5 peso bill philippines 1898 value
5 peso bill philippines 1898 value
NASA's stuck astronauts hit 6 months in space. Just 2 more to goCold-case team seeks to link trace evidence to suspected victim of serial killer Warren Forrest
TikTok's future uncertain after appeals court rejects its bid to overturn possible US ban
None
OTTAWA — Parents of children who died because of online sexual extortion are urging MPs to act on online harms legislation. The online harms bill is among the legislation that's been blocked from moving forward for months due to a parliamentary privilege debate raging between the Liberals and Conservatives. The bill targets seven categories of online behaviour, from the non-consensual sharing of intimate images to content that can be used to bully a child, and would create a new Digital Safety Commission of Canada. Justice Minister Arif Virani announced plans to split the bill into two parts this week, heeding calls from critics to separate the more controversial hate speech provisions from the child exploitation components. But the bill still can't move forward until the privilege filibuster is over. Barbie Lavers, whose teenage son died by suicide after being extorted online over intimate images, told a House of Commons committee Thursday that she supports the online harms legislation. Lavers asked politicians from all parties to come to a temporary alliance and stop using children as political pawns to show "one party is more correct than the other." "The longer Bill C-63 remains a political issue, the more children we will lose. We beg you to please stop wasting time and do something to help save our children," she said. Carol Todd, whose daughter Amanda died by suicide due to online sextortion, told MPs it is hurtful to watch political arguments after waiting 12 years for legislation. The Conservatives say they won't end the filibuster until either the Liberals hand over unredacted documents related to misspending at a now-defunct green technology fund to the RCMP, or the NDP agrees to bring down the government. The Liberals need the support of an opposition party to end or pause the privilege debate, which the NDP did last week when it allowed the government to pass legislation to enact a temporary federal sales tax holiday. But the New Democrats say they, too, want the documents handed over and will not agree to end the debate entirely. Virani said the goal of breaking the legislation into two was "to find consensus amongst parliamentarians on the things that we can agree to immediately." Conservative justice critic Larry Brock called for Virani to "give up" on the bill and instead adopt a Conservative private member's bill tackling online harms. Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, who introduced that bill, repeatedly put it forward as a superior alternative to the government's proposed legislation while questioning the witnesses at committee Thursday. Rempel Garner said her concern with the government bill is that it puts the social media platforms' responsibilities "into a regulator that hasn't been built and it gives online platforms the ability to wiggle out of this two, three, four years in the future." "I would direct your attention to C-412," she told Todd. The first part of the government bill, which Virani plans to prioritize, would create a new regulator to compel social media companies to outline how they plan to reduce the risks their platforms pose to users, particularly minors. It would also update rules around mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse material by internet service providers and some online services. Rempel Garner's bill would include measures modernizing the existing law against criminal harassment so a victim can ask a judge to force social media companies to identify someone who has repeatedly harassed them online. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 5, 2024. Anja Karadeglija, The Canadian PressUS-Google face off as ad tech antitrust trial comes to close
One almost understands South Korean President ‘s frustration. The leftist opposition in , the Democratic Party, holds a commanding majority in the National Assembly. Since day one, they have been trying to obstruct and undermine him. They have blocked his policies at every turn and tried to impeach him 22 times since he took office in May 2022. They are impeaching his key officials and are also targeting his wife on corruption charges. So much for “the loyal opposition.” This seems well beyond sharp-elbowed politics. Yoon described it as a “ .” But Yoon’s declaration of martial law on December 4 was a “shoot, ready, aim” sort of thing. It did not appear to be based on any specific intelligence of an immediate threat that might warrant or evoke popular support for such a drastic move in a well-established democracy. Some reporting indicates the defense minister and perhaps the head of the Army encouraged Yoon to declare martial law as the best way of beating back the opposition that had made South Korea ungovernable. However, Yoon’s own party’s leaders came out against the move. There was no groundswell of public support, and even the military support fizzled out. A few hours after declaring martial law, Yoon rescinded the decree. Nonetheless, the damage was done. Besides the harm to South Korean civil society, it is a huge headache for the Americans when a key ally in Northeast Asia is in such straits. The Chinese do not mind at all. Here is something else to consider: President Yoon in his statement announcing and justifying martial law warned of North Korea supporters in the opposition. He is actually right. There is a sizable chunk of South Korea’s Democratic Party and leftist political world that is pro- and also pro- – as hard as that is to imagine. They are also anti-American. President , Yoon’s predecessor, was preternaturally sympathetic to both North Korea and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). He also had no love for the US. In his autobiography, he tells of his euphoria on hearing the Americans were defeated in . Moon also had hard-core radicals working in his administration and in high positions. Imagine if unreformed 1960s-era radicals in the United States took power in the US. (Some might say they did a couple of times in recent decades, but that is another story.) In South Korea the unreformed student radicals are from the 1980s – and are known as . Take Lee In-young, the Unification Minister appointed in July 2020. Read the of his confirmation hearing in the National Assembly. Lee was biting his tongue but did not seem to have changed much since his days as the #2 person in the Anti-American Youth Association, which was the underground organization providing leadership to Jeondaehyup. a violent, radical 1980s student organization, Jeondaehyup was based upon North Korea’s Juche ideology. The Democratic Party has not changed its stripes over the last four years. Its current leader, , has called American forces in South Korea “occupying forces.” Furthermore, he is accommodating towards the PRC, including its position on bringing under its grip. continues to do excellent work on this topic. Her research is invaluable for anyone interested in understanding the backgrounds, ideologies, and political objectives of South Korea’s leftists. South Korean leftists have long wanted a one-party state that they can control. They have sought to dominate the levers of power even beyond the government – to include labor unions, academia and the media. But it was Moon Jae In’s election in 2017 and the subsequent National Assembly elections in 2020 and 2024 that put this goal in reach. That is what gave the leftists solid control of the National Assembly. Moreover, the National Assembly is arguably a more attractive target than even the presidency in South Korea. In the South Korean system, the National Assembly can make life nearly impossible for a president. Conversely, in the United States, a president has considerable power even if the opposition holds both houses of Congress. It is this author’s opinion that there is credible evidence of widespread electoral manipulation in the 2020 and 2024 National Assembly elections. This deserves far more assessment than it has received to date. Ironically, most South Korean citizens have no desire to be ruled by North Korea or a North Korean-like system. Furthermore, they also support the US-ROK alliance. But that does not matter so much when a coterie of hardcore radicals (Marxist or otherwise) is able to take over a government and move a country where most people do not want it to go. We have seen it before. Whatever happens from now on, Yoon’s move for martial law discredits the South Korean conservatives for a long while. South Korean conservatives are generally pro-American, supporting American-style freedoms and pro-free markets. This works to the Democratic Party’s advantage. It also roils the ROK-US alliance – at a time when the PRC is on the move along with its erstwhile allies, North Korea and . On top of that, President Yoon’s foreign policy achievements may be lost. Yoon boldly improved relations with Japan, and South Korea is supplying the US with ordnance to replace what it has sent to . South Korea is also a major arms exporter in Asia and beyond – with the political influence and standing that comes with that. Who benefits from the degradation and tearing apart – “ ” – that has been happening to South Korea for at least the last seven years and that exploded the other day? Anwer: The PRC. One fairly thinks they encouraged it, given the PRC’s track record of employing entropic warfare and political warfare from to the Solomon Islands and beyond. The US-South Korea alliance has held up remarkably well for over 70 years. And it is still able to repel an attack from North Korea – for now. However, perhaps entropic warfare might do to the alliance what kinetic warfare could not do. This is one more mess for the Trump Administration to deal with. As if it needed any more. .
Google and the US government faced off in a federal court on Monday, as each side delivered closing arguments in a case revolving around the technology giant's alleged unfair domination of online advertising. The trial in a Virginia federal court is Google's second US antitrust case now under way as the US government tries to rein in the power of big tech. In a separate trial, a Washington judge ruled that Google's search business is an illegal monopoly, and the US Justice Department is asking that Google sell its Chrome browser business to resolve the case. The latest case, also brought by the Justice Department, focuses on ad technology for the open web -- the complex system determining which online ads people see when they surf the internet. The vast majority of websites use a trio of Google ad software products that together, leave no way for publishers to escape Google's advertising technology, the plaintiffs allege. Publishers -- including News Corp and Gannett publishing -- complain that they are locked into Google's advertising technology in order to run ads on their websites. "Google is once, twice, three times a monopolist," DOJ lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum told the court in closing arguments. Presiding judge Leonie Brinkema has said that she would deliver her opinion swiftly, as early as next month. Whatever Brinkema's judgment, the outcome will almost certainly be appealed, prolonging a process that could go all the way to the US Supreme Court. The government alleges that Google controls the auction-style system that advertisers use to purchase advertising space online. The US lawyers argue that this approach allows Google to charge higher prices to advertisers while sending less revenue to publishers such as news websites, many of which are struggling to stay in business. The US argues that Google used its financial power to acquire potential rivals and corner the ad tech market, leaving advertisers and publishers with no choice but to use its technology. The government wants Google to divest parts of its ad tech business. Google dismissed the allegations as an attempt by the government to pick "winners and losers" in a diverse market. The company argues that the display ads at issue are just a small share of today's ad tech business. Google says the plaintiffs' definition of the market ignores ads that are also placed in search results, apps and social media platforms and where, taken as a whole, Google does not dominate. "The law simply does not support what the plaintiffs are arguing in this case," said Google's lawyer Karen Dunn. She warned that if Google were to lose the case, the winners would be rival tech giants such as Microsoft, Meta or Amazon, whose market share in online advertising is ascendant as Google's share is falling. The DOJ countered that it simply "does not matter" that Google is competing in the broader market for online ads. "That is a different question" than the market for ads on websites that is the target of the case, said Teitelbaum. Google also points to US legal precedent, saying arguments similar to the government's have been refuted in previous antitrust cases. Dunn also warned that forcing Google to work with rivals in its ad products would amount to government central planning that the court should reject. If the judge finds Google to be at fault, a new phase of the trial would decide how the company should comply with that conclusion. And all that could be moot if the incoming Trump administration decides to drop the case. The president-elect has been a critic of Google's, but he warned earlier this month that breaking it up could be "a very dangerous thing." arp/dwBy Opeyemi Bamidele Christmas, again, presents humanity the opportunity to appreciate God Almighty for His redemption plan and the birth of Jesus Christ, whom we are all celebrating today. Christ is indeed the real reason for this season and nothing more. It is not just a season for winning and dining, but also of deep reflection about Christ’s birth and mission, about His care and love, and about His sacrifice and travail for us all, even for the unborn generations. The reason for the season is, no doubt, a huge lesson for all humanity far and near. As we celebrate His faithfulness and goodness in our homes, we must also remember the needy in our neighbourhoods and consciously minister to them as Christ will have done. We need to reflect on the travail of the vulnerable nationwide and rekindle enduring hope in their hearts. We must reach out to those in troubled areas and show them the care of Christ our Lord. In this season and beyond, we must likewise remember Nigeria, our Fatherland and the only country of our common heritage. With the zeal of our Lord, we must offer our timeless prayers for the renaissance of our Fatherland, for the restoration of her economy, for the stability of her polity, for the cohesion of her people across the Niger and for the manifestation of her glory in the league of Nations. This is the season never to shy away from eternal responsibilities God Almighty has committed to our hands. This is the season to renew our resolve to faithfully stand with the political leadership for the renewal of hope. This is the season to halt the search for pastures that are never green, but the time to join hands together to build our own Nation with conviction and rebrand her for the ceaseless inflow of global capitals and for the endless troupe of global tourists. This is the spirit behind key legislations and reforms we have promoted in the 10th National Assembly. From the Tax Reform Bills, 2024 to National Minimum Wage Act, 2024, Investment and Securities Act, 2024 and National Ranches Commission Establishment Bill, 2024, among others, we are simply committed to building an environment where businesses can operate seamlessly; where investors will never think twice before they bring in their capitals; where our compatriots can freely breathe without undue burden and where the next generations will be proud of at all times. We are pursuing each of these reforms purely in the love of our countrymen as Christ our Lord has commanded. This intention is more than evident in the case of Tax Reform Bills, 2024, a set of four initiatives consciously designed to reverse the country’s disturbing economic indicators. We have taken due note of public concerns about these initiatives. We are, as well, looking deeply into the areas of public concern. Our duty, as democrats, is not just to listen to our constituents, but also give effect to policy initiatives that will positively impact their lives. For the record, the Tax Reform Bills, when finally enacted, utterly exempt all employees earning N1,000, 000 annually or N83,000 monthly; exempt start-ups, shared services and technologically driven services from taxation and recommend zero VAT on essential services and consumptions. Even though it reviews the derivation formula to 60%, this proposal is guided purely by the principles of equity, fairness and justice. The new model will eventually guarantee a significant increase in VAT distributable to every state of the federation. As credible data have shown, for instance, the new model recommends 6.17% to Kano compared to 0.89% currently due to it. It recommends 1.21% for Zamfara compared to 0.05%. Currently, Lagos gets 80.26%, but the new model only recommends 15.28%, representing a 81% decrease. Under the new model, also, Rivers’ share will decline from 7.74% to 4.6%, accounting for 41%. With these figures, the narrative around the new derivation model is utterly incorrect and unfounded. Amid the debates about the Tax Reform Bills, as Christ our Lord has taught us and as the Parliament of the people, we shall never pursue any agenda outside our oath of allegiance or undertake policy initiatives adversarial to or conflicting the interest and welfare of all our constituents and indeed our Fatherland. With all my heart, I wish you all happy celebrations in this season of deep reflection. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year in advance. *Senator Opeyemi Bamidele is the Leader of the Nigerian SenatePanthers cut OLB Charles Harris after claiming CB Akayleb Evans
- Previous:
- Next: do888 ph
.jpg?auto=webp&quality=75&width=1200)
