotiations, but as Sarah Longwell noted in Bulwark+ today, the Republican Party has abandoned normal democratic politics. She notes that it is a mistake to look at the Trump years as a wild period from which the party will return to normality. Instead, she notes, “You have to think of Trump’s election as year zero” because “Republican voters say they don’t want any part of a Republican party that looks anything like it did before 2016.”

Trump’s administration was a culmination of forty years of Republican attempts to get rid of taxes and regulations by insisting that anyone calling for business regulation and a basic social safety net was a socialist who wanted to redistribute tax dollars from hardworking white men to minorities and women. But the racism, sexism, and religion in that formula used to be the quieter undertones of the call for small government. Now, though, the party is openly embracing the replacement of democracy with a strong government that would make white Christian nationalism the law of the land.

In illustration of that position, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who has used the government to impose a Christian agenda on his state, today continued his crusade against the Walt Disney Company. A year ago, angry that then–chief executive officer Bob Chapek opposed his measure limiting discussion of gender identity in public school classrooms, DeSantis tried to take control of the company’s special self-governing district through a new board. Shortly before the takeover, Disney CEO Bob Iger outfoxed DeSantis by legally changing the terms of the agreement under which it has operated for decades, limiting the power of the board in perpetuity.

After Trump officials mocked him for being beaten by Mickey Mouse, DeSantis today suggested he is determined to use the power of the government to force Disney, a private company, to bend to his authority. He threatened to build a rival amusement park or a state prison on land next to Disney’s Florida park.

Disney promptly responded by advertising a “first-ever Disneyland After Dark” LGBTQIA+ themed event night at its California Disneyland resort, and former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele tweeted: “When families stop visiting & Disney’s $75.2B economic impact & $5.8B tax revenues drop; its 75K employees face layoffs & 463K jobs are also imperiled what would your analytics say caused that to happen? WTF, Dumbo.”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #Debt Ceiling #Disney #DeSantis #Christian Nationalism #white Supremacy #white supremacist #McCarthy #clown car #NYSE #Horsey #House GOP clown show

7 notes · View notes

atleastimnotcalledrock · 1 year ago

Text

At the Labour conference on October 10th, Keir Starmer, leader of the opposition (the Labour party) was covered in glitter by a protester saying 'True democracy is citizen led. Politics needs an update. We demand a people's House.'

So I did a bit of research on the protester and apparently he's affiliated with a group called People Demand Democracy who as the name suggests want to make the system more democratic.

According to their website, they are 'calling for a fair, proportional voting system for Westminster elections and a permanent, legally-binding national House of Citizens, selected by democratic lottery,' because 'we need a democratic alternative that gives the people of the UK a voice to deal with the major challenges of our time: rampant inequality, an escalating climate crisis, political corruption and on.' (https://www.peopledemanddemocracy.com/news)

Look I'm not saying that we shouldn't be looking for ways to make the system more democratic and representative but I think there are drawbacks to the solutions that they have proposed.

1: The introduction of proportional representation

The system currently used in the UK is the first past the post system in which each constituency (or area) votes for their MP who sits in the House of Commons, therefore they have a 'seat' in parliament. The party with the most 'seats' forms the government. The idea is a government will get a majority so it is easier to pass legislation.

The drawbacks of proportional representation is that it is less likely for parties to win an outright majority. In response two parties will form a coalition government so will have to work together. The problem with this is that frequently the two parties dont agree and so very little gets done. The last coalition government in the UK was between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats in 2011.

Both systems have their flaws. Though proportional representation is undoubtedly more democratic I don't think that it will create the strongest government. At some point you have to sacrifice democracy for stability and where the current system just manages to toe the line, proportional representation can be considered a step to far. That's not to say it doesn't work in other countries but not for the UK

2: The introduction of a House of Citizens alongside the existing House of Commons and the House of Lords

I'll try and run though this quick

In House of Lords (red) sits 'experts' in their field as well as hereditary peers (some people think that practice is outdated). They scrutinise the government. Legislation must go though both houses before it can be passed.

House of Commons (green) contains the government (PM, ministers, shadow ministers) and all the other MPs. Here debates are held about bills, as well as Prime Minister Question time.

These houses make up the Houses of Parliament

The problem with a 'House if Citizens' is that it would be trying to do what the House of Commons is supposed to do. (I understand it doesn't always do what it should but stick with me)

The House of Commons is where the people, the commoners, are represented. If a House of Citizens was introduced to 'give the people of the UK a voice' it suggests that the House of Commons is not doing their task correctly. I'd assume that to make the House of Citizens truly representative of the people, stipulations would be added so that you could only be there depending on your income or job title perhaps.

If that were the case, there would create a larger class divide and more disolutionment with democracy seeing that the House of Citizens would focus on 'climate crisis' and 'political corruption'. Though these are both very important topics, they're not exactly the budget or international affairs. It suggests that the everyday person is only capable of managing the seemingly insignificant parts of politics, and that the important stuff needs to be left to the 'professionals' in the Commons.

I think that though it's good in theory the optics look bad. There would be room then for the House of Commons to take more control over public life because they, too, have been voted in but for the 'important' matters, and so 'must be more capable than the Citizens' because they're in the Commons.

I think thats a really cynical view for me to hold but I do believe that the solutions proposed by People Demand Democracy are too optimistic in places. I would like a committee to look into political corruption and for it to be taken more seriously though because recently there have been so many scandals we've all become desensitised to them.

We do need change in our political system.

The only question is: How?

#keir starmer #glitter #house of commons #People Demand Democracy #uk politics #government #british politics #labour party #Labour party conference

3 notes · View notes

dumbestthingiveeverheard · 1 year ago

Text

Dumbest Thing I've Ever Heard: 7/18/2023

Third Place: J.D. Vance

While talking on Fox News about the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Vance said the following:

The United States has the largest military budget in the world and is so overblown that at one point in 2016 CIA backed groups in Syria were fighting with Pentagon backed groups in the same country, but suddenly--as soon as it becomes time to defend a small democratic country against a large imperial force--we run out of money.

The same interview saw him saying this:

I don't even feel like I need to add commentary, Aaron Rupar did it for me.

Second place: Jesse Watters of Fox News

Speaking on The Five last night, Jesse said the following about the recent heatwaves all across the country:

The left rushing to blame global warming for that dangerous heatwave gripping the nation and the world right now.

Next you'll tell me they blame bullets when somebody dies of a bullet wound. In case any of you are curious, Jesse did not explain how this was unrelated to climate change--instead he and his buddies decided to just spend the next five minutes mocking some activists in Germany who glued their hands to airports to protest climate change. Maybe if the protesters stormed the German Parliament The Five would have had more respect for them.

Winner: Marjorie Taylor Greene

I'm just going to quote from Kiel James Patrick's recent Press Conference:

Over the weekend, the Congresswoman, Majority Leader Taylor Greene, criticized Bidenomics as being in line with FDR's creation of Social Security, and Lyndon Johnson's creation of Medicare. She also bizarrely attacked Bidenomics because it's reducing poverty in rural areas. We agree with her all around, all around on this. We are opposed to rural poverty, and the President is committed to protect Medicare and committed to protect Social Security, as you heard from him over and over again over the past several months. Now, to be fair, we are aware of her misgivings about Medicare and Social Security because she's a member of the Republican Study Committee, which recently, again, proposed cutting those very benefits. But this is the first time that we are aware of being attacked for trying to reduce rural poverty, although we probably should have seen that coming since Majority Leader Taylor Greene or Marjorie Taylor Greene is also trying to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, policies that are responsible for high-paying manufacturing jobs coming back to her own district. Now, President Biden looks forward to visiting her district, as you've heard him say many times before, to highlight those good-paying jobs and the differences that they are making in the lives of real people on the ground.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, you've said the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

#jd vance #jesse watters #marjorie taylor greene

3 notes · View notes

llewelynpritch · 2 years ago

Text

President of Vanuatu, His Excellency Nikenike Vurobaravu, stood up in the UN General Assembly

STOCKHOLM+50 CONFERENCE CLOSES WITH FOSSIL FUEL PHASE OUT RECOMMENDATION

Vanuatu recently launched efforts to secure an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the human rights impacts of climate change 23 September 2022

Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty

‘I want to be upfront with you: we’ve never asked for donations for the Fossil Fuel Treaty campaign, but we have a huge opportunity over the coming months and need your support. Here’s why:

A year ago, a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty was just an idea.

Now, it’s a proposal formally supported by governments, presidents, and UN institutions. In recent months alone, we have secured endorsements from Vanuatu, Tuvalu, the European Parliament and the World Health Organisation.

At COP27 we even saw 85 countries call for the world to move away from all fossil fuels, but because the UN climate talks are a consensus-based process it was not possible for oil and gas to even be mentioned in the formal outcome. This has further strengthened the case for a new treaty explicitly addressing the threat of coal, oil and gas — a mechanism that wouldn’t require consensus between every major oil producer, and wouldn’t let 600+ fossil fuel lobbyists in the door.

In the coming months, we need to engage with many of these nation-states, encouraging them to join Vanuatu and Tuvalu in securing a negotiating mandate for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. But to do this we need your help.

Click here to be one of the first individuals in the world to make a donation to the Fossil Fuel Treaty campaign.

Fossil fuels are fuelling war, threatening our health, and wreaking havoc with our climate. The production of coal, oil and gas is a paramount danger that demands governments to urgently work on a global solution commensurate with the scale of this crisis.

Our leaders have negotiated treaties to collectively manage and restrict dangerous products before – from landmines to nukes, to chemicals that were destroying the ozone.

Now we need the same level of international cooperation on a fast and fair transition away from fossil fuel production.

One thing that often gives me hope is that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was negotiated in just three years.

The writing is on the wall for the fossil fuel industry and markets, communities and countries are already beginning to transition. Now we need a treaty to fast-track these efforts and ensure that the global shift from fossil fuels is not just fast, but also fair.

Let’s build on this current momentum and work toward securing a negotiating mandate for a Fossil Fuel Treaty. Can you donate to help support our work at this critical moment?

I can’t quite believe how far we’ve come, and I’m excited to be on this journey together with thousands of people around the world who are calling for a Fossil Fuel Treaty. Between COP26 in the UK and COP27 in Egypt, we’ve built so much momentum. I can only imagine where this bold proposal will be in another year’s time.’

With hope,

Tzeporah Berman

Chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative

29 November 2022

LINK

https://lnkd.in/e6J_2Q4A FOSSIL FUEL NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY ‘I want to be upfront with you: we’ve never asked for donations for the Fossil Fuel Treaty campaign, but we have a huge opportunity over the coming months and need your support. Here’s why:’ from Tzeporah Berman, Chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative 29 November 2022 #opportunity

#opportunity #fossilfuelnonproliferationtreaty #rapidlyphaseoutfossilfuels #rapidlycutatmosphercigreenhaousegasemissions #turnbacktheclock

2 notes · View notes

warningsine · 4 months ago

Text

NEW YORK (AP) — The entertainment giant Paramount will merge with Skydance, closing out a decades-long run by the Redstone family in Hollywood and injecting desperately needed cash into a legacy studio that has struggled to adapt to a shifting entertainment landscape.

It also signals the rise of a new power player, David Ellison, the founder of Skydance and son of billionaire Larry Ellison, the founder of the software company Oracle.

Shari Redstone’s National Amusements has owned more than three-quarters of Paramount’s Class A voting shares through the estate of her late father, Sumner Redstone. She had battled to maintain control of the company that owns CBS, which is behind blockbuster films such as “Top Gun” and “The Godfather.”

Just weeks after turning down a similar agreement with Skydance, however, Redstone agreed to a deal on terms that had not changed much.

“Given the changes in the industry, we want to fortify Paramount for the future while ensuring that content remains king,” said Redstone, who is chair of Paramount Global.

The new combined company is valued at around $28 billion. In connection with the proposed transaction, which is expected to close in September 2025 pending regulatory approval, a consortium led by the Ellison family and RedBird Capital will be investing $8 billion.

Skydance, based in Santa Monica, California, has helped produce some major Paramount hits in recent years, including Tom Cruise films like “Top Gun: Maverick” and installments of the “Mission Impossible” series.

Skydance was founded in 2010 by David Ellison and it quickly formed a production partnership with Paramount that same year. If the deal is approved, Ellison will become chairman and chief executive officer of what’s being called New Paramount.

Ellison outlined the vision for New Paramount on a conference call about the transaction Monday. In addition to doubling down on core competencies, notably with a “creative first” approach, he stressed that the company needs to transition into a “tech hybrid” to stay competitive in today’s evolving media landscape.

“You’ve watched some incredibly powerful technology companies move into the ... media space and do so very successfully,” Ellison said. He added that it was “essential” for New Paramount to chart a similar course going forward.

That includes plans to “rebuild” the Paramount+ streaming service, Ellison noted — pointing to wider goals to expand direct-to-consumer business, such as increasing engagement time on the platform and reducing user churn. He also said that the company aims to transition to more cloud-based production and continue the use of generative artificial intelligence to boost efficiency.

Executives also outlined further restructuring plans for New Paramount on Monday’s conference call, with chairman of RedBird Sports and Media Jeff Shell noting that they had identified some $2 billion in cost efficiencies and synergies that they’ll “attempt to deliver pretty rapidly.”

Shell and others addressed the declining growth of linear TV. Flagship linear brands will continue to represent a big chunk of the company’s operations, but learning how to run this portion of business differently will be key, he said.

The on-again, off-again merger arrives at tumultuous time for Paramount, which has struggled to find its footing for years and its cable business has been hemorrhaging. In an annual shareholder meeting in early June, the company also laid out a restructuring plan that included major cost cuts.

Leadership at Paramount was also volatile earlier this year after its CEO Bob Bakish, following a number of disputes with Redstone, was replaced with an “office of the C.E.O,” run by three executives. Four company directors were also replaced.

Paramount is one of Hollywood’s oldest studios, dating back its founding in 1914 as a distributor. Throughout its rich history, Paramount has had a hand in releasing films — from “Sunset Boulevard” and “The Godfather,” to “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and “Titanic.”

The studio also distributed several early Marvel Cinematic Universe films, including “Iron Man” and “Thor,” before the Disney acquisition. In addition to “Mission: Impossible” and “Top Gun,” Paramount’s current franchises include “Transformers,” “Star Trek” and “Jackass.”

While Paramount has not topped the annual domestic box office charts for over a decade, the wild box office success of “Top Gun: Maverick” in 2022 (nearly $1.5 billion worldwide) was an important boon to both movie theaters and the industry’s pandemic recovery.

Still, its theatrical output has declined somewhat in recent years. Last year it released only eight new movies and came in fifth place for overall box office at around $2 billion — behind Universal (24 films), Disney (17 films), Warner Bros. and Sony.

This year the release calendar is similarly modest, especially with the absence of “Mission: Impossible 8,” which was pushed to 2025 amid the strikes. The studio has had some successes, with “Bob Marley: One Love” and “A Quiet Place: Day One,” and still to come is Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator” sequel.

The National Association of Theatre Owners, a trade organization that represents over 35,000 screens in the U.S., said in a statement Monday that it plans to look closely at the details of the merger with an eye towards whether it will produce more or less theatrical releases.

“We are encouraged by the commitment that David Ellison and the Skydance Media team have shown to theatrical exhibition in the past,” said Michael O’Leary, president and CEO of the National Association of Theatre Owners. “A merger that results in fewer movies being produced will not only hurt consumers and result in less revenue, but negatively impact people who work in all sectors of this great industry – creative, distribution and exhibition.”

Sumner Redstone used National Amusements, his family’s movie theater chain, to build a vast media empire that included CBS and Viacom, which have merged and separated a number of times over the years. Most recently, the companies re-joined forces in 2019, undoing the split consummated in 2006. The company, ViacomCBS, changed its name to Paramount Global in 2022.

Under Sumner Redstone’s leadership, Viacom became one of the nation’s media titans, home to pay TV channels MTV and Comedy Central and movie studio Paramount Pictures.

It is a company with a rich history, as well as a deep bank of media assets, and Skydance wasn’t the only one to gun for Paramount in recent months — Apollo Global Management and Sony Pictures also made competing offers.

Late last year, Warner Bros. Discovery also made headlines for exploring a potential merger with Paramount. But by February, Warner had reportedly halted those talks.

#business #economy #Paramount Global #Skydance Media

0 notes

arpov-blog-blog · 9 months ago

Text

Republicans have for years called on President Joe Biden to address the crisis on the border, insisting that the elevated flow of migrants is an urgent national security threat and calling for legislation to address it. But with an agreement in sight after four months of negotiations, many in the GOP now say that Congress doesn’t need to pass new legislation and that Biden ought to simply take executive action to fix it. Some have openly admitted they don’t want to give Biden a victory ahead of the November presidential election by letting him take off the table an issue on which he rates poorly among the electorate.

The deal would reportedly require the U.S. to close the border if a seven-day average of illegal crossings reaches or climbs past 5,000 encounters. It would also speed up the asylum process, which has long suffered from a lack of resources and an overwhelmed immigration court system.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) called out opponents of the bill for rejecting proposals to toughen border enforcement that her party had insisted on from the beginning, though few in the GOP seem to be listening.

“It was the Republicans, I will remind you, that told the Democrats months ago that if you want to try to get your Ukraine funding, you’re going to have to take up the border issue,” Murkowski said. “This is what we asked for... let’s take up what we asked for.”

The growing opposition within the GOP has frustrated Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who has for months been engaged in painstaking talks to craft the measure alongside Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.).

Lankford, who is well-liked on both sides of the aisle, said he has had conversations individually with each GOP senator and leadership in the House in an attempt to correct “misinformation” and “internet rumors” about its provisions. Trump allies have alleged all sorts of things without viewing the bill, including that it provides “amnesty” to undocumented immigrants, a dirty word on the right.

“I feel like the guy standing in the middle of a field in a thunderstorm holding up a metal stick,” Lankford said Thursday, according to PunchBowl News.

“For any of my colleagues that want to do this, go do the work on it,” he added. “But don’t just do a press conference. Actually sit down with the other side and figure out what we can actually resolve.”

The bill will need at least 10 Republican votes to overcome a filibuster on the Senate floor. But it will likely need even more GOP support ― a majority of the Senate Republican Conference ― in order to have a chance of swaying the large opposition in the House."

0 notes

beardedmrbean · 1 year ago

Text

Teacher pay in Arizona could go higher than the national average under a plan announced by Republican leaders Monday to renew a 2016 initiative that expanded the money schools get from the State Land Trust.

Proposition 123 — which now provides public schools with more than $300 million per year — expires in 2025, so voters would need to approve the plan in a 2024 ballot measure. If it passes, lawmakers said they will begin putting the money in a new teacher pay fund, while also appropriating a similar amount each year from the state's General Fund so schools don't lose money.

Public school advocates were immediately skeptical of the idea. They noted the state's budget is already $400 million short for this year, and that lawmakers could reduce the original funding under certain conditions. But Republicans say it's the best way to boost teacher funding without raising taxes.

Led by state Senate President Warren Petersen, more than a dozen legislators and state School Superintendent Tom Horne gathered on the lawn at the Arizona Legislature with a teacher, holding signs declaring: "Teachers Deserve a Raise."

"This is going to make Arizona extremely competitive in being able to attract good, quality teachers," Petersen said.

The lawmakers intend to craft a bill that could be passed by Republicans next year with a majority vote and referred to the ballot without Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs' signature. The new proposition will go by a different number and have some new provisions, not all of which have yet been hammered out. Petersen said teachers would make an average of $4,000 more per year under the plan, increasing their average pay to over $60,000 a year.

Hobbs' spokesman, Christian Slater, didn't return a text message after the press conference. Earlier in the day, Hobbs told reporters her team was doing a "deep dive into the budget" to determine the extent of budget constraints expected next year.

Republicans took the opportunity to blast the Biden administration for ongoing inflation problems, and education advocates for allegedly misspending school funding. Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix said that a 2018 plan to raise teacher pay by 20% only raised it by 16%. Gress proposed a $700 million plan to give each teacher a $10,000 raise this year, but it was rejected in March by Democrats as an unworkable political stunt.

Horne said boosting teacher pay was crucial if Arizona wanted to stop other states from encouraging teachers to move out. Forty percent quit in the first four years, a figure that rises 63% over nine years, he said.

"This is a real emergency for us," Horne said.

Julie Garcia, who works as a kindergarten teacher for Palo Verde Elementary School in Casa Grande, joined Horne and the lawmakers at the podium to express her hopes for the plan.

"There are more times than I would like to admit that my family has had to wait a few days to get our groceries or gas," she said. "This initiative will ensure the dollars will end up where they belong."

GOP plan yields mixed reactions

Former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey pushed Proposition 123 as a method to address a lawsuit requiring the state to shore up school funding neglected since the Great Recession. Voters narrowly approved the Legislature-referred ballot measure in 2016, nearly tripling the amount of money the Land Trust can provide schools with the new amount going to basic school funding.

Since then, schools have received an extra $250-$325 million per year. But Proposition 123 had a 10-year expiration, meaning the Land Trust will provide much less funding unless voters renew it.

Marisol Garcia, president of the Arizona Education Association, said she liked the overall idea of helping public schools, while noting that Republicans have consistently rejected the association's ideas on how to do that. She'll wait to see the actual bill language before passing judgment on the plan, she said.

Beth Lewis of Save Our Schools knocked the move as "smoke and mirrors." The pay raise would be "minimal," she said, while the state continues failing to address a long-running shortfall in funding school facilities and continues to grow its expanded voucher program for private schools.

She said Republicans are trying to gain political points because they've seen successes in bond elections around the state, and how important education issues were in Ohio elections.

Lewis and others noted Proposition 123 requires the state to use General Fund money to keep up with the costs of inflation in public schools even after it's expired in 2026. But under the measure, if K-12 funding becomes more than 49% of the overall budget, lawmakers could legally choose to reduce the funding. A 2023 report by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee says K-12 funding will reach 49.7% of the budget in 2026.

"They are creating a giant house of cards," she said.

Petersen and other lawmakers said they wouldn't reduce that funding.

"We're going to backfill that $300M with general fund so that this $300 million, if the voters approve it, will be new money," said Sen. Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, told The Arizona Republic after the event. " I wouldn't truly be up here if it was a shell game."

The Legislature has also added $50-75 million extra to the Proposition 123 collections each year, but it's not clear if that will continue.

Jeff DeWit, chair of the Arizona Republican Party, was one of Proposition 123's chief critics when he was state Treasurer in 2016. He doesn't like the renewal plan any better. He calls it "raiding" the constitutionally protected Permanent School Trust Fund paid for by the Land Trust.

"It's the rough equivalent to paying an employee more by taking the extra money out of their own 401K," he said, noting that his wife is a former teacher. "Their pay should be funded through the state budget and not tied to the unpredictable nature of voter decisions."

#nunyas news #reasonable concern

1 note · View note

justinspoliticalcorner · 2 months ago

Text

Rebecca Crosby and Noel Sims at Popular Information:

Former President Donald Trump has promised that he will start mass deportations if he wins in November. The promise has become a central selling point of his 2024 campaign. At a campaign rally in Michigan this summer, Trump vowed, “As soon as I take the oath of office, we will begin the largest deportation operation in the history of our country.” In April, during an interview with TIME, Trump laid out his plan for mass deportations, stating that he will use “local law enforcement” and “the National Guard.” Trump also said he would “not rule out” building new migrant detention facilities and that he would use the military “if necessary.” When TIME told Trump that deploying the military against civilians is prohibited under the Posse Comitatus Act, Trump responded, “Well, these aren’t civilians. These are people that aren’t legally in our country.”

Trump has promised that one of his first targets will be Springfield, Ohio, where Trump and his allies have, on numerous occasions, falsely claimed that Haitian immigrants are eating neighborhood pets. “[W]e will do large deportations from Springfield, Ohio. Large deportations. We’re gonna get these people out,” Trump said last week at a press conference in California. (The Haitian immigrants that Trump and his allies are targeting are in the country legally.) Trump also promised to prioritize deportations from Aurora, Colorado, where Trump has falsely claimed that Venezuelan immigrants are “taking over the whole town.” [...]

The human capacity problem

The scale required to orchestrate Trump’s proposed policy is far beyond the capacity of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Trump’s solution is to use local law enforcement. In an interview on Fox News, Trump said that he would give local police “immunity” to do “the job they have to do,” and that “the officers understand who the migrants are.” Using local law enforcement would result in police officers having less time to perform their other duties. A March report by the Center for Migration Studies of New York cited research that found putting local police officers in charge of immigration responsibilities would make “local communities less safe” and immigrants, fearing deportation, “less likely to report crimes or cooperate with police.”

[...]

The enormous price tag

ICE acknowledges that each deportation is costly and difficult. In its 2023 annual report, the agency stated, “Removal management is a complex process that requires careful planning and coordination with a wide range of domestic and foreign partners and uses significant ERO resources.” According to that report, ICE deported 142,580 non-citizens from the U.S. in 2023. Its budget for removals and transportation last year was over $420 million, meaning that it cost nearly $3,000 to remove each person from the country. If Trump successfully deported the estimated 11 million non-citizens currently in the U.S., it would cost $33 billion just to transport people out of the U.S. — more than triple ICE’s total budget in 2023. But the cost of actually moving a person off U.S. soil is only one part of the equation. It also costs ICE money to track people down and keep them in custody before their deportation. NBC reported that ICE currently has about 40,000 beds in detention centers which each cost $57,378 a year to maintain. If Trump enacted his mass deportation plan of 11 million people, ICE would need to expand its detention capacity drastically.

[...]

The nationwide civil rights violation

Trump’s promise of mass deportations would cause major civil rights violations. The policy would effectively result in local law enforcement engaging in a mass racial profiling campaign, as there is no objective way to identify undocumented immigrants. According to a report by the Center for Migration Studies of New York, “[i]mmigration ‘sweeps’... often lead to profiling, usually on racial or ethnic grounds.” The report argues that this would lead to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants being “unjustly detained and even deported,” and give them “little opportunity to legally respond to their arrest and detention.” In a memo released by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in response to Trump’s proposed immigration policies, the group warns that Trump’s plan could also lead to violations of “constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, including arrests and detentions without a specific reason to detain a certain individual.”

The massive detention camps

Once the Trump administration identifies undocumented immigrants, it would need to detain them somewhere before deporting them. Trump has suggested that massive detention centers would need to be built in order to keep up with the number of deportations being processed. Aside from the economic cost, detention centers have been the sites of numerous human rights abuses. Undocumented immigrants in detention centers have been denied urgent medical care, sexually abused, and kept in chain-link pens.

The damage to the economy

[...]

The U.S. is already facing a labor shortage, and removing 11 million undocumented workers (about 5% of the total workforce) would only make the problem worse, pushing up prices on goods and services. Mass deportation would also impact the housing market, putting many of the 1.3 million mortgages of mixed-status households in danger, and cut tax revenue to the government and Social Security.

Donald Trump’s mass deportation policy is a quagmire if it ever gets implemented, because it is a grave insult to civil liberties, police resources, and the economy.

Vote Kamala Harris to protect civil liberties!

#Deportation #Immigration #Donald Trump #Economy #Posse Comitatus Act #ICE #Immigration and Customs Enforcement #Concentration Camps #Undocumented Immigrants

3 notes · View notes

rabbitcruiser · 1 year ago

Photo

International Tea Day

While everyone loves a cup of tea, many of the workers and producers of that tea face poor conditions and pay. Help raise awareness and keep tea fair.

History of International Tea Day

International Tea Day Timeline

2737 BC Tea is discovered as a beverage

1610 Tea comes to Europe

It is believed that the Dutch were the first to bring tea to Europe, just a few years prior to the introduction of coffee by Venetians.

1773 The Boston Tea Party occurs

2004 International Tea Day is created

2019 United Nations adopts International Tea Day

After some years of advocating for its observance, International Tea Day is adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at the suggestion of the FAO Intergovernmental Group on Tea.

How to Celebrate International Tea Day

Other delicious baked treats to try include green tea muffins, brownies and shortbread!

International Tea Day FAQs

What is International Tea Day?

When was International Tea Day first celebrated?

International Tea Day first got its start in 2004 when it was celebrated in New Delhi. It grew over the years and by 2019 the day was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

How to celebrate International Tea Day?

What is the theme of International Tea Day?

The theme for this day devoted to tea producers changes each year, but some of the past themes have included themes such as Tea and Fair Trade or Harnessing Benefits for All from Field to Cup.

When is International Tea Day celebrated?

Source

3 notes · View notes

cyberbenb · 1 year ago

Text

Washington Post: US sticking to decision not to give ATACMS missiles to Ukraine

The Joe Biden Administration is holding firm on its refusal to send ATACMS long-range missiles to Ukraine, the Washington Post reported on July 22, citing unnamed U.S. officials.

The MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, is a guided long-range cruise missile with a reach of over 300 kilometers. Ukrainian officials believe ATACMS are needed for the counteroffensive to breach entrenched Russian positions.

However, the Pentagon believes that Ukrainian forces have more urgent needs than ATACMS, and worries that sending the needed amount of missiles to Ukraine would undercut U.S. readiness for other possible conflicts, according to the report.

ATACMS can reach farther than any of the U.S. weapons that have been delivered to Ukraine, behind the frontline. The range would allow Ukrainian forces to target the farthest targets in occupied Crimea, including the Russian Naval base in Sevastopol and the bridge over the Kerch Strait, a key logistic route for the Russian forces.

Ukraine’s Presidential Office head Andrii Yermak said on July 14 that the U.S. is “very close” to making a decision on whether to provide Ukraine with ATACMS missiles.

Nevertheless, there has been no change in U.S. policy and no substantive discussion about ATACMS supply for months, the Washington Post reported.

Editorial: Arming Ukraine won’t escalate war. Reluctance to do so will

First it was the tanks, now it’s the fighter jets. As Ukraine braces for another possible major Russian offensive in the upcoming weeks, Western leaders are yet again coming up with a variety of excuses why this time, they cannot justify supplying F-16 and F-35 fighter jets to Ukraine.

The Kyiv IndependentThe Kyiv Independent

Since May, Ukrainian forces have been using Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles, jointly developed by the U.K. and France.

Depending on the version these missiles have a maximum range of approximately 250 kilometers (155 miles).

“Without long-range weapons, it is difficult not only to carry out an offensive mission but also to conduct a defensive operation,” President Volodymyr Zelensky said at a July 7 news conference in Prague.

U.S. lawmakers submitted a bill to Congress on June 16 proposing the allocation of $80 million for the purchase of ATACMS for Ukraine.

Since last year, the supply has been a contentious topic among U.S. politicians. In July 2022, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan stated that Washington was hesitant to provide ATACMS, fearing that such a move could escalate into World War III.

Retired US General Petraeus: ‘Now it’s inevitable – we should give the ATACMS’

The Kyiv Independent interviewed retired U.S. General David Petraeus on the sidelines of a security conference held by the Cipher Brief in Kyiv on May 31. Petraeus is a four-star U.S. general who has commanded two wars. He has headed multinational forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has

The Kyiv IndependentOlga Rudenko

0 notes