Protesters have been on the streets of the capital, Khartoum, and other cities for months, calling for al-Bashir to step down.
What happened instead was a military coup.
Defence Minister Awad Ibn Auf said on Thursday that a military council will rule Sudan for the next two years.
The constitution has been suspended, parliament, the central government and the regional governments have all been dissolved and a state of emergency has been declared.
Will the military council’s actions satisfy the protesters?
Presenter: Halla Mohieddeen
Guests:
Hafiz Mohamed – Director of Justice Africa, an NGO that promotes social justice and human rights in Africa
David Shinn – Former US ambassador to Ethiopia and former deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in Sudan
Hajooj Kuka – Member of Girifna, a non-violent resistance movement in Sudan
Thin and light • Less than $100 • Front-lit display • Supports Bluetooth headphones for audiobooks
Lowest resolution display of all Kindles • No USB-C port • No water-resistance
Amazon’s cheapest Kindle works fine for reading books, but the low resolution e-ink screen might be a turnoff.
Amazon’s new entry-level Kindle e-reader is okay and that is also its biggest weakness — it’s just okay.
The $89.99 e-reader is the cheapest in Amazon’s e-reader lineup and although it’s now got a new front-light system that makes the e-ink display more visible outdoors and in the dark, there’s not much else going for it.
The new 2019 Kindle is not Amazon’s most feature-packed e-reader (that’s the Kindle Oasis) and it’s not the best value (that’s the Kindle Paperwhite), but it is under $100.
Amazon’s newest e-reader is fine for reading books — the lower resolution screen might bother some people, though — but it’s hardly a groundbreaking, must-have device if you already own an older Kindle like I do.
Barebones e-reader
When you buy a Kindle, you know exactly what you’re getting: a small, thin, and super light e-reader made of uninspiring plastic.
It’s okay — Amazon products are generally barebones when it comes to design — but would it kill Amazon to give its Kindles a makeover? Give me an e-reader worth lusting for. Make me want to throw money at a device that’s so clearly a minor update over the previous model.
It pains me that I feel almost nothing when I use the new Kindle. It’s so blah (for lack of a better word) — a mere vessel with a black-and-white screen to display text. Even the new iPad mini and its four-year-old design sparks more joy than the new Kindle.
The new Kindle is pure plastic.
Image: zlata ivleva / mashable
Ugh…can we stop using micro USB and switch completely to USB-C already?
Image: ZLATA IVLEVA / MASHABLE
Basic design aside, the new Kindle is pretty average. The 6-inch e-ink screen is less sharp than the screens on the Kindle Paperwhite or Oasis, and that’s because the pixel density is 167 ppi (pixels per inch) compared to 300 ppi on the others.
Text on the new Kindle (2019) is blurrier than on the Paperwhite and Oasis.
Image: zlata ivleva / mashable
Text is readable on the new Kindle, but if your eyes are glued to it for several hours, the blurrier text can become a distraction. At the end of the day, I really don’t think it’ll bother most people.
Seeing the fuzziness around letters bothered me at first while reading Becoming Michelle Obama (totally worth the $15 e-book price in my opinion). But after a couple of chapters, I stopped noticing the poorer anti-aliasing.
Even without the display’s lighting on, the screen is still visible.
Image: zlata ivleva / mashable
The Kindle’s an e-reader. You’re using it to read text, not to watch movies or play games like you would on a smartphone or tablet, so pixel density is less important. The lower resolution screen doesn’t make the new Kindle any less functional, but as someone who’s using phones, tablets, and laptops with crispy screens, it’s still just a bit disappointing Amazon didn’t bump the sharpness.
The cheapest Kindle’s e-ink screen finally has a front-light for use in the dark.
Image: zlata ivleva / mashable
New to the lowest-priced Kindle is a front-light system, which uses four LEDs, to illuminate the screen. The Paperwhite and Oasis have five LEDs and get a wee bit brighter, but after spending a few hours reading with the new Kindle in my well-lit living room, in my dark bedroom, and in the park, I can definitively say the new Kindle’s lighting is more than adequate, even in dark environments.
The e-ink screen is a touchscreen. Tap to advance, highlight, and navigate. It’s not as fast as a tablet, though.
Image: zlata ivleva / mashable
As far as using the Kindle goes… it works like any other Kindle. The e-ink screen’s a touchscreen and you tap on the left and right side to advance between pages. Tap on the top of the screen to bring up the menu, settings, store, search, etc.
If you own a Kindle or have used one before, there’s zero learning curve because the software is exactly the same.
And also like other Kindles, the new e-reader comes in two versions (both WiFi-only): with and without “special offers” which is really with and without ads. You can fork over $109.99 to buy the model without ads at checkout, or you can disable the ads for $20 later.
The case is sold separately for $30.
Image: zlata ivleva / mashable
There’s no IPX8 water-resistance like there is on the Paperwhite and Oasis and I’m okay with that. I’m never reading with my Kindle in the bathtub, or at the beach, or near water. But I can see why other people might want it for protection from accidental spills.
The new Kindle also only has 4GB of storage for e-books instead of the 8GB or 32GB options on the Paperwhite and Oasis. If you buy a lot (and I mean a lot) of e-books or audiobooks, the storage might not be sufficient.
Personally, my old 2014 Kindle Paperwhite has 2GB and I’ve never filled it up with e-books (2GB holds thousands of e-books), but then again I’m not devouring large quantities of books (maybe a dozen or so a year?).
To listen to audiobooks, you’ll need Bluetooth headphones.
Image: zlata ivleva / mashable
On the plus side, the new e-reader works with Bluetooth headphones for audiobooks. I paired my second-generation AirPods and a pair of Beats Solo 3 on-hear Bluetooth headphones to the Kindle and had no issues listening to Haruki Murakami’s 1Q84.
Unlike a tablet, the battery lasts weeks not days.
Image: zlata ivleva / mashable
Amazon says the new Kindle’s battery lasts “weeks” on a single charge and I believe it. My old Paperwhite lasts weeks without a charge as well. Needless to say, you won’t need to charge the new Kindle every night, even if you spend hours reading e-books.
For the budget-strapped
The best thing the new Kindle has going for it is that it’s less than $100.
Image: zlata ivleva / mashable
There’s nothing remarkable about the new Kindle e-reader. It’s cheap, the front-lit screen is good, the addition of Bluetooth for audiobooks is nice, and the battery lasts seemingly forever.
For $90, the new Kindle is fine and does the job. The $130 Kindle Paperwhite has a slightly brighter-lit and sharper e-paper screen and water-resistance, but if neither of these features matter to you, the new Kindle will do the trick.
Walk down a busy street in Washington during the week and you could run into a number of powerful people—but only certain types of powerful people. The powerful in Washington have earned that status mostly by what they have done for, with or against the federal government. And as much as Washington is defined by having big government in town, it has also been defined by not having big business in town. If you want to run into the titans of finance, go to New York City. If you want to run into the masters of technology, go to Silicon Valley. If you want to run into the giants of the entertainment industry, head to Los Angeles
This geographic separation of Big Business from Big Government is not a bug—it’s a feature of American democracy at its best. The founders knew that democratic government demands a connection between the powerful and the people to survive and thrive—and that different kinds of powerful people need to be separated from each other to keep that connection strong. They designed the United States with this principle in mind—and for much of American history, it has stuck: We have kept our biggest corporations out of our our capital.
Story Continued Below
But this could be starting to change, and the reason is Amazon. The online retail giant has announced its decision to place a second headquarters, and therefore tens of thousands of high-level business jobs, in the Washington metropolitan area.The move will flood the capital, already crammed with the politically powerful, with economic elites, deepening the bond between the two groups and making it even harder for those outside the bubble of the rich and powerful to be in or influence the federal government.
Many of the founders would have hated the idea of a megacorporation in such close proximity to Congress and the White House—and they would have been worried about what it means for the country. History had taught the founding generation that democracy faltered when economic and political power centers shared the same address.
In today’s environment, it threatens to erode both democracy and Americans’ trust in it. As corporations like Amazon entwine themselves more closely with government—with CEO Jeff Bezos’ new house just a few blocks away from the president’s daughter—America begins to seem even more like a massive conspiracy of the rich and powerful far from where regular citizens live and work.
***
The geographic separation of powers has been at the core of the American democratic vision from the beginning. Many of the founders believed that smaller countries had failed in their democratic experiments because they did not have multiple places among which to distribute power. The powerful had become corrupt because they were too concentrated. London was the most dramatic example at the time. In combining the political elite with the economic elite, London, according to the founders, had become a bubble out of touch with the rest of the country and the colonies. (Notice that the Declaration of Independence singles out the problems with the “distant” British government.)
James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers that part of the promise of the United States was the presence of many types of places and therefore many types of people. The United States would “[e]xtend the sphere” of democratic government over a larger territory, he wrote, and therefore would feature a “greater variety of parties and interests.” There were significant cities in the United States at the time—led by Philadelphia and New York—but no single place contained more than 1 percent of the population. Making one of these cities the permanent capital would combine the new political elite with an existing economic elite, and the American democratic experiment would have been flawed from the beginning thanks to a concentrated, isolated aristocracy.
These concerns were only magnified when the capital was temporarily located in New York City for the first two years after the Constitution came into force. The new president, George Washington, had always been known for his common touch. But two years rubbing elbows with the elite commercial class in New York City led one commentator to remark that Washington had lost touch with the “rabble” that the president needed to understand in order to rule well. The Boston Gazette reported that when the capital was in a dominant commercial city like New York City it created a “vortex of folly and dissipation” because of how it focused the new federal officials on private business there instead of on the people’s business everywhere.
This is amajor reason why Washington, D.C., was chosen as the seat of government—a central location that wasn’t too close to any existing economic power center. (Back then, it took several days of travel to reach New York City from D.C.) Washington was also just 56 miles from the mean center of the U.S. populationand 96 miles from the geographical center of the country at the time.
So deep was the commitment to the separation of political and economic power that many states then and now have replicated this commitment, choosing not to place their state capitals in the economic centers of the state. The major state capitals have largely been in places like Albany, Sacramento, and Tallahassee, not in New York City, San Francisco or Miami.
This quality has also distinguished the United States from many other similar democracies. Movements like the Yellow Vest protesters in France, for instance, have a bigger and easier target to attack because the country’s economic and political power is concentrated in Paris. Brexit was very much a revolt against London’s overwhelming concentration of both economic and political power. When Occupy Wall Street took on the concentration of economic power in New York City, though, they were doing so more than 200 miles from where our current president wanted to drain the swamp.
The voices speaking for business in Washington, though, have usually been hired hands—political players lobbying for plutocrats elsewhere, not the plutocrats speaking for themselves from Washington. Amazon has already been increasing its presence in town, but largely by hiring the local political elite—starting with Jay Carney, President Barack Obama’s press secretary, who now oversees the company’s public policy and public affairs operation out of D.C..
It’s true that Big Business is already present in Washington—there are 15 Fortune 500 companies in the area—but these are firms that survive and thrive on obtaining contracts from the federal government. In other words, they’re here because their main customer is here. This is dangerous in its own way, but in the end, these CEOs are depending on Washington and the government for their success.
Amazon, on the other hand, is different. Amazon is a multinational e-commerce and cloud computing giant that has huge influence on the lives of individuals totally outside government and effectively represents its own power base.
Amazon says it will bring only 25,000 jobs to the D.C. area, but this understates the quantity and quality of its eventual Washington influence. It will take more than 25,000 people to support those 25,000 Amazon workers. These Amazon positions will be higher-level jobs, the kind that make Amazon officials part of the same powerful Washington networks as the higher-level political elite. And several other big companies have said that if all goes well for Amazon in Washington, they are likely to follow soon and substantially.
Once that starts to happen, corporations like Amazon won’t have to rely on the political elite to do their lobbying for them. The top Amazon officials living and working in Washington can themselves talk to the senator or staffer at the annual dinner for the schools they send their children to, or at the coffee shop in the neighborhoods that they will increasingly share.
Washington D. C. is taking a victory lap right now, after having won Amazon. The city no doubt thinks now it’s a new kind of leading metropolis—the center of government as well as an economic center. But Washington doesn’t realize that in becoming both, it is undermining the very democracy it stands for.
Admittedly, when we think about Game of Thrones, we tend to think about the big players.
In seven seasons, the drama has introduced hundreds of characters. No one would blame you for forgetting some of them even if they’re still alive and lurking somewhere.
HBO and the show’s creators have obviously kept a tight lid on who might show up in the final six episodes. But that doesn’t stop us from theorizing who might return one last time and just how it could impact the story.
1. Daario Naharis (Michiel Huisman)
Daario might just rejoin Dany’s ever increasing list of admirers again.
Image: HELEN SLOAN/HBO
Last seen: Season 6, “The Winds of Winter.” Daenerys asks Daario to lead the Second Sons and keep the peace in Meereen. After expressing reluctance and declaring his love for her, he agrees to stay. Is this the first ever Game of Thrones mutual breakup? I think so.
How he might return: Let’s assume Daario has successfully been doing what was expected of him: The Bay of Dragons is free of slavery, everything’s going great, etc., etc. Daario might just decide to travel to Westeros and fight for his chosen queen. What better way than by infiltrating The Golden Company?
We know Euron Greyjoy went to transport these mercenaries from Essos for Cersei in the Season 7 finale. Maybe Daario joins them and makes his way to the top of their chain so that when the time is right, he can land a crushing blow to Daenerys’ backstabbing Lannister enemy. His skills will also come in handy for the fight against the dead.
2. Edmure Tully (Tobias Menzies)
Has luck ever favored this poor fella’?
Image: helen sloan/hbo
Last seen: Season 6, “No One.” Held captive after the dreadful Red Wedding in Season 3, Edmure returns briefly only to help the Lannisters and Freys regain control of Riverrun from his uncle Brynden Tully. Once this happens, he’s is thrown back in a cell.
How he might return: Arya got rid of all the Freys and doesn’t mention her uncle Edmure even once. If he’s still rotting in a dungeon somewhere, either at the Twins or another Lannister holding, it would make him Cersei’s hostage. She can very well use Edmure as bait to try and persuade the Starks to rethink their alliances now that Jon has pledged himself to Daenerys.
Edmure is the rightful heir to the Riverlands and therefore, a valuable ally if things work in his favor for once. The only way it can end well for him now is if he’s been freed and this just hasn’t come up because the Stark siblings were dealing with bigger problems (ahem, Littlefinger) or if someone, maybe Sansa, tries to negotiate for him. He is their oldest surviving relative, after all.
3. Illyrio Mopatis (Roger Allam)
There would be no Mother of Dragons without him.
Image: hbo
Last seen: Season 1, “The Wolf and The Lion.” Illyrio’s second and last appearance was his secret discussion with Varys in the tunnels of the Red Keep. They want to escalate the timeline of the Dothraki invasion on Westeros to support the Targaryen claim to the throne.
How he might return: He hasn’t appeared on screen in years, but Illyrio helped shape Dany’s arc. He’s the reason she survived her exile, and has her Khalasar and her three two dragons. He’s been generous but we never truly understood why. In the books, Viserys promised to make him the Master of Coin, but the show only makes a minor passing reference to this in the series premiere.
It seems Illyrio has lurked in the background, fully committed to Dany’s claim, for years. In Season 5, Varys reveals to Tyrion how both of them planned for her ascension. So, where has Illyrio been while Dany went on to conquer multiple cities before setting sail? Why didn’t she bring him with her after everything he’s done? His contacts and wealth seem invaluable. Might he show up in the final season with more soldiers for Dany or will he arrive and expect the position he was promised?
Illyrio has played a long game with Varys and I’d be curious to know what their plan was and who else was involved. I need him to show up with answers, damn it.
4. Jaqen H’ghar (Tom Wlaschiha)
A man will probably return for one last battle.
Image: helen sloan/hbo
Last seen: Season 6, “No One.” After killing the Waif, Arya returns to the House of Black and White and pointedly tells Jaqen who she is and where she is going: home.
How he might return: Jaqen let Arya slip away from Braavos without the fuss we expected. Based on the masks she has gathered, she’s clearly using their killer technique. Maybe Jaqen returns to take revenge after all? Arya does seem to be extremely scared as she runs away from someone or something in the trailer.
A more juicier theoryis that Jaqen is actually Arya’s “dancing” instructor and fellow Braavosi Syrio Forel. It would explain the timing: Syrio apparently dies while fighting Meryn Trant in Season 1 as Arya escapes the gold cloaks. We don’t see this death on-screen, so who knows what really happened? Conveniently enough, Jaqen shows up right after when Arya is on her way to the Wall with Yoren and Gendry. If Jaqen and Syrio are the same person with different faces, it explains why a notable assassin like Jaqen was imprisoned when first introduced.
If Jaqen does return — and, spoiler alert, Wlaschiha was spotted in Seville last year when the cast was shooting Season 8 — this would be a great explanation. Regardless, a skilled warrior who can literally change faces will be an important asset.
5. Meera Reed (Ellie Kendrick)
Will Meera’s reunion with Bran be as boring as their goodbye?
Image: helen sloan/hbo
Last seen: Season 7, “Spoils of War.” Meera leaves Winterfell after a lackluster goodbye from Bran as a thanks for ensuring his safe return. She wants to join her family and be with them as the ice zombies approach.
How she might return: The thing is, Meera’s return can signify something much, much bigger. Her father Howland Reed was one of Ned’s closest friends and was with him at Tower of Joy. It’s been long suspected that besides Ned, he was possibly the only one with knowledge of Jon’s true parentage (before Bran and Sam, of course).
Howland has never appeared on the show besides in flashbacks, but with Meera now home and aware of the looming threat, this might be when the Reeds (sorry, Jojen) choose to join the Starks at Winterfell for the battle. Besides, Meera is one of the few people who’s been North of the Wall and come back, y’know, in one piece, so she knows how to fight the pesky dead.
6. Robin Arryn (Lino Facioli)
Ugh. Maybe he’ll help? Who knows.
Image: HBO
Last seen: Season 6, “Book of the Stranger.” After falling prey to Littlefinger’s false show of love (and a pet falcon), Robin agrees to send the Knights of the Vale to aid Sansa and remove the Boltons from Winterfell.
How he might return: As a standalone character, Robin seems useless, but he is the Lord of the Vale. Now that Littlefinger is gone, Robin will look to Lord Yohn Royce for even more (correct) guidance. Royce has allied with Sansa, Robin’s cousin. Thanks to her brief stay at the Eyrie in Season 4, she’s aware of what it takes to control him.
A long-standing theory is that Sansa will wed Robin to secure the bond between their houses. Even if that happens on the show, what will happen if he finds out that she knew Littlefinger killed his mother Lysa? With just six episodes and a lot of story to tell, Thrones seems unlikely to focus on Robin Arryn much, but here’s hoping the little weasel has matured in his time training with Royce if he does show up.
7. Ellaria Sand (Indira Varma)
She’s feisty but even she can’t survive starving alone in a dungeon.
Image: helen sloan/hbo
Last seen: Season 7, “The Queen’s Justice.” Ellaria was captured along with her daughter Tyene, whom Cersei poisoned the same way Ellaria killed Myrcella. Oberyn’s former paramour is then left to rot in a cell.
How she might return: If she hasn’t already died or driven herself crazy alone in that dungeon, I’d say her chances of returning still aren’t very high. Dorne has lost all of its leaders and its value to the Seven Kingdoms, at least for now. Ellaria’s children are dead. The only way out for her is if someoneother than Cersei wins the throne and frees her.
8. Salladhor Saan (Lucien Msamati)
A true throwback.
Image: hbo
Last seen: Season 4, “The Laws of Gods and Men.” Pirate extraordinaire Salladhor is enjoying the warm baths and brothels of Braavos when Davos shows up, gives him a bag of gold, and asks him to lend his ships to transport them to Castle Black.
How he might return: Salladhor has been a good friend to Davos, rescuing him from the sea after the Battle of Blackwater in Season 2 and dropping him off to Dragonstone. But he didn’t sail with them to the Wall. Doesn’t he want his ships back? It’s important to note that Salladhor’s fleet will be useful if he returns, especially to Cersei (whom he wanted to sleep with in Season 2). Will he align himself with an old friend or an enemy?
9. Tycho Nestoris (Mark Gatiss)
Does anyone truly care about Tycho? Does Tycho care about Tycho?
Image: helen sloan/hbo
Last seen: Season 7, “The Spoils of War.” The Iron Bank of Braavos employee visits King’s Landing to retrieve the money the crown owes them. He assures Cersei of the Iron Bank’s support, too — if she returns their gold in time.
How he might return: Tycho was going to stick around for the gold Jaime was bringing from Highgarden before the loot train attack. That money is definitely gone. Will Tycho still stay or go back to Braavos empty-handed? Gatiss said in an interview that he hasn’t filmed for Season 8 and believes his character survives.
It’s possible Tycho’s still around, sure, but let’s remember that the Golden Company killers are on their way to King’s Landing to help Cersei. How is she planning on paying them? I doubt the Iron Bank will further support her now. Will Tycho, even if he remains off-screen, be yet another hostage for her?
10. Yara Greyjoy (Gemma Whelan)
Oh, she’ll be back alright. Probably with a vengeance.
Image: Helen sloan/hbo
Last seen: Season 7, “The Queen’s Justice.” Her uncle Euron captures and delivers her as a gift to Cersei. Since then, she’s been a prisoner for allying with Daenerys Targaryen.
How she might return: Yara has been an important player in Thrones so it’s safe to bet on the fact that, despite missing from all promotional images and the trailer, she’ll return for the final season. Theon convinced some Iron Islanders to help him rescue her, just like she tried to rescue him when he was Ramsay’s captive. Yara lent her fleet to help Dany reach Westeros, which means she has more people willing to fight for her than she knows.
If Yara does make it to Winterfell in time, she’s a competent fighter who will be of help. Alternatively, she can be a leader at Pyke and provide shelter to the non-soldiers because we’ve established that the wights can’t swim.
11. Hot Pie (Ben Hawkey)
Protect him at all costs.
Image: helen sloan/hbo
Last seen: Season 7, “Stormborn.” After reuniting with his old pal Arya (f.k.a. Arry!), he tells her the Boltons are defeated and Jon has regained control of Winterfell. This news is what motivates her to go back home instead of to King’s Landing to kill Cersei.
How he might return: Westeros’ best baker shall not, will not, better not perish. He tells Arya that just like her, he’s a survivor. Their methods might be vastly different, but he’s not wrong. Hot Pie has lived long enough and I hope that doesn’t change. If it does, let it happen off-screen, please and thank you.
12. Ghost and Nymeria
We miss you, Ghost!
Image: hbo
Last seen: Ghost hasn’t shown up since Season 6’s “Oathbreaker.” Nymeria was seen in Season 7’s “Stormborn” for the first time in Season 1.
How they might return: Direwolves can be an excellent secret weapon against the dead. For the sake of my sanity and the survival of the living, I hope they join the final fight.
12. Singing Lannister Soldier 1 (Ed Sheeran)
What do we think really inspired the song “Castle on the Hill?”
Image: helen sloan/hbo
Last seen: Season 7, “Stormborn.” He came, he sang, he bonded with Arya Stark.
How he might return: Tricked you! He’s definitely dead. RIP.
Game of Thrones Season 8 premieres on April 14 on HBO.
As India marks 100th anniversary of the Amritsarmassacre on Saturday, one of the worst atrocities of colonial rule, the British envoy to India says his country regrets the killing but offered no apology.
The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, as it is known in India, saw British troops fire on thousands of unarmed people in Amritsar on April 13, 1919.
In a tweet on Saturday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi called the tragedy “horrific” and that the memory of those killed “inspires us to work even harder to build an India they would be proud of”.
Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, in Amritsar on Saturday on Twitter called themassacre“a day of infamy that stunned the entire world and changed the course of the Indian freedom struggle”.
At least 379 Indians were killed during the massacre, according to the official colonial-era record, although local residents have said in the past the toll is closer to 1,000.
The massacre took place in the walled enclosure of Jallianwala Bagh, which is still pockmarked with bullet holes.
The incident became a symbol of colonial cruelty and for decades Indians have demanded an apology from Britain, including during Queen Elizabeth’s visit to Amritsar in 1997.
Hundreds of people carrying the national flag, attended a candlelight march on Friday in memory of the victims ahead of a commemoration ceremony later on Saturday.
‘Lessons of history’
Britain has made no official apology and Dominic Asquith, high commissioner to India, on Saturday followed suit as he laid a wreath at the massacre site on Saturday.
“You might want to re-write history, as the Queen said, but you can’t,” Asquith said.
“What you can do, as the Queen said, is to learn the lessons of history. I believe strongly we are. There is no question that we will always remember this. We will never forget what happened here.”
He said his country regrets “the suffering caused” and “The revulsion that we felt at the time is still strong today.”
Former British Prime Minister David Cameron described the killings as “deeply shameful” in a visit to the northern Indian city in 2013 but stopped short of an apology.
In 1997, Queen Elizabeth II laid a wreath at the site but her gaffe-prone husband Prince Philip stole the headlines by reportedly saying that Indian estimates for the death count were “vastly exaggerated”.
This week, British Prime Minister Theresa May told parliament that “the tragedy of Jallianwala Bagh in 1919 is a shameful scar on British Indian history”, but she also did not issue a formal apology.
UK’s opposition Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn leader said the country should apologize.
Amarinder Singh, chief minister of Punjab state, said on Friday that May’s words were not enough.
He said “an unequivocal official apology” is needed for the “monumental barbarity”.
Rahul Gandhi, President of India’s main opposition Congress party on Twitter called themassacre ‘a day of infamy that stunned the entire world’ [Munish Sharma/Reuters]
The Massacre
Thousands of unarmed men, women and children had gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh walled public garden in Amritsar on the afternoon of April 13, 1919.
Many were angry about the recent extension of repressive measures and the arrest of two local leaders that had sparked violent protests three days before.
The 13th of April was also a big spring festival, and the crowd – estimated by some at 20,000 – included pilgrims visiting the nearby Golden Temple sacred to Sikhs.
Brigadier General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer arrived with dozens of troops, sealed off the exit and without warning ordered the soldiers to open fire.
Many tried to escape by scaling the high walls surrounding the area. Others jumped into an open well at the site as the troops fired.
One of several witness accounts compiled by two historians in a new book with excerpts published in the Indian Express newspaper this week described the horror.
“Heaps of dead bodies lay there, some on their backs and some with their faces upturned. A number of them were poor innocent children. I shall never forget the sight,” said Ratan Devi, whose husband was killed.
“I was all alone the whole night in that solitary jungle. Nothing but the barking of dogs, or the braying of donkeys was audible. Amidst hundreds of corpses, I passed my night, crying and watching,” she said.
Dyer, dubbed “The Butcher of Amritsar“, reportedly said later it was a necessary measure, and that the firing was “not to disperse the meeting but to punish the Indians for disobedience”.
The massacre is a symbol of colonial cruelty and for decades Indians have demanded an apology from Britain [Munish Sharma/Reuters]
In this week’s UpFront, we ask Chief Executive of Afghanistan Abdullah Abdullah about peace talks with the Taliban, and the challenges facing his government which controls barely 55 percent of its own districts.
And in the Arena, we debate whether the United States’s so-called “war on drugs” has been a failure.
Abdullah Abdullah: The Taliban is ‘the obstacle’
Negotiators from the United States and the Taliban have now held several rounds of talks to discuss a possible peace deal in Afghanistan, but there is still no agreement on when foreign troops will withdraw from the country.
The role the Taliban will play after a possible peace deal has also not been defined, and the group is refusing to negotiate with the Afghan government, deeming it illegitimate.
Despite this, Chief Executive of Afghanistan and presidential hopeful Abdullah Abdullah says the Taliban can “absolutely” run in the 2019 elections, but only if they stop fighting and helping groups like al-Qaeda.
“If [the] Taliban give up fighting and violence and sever their links with the terrorist groups and turn themselves into a political entity and fight for their cause politically and join the political process, the people of Afghanistan will be ready to accept that,” he said.
Abdullah believes the Taliban is the obstacle to peace in Afghanistan and is responsible for prolonging the war.
When asked about a recent study that estimated that the Afghan government controls barely 55 percent of the country’s districts, Abdullah admitted it was a “serious challenge”.
“If they [the Taliban] want to continue the war forever, that’s their choice. If they want to come and sit and talk about peace, there is an opportunity,” he added.
This week’s headliner, Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah.
Has the US ‘war on drugs’ failed?
It has been five decades since former US President Richard Nixon declared a so-called “war on drugs”, one that is estimated to have cost more than $1trillion.
Despite the vast amount of money spent, the war is far from over. President Donald Trump now claims a wall on the border with Mexico will stop drugs from coming into the country. However, with the majority of drugs arriving via legal ports of entry, can the wall stop them?
The former head of the special operations division at the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Derek Maltz, admits it will not solve the crisis, but insists it will make a difference.
“The wall will actually help the border patrol and the experts to get a better handle on it,” says Maltz.
Sanho Tree, director of drug policy for the Institute for Policy Studies, says traffickers will always find ways to get drugs into the country.
He points out that Trump has backed down from his original plan for a solid concrete wall, instead suggesting a wall with slats.
“What’s the first countermeasure you’re going to do if you’re a drug trafficker? Three and a half inch wide packaging,” says Tree.
“When a dose of fentanyl is a couple of grains of sand, imagine how much of that you can push, literally hand through that wall,” he added.
In the Arena, Derek Maltz and Sanho Tree debate whether the so-called “war on drugs” has failed.
Captain Marvel was the first time we saw Captain Marvel. But it wasn’t Brie Larson’s first time playing her.
Because Avengers: Endgame shot back-to-back with Avengers: Infinity War, it was completed before Captain Marvel began production — which meant that figuring out who Captain Marvel would be in their movie required a bit of outside help.
“A lot of it was working with [Ryan] Fleck and [Anna] Boden as they were developing [Captain Marvel],” Joe told Mashable of creating Captain Marvel for Endgame.
“As far as Marvel is a relay race where people are handing the baton off to each other, that was as collaborative an effort as we’ve had introducing a new character,” he continued. “Whereas with Black Panther and Spider-Man, we were making those choices exclusively because there were no future films in the works yet.”
Larson, for her part, seems to have fond memories of the process. “I had to stumble and figure out who this character was, with no script for this and no script for Captain Marvel either, and perform for the first time in front of legends,” she said at the Endgame press conference. “But it was incredible.”
Even with all that communication and collaboration, fans have already picked up on the fact that the Captain Marvel of Endgame looks a little different from the Captain Marvel of Captain Marvel. Specifically, she looks more made up.
Some fans wondered if this might be a case of male directors failing to understand a female character, or a studio imposing a more glammed-up look for one of their marquee heroes.
Not so, says Joe. According to him, Captain Marvel’s Endgame blowout and darker lip were Larson’s idea.
“I think she was experimenting with what the character was. And those were the choices that she and her hair and makeup team had made,” he said to /Film. “And I think as she started to gain a deeper understanding of the character, especially as she approached her own movie, she started to make different choices.”
Okay, sure — that makes sense from a filmmaking standpoint. But seeing as decades have passed between Captain Marvel and Avengers: Endgame, might there be some story reason for the makeover?
Unsurprisingly, the Russos aren’t saying. Asked how Captain Marvel might be different in Endgame, Joe declined to answer. “That gets too specific to what her story is in the movie.”
Mother figures are the backbone of the world. Yours may be your biological mother, or maybe she’s your mother-in-law, your best friend’s mom, or simply someone whose motherly instinct has helped you through hard times.
Moms teach you the adulting necessities, give advice even if the problem is your fault, and above all, they put up with your shit and (almost) never complain.
The game plan here isn’t just to snag the last bouquet at CVS just so you’re not the kid who forgot Mother’s Day (but definitely also get flowers). And you don’t even need to spend a lot of money. (Peep our list of Mother’s Day gifts that cost less than $50 here. Want even more cheap gift ideas? Go here.)
Skip the generic mugs and show your appreciation with a gift picked just for her: Whether it’s something to make a part of her life easier, something she’s mentioned wanting in passing, or simply something to make her feel like a damn queen, you can’t put a price on everything she’s done for you, but heartfelt gifts certainly help.
After all, they say “No matter how hard you try, you always end up like your mother.” But is that even a bad thing?
More than 70 British members of parliament have signed a letter urging the home secretary to ensure that WikiLeaks cofounder Julian Assangeis extradited to Sweden if a case there is reopened against him.
The letter, signed late on Friday by mostly Labour PartyMPs, urged UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid to “stand with the victims of sexual violence” and ensure the rape claim against him can be “properly investigated”.
“We do not presume guilt, of course, but we believe due process should be followed and the complainant should see justice be done,” it said.
The 47-year-old Australian activist wasarrested by British policeon Thursday and forcibly removed from the Ecuadorian embassy in London after his asylum was revoked, bringing to an end more than six years in the building.
Assange originally sought asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition toSweden, where prosecutors wanted to question him over a rape allegation, which he denied.
Sweden suspended its investigation of serious sexual misconduct two years ago because Assange was beyond their reach while at the embassy.
But on Friday, Swedish prosecutors said they were examining the rape case at the request of the alleged victim’s lawyer.
‘Embarrassing information’
British Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott said it was right that he should face justice if charges are brought.
“If the Swedish government wants to come forward with those charges, I believe that Assange should face the criminal justice system,” said Abbott, who added that the arrest was politically motivated as WikiLeaks has published enormous tranches of sensitive military information.
“We all know what this is about. It’s not the rape charges, serious as they are, it’s aboutWikiLeaks. All that embarrassing information about the activities of the American military that was made public and that is what it is about.”
The move by British MPs to push for Assange’s extradition to Sweden came hours after the Labour Party called on the government to halt his extradition to the United States, where he has been charged with offences related to his work with whistle-blower Chelsea Manning.
Abbott said Prime Minister Theresa May should intervene as she did in the case of British hacker Gary McKinnon, whose extradition request she rejected on medical grounds in 2012.
But May has shown no desire to interfere with the US’s wishes this time. She welcomed the arrest in Parliamenton Thursday, where Sajid Javid, the current home secretary, accused Labour of supporting a man with “a track record of undermining the UK and our allies and the values we stand for”.
US prosecutors say Assangefaces five years in prisonif convicted of “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion”, though further charges are expected to be brought against him.
Abbott’s comments followed a poston Twitterby Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn on Thursday that praised Assange’s exposing of US war crimes inIraqandAfghanistan and said that his extradition to the US “should be opposed by the British government”.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said he is open to a third summit with US President Donald Trump but that failure to reach mutually acceptable terms risked reviving tensions, state media KCNA said on Friday.
“It is essential for the US to quit its current method and approach us with a new one,” Kim said in a speech to the Supreme People’s Assembly on Friday.
“If it [the United States] keeps thinking that way, it will never be able to move the DPRK even a knuckle nor gain any interests no matter how many times it may sit for talks with the DPRK.”
Kim said he would wait until the end of the year “for the US to make a courageous decision” on another meeting, after his most recent summit with Trump in Vietnam broke down and both sides left without an agreement.
Trump and Kim have met twice, in Hanoi in February and Singapore in June, building good will but failing to agree on a deal to lift sanctions in exchange for North Korea abandoning its nuclear and missile programs.
Washington has blamed the February deadlock on the North’s demands for sanctions relief in return for limited nuclear disarmament, but Pyongyang said it had wanted only some of the measures eased.
In Hanoi, the US came “to the talks only racking its brain to find ways that are absolutely impracticable” and did “not really ready itself to sit with us face-to-face and settle the problem,” Kim said.
Escalating hostility
Kim said that despite his good relationship with Trump, he would only be interested in attending a third summit if it offered concrete solutions to the dispute.
“[The US] is further escalating the hostility to us with each passing day despite its suggestion for settling the issue through dialogue,” Kim said.
The current US policy of sanctions and pressure is “as foolish and dangerous an act as trying to put out a fire with oil”.
President Trump, meeting with his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in on Friday, said sanctions on North Korea would stay in place.
On Friday, the KCNA reported that Kim was re-elected as chairman of the State Affairs Commission, the nation’s most important decision-making body, during a session of the Supreme People’s Assembly that praised his “outstanding ideological and theoretical wisdom and experienced and seasoned leadership”.
Experts say the new appointments may be a sign of Kim’s desire to keep recent months of up-and-down nuclear diplomacy alive rather than returning to the threats and weapons tests that characterised 2017, when many feared war on the Korean Peninsula.
But the lack of substantial disarmament commitments from the North and the deepening impasse in nuclear negotiations have raised doubts on whether Kim would ever voluntarily relinquish an arsenal he may see as his strongest guarantee of survival.
Some experts say that it is becoming clear the North intends to turn the talks with the US into a bilateral arms reduction negotiation between two nuclear states, rather than a unilateral process of surrendering its arsenal.
Kim has signed vague statements calling for the “complete denuclearisation” of the peninsula in his meetings with Trump and Moon.
But North Korea for decades has been pushing a concept of denuclearisation that bears no resemblance to the American definition, with Pyongyang vowing to pursue nuclear development until the US removes its troops and the nuclear umbrella defending South Korea and Japan.
Daily Trends Hunter 