1. mnl

1. mnl UK to increase funding for war crimes prosecution amid Russian invasion of UkrainePresident Biden’s decision to renege on his pledge not to pardon his prodigal son’s crimes has consequences for the American justice system. Ironically, it also may diminish resistance to President-elect Trump pardoning members of the mob that stormed the Capitol nearly four years ago in an effort to overturn Biden’s 2020 election victory. The two situations are not equivalent, of course. Still, they both tear at the heart of America’s scruples. More than 1,100 Trump supporters got convicted of participating in the siege that sent a joint session of Congress into hiding, injured scores of police officers and left the Capitol in a shambles. Several defendants received probation for misdemeanor charges of entering the Capitol with the mob. But more than 600 were imprisoned from one month to up to 22 years on felony charges of destroying property, assault and battery or encouraging the attack. Trump described them as “political prisoners” and “patriots,” promising to pardon them if elected president again. He said recently he will decide their pardons on a case-by-case basis. A song titled “Justice for All” described their fate. Created and posted often on social media by a group of Jan. 6 defendants (“J6 Choir”) locked in a Washington, D.C. jail block, the song’s popularity drew sympathizers across the country. It briefly made music’s top hits list. Democrats and legal experts denounce Tump’s plan to pardon Jan. 6 defendants as victims of misguided justice. The objection is somewhat hypocritical in the aftermath of Biden pardoning son Hunter. He was convicted of lying on a gun license application and income tax evasion. What devastates the rule of law is Biden’s broken pledge to let his son face the consequences of his felony crimes, including possible prison time. His stunning turnaround occurred, he said, because his son was a victim of a Justice Department political prosecution. That’s the exact reason Trump advances for his intent to pardon some, if not all, the Jan. 6 defendants. He also claims that’s why he was prosecuted and convicted of 34 felonies in his hush money trial as well as charges pending in his other legal cases. Oddly, it seems Biden and Trump agree the Justice Department has been weaponized for political means. Trump says when he returns to office he will rid the department, including its FBI office, of what he calls partisan hacks bent on destroying the country. They will, of course, be replaced by diehard loyalists committed to his America First agenda. Democrats can hardly object. Their president of the last four years has damned the Justice Department and demoralized its employees for his own sake. And just two months before departing the White House. Listen to his attempt to rationalize the decision to pardon his son when he said repeatedly he would not. “For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They will be fair-minded,” Biden said in a statement. “Here’s the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected the process and it led to a miscarriage of justice (of his son).” Biden asked Americans to understand “why a father and a president would come to this decision.” Many will not. Sure, other presidents, including Trump in his first term, granted pardons to family and friends for alleged criminal behavior. In most of these cases, the persons pardoned felt the outcome of their sentences, including prison time. Biden’s rollback of his no pardon pledge — just two weeks before his son’s sentencing — disregarded the legal standard that no person is above the law; that everyone is treated equally no matter their station in life. Sadly, Biden’s decision of defiance comes at a time when the justice system’s moral fiber is fraying.

Jimmy Carter: Many evolutions for a centenarian ‘citizen of the world’By BILL BARROW, Associated Press ATLANTA (AP) — Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer who won the presidency in the wake of the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War, endured humbling defeat after one tumultuous term and then redefined life after the White House as a global humanitarian, has died. He was 100 years old. The longest-lived American president died on Sunday, more than a year after entering hospice care , at his home in the small town of Plains, Georgia, where he and his wife, Rosalynn, who died at 96 in November 2023 , spent most of their lives, The Carter Center said. Businessman, Navy officer, evangelist, politician, negotiator, author, woodworker, citizen of the world — Carter forged a path that still challenges political assumptions and stands out among the 45 men who reached the nation’s highest office. The 39th president leveraged his ambition with a keen intellect, deep religious faith and prodigious work ethic, conducting diplomatic missions into his 80s and building houses for the poor well into his 90s. “My faith demands — this is not optional — my faith demands that I do whatever I can, wherever I am, whenever I can, for as long as I can, with whatever I have to try to make a difference,” Carter once said. A moderate Democrat, Carter entered the 1976 presidential race as a little-known Georgia governor with a broad smile, outspoken Baptist mores and technocratic plans reflecting his education as an engineer. His no-frills campaign depended on public financing, and his promise not to deceive the American people resonated after Richard Nixon’s disgrace and U.S. defeat in southeast Asia. “If I ever lie to you, if I ever make a misleading statement, don’t vote for me. I would not deserve to be your president,” Carter repeated before narrowly beating Republican incumbent Gerald Ford, who had lost popularity pardoning Nixon. Carter governed amid Cold War pressures, turbulent oil markets and social upheaval over racism, women’s rights and America’s global role. His most acclaimed achievement in office was a Mideast peace deal that he brokered by keeping Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at the bargaining table for 13 days in 1978. That Camp David experience inspired the post-presidential center where Carter would establish so much of his legacy. Yet Carter’s electoral coalition splintered under double-digit inflation, gasoline lines and the 444-day hostage crisis in Iran. His bleakest hour came when eight Americans died in a failed hostage rescue in April 1980, helping to ensure his landslide defeat to Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter acknowledged in his 2020 “White House Diary” that he could be “micromanaging” and “excessively autocratic,” complicating dealings with Congress and the federal bureaucracy. He also turned a cold shoulder to Washington’s news media and lobbyists, not fully appreciating their influence on his political fortunes. “It didn’t take us long to realize that the underestimation existed, but by that time we were not able to repair the mistake,” Carter told historians in 1982, suggesting that he had “an inherent incompatibility” with Washington insiders. Carter insisted his overall approach was sound and that he achieved his primary objectives — to “protect our nation’s security and interests peacefully” and “enhance human rights here and abroad” — even if he fell spectacularly short of a second term. Ignominious defeat, though, allowed for renewal. The Carters founded The Carter Center in 1982 as a first-of-its-kind base of operations, asserting themselves as international peacemakers and champions of democracy, public health and human rights. “I was not interested in just building a museum or storing my White House records and memorabilia,” Carter wrote in a memoir published after his 90th birthday. “I wanted a place where we could work.” That work included easing nuclear tensions in North and South Korea, helping to avert a U.S. invasion of Haiti and negotiating cease-fires in Bosnia and Sudan. By 2022, The Carter Center had declared at least 113 elections in Latin America, Asia and Africa to be free or fraudulent. Recently, the center began monitoring U.S. elections as well. Carter’s stubborn self-assuredness and even self-righteousness proved effective once he was unencumbered by the Washington order, sometimes to the point of frustrating his successors . He went “where others are not treading,” he said, to places like Ethiopia, Liberia and North Korea, where he secured the release of an American who had wandered across the border in 2010. “I can say what I like. I can meet whom I want. I can take on projects that please me and reject the ones that don’t,” Carter said. He announced an arms-reduction-for-aid deal with North Korea without clearing the details with Bill Clinton’s White House. He openly criticized President George W. Bush for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He also criticized America’s approach to Israel with his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” And he repeatedly countered U.S. administrations by insisting North Korea should be included in international affairs, a position that most aligned Carter with Republican President Donald Trump. Among the center’s many public health initiatives, Carter vowed to eradicate the guinea worm parasite during his lifetime, and nearly achieved it: Cases dropped from millions in the 1980s to nearly a handful. With hardhats and hammers, the Carters also built homes with Habitat for Humanity. The Nobel committee’s 2002 Peace Prize cites his “untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” Carter should have won it alongside Sadat and Begin in 1978, the chairman added. Carter accepted the recognition saying there was more work to be done. “The world is now, in many ways, a more dangerous place,” he said. “The greater ease of travel and communication has not been matched by equal understanding and mutual respect.” Carter’s globetrotting took him to remote villages where he met little “Jimmy Carters,” so named by admiring parents. But he spent most of his days in the same one-story Plains house — expanded and guarded by Secret Service agents — where they lived before he became governor. He regularly taught Sunday School lessons at Maranatha Baptist Church until his mobility declined and the coronavirus pandemic raged. Those sessions drew visitors from around the world to the small sanctuary where Carter will receive his final send-off after a state funeral at Washington’s National Cathedral. The common assessment that he was a better ex-president than president rankled Carter and his allies. His prolific post-presidency gave him a brand above politics, particularly for Americans too young to witness him in office. But Carter also lived long enough to see biographers and historians reassess his White House years more generously. His record includes the deregulation of key industries, reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign oil, cautious management of the national debt and notable legislation on the environment, education and mental health. He focused on human rights in foreign policy, pressuring dictators to release thousands of political prisoners . He acknowledged America’s historical imperialism, pardoned Vietnam War draft evaders and relinquished control of the Panama Canal. He normalized relations with China. “I am not nominating Jimmy Carter for a place on Mount Rushmore,” Stuart Eizenstat, Carter’s domestic policy director, wrote in a 2018 book. “He was not a great president” but also not the “hapless and weak” caricature voters rejected in 1980, Eizenstat said. Rather, Carter was “good and productive” and “delivered results, many of which were realized only after he left office.” Madeleine Albright, a national security staffer for Carter and Clinton’s secretary of state, wrote in Eizenstat’s forward that Carter was “consequential and successful” and expressed hope that “perceptions will continue to evolve” about his presidency. “Our country was lucky to have him as our leader,” said Albright, who died in 2022. Jonathan Alter, who penned a comprehensive Carter biography published in 2020, said in an interview that Carter should be remembered for “an epic American life” spanning from a humble start in a home with no electricity or indoor plumbing through decades on the world stage across two centuries. “He will likely go down as one of the most misunderstood and underestimated figures in American history,” Alter told The Associated Press. James Earl Carter Jr. was born Oct. 1, 1924, in Plains and spent his early years in nearby Archery. His family was a minority in the mostly Black community, decades before the civil rights movement played out at the dawn of Carter’s political career. Carter, who campaigned as a moderate on race relations but governed more progressively, talked often of the influence of his Black caregivers and playmates but also noted his advantages: His land-owning father sat atop Archery’s tenant-farming system and owned a main street grocery. His mother, Lillian , would become a staple of his political campaigns. Seeking to broaden his world beyond Plains and its population of fewer than 1,000 — then and now — Carter won an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, graduating in 1946. That same year he married Rosalynn Smith, another Plains native, a decision he considered more important than any he made as head of state. She shared his desire to see the world, sacrificing college to support his Navy career. Carter climbed in rank to lieutenant, but then his father was diagnosed with cancer, so the submarine officer set aside his ambitions of admiralty and moved the family back to Plains. His decision angered Rosalynn, even as she dived into the peanut business alongside her husband. Carter again failed to talk with his wife before his first run for office — he later called it “inconceivable” not to have consulted her on such major life decisions — but this time, she was on board. “My wife is much more political,” Carter told the AP in 2021. He won a state Senate seat in 1962 but wasn’t long for the General Assembly and its back-slapping, deal-cutting ways. He ran for governor in 1966 — losing to arch-segregationist Lester Maddox — and then immediately focused on the next campaign. Carter had spoken out against church segregation as a Baptist deacon and opposed racist “Dixiecrats” as a state senator. Yet as a local school board leader in the 1950s he had not pushed to end school segregation even after the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision, despite his private support for integration. And in 1970, Carter ran for governor again as the more conservative Democrat against Carl Sanders, a wealthy businessman Carter mocked as “Cufflinks Carl.” Sanders never forgave him for anonymous, race-baiting flyers, which Carter disavowed. Ultimately, Carter won his races by attracting both Black voters and culturally conservative whites. Once in office, he was more direct. “I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over,” he declared in his 1971 inaugural address, setting a new standard for Southern governors that landed him on the cover of Time magazine. His statehouse initiatives included environmental protection, boosting rural education and overhauling antiquated executive branch structures. He proclaimed Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the slain civil rights leader’s home state. And he decided, as he received presidential candidates in 1972, that they were no more talented than he was. In 1974, he ran Democrats’ national campaign arm. Then he declared his own candidacy for 1976. An Atlanta newspaper responded with the headline: “Jimmy Who?” The Carters and a “Peanut Brigade” of family members and Georgia supporters camped out in Iowa and New Hampshire, establishing both states as presidential proving grounds. His first Senate endorsement: a young first-termer from Delaware named Joe Biden. Yet it was Carter’s ability to navigate America’s complex racial and rural politics that cemented the nomination. He swept the Deep South that November, the last Democrat to do so, as many white Southerners shifted to Republicans in response to civil rights initiatives. A self-declared “born-again Christian,” Carter drew snickers by referring to Scripture in a Playboy magazine interview, saying he “had looked on many women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.” The remarks gave Ford a new foothold and television comedians pounced — including NBC’s new “Saturday Night Live” show. But voters weary of cynicism in politics found it endearing. Carter chose Minnesota Sen. Walter “Fritz” Mondale as his running mate on a “Grits and Fritz” ticket. In office, he elevated the vice presidency and the first lady’s office. Mondale’s governing partnership was a model for influential successors Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Biden. Rosalynn Carter was one of the most involved presidential spouses in history, welcomed into Cabinet meetings and huddles with lawmakers and top aides. The Carters presided with uncommon informality: He used his nickname “Jimmy” even when taking the oath of office, carried his own luggage and tried to silence the Marine Band’s “Hail to the Chief.” They bought their clothes off the rack. Carter wore a cardigan for a White House address, urging Americans to conserve energy by turning down their thermostats. Amy, the youngest of four children, attended District of Columbia public school. Washington’s social and media elite scorned their style. But the larger concern was that “he hated politics,” according to Eizenstat, leaving him nowhere to turn politically once economic turmoil and foreign policy challenges took their toll. Carter partially deregulated the airline, railroad and trucking industries and established the departments of Education and Energy, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He designated millions of acres of Alaska as national parks or wildlife refuges. He appointed a then-record number of women and nonwhite people to federal posts. He never had a Supreme Court nomination, but he elevated civil rights attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the nation’s second highest court, positioning her for a promotion in 1993. He appointed Paul Volker, the Federal Reserve chairman whose policies would help the economy boom in the 1980s — after Carter left office. He built on Nixon’s opening with China, and though he tolerated autocrats in Asia, pushed Latin America from dictatorships to democracy. But he couldn’t immediately tame inflation or the related energy crisis. And then came Iran. After he admitted the exiled Shah of Iran to the U.S. for medical treatment, the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun in 1979 by followers of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Negotiations to free the hostages broke down repeatedly ahead of the failed rescue attempt. The same year, Carter signed SALT II, the new strategic arms treaty with Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union, only to pull it back, impose trade sanctions and order a U.S. boycott of the Moscow Olympics after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Hoping to instill optimism, he delivered what the media dubbed his “malaise” speech, although he didn’t use that word. He declared the nation was suffering “a crisis of confidence.” By then, many Americans had lost confidence in the president, not themselves. Carter campaigned sparingly for reelection because of the hostage crisis, instead sending Rosalynn as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy challenged him for the Democratic nomination. Carter famously said he’d “kick his ass,” but was hobbled by Kennedy as Reagan rallied a broad coalition with “make America great again” appeals and asking voters whether they were “better off than you were four years ago.” Reagan further capitalized on Carter’s lecturing tone, eviscerating him in their lone fall debate with the quip: “There you go again.” Carter lost all but six states and Republicans rolled to a new Senate majority. Carter successfully negotiated the hostages’ freedom after the election, but in one final, bitter turn of events, Tehran waited until hours after Carter left office to let them walk free. At 56, Carter returned to Georgia with “no idea what I would do with the rest of my life.” Four decades after launching The Carter Center, he still talked of unfinished business. “I thought when we got into politics we would have resolved everything,” Carter told the AP in 2021. “But it’s turned out to be much more long-lasting and insidious than I had thought it was. I think in general, the world itself is much more divided than in previous years.” Still, he affirmed what he said when he underwent treatment for a cancer diagnosis in his 10th decade of life. “I’m perfectly at ease with whatever comes,” he said in 2015 . “I’ve had a wonderful life. I’ve had thousands of friends, I’ve had an exciting, adventurous and gratifying existence.” ___ Former Associated Press journalist Alex Sanz contributed to this report.

Fiserv’s Bisignano Takes on New Mess: Social Security

Rwanda could sign migrant deals with Donald Trump and EU after Britain missed outAbee's 25 lead UNC Asheville over Saint Andrews 120-64Although Matt Murray made a miraculous comeback this year, it's not been the easiest start and there are questions about how long he can keep playing in the NHL. After not having played in the NHL for 638 days, Matt Murray made his return this season and ended up victorious after battling through a bit of a shaky game. It was a great story of perseverance and showed how important the game means to him. But his second start went pretty badly, and he looked a few steps behind and didn't seem to look comfortable in the crease, something the veteran alluded to in his post-game comments: Could This Be The End For Matt Murray? Murray , a two-time Stanley Cup winner with the Pittsburgh Penguins, has enjoyed both a fantastic career and a struggling one. Exploding on the scene as a rookie, he helped backstop the Pens to back-to-back Stanley Cups and was poised to be the future after Marc-Andre Fleury. But as quickly as he succeeded, he faltered. After leaving Pittsburgh he went to Ottawa and suffered some pretty bad seasons. Quickly falling off, Murray was acquired by the Maple Leafs in 2022 and helped them in a pinch, providing solid goaltending behind Ilya Samsonov and Joseph Woll. Craig Berube had some sympathy for his veteran goaltender but also didn't mince words about his play, admiring his heart but acknowledging his weaknesses: Toronto doesn't have many options either. Besides Woll, they can turn to Dennis Hildeby again however he hasn't done well this year. Anthony Stolarz is still out for another month, so it's getting concerning very quickly. There's a chance they could bring in rookie Artur Ahktyamov to help but he's still adjusting to the North American game and could be risky forcing him in. It's a tough situation that the Maple Leafs need to figure out soon, because just as quickly as their goaltending brought them to the top; it can just as easily crumble and have the season crash down. This article first appeared on Hockey Patrol and was syndicated with permission.

Meta to build $10 billion AI data center in Louisiana as Elon Musk expands his Tennessee AI facilityNo. 2 Ohio State takes control in the 2nd half and runs over No. 5 Indiana 38-15 COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Will Howard passed for two touchdowns and rushed for another, TreVeyon Henderson ran for a score and No. 2 Ohio State beat previously undefeated No. 5 Indiana 38-15. All Ohio State has to do now is beat Michigan at home next Saturday and it will earn a return to the Big Ten championship game for the first time since 2020 and get a rematch with No. 1 Oregon. The Ducks beat Ohio State 32-31 in a wild one back on Oct. 12.(Excerpted from Falling Leaves, an autobiographical anthology by LC Arulpragasam) I became aware of a Sri Lankan mannerism on a two-hour ferryboat to Ischia in 1967. My wife and I were on this ferry on our way from Naples to Ischia, an Italian island just off Capri. We were on one side of the large ferry, while the bar was at the other end, about 20 yards away. Since I was going to get myself a beer, I asked my wife whether she wanted a drink and she indicated ‘Yes’ with her head. So I crossed the ferry to the bar and ordered the two drinks. The barman, hardly looking up from washing the glasses, asked me briskly: ‘You are from Ceylon, Sir?’ I almost dropped with surprise. First, hardly any Italian knew at that time where Ceylon was, or even that it existed. But secondly, how could he have guessed my nationality just by looking at me? Surprised, I asked him how he could have guessed this so quickly. Smilingly he replied: ‘I saw you asking your wife if she would have a drink, and she shook her head from side to side, signifying ‘No’. But then you came across and ordered a drink for her – which means that she said ‘Yes’. The only place where shaking your head to indicate ‘No’ means ‘Yes’ is in Ceylon!’ I was surprised, first, because I myself had not noticed this seeming ‘contradiction’ before. But secondly, I could not resist asking him how he could possibly have known this. He replied smiling, that he had been a prisoner of war in Ceylon during World War II in the 1940s – and remembered this Ceylonese trait even 25 years later! So Sri Lanka remains the country, where we shake our heads, understood elsewhere to signify ‘No’, when we actually mean ‘Yes’! As a matter of interest, the barman also told me that the happiest years of his life were spent ‘in prison’ in Ceylon, roaming the hills of Diyatalawa where the Italian prisoners were supposed to be confined! The British must have been confident that their prisoners would not escape from their haven (heaven) to go back to war-torn Europe! ‘Sigñora, your Midriff is Showing’ In Italy today, women at the age of 50 are usually slim, elegant, well-groomed and sexy. This was not the case in Italy in the 1960’s when women over 50 (especially in the south) often had a ‘pasta roll’ around their waist, usually dressed in black dresses and black stockings, as a sign of mourning for some long-departed member of the family. My wife, on the other hand, usually dressed in her full sari with a choli blouse, which coyly showed a bit of midriff. When visiting a supermarket, this was the cause of some consternation among two elderly Italian ladies, modestly dressed in baggy black gowns. After talking agitatedly among themselves, one of the ladies, not being able to contain herself any longer, came across to my wife and said: ‘Pardon me, Sigñora, but your midriff is showing’ (in Italian: ‘ nuda’ , meaning ‘nude’). My wife taken aback and nonplussed, looked down at her midriff and asked in surprise: ‘What’s wrong with my midriff?’ The old lady, even more agitated, replied that it was ‘ nuda’ . At this point my wife looked at the old lady’s legs and said ‘Sigñora, but your legs are showing’. (In South Asia at that time, it was considered immodest for a woman, especially an older woman, to show her legs: but this was obviously not so in western society). The old lady, equally taken aback, looked down at her legs and said: ‘What’s wrong with my legs?’ And my wife replied: ‘They are nuda ’. The old lady was puzzled. Not knowing what to make of this weird exchange, she walked back to her companion for more animated discussion! We were amused at this cross-cultural exchange: of two cultures speaking across each other, but not to each other, in terms that neither could understand. It is equally interesting to note changes within the same culture over time. On a typical Italian or western street today, in the year 2014, girls walk around with whole midriffs exposed, showing also their belly buttons, suitably embellished with rings, while their ‘hipsters’ are worn so low that they are in danger of falling off altogether! I wonder what the Italian old ladies would say to this now! Along the same lines, the exposure of female legs is either a matter of good taste, sexiness or shame, depending on the culture or country concerned. In the Indian sub-continent (including Nepal, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) it is not decent for women to expose their legs, least of all above the knee, although it is customary, fashionable and sexy in the western world to do so. Going farther afield, in China, one notes that legs were not considered sexy at all – nor a matter of pride, shame or sexiness. Traditionally in China (before Mao’s time) women wore the cheongsam, a long dress with a slit all the way up the thigh. On the other hand, these same Chinese women in those days were embarrassed to show their necks, favoring high collars so that their necks would not be exposed! This is in contrast to women in the Indian sub-continent, who have no problem in showing their necks but do have problems in showing their thighs! Sex in Samoa Growing up in colonial Ceylon, I was shocked to the depths of my prudish soul to read Margaret Mead’s ‘ Coming of Age in Samoa’ . (I know that her findings have subsequently been challenged by Dr. Derek Freeman; but since the final verdict is not in, I shall treat her observations as valid for purposes of this article). When I was personally able to visit the Pacific islands in the 1970s, instead of free sex, the girls after colonization and Christianization, now wear grass skirts over their jeans and only sing hymns to hula music! According to Margaret Mead, young boys and girls in Samoa in the 1920s, ranged around in groups, swimming together and having fun and sex together. Teenage girls slept with many boys and even had children by them. More interesting to me (later) was how the social, moral and family organization accepted these activities and absorbed their consequences. First, in the Samoan context at that time, it was not shameful or sinful for boys and girls to have sex before marriage – even at the age of fourteen or fifteen. Secondly, if a girl of that age were to give birth to a child, this was quite normal, and not a matter of shame. Hence, thirdly, this was not a bar to the future marriage of the girl, since a man would marry her especially because she had already proved that she could bear children, which was important for his future family. Fourthly, there was no question of the child being ostracized or abandoned, because it would be gladly taken into the extended family or kin group, since an extra pair of working hands was an asset rather than a liability. Fifthly, these arrangements allowed a woman to have sex throughout her entire child-bearing period, starting at puberty and lasting till she no longer wanted sex. When I read Margaret Mead in later years, what impressed me most was how these arrangements relating to sex and the family had been so rationally organized (internally consistent) within the Polynesian society from a biological, social and economic point of view. The same can be said of the Nayar community in Kerala, India, in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries. The facts as I know them are recounted only to illustrate a different set of such arrangements. The Nayar community in Kerala was at that time a strongly matriarchal and matrilineal society. It was agrarian-based, with property passing from mother to daughter along the female line, such that a son did not inherit property. This brought about not only an interesting arrangement of sexual ethics but also concomitant arrangements regarding marriage, the family, and the distribution of labor, income and property. The main economic and social activity at that time centered round the cultivation of land. Since the woman in the family owned the land, she made all the decisions relating to its disposition and cultivation. She also made the family decisions in the household, including the choice of who would work for her and who would sleep with her. As for daily or nightly arrangements, the chosen ‘husband’ for the night would leave his garment and slippers outside her door, so that others could see that she was otherwise engaged for that night. Since the children from this arrangement were known as the mother’s children, the identity of the actual biological father ceased to be of importance. The fathers of the children were all ‘uncles’, who continued to live and work in the household and were supported by it in their old age. The resulting children were looked after by the family/household. Under this arrangement, the land (the economic base) was cultivated, while social and economic security was ensured for members of the extended household. Here again, sexual arrangements seem to be in harmony with biological, family, social and economic needs and organization. Needless to say, these arrangements are not more ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ than those in western societies today – only different, and also more internally consistent. When Margaret Mead wrote of teenage sex in Samoa in the 1920s, the western world reacted with moral outrage at the immorality, licentiousness and sinfulness of it all. This was a time in the west when sex before marriage was a sin and when children born out of wedlock were ostracized by law and custom. However, today in the west, teenage sex seems to be more the norm than the exception, with surveys showing that over 40 per cent of teenagers have had sex before they leave high school. While this was still considered socially shameful and morally reprehensible in the year 2000, the social scene is moving so fast that already by 2013, unwed single women are planning to get pregnant outside wedlock. Today in the western world, there is sex among teens, sex before marriage, couples living together without marriage, sex outside marriage, and multiple divorces. Sounds familiar? Exactly! In less than 70 years, western society, the dominant culture today, has gone back (regressed?) or advanced (progressed?) to equate to the sexual practices of Samoa in the 1930s! Thereby hangs a cautionary tale!

Jimmy Carter, the 39th US president, has died at 100Croatia's president faces conservative rival in election run-off

Nebraska portal tracker: Jimari Butler and reserve RB among Huskers enteringCHAMPAIGN, Ill. (AP) — Will Riley scored his 19 points in the second half and No. 25 Illinois beat Maryland Eastern Shore 87-40 on Saturday. Kylan Boswell added 13 points, Tomislav Ivisic had 11 and Morez Johnson Jr. finished with 10 points and 13 rebounds for the Illini (4-1), who shot 25% (10 for 40) from 3-point range but committed just nine turnovers. Tre White grabbed 11 rebounds and Kasparas Jakucionis seven for Illinois, which outrebounded the Hawks 59-38. Jalen Ware scored 10 points and Christopher Flippin had 10 rebounds for Maryland Eastern Shore (2-6), which had its lowest point total of the season. The team's previous low came in 102-63 loss to Vanderbilt on Nov. 4. Illinois is unbeaten in four home games. Maryland Eastern Shore is winless in six road games. Illinois: Coming off a 100-87 loss Wednesday to No. 8 Alabama, the Illini had no trouble dominating the overmatched Hawks. They led 35-15 at halftime and extended the lead to as many as 52 points in the second half. Maryland Eastern Shore: The Hawks couldn’t match Illinois’ height and depth and were slowed by 15 turnovers. After struggling at the start of the game, the Illini went on a 17-0 run over a seven-minute stretch to move in front 25-8 with 5:15 to go in the first half. Maryland Eastern Shore struggled from the field, shooting 22% (15 for 68), including 5 for 20 on 3-pointers. Illinois hosts Little Rock on Monday. Maryland Eastern Shore plays at No. 20 Arkansas on Monday. Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here . AP college basketball: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-basketball-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-basketball

Croatia's President Zoran Milanovic will face conservative rival Dragan Primorac in an election run-off in two weeks' time after the incumbent narrowly missed out an outright victory on Sunday, official results showed. The results came after an exit poll, released immediately after the polling stations closed, showed that Milanovic, backed by the opposition left-wing Social Democrats, had scooped more than 50 percent of the first round vote and would thus avoid the January 12 run-off. Milanovic won 49.11 percent of the first round vote and Primorac, backed by the ruling conservative HDZ party, took 19.37 percent, according to results released by the state electoral commission from nearly all of the polling stations. Such a strong lead for Milanovic, whom surveys labelled a favourite ahead of the vote, raises serious concerns for Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic's HDZ. The election comes as the European Union and NATO member country of 3.8 million people struggles with biting inflation, widespread corruption and a labour shortage. Among the eight contenders, centre-right MP Marija Selak Raspudic and green-left MP Ivana Kekin followed the two main rivals, the exit poll showed. They each won around nine percent of the vote. Croatia's president commands the country's armed forces and has a say in foreign policy. But despite limited powers, many believe the office is key for the political balance of power in a country mainly governed by the HDZ since independence in 1991. "All the eggs should not be in one basket," Nenad Horvat, a salesman in his 40s, told AFP. He sees Milanovic, a former leftist prime minister, as the "last barrier to all levers of power falling into the hands of HDZ", echoing the view of many that was reflected in Sunday's vote results. The 58-year-old Milanovic has been one of Croatia's leading and most colourful political figures for nearly two decades. Sharp and eloquent, he won the presidency for the Social Democrats (SDP) in 2020 with pledges to advocate tolerance and liberalism. But he used the office to attack political opponents and EU officials, often with offensive and populist rhetoric. Milanovic, who condemned Russia's aggression against Ukraine, has nonetheless criticised the West's military aid to Kyiv. That prompted the prime minister to label him a pro-Russian who is "destroying Croatia's credibility in NATO and the EU". Milanovic countered that he wanted to protect Croatia from being "dragged into war". "As long as I'm president no Croatian soldier will wage somebody else's wars," he said this month. Milanovic regularly pans Plenkovic and his HDZ party over systemic corruption, calling the premier a "serious threat to Croatia's democracy". "I'm a guarantee of the control of the octopus of corruption... headed by Andrej Plenkovic," he said during the campaign. For many, the election is a continuation of the longstanding feud between two powerful politicians. "This is still about the conflict between the prime minister and president," political analyst Zarko Puhovski told AFP. "All the rest are just incidental topics." Primorac, a 59-year-old physician and scientist returning to politics after 15 years, campaigned as a "unifier" promoting family values and patriotism. "Croatia needs unity, global positioning and a peaceful life," he told reporters after casting his ballot in Zagreb, adding that he would later attend a mass. Primorac repeatedly accused Milanovic of "disgracing Croatia", a claim that resonated with his supporters. ljv/bc