© INÊS LACERDA/OBSERVADOR
Nelson Diaz, NylaGray Photography
Over years of evaluating children for learning disorders, Dr. Katie S. Davis noticed an interesting phenomenon: Some parents seemed visibly disappointed when she told them their kids didn't meet the criteria for ADHD or autism.
"I found that those conversations can be more difficult to have than with a parent whose kid is really disabled and whose needs are very high," Davis, a clinical neuropsychologist and author of "Actually, You're Fine," told Business Insider.
Though she would try to reassure those parents that their concerns about their children's behavior were valid and worth addressing even without a formal diagnosis, "it's not as tangible or concrete as parents want, and they often leave the conversation feeling dissatisfied."
Parent-reported diagnoses of several childhood developmental and learning conditions have increased in recent years. For example, the estimated share of US children ages 3 to 17 with a current ADHD diagnosis rose from 8.6% in 2016 to 10.5% in 2023. Separately, a study of children ages 6 to 17 found parent-reported lifetime learning-disability diagnoses rose 16.4% over the same period.
While some argue that greater awareness of learning disabilities and disorders accounts for the increase, Davis doesn't feel that explains the full story. From what she's observed, ever-growing expectations for kids — and parents desperate for explanations for why their child is lagging behind — also play a role.
She said rushing to a diagnosis can have negative long-term implications for everyone.
"People don't think that ADHD means anything, people don't think dyslexia means anything," Davis said. "Then those people who are truly disabled by those conditions have enough battle to justify their need for accommodations and services."
FatCamera/Getty Images
In order to qualify for a diagnosis such as ADHD, symptoms must be present in at least two major settings, such as both at home and at school. For autism, they must be persistent across multiple contexts.
But some parents focus on how their child behaves in the classroom, in part due to ever-increasing expectations around academic success, Davis said.
"Doing well in school is no longer good — you have to be at the top of the pack," Davis said, noting that similar patterns have arisen in higher education settings with parents arguing for their teenagers' grades to be inflated. "Parents want excellence, and if it's not excellent, it's bad."
When worrying about their child's behavior, some parents zero in on their child's behavior in class while overlooking how their child compares to others, Davis said.
"If you're in a kindergarten classroom, probably all of the kids to some degree are going to have trouble sitting on the rug for 30 minutes at circle time," Davis said. Most will cluster in the middle of the bell curve, while some will get antsier earlier or later. The kids who consistently stand out compared to their peers are the ones who should probably be evaluated, Davis said.
Otherwise, "for nine kids out of 10, that sounds like a kid in an elementary school."
StockPlanets/Getty Images
Whether they're diagnosed with ADHD or not, a child being hyperactive in class isn't a parent's fault. Still, parents can feel like they're personally responsible.
"There is an eagerness to medicalize the feelings of insecurity, because if it's due to a diagnosis, then it's not a knock on your decisions," Davis said.
Whether or not their child is formally diagnosed, Davis warned against treating it as a catch-all explanation for everything your child does.
"Despite our best intentions, if we put a label on the kid and the kid is aware of that label, they are given the message 'there is something wrong with how you are developing,'" she said. Even positive spins, like "ADHD is a superpower," can send a message to the kid that their life will be forever defined by struggle, she said.
It can also imply that symptoms like difficulty focusing or reading can't meaningfully improve with the right interventions.
"We all want to develop resilience in our children, to make them feel like they have agency and control and they're in charge of their own destinies," Davis said. "Especially when kids are very young and don't understand the fluidity of these labels, we could potentially be working against them."
pixdeluxe/Getty Images
Davis wants to be clear: Diagnoses such as autism and ADHD are real. There are children who are unambiguously and significantly impaired by them in every setting, who need clear support academically and socially. "There are evidence-based interventions at our disposal that are enormously helpful," she said.
However, for parents who believe their child falls into some gray areas, Davis recommended trying a few things before booking an evaluation appointment. She compared it to a young child with a mild fever: A responsible pediatrician would guide parents through modest steps, such as taking a temperature and offering plenty of fluids, before rushing to the ER.
Instead of assuming your child might have autism if they struggle to make friends or always hang out alone at recess, Davis suggested first making other plans with their parents to set up playdates. You can also sign up your child for a karate class or call the school's teacher to see if they can intervene and help the kids play together more.
Balance
Alternatively, she said, if you immediately seek out a diagnosis and place your child into therapy and social skills groups, you could be taking away from more enriching social activities.
If a child continues to struggle, Davis recommended getting a neuropsychological assessment — a form of standardized test that is broader than getting an autism or ADHD evaluation.
While not perfect, she said neuropsychological assessments can measure a child's motor skills, sensory processing, attention, cognitive efficiency, language, memory, and social functioning. Their scores are typically compared with norms for peers of the same age.
More importantly, it helps parents know which interventions are the best. "If your kid perceives life to be very stressful or upsetting, they're not making it up. Let's talk about what we can do to support them better in that environment," Davis said. "But we don't need a diagnosis to do that."
© Jakub Kaczmarczyk/EPA
© agência lusa
Sessão de apresentação do CIPAR contou com forte representação institucional e uma sobremesa criativa de doce fino inspirada na Escrita do Sudoeste. A vila de Bensafrim acolheu, no passado dia 13 de outubro, a apresentação do CIPAR – Centro de Interpretação do Património Arqueológico Rural de Bensafrim. O evento reuniu sócios, representantes de entidades locais […]
Mulheres de diferentes segmentos sociais participarão de um ato político e cultural em Goiânia neste sábado (17/10), com concentração às 9h, na Praça Cívica. A programação terá atividades culturais, apresentações de cantoras e DJs mulheres, além de manifestações em defesa dos direitos femininos.
Após a concentração, as participantes seguirão em caminhada até a Praça do Trabalhador. A mobilização integra a iniciativa nacional “Mulheres com Lula em Todo o Brasil”, que defende maior presença feminina no debate público e a ocupação dos espaços urbanos por meio da cultura e da expressão política.
O encontro reunirá mulheres indígenas, negras, trabalhadoras rurais, militantes e artistas, além de representantes dos blocos “Não é Não” e “Socialista”. A proposta das organizadoras é contemplar diferentes vivências e reivindicações, com destaque para a autonomia, a igualdade e o enfrentamento à violência e à discriminação.
As responsáveis pelo ato afirmam que a mobilização pretende aproximar diferentes lutas femininas em defesa da vida, da dignidade e dos direitos. A iniciativa também reivindica uma sociedade com mais igualdade e justiça social, sem discriminação de gênero ou outras formas de violência.
A manifestação faz parte de uma articulação nacional em apoio ao presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT). Além do posicionamento político, o movimento busca ampliar a participação das mulheres nas discussões públicas e dar visibilidade à pluralidade de experiências e pautas presentes na sociedade.
The post Mulheres tomam as ruas de Goiânia em ato nacional de apoio a Lula neste sábado (17/10) appeared first on Diário da Manhã - O Jornal do leitor Inteligente.
On Thursday, U.S. television network CNN announced an agreement with technology company Google to integrate generative artificial intelligence technologies into its news platforms.
RELATED:
Artificial Intelligence Pioneers Call for International Body to Oversee Cybersecurity Standards
“With this partnership, we are opening new avenues for audiences to access CNN’s exceptional journalism while receiving compensation for the distribution and use of our exclusive intellectual property in connection with AI products,” stated Sam Felix, senior vice president of Strategic Partnerships and Business Development.
The agreement will allow the use of experimental features designed to analyze and enhance audience engagement by exploring new ways to consume and distribute journalistic content.
“Google’s innovation in generative AI has transformed the way people discover information and content, and these tools will now help us explore new ways to be discovered and connect with audiences,” Felix added.
Of course, The Jakarta Globe asked me how I see AI tools influencing newsrooms — both in terms of opportunities and risks.
— Margarita Simonyan (@M_Simonyan) August 12, 2026
AI is both enormously helpful and unpredictably dangerous. On the one hand, it significantly accelerates many newsroom processes, from interview… https://t.co/4o871TU8E1 pic.twitter.com/BGDZ2krRro
The U.S. network explained that its partnership with Google is part of the company’s AI strategy, “which ensures the protection of its intellectual property.”
The agreement is also part of a broader pilot program by the technology company to incorporate its AI technology to drive traffic to media outlets.
“CNN’s deal comes months after it sued Perplexity AI for copyright infringement after both companies failed to reach a licensing deal, its first legal case against an AI company over the unauthorized use of its journalism. At the time, a CNN spokesperson said the network ‘actively embraces the opportunities AI creates,’” Variety recalled.
“It also reflects the impact Google’s AI summaries in its search engine have had on news organizations, many of which have highlighted how the responses have eaten into their web traffic. Penske Media Corporation, the parent company of Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Rolling Stone and more, sued Google last year over the decline, though a federal judge dismissed the case earlier this month,” it added.
teleSUR/ JF
Sources: EFE – CNN – Variety
Al Mayadeen| October 15, 2026
Irish novelist Sally Rooney has agreed to the withdrawal of her books from the UK market after her support for Palestine Action created legal obstacles to the payment of royalties under British terrorism legislation.
Rooney, the bestselling author of “Normal People” and “Conversations With Friends”, said her publisher, Faber, had concluded that continuing to distribute her work in the UK could expose those involved to criminal liability. The decision was made with her agreement following consultations over the legal implications.
Palestine Action was designated a “terrorist organization” by the UK government in July 2025. The following month, Rooney publicly declared that she intended to continue supporting the group and direct proceeds from her book sales towards it. The organization remains legal in the Republic of Ireland, where Rooney is based.
Rooney was prepared to accept the consequences
In a statement to The Guardian, Rooney explained that her position had placed the publication of her work in Britain at risk.
She said that after expressing her intention to support Palestine Action, fulfilling contracts to publish her books in the UK could constitute a serious criminal offence. Rooney added that she had been transparent about her convictions and was prepared to accept the consequences.
The novelist had previously cancelled a planned UK visit to collect an award over concerns that she could face arrest because of her stated support for the banned group.
Terrorism legislation threatens publishing arrangements
Rooney warned in a statement supporting the legal challenge against the ban that the proscription could prevent her existing books from remaining available in British shops and block the publication of future titles in the country. Her submission to the High Court raised concerns about the consequences for freedom of expression.
The restrictions also extend to royalties from television adaptations of her work. Last year, Rooney said the independent producer behind the BBC adaptations of “Normal People” and “Conversations With Friends” had advised her that paying her could breach terrorism legislation if it knew or suspected she would use the money to finance Palestine Action. Both series aired before the group was banned.
Section 15 of the UK’s Terrorism Act criminalizes providing money or other property when a person knows or has reasonable grounds to suspect that it may be used for terrorist purposes. A conviction can carry a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.
Faber, which publishes Rooney in the UK and Ireland, said the legislation had left it unable to transfer earnings from British sales to the author.
The publisher said selling a writer’s work without being able to pay them was unacceptable. It confirmed that, with Rooney’s full agreement, it would stop supplying her books in Britain in every format, while continuing to publish and sell her work in other markets.
Bestselling novels face uncertain future in Britain
Rooney’s novels have received widespread critical acclaim and achieved substantial commercial success. She has been hailed as a voice of her generation.
“Normal People” has sold more than one million copies in the UK, while “Conversations With Friends” and “Beautiful World, Where Are You” have each exceeded 500,000 sales.
The BBC adaptations also attracted large audiences. “Normal People” accumulated 62.7 million views, making it the broadcaster’s most-streamed series of 2020.
Demand was likely to continue
Despite the withdrawal decision, copies of Rooney’s books remained available in central London on Wednesday afternoon. Waterstones said retailers could continue selling copies already in stock.
Booksellers also indicated that they intended to keep offering the novels while existing supplies lasted.
Gian Carlo, a bookseller at Henry Pordes Books, said the shop could sell its copies without generating royalties for Rooney. He added that he understood her position.
At London Review Bookshop, bookseller John Clegg said he had ordered additional copies after learning of the development. He said demand was likely to continue, although the shop would no longer be able to replenish its stock through Faber. Clegg also criticized the legislation and said he hoped the case would encourage the Home Office to reconsider it.
Thousands arrested following Palestine Action ban
The dispute comes amid a wider legal battle over the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action.
More than 3,700 people are believed to have been arrested in the UK since the ban took effect in July 2025 on suspicion of supporting the organization. Many arrests involved people holding placards bearing the message: “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”
Approximately 2,500 people have been charged. However, trials have not proceeded while the legal challenge to the proscription remains unresolved. The case is scheduled to reach the Supreme Court next month.
Effect of the ban on freedom of expression
Most arrests and charges have involved Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, which carries a maximum prison sentence of six months.
Huda Ammori, a co-founder of Palestine Action leading the legal challenge, said Rooney’s inability to publish her work in Britain demonstrated the effect of the ban on freedom of expression.
Ammori said Rooney had maintained her position despite the personal and professional consequences. She argued that the author’s books should remain widely available rather than disappear from British shelves because of her refusal to abandon her support for Palestinians.
She added that writers should not have to choose between their political convictions and their ability to publish their work.
The Earth got its Moon when a small planet collided with our planet more than four billion years ago. This impact hurled molten rock into space, which eventually coalesced to form the satellite we can see every night from across our planet. But what of our neighbor, Mars? The Red Planet has two small, irregularly […]
The post Japan’s MMX space mission probes how Mars got its moons appeared first on Asia Times.
Three Charlotte cops have resigned and three more are facing termination after a Flock probe uncovered a text chain littered with racist messages, religious and sexual bias and a reported competition over who could arrest the most black people.
The group chat came to light after Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) officer Seth Elliott was caught using Flock's database to out an undercover cop to his drug dealer friend, which sparked an investigation by the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (NCSBI).
When questioned by the NCSBI, Elliott, who has since resigned, admitted he ran the plate but denied knowing that it belonged to an undercover officer. He told agents that his friend had reached out to ask if Elliott could help identify a strange person hanging out around his father's business, so Elliott ran the plate through Flock's database. According to reporting from the Watauga Democrat, the NCSBI arrested Elliott in July and charged him with " illegally accessing a government computer, a Class 1 misdemeanor."
During its investigation into Elliott, the NCSBI downloaded data from his phone, which it turned over to the CMPD, where a subsequent review uncovered the racist text thread. According to anonymous sources who spoke to Charlotte's WBTV, the group chat included "numerous uses of the 'n-word' related to use of force and discharging firearms at black residents," and a competition to see who could arrest the most black people. In one text reportedly written by a member of the group, an officer said, "Our texts sound like a clan [sic] rally," according to a message reviewed by WCNC Charlotte, a local NBC affiliate. At a press conference on Thursday, CMPD Police Chief Estella Patterson said that an independent chain-of-command board unanimously voted for the officers' termination. Three have already resigned and the other three she "hopes to refer to as former employees."
The fallout won't end there. Every case these officers touched could now be called into question, and for good reason. In Giglio v. United States (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors must disclose information that could undermine the credibility of a government witness or law enforcement officer. Mecklenburg County District Attorney Spencer Merriweather will have to examine the messages and determine whether their word as witnesses can still be trusted. Depending on his decision, this could lead to dropped cases and challenges to prior convictions.
Defense attorney Tim Emery weighed in, telling WBTV that the officers' "credibility is severely questioned and compromised," and that the district attorney's office should consider halting cases in which the officers were heavily involved.
Police abuse of Flock and other automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) is not new. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, has cataloged over 200 instances of ALPR abuse at the hands of the police since 2018. In the last year alone, officers have been caught using ALPRs for everything from pursuing personal grudges to stalking exes and romantic interests. This time, the victim of Flock misuse was an undercover officer rather than a civilian.
The post 3 Charlotte Cops Resign After Group Chat Reveals Competition To Arrest the Most Black People appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has described the approval of the Proposed Constitutional Amendment (PEC 221/2019) as a historic achievement. The amendment puts an end to the 44-hour workweek, establishing a new maximum of 40 hours per week, distributed over five working days and two paid rest days.
RELATED:
Brazilian Senate Ends 6×1 Schedule, Approves 40-Hour Workweek
The constitutional reform—a key commitment of the Brazilian government—will directly benefit approximately 22 million workers who were previously employed under a “6×1” schedule, consisting of six days of work followed by one day of rest.
Brazil’s Senate ratified the amendment in two rounds of voting, with 75 votes in favor and one against—the latter cast by Senator Hamilton Mourão. This decision comes five months after the Chamber of Deputies initially approved the proposal, and 11 days ahead of the presidential runoff, scheduled for October 25.
Far-right candidate Flávio Bolsonaro, who had initially opposed the measure, shifted his position and voted in favor remotely from Porto Alegre. Progressive senators, including Teresa Leitão, labeled this move as opportunistic and warned of the need to remain vigilant against any potential attempts to overturn the new regulation.
A escala 6×1 acabou! ❤️🇧🇷
— Lula (@LulaOficial) October 15, 2026
Uma conquista histórica para milhões de trabalhadores e trabalhadoras, que agora terão mais tempo para descansar, estar com a família, cuidar de si e viver.
Quem constrói o Brasil todos os dias também merece tempo para viver.
É o Brasil pronto para… pic.twitter.com/5Nq7a9xKZk
The text reads, “The 6×1 schedule is over! A historic achievement for millions of workers, who will now have more time to rest, be with their family, take care of themselves, and live. Those who build Brazil every day also deserve time to live. It’s Brazil ready for more!”
Timeline and safeguards
The transition to the “5×2” model will not be immediate. According to the established timeline, 60 days after the official publication of the amendment—expected in February 2027—the maximum weekly working hours will be reduced from 44 to 42.
Subsequently, 14 months after the amendment is enacted—in December 2027—the limit will be set at 40 hours per week. The regulation also establishes a maximum daily limit of eight working hours. The constitutional text expressly prohibits any reduction in wages—whether proportional or affecting the minimum wage—across professional categories.
Furthermore, it delegates the organization of rest periods to collective bargaining agreements, prioritizing Sundays, while allowing for flexibility in sectors such as healthcare, security, and public transport.
While labor unions supported the measure, business sectors expressed their opposition, arguing that it could lead to higher costs per hour worked and the risk of a contraction in employment. The right-wing opposition also signaled its intention to revise the legislation should it gain control of the executive branch.
For individual micro-entrepreneurs and small business units, the reform provides for a supplementary law that includes state support mechanisms designed to cushion the impact of the transition and sustain formal employment targets.
Within the public administration, existing service contracts will have a period of up to 12 months to adjust their operational and financial frameworks to the new limits on working hours.
With the approval of PEC 221/2019, Brazil has begun a restructuring of its labor market aimed at reducing precarious working-hour arrangements in Latin America’s largest economy.
By Muhammad Hamid ad-Din – New Eastern Outlook – October 15, 2026
The Gaza Ceasefire Is Falling Apart. And So Is the American Plan to Expand the Abraham Accords.
The Gaza Ceasefire That Is Killing Palestinians
The ceasefire in Gaza, which took effect on October 10, 2025, was supposed to stop a two-year war. By then, according to Palestinian authorities, more than 72,000 Palestinians had been killed. A year after the document was signed, the picture was no more peaceful. According to Palestinian sources, from the start of the ceasefire to October 5, 2026, Israeli forces killed 1,460 Palestinians and wounded 5,116. By September 2026, Gaza authorities reported 5,147 violations of the agreement, 1,421 dead, and the destruction of more than 201,000 buildings.
The second phase of negotiations—the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the enclave and the disarmament of Palestinian factions—stalled almost immediately. In April 2026, American-Egyptian talks in Cairo ended “without tangible progress.” Hamas links disarmament to the end of the occupation. Israel demands disarmament as a precondition for any further step. Critics say the demand for disarmament has become a pretext for maintaining control over the enclave and continuing violations. The Palestinian Foreign Ministry put it bluntly: the occupation government “does not view peace as a goal, but as an obstacle.”
Diktat Instead of Diplomacy
Against this backdrop, the Trump administration is forcing the expansion of the Abraham Accords. In May 2026, the U.S. president publicly demanded that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey join the accords. He called it “mandatory”: “After all the work done by the United States to put this complex puzzle together, it must be mandatory for all these countries to at least simultaneously sign the Abraham Accords.” Pakistan publicly refused. The others remained silent.
Washington’s main interest is Saudi Arabia. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said at the White House in November 2025: “We want to be part of the Abraham Accords. But we also want to be sure that we secure a clear path to a two-state solution.” Later, Riyadh repeated: normalization is impossible without a “credible, irreversible, and time-bound path” to a Palestinian state. The Israeli government rejects this prospect. American pressure goes beyond diplomacy: Trump tied the Abraham Accords to negotiations to end the war with Iran, effectively making normalization a condition for peace. According to Axios, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan were “caught by surprise.”
Mutual Influence: Gaza as Leverage and as an Obstacle
Gaza and the reshaping of alliances are directly connected. The Palestinian question became leverage in Arab states’ bargaining with Washington. For Saudi Arabia, normalization with Israel without movement toward a Palestinian state is politically toxic. Riyadh is using the fragile ceasefire to postpone an unpopular step. Qatar, a key mediator, took an equally tough position. Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majid al-Ansari said: “If the Palestinian question remains unresolved, joining the Abraham Accords is impossible.” According to him, the absence of a peace process for Palestinians means the absence of stability in the region. Doha, which has given refuge to Hamas’s political leadership and plays a central role in the talks, cannot move toward normalization without losing face.
There is also a reverse dependency. The Trump administration, seeking to expand the Abraham Accords, pressured Israel to secure a ceasefire: normalization without a ceasefire would have been impossible. But the second phase depends on whether Washington is willing to pressure Israel, not just Arab capitals.
Bombs Instead of Peace
The result of U.S. and Israeli policy looks increasingly contradictory. Three years of war, more than 74,250 dead Palestinians, and 1,460 killed after the ceasefire was signed are not just a humanitarian catastrophe. They are a verdict on America’s strategy in the Middle East. Trump tried to push through the expansion of the Abraham Accords by linking unrelated issues: normalization with Israel, a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia, and ending the war with Iran. In July 2026, he stated directly that a U.S.-Saudi civil nuclear agreement “will depend entirely on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords.” Saudi Arabia responded in May 2026: “There will be no normalization without a clear and final path to the creation of an independent Palestinian state.” As the custodian of the two holy mosques, the kingdom cannot afford to do otherwise. Qatar refused. Pakistan publicly rejected it. Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey remained silent.
Criticism of Washington goes far beyond diplomatic missteps. The U.S. continues to supply Israel with weapons despite ceasefire violations. In September 2026, the Trump administration proposed a $2.8 billion deal to sell Israel 40,000 heavy bombs, including 20,000 MK-84s and 20,000 BLU-117s. Senator Chris Van Hollen vowed to block the transfer: “Trump is sending $2.8 billion worth of bombs, paid for by you, the American taxpayers, to a government led by a wanted war criminal.” Congressman Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also vetoed it: “The Trump administration has not provided sufficient assurances that these weapons will be used in accordance with American and international law. Therefore, I will not approve this sale.” Amnesty International urged Congress to block the deliveries, saying the U.S. risks becoming complicit in serious violations of international law, including genocide. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani accused Washington of “complicity with every arms shipment” to Tel Aviv.
What Next: The Results of U.S. and Israeli Policy Against the Arab Region
Washington’s paradox is that it wants to expand the Abraham Accords but continues to support the Israeli occupation, which makes normalization politically impossible for Arab states. The U.S. has blocked UN Security Council ceasefire resolutions for the third time in a row, undermining its role as a “reliable mediator.” Public opinion in the Arab world is sharply opposed to normalization. Polls show that 89% of Moroccans oppose recognizing Israel. Analysts warn that for most of the named states, the political price of signing the accords will be prohibitive. The war in Gaza has strengthened this sentiment, not weakened it.
The main question is whether the ceasefire will hold. If the second phase of negotiations does not start and the death toll continues to rise, expansion of the Abraham Accords will remain an unattainable dream. Saudi Arabia will wait. Qatar will mediate. The UAE will increase oil production. Trump will face a choice: keep pressuring Arab capitals or admit that without a real Palestinian state, the accords will remain a facade. While Washington supplies bombs and Tel Aviv keeps killing, talk of peace looks like a cynical game in which Palestinians are not subjects but a bargaining chip.
Muhammad Hamid ad-Din is a well-known Palestinian journalist.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel.
Latvia's decision last week to declare Russian-born journalist and blogger Leonid Ragozin persona non grata has drawn attention to a broader trend: Russians who once presented themselves as opponents of Vladimir Putin are now accused of echoing Kremlin narratives.
Some now live in Europe, taking advantage of the
A sessão de apresentação do CIPAR – Centro de Interpretação do Património Arqueológico Rural de Bensafrim, que decorreu na passada terça-feira, 13 de outubro, contou com forte representação institucional e uma sobremesa criativa de doce fino inspirada na Escrita do Sudoeste.
O evento reuniu sócios, representantes de entidades locais e municipais, e convidados ligados à cultura e à arqueologia num ambiente festivo, numa sessão que começou com um almoço volante marcado por uma surpresa cultural e gastronómica: uma sobremesa de doce fino tradicional algarvio moldada com as formas da Estela de Bensafrim (representativa da Escrita do Sudoeste), do disco de ouro da Idade do Ferro e dos menires da região, celebrando a história local de forma criativa.
A sessão contou com as intervenções de Hugo Pereira (Presidente da Câmara Municipal de Lagos), Vítor Campos (Presidente da Associação Vicentina), Aura Fraga (Coordenadora do DLBC 2020) e Manuel Canelas (Presidente da A3PR).
Ganhou particular relevância a participação de Manuela Silva, Diretora do Museu Municipal Santos Rocha, e do arqueólogo Marco Penajóia, que viajaram da Figueira da Foz para partilhar conhecimento sobre o espólio arqueológico documentado pelo CIPAR e conservado institucionalmente no museu figueirense.
A sessão contou também com os contributos de Pedro Barros, consultor científico do projeto, e de Sónia Felicidade, coordenadora-geral do projeto Rotas Rurais. Destacamos a presença, entre os convidados, de Sofia Santos e Carlos Vieira, presidentes das Juntas de Freguesia de Odiáxere e Bensafrim, respetivamente.
Esta iniciativa resulta de uma parceria entre a Associação Vicentina e a A3PR — Associação para a Proteção e Promoção do Património Rural. O projeto foca-se na criação de dois percursos integrados: a Rota Arqueológica Rural e a Rota das Quintas Agrícolas.
O grande objetivo é valorizar e dar a conhecer o património arqueológico e rural de Bensafrim, Barão de São João e Odiáxere, destacando elementos únicos como os menires, a Escrita do Sudoeste e a herança das explorações agrícolas. Esta estratégia pretende reforçar a valorização histórica e cultural do território, aproximando a comunidade de um legado que constitui também uma oportunidade para o desenvolvimento da economia local.
Instalado na sua sede, o CIPAR passa a integrar de forma estratégica a atividade da Associação Vicentina, que assumiu a coordenação global da iniciativa, a aquisição de equipamentos, a recolha documental e a produção de conteúdos multimédia.
Com a apresentação desta estrutura, inicia-se agora uma nova etapa de consolidação, focada no aprofundamento dos conteúdos interpretativos e no desenvolvimento de novos materiais de divulgação e plano de atividades.
Para a Associação Vicentina, este Centro de Interpretação afirma-se como um espaço permanente de conhecimento, divulgação e valorização da identidade local, com vista a alargar futuramente a iniciativa a outros pontos do território, através de novas oportunidades de financiamento.
This year, Alaska held its primary elections on August 18.
As per a 2020 ballot measure, Alaska primary voters pick among all qualified candidates for a single office, regardless of party affiliation, and the top four then advance to the general election.
In the U.S. Senate primary, Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan won 41 percent of the vote, while former Rep. Mary Peltola, a Democrat, captured nearly 50 percent.
Dan Sullivan was also the distant third-place finisher—but in this case, it was Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a retired schoolteacher who is also running as a Republican but is not the same person as Daniel S. Sullivan, the junior U.S. senator for the 49th state.
The presence of dual Dan Sullivans is a headache for Republicans, who have fought to keep Daniel J. off the ballot, concerned he would split their votes and cost their candidate his seat.
"Mary Peltola and Chuck Schumer know they can't beat Senator Sullivan on his record, so they're resorting to deceitful political maneuvers that attempt to trick Alaskans and buy a seat," a Republican spokesman told Fox News.
"We are looking into it," President Donald Trump said this week. "It's a disgrace." In fact, NBC News reported in July that the FBI and Department of Justice had launched an investigation "looking for possible wire fraud or a conspiracy to deprive Alaskan voters of a free and fair elections process, which could be a civil rights violation."
In August, the government apparently issued subpoenas, though Daniel J. later said he had not received anything.
But is what he is doing actually illegal? For that matter, should it be?
Carol Beecher, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, barred Daniel J. from the ballot in June after concluding that he was running "with the purpose of confusing or misleading the electorate and compromising the fairness of the ballot."
But a state superior court reversed that decision. "Despite the Division's assertion that Mr. Sullivan may be excluded from the ballot because he lacks 'good-faith,' there is no statute which provides such a criterion," wrote Judge Thomas A. Matthews. "The concept of 'good-faith,' or pure motive, or bona fide intent is simply absent." The Alaska Supreme Court agreed, keeping both Sullivans on the November ballot.
Granted, it seems extremely likely that Republicans are right, and Daniel J. is running specifically to hurt Daniel S.'s prospects.
"Campaign material metadata reveals that Amber Lee, a progressive consultant, authored a press release announcing [Daniel J.'s] Senate bid," WFMD reported in May.
Daniel J. told The New York Times that he was running as a moderate Republican in an attempt to steer the party away from its MAGA wing. But he also admitted that he had voted for the Democrat in the last three presidential races and for Peltola in her races for the U.S. House.
In Beecher's original order keeping Daniel J. off the ballot, she wrote that Daniel J. had asked to be identified as "Dan S. Sullivan" on the ballot, the same name as the senator's. (Alaska reporter Dermot Cole wrote in July that this was not true: Daniel J. wrote "Dan S. Sullivan" in an email to Beecher but followed up hours later to correct it to "Dan J. Sullivan.")
If Daniel J.'s goal truly is to mislead voters, then that is indefensible. But it's not clear that it's illegal, or whether it should be.
"I am not sure exploiting voter confusion about names is any worse than exploiting their ignorance about policy issues like crime, immigration, and health care," wrote George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. "Trying to prevent such exploitation through criminal and civil liability is likely to violate the First Amendment. In addition, it would likely end up giving incumbent political leaders broad power to curb speech and control electoral campaigns that they cannot be trusted with."
"This is a case about someone running for office with impure motives who is lucky enough to have a name that could confuse some voters," agreed election law expert Richard Hasen. "I don't see how the government could criminalize his running for office for having impure motives. And if it could do so, then it could be a crime every time that the Republican Party backs a Green Party candidate, or Democrats support a MAGA candidate in a primary in the hopes that the candidate would be weaker against a Democrat in the general election. This stuff happens all the time."
But it's entirely possible that Alaska's ranked choice voting system will solve the problem on Election Day.
After the August open primary, the top four candidates compete on a ranked choice ballot, where voters list the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gets an outright majority, then the lowest performer is eliminated, and every ballot that picked them first is retallied and applied to their second choice.
As long as every Alaskan who wants to vote for Dan Sullivan—either one—lists both Dan Sullivans as their first and second choices, then the system will take care of any confusion. In the (highly likely) event that Daniel J. does not capture a majority on the first ballot, his votes will be retallied and applied to their second choices. The only plausible hiccup is if Peltola, the Democratic candidate, wins a majority in the first round—in which case either Sullivan would have lost anyway.
Of course, Republicans have opposed the ranked choice system since Alaska adopted it. Former Gov. Sarah Palin, who ran against Peltola twice unsuccessfully, said ranked choice was "so weird" that "it results in voter suppression."
In a post last week on Truth Social, Trump called ranked choice voting "Corrupt" and said it "shouldn't be allowed in our Country."
"I just left Alaska, where we have a real bad thing," Trump said Wednesday at a campaign rally in Arizona. "They have the ranked choice voting, where you go into I guess some kind of a test tube or something, and they pick whoever the hell they want. That's another disgrace."
As ever, it's not clear what Trump was talking about. And despite Republicans' complaints, ranked choice voting works quite well: According to the American Bar Association, recent research finds that it "is an improvement over plurality voting with clear benefits in terms of representation, campaign quality, mobilization, and turnout." It also "encourages greater consensus building as well as more civil political campaigns," and voters find it easy to understand.
In the event that a political party finds itself, for example, with two Dan Sullivans on the ballot, ranked choice voting is a perfect solution. If only the party weren't so hostile to it.
The post What Happens When 2 Dan Sullivans Run for the Same Senate Seat? appeared first on Reason Magazine.
From U.S. v. California, decided yesterday by Ninth Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, joined by Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Daniel Collins:
Section 10 [of the California "No Vigilantes Act"] requires any non-uniformed "federal law enforcement officer" operating in California, with narrow exceptions, to "visibly display identification" while performing federal law enforcement duties. Officers who violate the law may be criminally prosecuted by the State.
We previously granted the United States's motion for an injunction pending appeal. As before, we conclude that … § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act attempts [in violation of the Supremacy Clause] to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions, and Congress has not authorized such regulation. Indeed, we conclude that the United States is certain to succeed….
"[U]nder the intergovernmental immunity component of the Supremacy Clause to the United States Constitution, states may not directly regulate the Federal Government's operations or property." "It is of the very essence of supremacy," the Supreme Court has emphasized, "to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested in subordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence." To that end, "states have no power" to "in any manner control[ ] the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government." And "where 'Congress does not affirmatively declare its instrumentalities or property subject to regulation,' 'the federal function must be left free' of regulation" by the States.
Intergovernmental immunity "prohibit[s] state laws that either 'regulat[e] the United States directly or discriminat[e] against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals' (e.g., contractors)." A direct regulation is one that "lays hold of" federal officers "in their specific attempt to obey orders and requires qualifications in addition to those that the [federal] Government has pronounced sufficient." It imposes conditions upon "a function of government," and it regulates "the right to carry on the business" of the federal government. Put another way, a direct regulation regulates the government qua government; it controls how the government conducts specifically governmental functions.
The Supremacy Clause prohibits States from directly regulating federal operations even when regulating state operations in the same manner…. "[E]ven the most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct of a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States." … And critically, "Supreme Court case law compels the rejection of a de minimis exception to the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity." So "[a] state or local law that directly regulates the conduct of the federal government or discriminates against it is invalid, even if it is no more restrictive than federal law."
In sum, if a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations….
Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act expressly applies to federal officers. It controls the conduct of those federal officers in performing law enforcement operations. Section 10 explicitly overrides the federal government's power to determine whether, how, and when to publicly identify its officers. And in so doing, it regulates the manner and conditions under which federal agents can enforce federal law. Again, § 10 defines "law enforcement officer" as including "any federal law enforcement officer." And any non-uniformed federal law enforcement officer "operating in California" "shall visibly display identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number or both name and badge number when performing their enforcement duties."
These provisions "lay[ ] hold of" federal agencies and officers "in their specific attempt to obey orders and require[ ] qualifications in addition to those that the [federal] Government has pronounced sufficient." As a result, § 10 regulates the performance of "governmental action[s]" which are "carried on by the United States itself"—not merely "persons who [a]re acting for themselves and not for the United States." Indeed, it applies only to law enforcement agencies and their officers, including federal law enforcement agencies and federal law enforcement officers. Section 10 thus directly regulates inherently sovereign functions. Because Congress has not authorized such legislation, it is barred by intergovernmental immunity.
The United States has also shown that "no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid." Again, § 10 exclusively regulates quintessentially government conduct: law enforcement. So as applied to federal agencies and federal officers carrying out their duties under federal authority, the statute is invalid in all applications. The United States is therefore likely—indeed, certain—to succeed on the merits of its facial challenge to § 10's constitutionality….
California … advances its view that a state statute constitutes an impermissible direct regulation only when the law "impose[s] substantial burdens on federal operations." … The district court applied, and California urges us to adopt, the standard applicable to States' regulation of federal contractors and third-party employers—not the standard that governs direct regulation of the United States's governmental activities.
"Private contractors do not stand on the same footing as the federal government, so states can impose many laws on federal contractors that they could not apply to the federal government itself." But "where, as here, the governmental action is carried on by the United States itself and Congress does not affirmatively declare its instrumentalities or property subject to regulation or taxation, the inherent freedom [from direct regulation] continues." So the burden of the regulation on federal operations, whether substantial or otherwise, is irrelevant because, as discussed, there is no de minimis exception to the United States's immunity from direct regulation.
To be sure, the Supremacy Clause likely does not "bar[ ] all state regulation which may touch the activities of the Federal Government." For example, in Johnson v. Maryland (1920), the Supreme Court suggested that "when the United States has not spoken," States might be able to impose on federal officers "general rules that might affect incidentally the mode of carrying out the[ir] employment—as, for instance, a statute or ordinance regulating the mode of turning at the corners of streets."
But the Court has never relied on that distinction to uphold a State's direct regulation of federal functions performed by federal officers. And unlike traffic laws which, for example, might require a full stop before a right turn, and which regulate conduct that any ordinary citizen could engage in, § 10 applies exclusively to law enforcement officials and exclusively to their performance of law enforcement operations. Thus, § 10 does not just "incidentally" sweep up the conduct of federal officers carrying out their duties. So even if we were to read Johnson as carving out an exception to intergovernmental immunity for laws of general applicability that affect federal operations in incidental ways—an issue that we need not and do not resolve today—such a putative exception would not apply here because § 10 is neither generally applicable nor its effect on federal officers "incidental."
Taking a different tack, California argues that the Supremacy Clause "provides a case-specific defense that confers immunity on federal officers who can show that they held an 'honest and reasonable belief' that the charged conduct was 'necessary in the performance of [their] duty.'" From there, the State contends that the United States's facial challenge must fail because there is no "reason to believe that in all (or nearly all) cases where [§ 10] might apply, the federal officer would be covered by the case-specific defense."
We agree that federal officers are immune from state criminal prosecution under state laws regulating conduct of members of the general public "only when [their] acts are both (1) authorized by the laws of the United States and (2) necessary and proper to the execution of [their] responsibilities." And under this standard, an officer need not "show that his action was in fact necessary or in retrospect justifiable, only that he reasonably thought it to be."
The immunity at issue here, however, belongs to the United States, which enjoys a distinct form of immunity under the Supremacy Clause: intergovernmental immunity. Thus, whether any officer would hold an honest and reasonable belief that the charged conduct was necessary to perform his or her duty is irrelevant to whether the United States, or an agent exercising quintessentially governmental authority of the United States, is entitled to complete and total immunity from regulation of the type embodied in § 10. To reiterate, § 10, by its explicit terms, expressly regulates the conduct of federal officers while those officers are discharging law enforcement duties under federal authority. So an individual officer would be entitled to a Supremacy Clause defense against any prosecution brought under the statute….
Andrew M. Bernie, Mark R. Freeman, Daniel Tenny, and Eric D. McArthur represent the federal government.
The post California Law Generally Requiring Federal Law Enforcement Officers to Display ID Violates Supremacy Clause appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Login