fish pen

fish pen The Latest: Police believe gunman who killed UnitedHealthcare CEO has left New York City12 Information Technology Stocks Moving In Friday's Pre-Market Session

The Latest: Police believe gunman who killed UnitedHealthcare CEO has left New York CityOpinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here . ••• I have to agree, sadly, with Lois Thielen’s opinion piece, “ ‘I support a woman for president, but not that woman.’ Is that really it?” (StribVoices, Nov. 22). It was depressing to observe how the presidential race played out this fall, with letters to the editor that disparaged Kamala Harris’ competence and even her intelligence. There were continual protestations that people didn’t know enough about her policy positions, no matter how many speeches she gave, or that her policy positions lacked specifics, no matter how detailed her plans were. Meanwhile, Donald Trump could get away with claiming that China would pay for tariffs. There is one point that the writer made that I want to address. She mentioned that about 80 countries around the world have elected a woman as president or prime minister, and then wondered whether Americans are “just more sexist.” I think that it is important to remember that most if not all of those countries have a parliamentary system where the voters vote for a political party. In that situation, I think it’s easier for a voter to overlook the gender of the candidate at the head of their preferred political party. Cynthia Schou, Bloomington ••• Thielen has questions. So do I. If events this year had turned out differently and the election was a matchup between, say, Nikki Haley and President Joe Biden, would Thielen have voted for Haley because she’s a woman, even if she preferred President Biden’s policies? Or is it the case that she supports a woman for president, “but not that woman”? Joel Boon, Shakopee Here’s a radical suggestion Next time some billionaire is motivated to spend millions of dollars on a banana duct taped to a piece of Sheetrock, may they also be motivated to donate millions to Sharing and Caring Hands or some other worthy cause (”Banana-as-art sells for $6.2M in Sotheby’s auction,” Nov. 23). It’s tax deductible. Tom Baumann, Isanti, Minn. ••• Reading the paper Sunday morning, I was shocked and saddened by two articles along with the photos. One article depicted a banana taped to a wall that was sold for over $6 million — supposedly a valuable piece of art. The other showed a mother with her young daughters in Gaza describing how every night her children go to bed starving (”Where a bag of bread costs $13 and famine looms”). How tragic — this is unacceptable. Society needs to put children’s lives about all else. The money spent on that ridiculous art could have fed thousands of children. I know that many will say that the supplies are being blocked, but I’m sure that if we have the ability to fly rockets into space we can find ways to deliver aid to the innocent. Connie Heitz, Glencoe, Minn. ••• Please spare me the wailing and gnashing of teeth over millionaires losing bundles of cash and expensive jewelry when their mansions are burglarized ( ”Minnesotans targeted in pro sports burglary ring,” Nov. 23). I’m much more concerned about violence on the light rail and students getting robbed of their phones in Dinkytown. Mark Gortze, Champlin This isn’t his first rodeo To the Nov. 22 letter writers who are critical of Biden and believe Russia will soon launch nuclear weapons in response to Biden authorizing Ukraine to use American missiles in Russia: Vladimir Putin is bluffing. Relax. He’s not going to fire nuclear missiles and there will be no World War III. Biden may be old but he knows the game. He is a lame-duck president and Trump will be president on Jan. 20, 2025. It would be senseless for Putin to start a nuclear war now and risk annihilation when he only has to wait less than two months for our next president, who has made it clear that on Day One he will hand Putin as much of Ukraine as he occupies. Biden’s authorization helps Ukraine keep as much of its nation as possible before Trump hands the rest to Putin. Paul Rozycki, Minneapolis ••• I, too, am a longtime loyal subscriber to the Minnesota Star Tribune who is seriously considering not renewing my subscription, but for reasons completely opposite the ones in the letter on Nov. 22 (in which the writer lamented the Star Tribune reprinting “hit pieces” on Donald Trump). As a perfect example, the top letter in the same day’s Readers Write section stated “[Biden] has been largely responsible for all the death and suffering in Ukraine and elsewhere in the world.” What ? What in the world is this writer describing? I realize this is the Opinion section of the paper, but it is careless for a serious paper to highlight and run complete untruths about someone. Disgusting. The only reason I am considering keeping my subscription is the wonderful food and Going Out sections. Liz Knutson, Minneapolis Two plus two is ... So the Texas State Board of Education voted Nov. 22 to allow optional Bible-infused teachings in Texas elementary school classrooms (”Texas OKs optional Bible-based curriculum for public schools,” Nov. 23). I think it will likely work like this in first grade math classrooms: Two Bibles plus two Bibles equals four Bibles, and two Trump “God Bless the USA” Bibles plus two Trump “God Bless the USA” Bibles equals five Bibles. Pete Boelter, North Branch, Minn. ••• So the state of Texas wants elementary schools to “allow Bible-infused teachings” in the curriculum. Sounds reasonable, depending upon what material from the Bible is included. Let’s see: So that means there will be a lesson about not being Pharisee-like in your hypocrisy (Matthew 23:1-33 ) . Oops, not in there! OK, how about a lesson about the consequences of not being kind to “one of the least of these” (Matthew 25:41-45). Oops, must have forgotten about that one! Let’s try again. That verse about filling the hungry with good things and sending the rich away empty (Luke 1:53). Might be in there but I can’t find it! Well then, there must be a lesson on the justice message of the Old Testament prophets (Micah 6:8, Amos 5:24 and hundreds more). Darn, can’t find that, either! Maybe this verse is in there: “Learn to do good; seek justice; rescue the oppressed; defend the orphan; plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:17). Must have been an inadvertent omission! Too long to quote here, but there is a wonderful “Bible-infused” message in Isaiah 58:6-7. But no, can’t seem to find that one, either! Looks like the Bluebonnet Learning instructional materials could use a little more comprehensive infusion from the Bible. David Hauschild, Blaine ••• When the Puritan founders arrived in the New World they were religious refugees. They in turn excluded the Catholics and Baptists, so Maryland and Rhode Island became sanctuaries for the non-Calvinists. Our founding fathers defined the separations of church and state because they saw how some leaders in the Anglican Church served the crown over and against the interests and concerns of the colonial quest for freedom. The Texas Board of Education is violating one of our core founding principles. We must protect the mission and witness of Christianity from becoming a political tool that again fosters intolerance and oppression of minority views in our society. Again and again, the Bible has been used to justify injustices. Misinterpretations of the Bible were used against Native Americans, women, African slaves, Jewish people, Muslims and our LGBTQ communities. Both Hitler and Stalin tried to co-opt the church because of the unique moral authority it holds. Sinclair Lewis’ warning about fascism coming to America in “It Can’t Happen Here” applies to this situation in Texas. We need this fine line between church and state to protect the integrity of the Gospel from the authority of men trying to usurp a place that belongs to God alone. Howard Dotson, Minneapolis

State, national officials remember Jimmy CarterWASHINGTON — Here's a look at how area members of Congress voted over the previous week. Along with this week's roll call votes, the House also passed: the Research Security and Accountability in DHS Act (H.R. 9748), to require the Homeland Security Department to develop a policy and process to safeguard research and development from unauthorized access to or disclosure of sensitive information in research and development acquisitions; and the TSA Commuting Fairness Act (H.R. 8662), to reduce commuting burdens on Transportation Security Administration employees. The Senate also passed: the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act 2.0 (H.R. 3391), to extend the Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program at the National Institutes of Health; the Recognizing the Importance of Critical Minerals in Healthcare Act (H.R. 6395), to require the Interior Department to include the Department of Health and Human Services in consultations regarding designations of critical minerals, elements, substances, and materials; a bill (S. 5639), to extend the authority for protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft; the Resiliency for Ranching and Natural Conservation Health Act (S. 1553), to improve the management of grazing permits and leases; and the Taxpayer Resources Used in Emergencies Accountability Act (S. 5098), to require certain agencies to develop plans for internal control in the event of an emergency or crisis. House Vote 1: CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS: The House has passed the American Relief Act (H.R. 10545), sponsored by Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. The bill would extend government funding to March 14, 2025, provide $110 billion for disaster recovery efforts and agriculture aid, and extend the farm bill by one year, through fiscal 2025. Cole said: "Congress has a responsibility to keep the government open and operating for the American people. The alternative, a government shutdown, would be devastating to our national defense and our constituents, and would be a grave mistake." The vote, on Dec. 20, was 366 yeas to 34 nays, with 1 voting present. YEAS: Feenstra R-IA (4th), Hinson R-IA (2nd), Miller-Meeks R-IA (1st), Nunn (IA) R-IA (3rd) Senate Vote 1: CALIFORNIA JUDGE: The Senate has confirmed the nomination of Benjamin J. Cheeks to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Cheeks has been a magistrate judge on the district court for a half-year, after a decade as a private practice criminal defense lawyer in San Diego and time as a government attorney in the Southern District and in New York. The vote, on Dec. 20, was 49 yeas to 47 nays. NAYS: Grassley R-IA, Ernst R-IA Senate Vote 2: SECOND CALIFORNIA JUDGE: The Senate has confirmed the nomination of Serena Murillo to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. A judge on California's Los Angeles County Superior Court for the past 9 years, Murillo was previously a deputy district attorney in the county for 17 years. The vote, on Dec. 20, was 49 yeas to 47 nays. NAYS: Grassley R-IA, Ernst R-IA Senate Vote 3: CHANGING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS: The Senate has rejected a substitute amendment sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to the Social Security Fairness Act (H.R. 82). The amendment would have reduced new benefits paid to retirees under the bill, in part by creating a transition period classification for new retirees starting in 2025. Cruz said of the amendment: "Let's support our cops and firefighters and teachers, but let's also not throw our seniors down the river" by weaking the finances of the overall Social Security program. An opponent, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said adding the amendment would amount to killing the bill. The vote, on Dec. 20, was 32 yeas to 64 nays. YEAS: Grassley R-IA, Ernst R-IA Senate Vote 4: IMPLEMENTING SOCIAL SECURITY BILL: The Senate has rejected an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, to the Social Security Fairness Act (H.R. 82). The amendment would have put off implementation of the bill until it had been determined that its changes to Social Security would not harm the actuarial balance of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust. Crapo said without the amendment, "this bill will raise the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund and cost our hard-working Social Security recipients to lose $200 billion in Social Security benefits." An opponent, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said the amendment showed hypocrisy by Republicans in Congress who are "vowing to use every budget gimmick under the sun next year to avoid paying for their tax bill" that would primarily benefit the wealthy. The vote, on Dec. 20, was 34 yeas to 62 nays. YEAS: Grassley R-IA, Ernst R-IA Senate Vote 5: SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS: The Senate has passed the Social Security Fairness Act (H.R. 82), sponsored by Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., to repeal measures that reduce Social Security benefits for people who also receive a government pension, or who receive pension or disability funds from an employer that didn't withhold Social Security taxes for those funds. A supporter, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the bill "very important for our retired teachers and firefighters and postal workers and police officers and so many other public servants who deserve their full Social Security benefits." An opponent, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said it "is simply not fair to the average private sector worker who spends their entire career paying Social Security taxes, earning similar or lower pay than the government workers but receives less Social Security benefit per dollar paid in." The vote, on Dec. 20, was 76 yeas to 20 nays. NAYS: Grassley R-IA, Ernst R-IA Senate Vote 6: CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS: The Senate has passed the American Relief Act (H.R. 10545), sponsored by Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. The bill would extend government funding to March 14, 2025, provide $110 billion for disaster recovery efforts and agriculture aid, and extend the farm bill by one year, through fiscal 2025. A supporter, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said of the need to avoid a government shutdown: "The government is supposed to be a service for the American people, and you can't serve the American people when the government isn't operating." The vote, on Dec. 20, was 85 yeas to 11 nays. YEAS: Grassley R-IA, Ernst R-IABryce Thompson scores 17 points and Oklahoma State beats Miami 80-74 in the Charleston ClassicA federal appeals court panel on Friday unanimously upheld a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok in a few short months, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform as it fights for its survival in the U.S. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied TikTok's petition to overturn the law — which requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January — and rebuffed the company's challenge of the statute, which it argued had ran afoul of the First Amendment. “The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court's opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” TikTok and ByteDance — another plaintiff in the lawsuit — are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, though its unclear whether the court will take up the case. “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue," TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people,” Hughes said. Unless stopped, he argued the statute “will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.” Though the case is squarely in the court system, its also possible the two companies might be thrown some sort of a lifeline by President-elect Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok during his first term but said during the presidential campaign that he is now against such action . The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, was the culmination of a years-long saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China. The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits , that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect — a concern mirrored by the European Union on Friday as it scrutinizes the video-sharing app’s role in the Romanian elections. TikTok, which sued the government over the law in May, has long denied it could be used by Beijing to spy on or manipulate Americans. Its attorneys have accurately pointed out that the U.S. hasn’t provided evidence to show that the company handed over user data to the Chinese government, or manipulated content for Beijing’s benefit in the U.S. They have also argued the law is predicated on future risks, which the Department of Justice has emphasized pointing in part to unspecified action it claims the two companies have taken in the past due to demands from the Chinese government. Friday’s ruling came after the appeals court panel, composed of two Republican and one Democrat appointed judges, heard oral arguments in September. In the hearing, which lasted more than two hours, the panel appeared to grapple with how TikTok’s foreign ownership affects its rights under the Constitution and how far the government could go to curtail potential influence from abroad on a foreign-owned platform. On Friday, all three of them denied TikTok’s petition. In the court's ruling, Ginsburg, a Republican appointee, rejected TikTok's main legal arguments against the law, including that the statute was an unlawful bill of attainder or a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He also said the law did not violate the First Amendment because the government is not looking to "suppress content or require a certain mix of content” on TikTok. “Content on the platform could in principle remain unchanged after divestiture, and people in the United States would remain free to read and share as much PRC propaganda (or any other content) as they desire on TikTok or any other platform of their choosing,” Ginsburg wrote, using the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China. Judge Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge on the court, issued a concurring opinion. TikTok’s lawsuit was consolidated with a second legal challenge brought by several content creators - for which the company is covering legal costs - as well as a third one filed on behalf of conservative creators who work with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc. Other organizations, including the Knight First Amendment Institute, had also filed amicus briefs supporting TikTok. “This is a deeply misguided ruling that reads important First Amendment precedents too narrowly and gives the government sweeping power to restrict Americans’ access to information, ideas, and media from abroad,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the organization. “We hope that the appeals court’s ruling won’t be the last word.” Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, lawmakers who had pushed for the legislation celebrated the court's ruling. "I am optimistic that President Trump will facilitate an American takeover of TikTok to allow its continued use in the United States and I look forward to welcoming the app in America under new ownership,” said Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan, chairman of the House Select Committee on China. Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who co-authored the law, said “it's time for ByteDance to accept” the law. To assuage concerns about the company’s owners, TikTok says it has invested more than $2 billion to bolster protections around U.S. user data. The company has also argued the government’s broader concerns could have been resolved in a draft agreement it provided the Biden administration more than two years ago during talks between the two sides. It has blamed the government for walking away from further negotiations on the agreement, which the Justice Department argues is insufficient. Attorneys for the two companies have claimed it’s impossible to divest the platform commercially and technologically. They also say any sale of TikTok without the coveted algorithm - the platform’s secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block under any divesture plan - would turn the U.S. version of TikTok into an island disconnected from other global content. Still, some investors, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, have expressed interest in purchasing the platform. Both men said earlier this year that they were launching a consortium to purchase TikTok’s U.S. business. This week, a spokesperson for McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative, which aims to protect online privacy, said unnamed participants in their bid have made informal commitments of more than $20 billion in capital. Haleluya Hadero, The Associated Press

Dodgers blockbuster trade pitch lands All-Star CF to replace Teoscar Hernández | Sporting News