Trump cancels meeting with Putin at G-20 summit


Donald Trump

President Donald Trump has been under increasing pressure to take a hard line on Russia’s decision to fire on Ukrainian ships and capture their crew. | Win McNamee/Getty Images

BUENOS AIRES — President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that he is canceling a planned bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the G-20 summit here, citing Russia’s recent confrontation with Ukrainian ships.

“Based on the fact that the ships and sailors have not been returned to Ukraine from Russia, I have decided it would be best for all parties concerned to cancel my previously scheduled meeting….,” Trump tweeted, adding in a second tweet, “….in Argentina with President Vladimir Putin. I look forward to a meaningful Summit again as soon as this situation is resolved!”

Story Continued Below

Trump has been under increasing pressure to take a hard line on Russia’s decision to fire on Ukrainian ships in waters off the Crimean Peninsula and capture their crew.

The decision to scuttle the meeting comes on the same day that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about, among other things, having conversations with Trump about a Russian real estate project during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump asserted to reporters earlier Thursday that Cohen was lying to get a reduced sentence.

Cohen struck his plea deal Thursday with special counsel Robert Mueller, marking the second time the special counsel’s has made a major move in its probe just ahead of a planned Trump meeting with Putin. The special counsel previously indicted 12 Russian military officials just days before Trump met with Putin in Helsinki, Finland.

A White House spokeswoman did not immediately respond to an inquiry about whether the Cohen fallout affected the decision to cancel the meeting.

Trump announced the cancellation of the Putin meeting aboard Air Force One en route to the G-20 conference. He appeared to change his mind quickly about whether to attend. Before departing the White House, he told reporters that he would press on with the huddle.

“We thought about terminating that meeting, but … I think it’s a good time to have the meeting,” he said. “I’m getting a full report on [the] plane with what happened with respect to [the Ukraine situation] and that will determine whether I will be meeting [with Putin].”

Earlier this week, White House aides said Trump was expected to discuss national security and economic issues with Putin.

July’s high-profile Trump-Putin summit in Finland ended up mired in controversy after the U.S. president publicly sided with Moscow over his own intelligence agencies and refused to condemn the Russia for interfering in the 2016 election.

Trump has repeatedly come under fire for appearing to defer to Putin’s denials about election interference, though he and the White House have sought to walk back those comments.

During his weekend trip to Buenos Aires, Trump is scheduled to participate in several other bilateral meetings with world leaders, including a Saturday dinner meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping during which they hope to make progress on the countries’ trade dispute.

Matthew Choi contributed to this story.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2ABetKW
via IFTTT

Trump calls Michael Cohen a ‘weak person’ after new plea deal


Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters on the South Lawn before leaving the White House on Thursday to attend the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina. | AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

President Donald Trump on Thursday called Michael Cohen a “weak person” after his former personal lawyer reached a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller over lying to congressional investigators about a Russia real estate project.

Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn as he left for the G-20 summit in Buenos Aires, Trump also said that Cohen was “not a very smart person” who he accused of lying to get a more lenient sentence and press attention.

Story Continued Below

Cohen appeared in court in Manhattan on Thursday morning and admitted to lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the timeline regarding his work on a project to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, which took place during the presidential campaign.

Trump defended the project on Thursday, telling reporters he had ultimately dropped the Trump Tower Moscow project, but had the deal gone through, “it would be nothing wrong. I was running my business while I was campaigning.”

“There was a good chance that I wouldn’t have won, in which case I would have gotten back into the business,” Trump said. “And why should I lose lots of opportunities?”

He also insisted that the project was public knowledge. “It was a well-known project during the early part of [20]16 and I guess even before that. It lasted a short period of time,” Trump claimed.

Cohen’s latest admission is separate from a plea he entered in August, in which he pleaded guilty to fraud relating to his taxi medallion businesses, bank fraud and campaign finance violations stemming from his work with Trump. Following that plea, Cohen agreed to cooperate with Mueller on his investigation into whether or not the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2FPfk0K
via IFTTT

Metrics 101: How LeBron, Durant, Other MVP Candidates Would Look in Past Eras

0 of 5

    Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

    Pace has taken center stage during the NBA‘s 2018-19 season, with teams capitalizing upon widespread acceptance of three-point proliferations and the new freedom-of-movement rules by pushing the tempo toward metronome-breaking levels. 

    But while this is an abrupt and drastic shift compared to the recent portion of basketball history, the macro view indicates that it’s just another blip on the ever-changing pace roller-coaster. To demonstrate that, we’re looking at how the league’s five leading MVP candidates—determined in wholly objective fashion by Basketball Reference’s MVP Award Tracker—would have fared during three other eras. 

    First came the run-and-gun ’60s, which saw teams operate at far quicker speeds than we’re seeing today. We’re using the 126.2 pace from 1961-62 as the basis of our statistical translation, allowing current standouts to stack up against Wilt Chamberlain’s heroics (50.4 points and 25.7 rebounds per game) and Oscar Robertson’s triple-double campaign.

    Player comparisons will stem from the entirety of the decade—first the ’60s and then the others—to allow for more data points. They were calculated by adding up the percent errors between the current stars and compared-to predecessors in each of the five major box-score categories.

    The second era under the microscope is the Showtime ’80s, complete with the high-flying Los Angeles Lakers offense and the ever-competitive Boston Celtics. This time, the 103.1 pace from 1982-83 figures into the math, while we’re comparing to players from 1979-80 through 1985-86. 

    Finally, we’re slowing down with the grind-it-out ’00s (and a bit of the late ’90s). Hero ball took center stage as squads bled out the shot clock and played physical defense, as evidenced by the championship-winning heroics of the defense-first San Antonio Spurs and Detroit Pistons. We’ll be using 2005-06’s 90.5 pace for the numbers, while all seasons from 1997-98 through 2005-06 are fair game for the comparisons. 

    Do keep in mind that this is purely a pace-driven exercise. We’re not concerned with three-point trends, increases in player skill and conditioning, the tendency of earlier standouts to log more minutes, the hand-check rules or anything else that would typically factor into era translations. Pace is all that matters as we look at where this season stands in the grand scheme of NBA trends. 

1 of 5

    Streeter Lecka/Getty Images

    2018-19 Per-Game Stats: 26.8 points, 13.0 rebounds, 5.9 assists, 1.4 steals, 1.3 blocks

    Giannis Antetokounmpo is a stat-stuffing machine, capable of filling myriad roles for the Milwaukee Bucks. Though he’s not a threat to rise and fire from beyond the rainbow, he renders those limitations irrelevant with his Pterodactyl wingspan (7’3″) and elongated gate, both of which combine to give him unfettered access to the basket even when greeted with sagging defensive coverage. 

    One night, Antetokounmpo can call his own number with shocking frequency. The next, he can function as a primary playmaker. All the while, he’s making a tremendous impact on the boards while using his length to play smothering defense. 

    Maybe he’s not the best player in the world, but he’s closer than ever to assuming that mantle. 

    Antetokounmpo in the Run-and-Gun ’60s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 33.8 points, 16.4 rebounds, 7.4 assists, 1.8 steals, 1.6 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 34.0 points, 14.3 rebounds, 4.8 assists (1962-63 Elgin Baylor)

    Comparisons in the ’60s are tough, particularly because the NBA didn’t yet track steal and block data, leaving us with only three valid data points from the per-game lines. Fortunately, Antetokounmpo still stacks up nicely against Hall of Fame forward Elgin Baylor, who functioned as one of the Association’s original all-around threats. 

    Again, we’re not worrying about stylistic differences. Nor are we concerned with the fact that the league hadn’t yet witnessed a player with Antetokounmpo’s length and ball-handling ability. If anything, his numbers might rise even higher than the ones listed above, though it’s worth noting official scorekeepers were a bit more hesitant to hand out assists for passes that didn’t directly lead to buckets. 

    But this should still place Antetokounmpo in some rather favorable light, as ’63 Baylor, who trails the aptly nicknamed Greek Freak in two of the three relevant categories, finished behind only the indomitable Bill Russell in that year’s MVP voting.

    Antetokounmpo in the Showtime ’80s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 27.6 points, 13.4 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 1.4 steals, 1.3 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 28.7 points, 10.5 rebounds, 6.6 assists, 1.6 steals, 1.2 blocks (1984-85 Larry Bird)

    From one legend to another. And this time, the comparison provides an even more sparkling fit. 

    Larry Bird played a different game than Antetokounmpo, relying far more on his mind-numbing skill and precision shooting than high-flying exploits and interminable limbs. But the two produced similar stats, ranging from their competition in the scoring race—Antetokounmpo is seventh this year, while Bird trailed only Bernard King in 1984-85—to their defensive acumen. 

    Our data doesn’t factor in the actual quality of defense; steals and blocks are nice to have, but they can be awfully misleading. Nor does it account for efficiency levels. But in sheer happenstance, we’re still comparing two strong stoppers who could guard multiple positions, and their true shooting percentages stand at a staggering 61.5 for the current standout and 58.5 for his predecessor. 

    Antetokounmpo in the Grind-it-Out ’00s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 24.2 points, 11.8 rebounds, 5.3 assists, 1.3 steals, 1.2 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 23.0 points, 10.5 rebounds, 5.4 assists, 1.6 steals, 1.3 blocks (2002-03 Chris Webber)

    Usually, the list of top comparisons in any single era draws from many different All-Stars. But that’s not the case when we adjust Antetokounmpo’s numbers for the slow-paced, defense-first era that spanned the change of millenniums.

    Take a gander at the top 10: 

    1. 2002-03 Chris Webber
    2. 2001-02 Kevin Garnett
    3. 1999-00 Kevin Garnett
    4. 2004-05 Kevin Garnett
    5. 2005-06 Kevin Garnett
    6. 2001-02 Chris Webber
    7. 2002-03 Kevin Garnett
    8. 2000-01 Kevin Garnett
    9. 2001-02 Tracy McGrady
    10. 2005-06 Tracy McGrady

    The universe might be trying to tell us something. 

2 of 5

    Noah Graham/Getty Images

    2018-19 Per-Game Stats: 29.2 points, 7.8 rebounds, 6.1 assists, 1.0 steals, 1.1 blocks

    Breaking news: Kevin Durant is a fearsome scorer. 

    After exploding for 44 points against the Sacramento Kings and 49 against the Orlando Magic two nights later, the forward is averaging 29.2 points while shooting 50.8 percent from the field and 93.1 percent at the stripe. Even though he’s having trouble with his long-range marksmanship (32.3 percent), he’s throwing up numbers that would make even the most potent scorers from NBA history a bit envious. 

    Except Durant isn’t just a scorer, as evidenced by his glass-eating prowess and ability to get the other members of the Golden State Warriors involved with his distributing flair. 

    Durant in the Run-and-Gun ’60s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 36.8 points, 9.8 rebounds, 7.7 assists, 1.3 steals, 1.4 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 30.5 points, 10.1 rebounds, 9.7 assists (1960-61 Oscar Robertson)

    If Durant were just a scorer, he wouldn’t be drawing the Oscar Robertson comparison. 

    Granted, this is by no means a perfect fit. Durant scores at a more impressive rate than the legendary point guard did during this early portion of his career, and he can’t quite keep pace on the glass or in the assist column. But no one is a better match, which is telling in and of itself. 

    This is also a good indication of just how audacious numbers became during the uptempo ’60s. That’s not meant to discredit the triple-double stylings of Robertson, but let’s also run the reverse calculation. A pace translation to today’s numbers (still elevated, though not nearly to the same extent) would leave him averaging “only” 24.2 points, 8.0 rebounds and 7.7 assists. 

    Durant in the Showtime ’80s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 30.1 points, 8.0 rebounds, 6.3 assists, 1.0 steals, 1.1 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 26.4 points, 5.7 rebounds, 5.0 assists, 1.0 steals, 1.2 blocks (1983-84 Alex English)

    By the time his career comes to a close, Durant will unquestionably enjoy a better legacy than Alex English. Even back in 2015, before the current MVP candidate joined the Warriors and added two titles to his resume, I had him ranked No. 42 among every player in league history. English, meanwhile, checked in at No. 69.

    But on a one-season basis, this comparison flies. 

    English was one of the scorers who helped define the ’80s, torching one foe after another with a high-release jumper that was as tough to block as Durant’s is today. But he could also hold his own as a rebounder and distributor while making the occasional impact play on defense—not exactly his strength, of course. 

    Though Durant’s numbers topple his (almost in across-the-board fashion) while pushing past the 30-point threshold, piecing together the similarity isn’t difficult. 

    Durant in the Grind-it-Out ’00s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 26.4 points, 7.1 rebounds, 5.5 assists, 0.9 steals, 1.0 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 24.4 points, 6.5 rebounds, 4.8 assists, 1.3 steals, 0.9 blocks (2005-06 Tracy McGrady)

    After their come-from-behind victory over the Magic on Monday, the Warriors are using 99.8 possessions per 48 minutes, which leaves them behind 15 other organizations. Thirteen years ago, Tracy McGrady’s Houston Rockets sat at No. 25 in pace by using 88 possessions over the same average span. 

    The league has changed a bit, with three-point proclivities and freedom of movement encouraging offenses to use even more shooting attempts on a nightly basis. But under either set of styles, Durant would thrive as a scorer. 

    His adjusted 26.4 points per game would still leave him behind just Kobe Bryant (35.4), Allen Iverson (33.0), LeBron James (31.4), Gilbert Arenas (29.3), Dwyane Wade (27.2), Paul Pierce (26.8), Dirk Nowitzki (26.6) and Carmelo Anthony (26.5) on the 2005-06 scoring leaderboard, pushing him slightly past McGrady while also claiming the superior rebounding, assist and block figures.

    Maybe he’d stay healthier too, since the high-scoring small forward who came before him could only suit up 47 times during the relevant campaign. 

    Plus, this might be a low estimate—the product of modern-day ball-sharing systems that run counter to the hero ball that so often defined the ’00s. 

3 of 5

    Andrew D. Bernstein/Getty Images

    2018-19 Per-Game Stats: 28.3 points, 7.9 rebounds, 6.9 assists, 1.3 steals, 0.9 blocks

    This is uncharted territory for LeBron James. 

    Not because he’s posting well-rounded numbers not yet produced during his illustrious career. He’s done that many times in the past, and he’ll likely have at least a few more seasons throwing up astronomical figures.

    No, we’re focused entirely on pace here. Still.

    During James’ first stint with the Cleveland Cavaliers, which spanned from his rookie season (2003-04) until the infamous decision to take his talents to South Beach in 2010, his team never used more than 91.4 possessions per 48 minutes. That swelled to 98.0 by 2017-18 (his final go-round back in Cleveland), which also topped his high-water mark with the Miami Heat (91.2). 

    This year with the Los Angeles Lakers? Well, the Purple and Gold are using 103.2 possessions per 48 minutes—No. 5 in the league and easily the highest mark of James’ career. 

    James in the Run-and-Gun ’60s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 35.7 points, 10.0 rebounds, 8.7 assists, 1.6 steals, 1.1 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 30.5 points, 10.1 rebounds, 9.7 assists (1960-61 Oscar Robertson)

    This is the same comparison drawn by Kevin Durant. But this time, it’s an even better fit. 

    Prorate James’ stats for the breathtaking pace employed in the early ’60s, and he’d push tantalizingly close to averaging a triple-double for the first time. Except that’s not all he’d do while leaving Robertson in the proverbial dust with his scoring ability. Only two players in NBA history have ever bested 35.7 points per game for a season: Wilt Chamberlain (five times) and Michael Jordan. 

    Yes, Durant would average even more. But would he be doing so with double-digit rebounds and more assists per game than all but Robertson (9.7) and Guy Rodgers (8.7) averaged during the 1960-61 campaign? 

    James in the Showtime ’80s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 29.1 points, 8.1 rebounds, 7.1 assists, 1.3 steals, 0.9 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 28.1 points, 9.2 rebounds, 7.6 assists, 1.8 steals, 0.9 blocks (1986-87 Larry Bird)

    Stylistically, James is far more similar to Magic Johnson than Larry Bird. He often plays with a pass-first mentality and has a knack for compiling highlight-reel assists that result from no-look endeavors or tricky feeds on the break. The transition into a Johnson clone hasn’t happened yet because of James’ enduring scoring tools, but it’s seemed imminent for quite some time

    But from a purely numerical standpoint, James stacks up best alongside 1986-87 Bird, who failed to win a fourth consecutive MVP trophy but still finished behind only Johnson and Jordan in the voting. The two best small forwards of all time, they can and could contribute in every way imaginable, whether wreaking havoc with possession-ending defensive plays or pushing toward triple-doubles while carrying heavy scoring loads. 

    Also, please keep in mind that Bird was four years younger than present-day James during this particular season. 

    James in the Grind-it-Out ’00s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 25.6 points, 7.1 rebounds, 6.2 assists, 1.2 steals, 0.8 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 27.6 points, 5.9 rebounds, 6.0 assists, 1.3 steals, 0.8 blocks (2004-05 Kobe Bryant)

    Comparing James to prime Kobe Bryant is plenty fun. So too is the similarity between the current Lakers leader and 2005-06 Tracy McGrady, who earned the No. 2 similarity score here. But the third finisher is perhaps most telling: 2005-06 LeBron James. 

    Yes, you’re reading that correctly. 

    This version of James, who’s playing out his age-34 season, stacks up favorably against the exploits of a 21-year-old James who averaged 31.4 points, 7.0 rebounds, 6.6 assists, 1.6 steals and 0.8 blocks while finishing behind only Steve Nash in the MVP voting. His adjusted numbers don’t rise quite as high in most categories, but that’s still some solid evidence that he’s staving off the unavoidable advances of Father Time. 

4 of 5

    Vaughn Ridley/Getty Images

    2018-19 Per-Game Stats: 24.7 points, 8.5 rebounds, 3.0 assists, 1.7 steals, 0.5 blocks

    Kawhi Leonard’s numbers aren’t quite as glamorous as those of the first three forwards featured in this article. His MVP candidacy is based more on the team-wide success enjoyed by the 17-4 Toronto Raptors, as well as his all-around contributions that don’t always show up in the stat sheet. 

    When Leonard generates a steal or blocks a shot, that gets recorded. When he switches onto a tough assignment and uses his quick-twitch instincts and long arms to stifle his opponent into a pass rather than a shooting attempt, that doesn’t. But it still matters, impacting the winning cause of the team that’s inserting itself as the one to beat in the Eastern Conference. 

    Just keep that in mind when you cycle through these relatively lackluster lines. 

    Leonard in the Run-and-Gun ’60s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 31.1 points, 10.7 rebounds, 3.8 assists, 2.1 steals, 0.6 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 31.2 points, 8.9 rebounds, 3.5 assists (1959-60 Jack Twyman)

    This may qualify as “relatively lackluster” when stacked up against Antetokounmpo, Durant and James, but it’s still a phenomenal collection of statistics. 

    Though Jack Twyman’s name might not resonate with younger crowds, let’s not forget that he became a Hall of Famer with six All-Star appearances and two All-NBA selections. The 1959-60 season resulted in both accolades, as well as enough credit to fall behind only Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy and Elgin Baylor in the MVP voting

    Oh, and Leonard was better. He might be scoring 0.1 fewer points per game, but he’s more impactful on the glass and as a distributor while playing with significantly more efficiency. 

    Leonard in the Showtime ’80s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 25.3 points, 8.8 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 1.8 steals, 0.5 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 20.1 points, 10.6 rebounds, 2.8 assists, 1.7 steals, 0.5 blocks (1982-83 Clark Kellogg)

    Rather than focus on the shaky comparison to Clark Kellogg, who didn’t play above-average defense and, much like Twyman, doesn’t resonate with today’s fanbases as a legend, let’s instead shine a spotlight on how impressive Leonard’s numbers would’ve been during the Showtime era.

    Freed up to play even more uptempo basketball in a system that encouraged transition attacks and displays of athleticism, he’d submit a well-rounded line few have been able to match. 

    Throughout the sport’s history, 324 players have scored at least 25.3 points per game during a qualified season. Include 8.8 rebounds per contest, and the list dwindles to 120. That shrinks further to 77 when the 3.1 assists per game enter the picture and then to just five with the 1.8 steals. Finally, the 0.5 blocks per game bring us to only four relevant seasons: two from Hakeem Olajuwon and two from Larry Bird. 

    Leonard remains unique, even if the Kellogg comparison might not initially indicate as much.

    Leonard in the Grind-it-Out ’00s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 22.3 points, 7.7 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.5 steals, 0.5 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 17.0 points, 8.9 rebounds, 2.8 assists, 1.4 steals, 0.5 blocks (1998-99 Tom Gugliotta)

    Were we including actual defensive ability and offensive efficiency, Leonard would blow Tom Gugliotta out of the water. His numbers are already more impressive on a per-game basis, assuming you’d rather have an additional 5.3 points and 0.1 steals than an extra 1.2 rebounds and 0.1 assists. But that comparison only works on the most basic level. 

    During the 1998-99 season, Gugliotta posted a 0.7 defensive box plus/minus (still based largely on box-score figures, since we don’t have many high-quality defensive metrics for the present day, much less for seasons two decades prior) and a 54.5 true shooting percentage. He earned 0.165 win shares per 48 minutes. 

    Leonard is posting a 1.0 defensive box plus/minus (which always sells him short because of his willingness to take on tough burdens), registering a 57.5 true shooting percentage and accumulating 0.2 win shares per 48 minutes. 

    Enough said. 

5 of 5

    Vaughn Ridley/Getty Images

    2018-19 Per-Game Stats: 15.2 points, 4.4 rebounds, 10.4 assists, 1.3 steals, 0.3 blocks

    Kyle Lowry isn’t your typical MVP candidate. 

    Though his passing has verged on flawless, he’s played lockdown defense against plenty of different assignments, and he’s slashing a respectable 45.6/34.6/83.1 with minimal turnovers. He’s also scoring just 15.2 points per game. In the history of the MVP award, only two players have held up the coveted trophy while averaging fewer points: Bill Russell (14.1 in 1964-65) and Wes Unseld (13.8 in 1968-69). 

    Lowry isn’t Russell or Unseld reincarnate. Shocking, I know. 

    Just don’t mistake the lack of points-per-game production for a lack of value. The Raptors see their net rating skyrocket from minus-5.1 to 13.7 when this point guard is on the floor, and he sits at No. 2 in ESPN.com’s Real Plus-Minus wins added. 

    Lowry in the Run-and-Gun ’60s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 19.2 points, 5.5 rebounds, 13.1 assists, 1.6 steals, 0.4 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 18.6 points, 5.3 rebounds, 10.7 assists (1965-66 Guy Rodgers)

    If you think Kyle Lowry’s league-leading assist tally is impressive now, just imagine what he might have done with the uptempo ’60s working to his advantage. Guy Rodgers, a four-time All-Star for the San Francisco Warriors and Chicago Bulls, is a reasonable comparison because of his scoring, rebounding and double-digit dime habits, but even he falls well shy of Lowry’s 13.1 projected assists per game. 

    To be fair, everyone does. After all, these are the single-season assist leaders from the time frame in question:

    1. 1964-65 Oscar Robertson: 11.5
    2. 1961-62 Oscar Robertson: 11.4
    3. 1966-67 Guy Rodgers: 11.2
    4. 1965-66 Oscar Robertson: 11.1
    5. 1963-64 Oscar Robertson: 11.0
    6. 1966-67 Oscar Robertson: 10.7
    7. 1965-66 Guy Rodgers: 10.7
    8. 1962-63 Guy Rodgers: 10.4

    No one else hit double digits.

    Lowry in the Showtime ’80s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 15.7 points, 4.5 rebounds, 10.7 assists, 1.3 steals, 0.3 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 18.3 points, 3.7 rebounds, 9.6 assists, 1.4 steals, 0.2 blocks (1985-86 Reggie Theus)

    With just the tiniest bit of pace inflation between today’s NBA and the ’80s, Lowry moves even more firmly into double-double territory.

    Considering only 10 men (Sleepy Floyd, Mark Jackson, Kevin Johnson, Magic Johnson, Norm Nixon, Terry Porter, Micheal Ray Richardson, Doc Rivers, John Stockton and Isiah Thomas) averaged point-assist double-doubles during that decade, the Raptors point guard has reason to feel rather proud. Plus, the list shrinks to feature just six floor generals when we include four dimes per game among the criteria.

    We’re still not dealing with earth-shattering numbers, but Lowry isn’t ever going to produce those types of figures. He’s a steady presence who makes his teammates better, whether operating at a slow, fast or lightning-quick pace. 

    Lowry in the Grind-it-Out ’00s

    Pace-Adjusted Stats: 13.7 points, 4.0 rebounds, 9.4 assists, 1.2 steals, 0.3 blocks

    Closest Comparison: 12.6 points, 3.8 rebounds, 7.5 assists, 1.4 steals, 0.3 blocks (1999-00 Rod Strickland)

    Finding a viable comparison for Lowry in the early 2000s is a tough task, as Mark Jackson, Jason Kidd, Andre Miller, Steve Nash, Rod Strickland and John Stockton were the only six players from the era in question to average more assists than his projected 9.4 per game.

    Kidd and Miller were far better rebounders. Nash didn’t play defense. And that leaves only three players we can realistically choose, which means the numbers are working correctly by spitting out ’00 Strickland.

    We can also safely assume that Lowry’s game would translate to more wins than the 29-53 Washington Wizards earned under Strickland’s supervision. Go ahead and Sharpie that one in. 

    Adam Fromal covers the NBA for Bleacher Report. Follow him on Twitter: @fromal09.

    Unless otherwise indicated, all stats accurate heading into games on Nov. 27 and courtesy of Basketball Reference, NBA.com, PBPStats.com, NBA Math or ESPN.com

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2FNKG7Z
via IFTTT

The Saudi women detained for demanding basic human rights

Saudi Arabia continues to hold more than a dozen women rights activists in jail, months after a crackdown on dissent intensified in May.

Most of them campaigned for the right to drive and an end to the kingdom’s male guardianship system, which requires women to obtain the consent of a male relative for major decisions.

In 1990, more than 40 women drove their cars in the capital Riyadh, the first public demonstration against the ban, which is now lifted. They also called for the abolishment of the male guardianship system.

Since then, other similar protests have been held, and the government initiated a crackdown on rights activists this year.

Those under arrest have been branded threats to national security and have been accused of being foreign agents. They face up to 20 years in prison if convicted.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) said that the reason for the arrest is to silence the women and prevent others from participating in activism.

Rights organisations and governments around the world have called on the Saudi authorities to release all political prisoners, but to no avail.

Last week, Amnesty International said Saudi activists, including women, who have been arrested in this year’s crackdown have faced sexual harassment and torture during interrogation.

The activists, held in Dhahban prison on the western Red Sea coast, faced repeated electrocution and flogging, leaving some of them unable to stand or walk, the Amnesty International said in a report, citing three separate testimonies.

At least one activist was made to hang from the ceiling and another woman was sexually harassed by interrogators wearing face masks, the United Kingdom-based rights group added.

Yahya al-Assiri, the head of ALQST, a London-based Saudi rights group, said that authorities targeted male human rights activists in the past, but as the “regime became more aggressive” they also began targeting women.

“To justify that, they’re trying to say that [these women] are coordinating with embassies, or foreign countries … To say to the people that they are traitors,” al-Assiri told Al Jazeera.

Many activists have mostly been held incommunicado, without access to their families or lawyers.

Below are some of the prominent women dissidents jailed for demanding basic rights.

Loujain al-Hathloul

[Illustration by Jawahir Al-Naimi/Al Jazeera]

Loujain al-Hathloul is a women’s rights activist from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. She obtained an undergraduate degree in French Literature from the University of British Columbia in Canada and then pursued a Master’s degree in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

For years, she advocated for the women’s right to drive in the kingdom, and in 2013 actively participated in a campaign where she posted videos of herself driving in an attempt to encourage women to do the same.

With an active social media presence, the 29-year-old had been arrested several times for defying the now-lifted ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia.

لم نعد دولة بمعزل عن العالم وبإمكان أي شخص جمع الحقائق عن واقعنا، لذلك علينا أن نسعى إلى التطوير دون تجاهل آلام أخواتنا والنطق بما يجرحهن ويضلل واقعهن خاصة في زمن نستشعر فيه رغبة من قبل القيادة في إحداث تغيير لواقع المرأة. #CEDAWSaudi #cedaw69

— لجين هذلول الهذلول (@LoujainHathloul) February 28, 2018

Translation: “We are no longer an isolated country, anyone can gather information about what happens here. That’s why we much strive to develop without ignoring the pain of our sisters, we must speak out about what harms them and their existence, especially at a time where we feel that our leadership is invested in creating change for women.”

Al-Hathloul was most recently imprisoned in May 2018, months after King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud signed a royal decree in September 2017 that said women would be allowed to drive “in accordance with Islamic laws”.

She, along with other female activists who had been calling for the lifting of the ban, was instructed not to comment on the decision prior to its announcement, HRW reported.

Two years prior to her latest arrest, al-Hathloul spent 73 days in jail and faced charges of “terrorism” for attempting to drive into Saudi Arabia from the neighbouring UAE in November 2014.

At the time, Samah Hadid, director of campaigns at Amnesty International in the Middle East, said, “The Saudi Arabian authorities’ continuous harassment of Loujain al-Hathloul is absurd and unjustifiable … It appears she is being targeted once again because of her peaceful work as a human rights defender speaking out for women’s rights, which are consistently trammelled in the kingdom.”

In 2016, al-Hathloul signed a petition with thousands of others calling for the abolishment of the male guardianship system. The following year, she was arrested without charge and was unable to contact her lawyer or family members until she was eventually released shortly after.

In an interview with the Economist in January 2016, al-Hathloul highlighted the challenges women in the kingdom face when they are unable to drive. She said she had dedicated 30 percent of her salary to drivers, and said having to “beg” people to driver her around was “insulting”.

“They [government] told us that we are actually protected, that we have the right to express ourselves freely without being condemned or sent to jail … but in practice it’s not there,” al-Hathloul said.

“They still send us to jail for very normal, rationalised opinions”.

When asked what kind of country she would like Saudi to become, al-Hathloul said “a Saudi Arabia that respects people’s differences and human rights”.

Al-Hathloul has been married to Saudi stand-up comedian and actor Fahad al-Butairi since 2014. Al-Butairi, a prominent comedian who had a large social media following, was also arrested earlier this year.

Samar Badawi

[Illustration by Jawahir Al-Naimi/Al Jazeera]

Samar Badawi, an award-winning activist, is known for her legal battle with her abusive father, who filed a lawsuit against her when she sought refuge in a women’s shelter in 2008.

As a result, she was arrested and spent six months in jail on the charge of “parental disobedience”. She was then released after a Jeddah general court ruled in her favour and transferred her guardianship to her uncle.

Since, Badawi has advocated for the abolishment of the male guardianship system, which among other things, grants male custodians the right to prevent their daughters from marrying, studying, or travelling without prior consent.

In 2011, Badawi filed an unsuccessful Grievances Board lawsuit against the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs for the rejection of her registration for the 2011 municipal elections.

“I learned that we have laws to protect women’s rights, but the woman needs to search for them and to how harness them for her own benefit,” Badawi said in an interview.

She also played an active role in the 2012 campaign to end the ban on women driving in the kingdom, and along with fellow activists, filed a lawsuit against the traffic department for refusing to issue her a driver’s licence. 

In March 2012, the United States Department of State honoured Badawi with the International Women of Courage Award for her work and activism.

In 2014, she was subjected to a travel ban and was arrested in 2016 for her human rights work, before being freed on bail.

However, the mother of two was arrested again in July 2018 along with activist Nassima al-Sadah.

“The arrests of Samar Badawi and Nassima al-Sadah signal that the Saudi authorities see any peaceful dissent, whether past or present, as a threat to their autocratic rule,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at HRW, in a statement.

Her latest arrest prompted a diplomatic spat between Saudi Arabia and Canada after the Canadian ministry of foreign affairs said in a tweet it was “gravely concerned” about the detention of rights activists in the kingdom, including Badawi.

Saudi Arabia accused Canada of “blatant interference in the Kingdom’s domestic affairs, against basic international norms and all international protocols”.

Samar is the sister of Raif Badawi, a prominent human rights campaigner sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2014 on charges of insulting Islam. His wife and children are naturalised Canadian citizens.

Eman al-Nafjan

[Illustration by Jawahir Al-Naimi/Al Jazeera]

Eman al-Nafjan is a 39-year-old Saudi blogger and activist who was arrested in May 2018, along with Loujain al-Hathloul and five other female advocates amid a government campaign that accused them of undermining the kingdom’s stability with financial assistance from abroad.

Saudi authorities accused the activists of having “suspicious contact with foreign parties”, providing financial support to “hostile elements abroad”.

According to HRW, the arrests are an attempt to silence dissent.

“Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s ‘reform campaign’ has been a frenzy of fear for genuine Saudi reformers who dare to advocate publicly for human rights or women’s empowerment,” HRW Middle East Director Sarah Leah Whitson said in a statement in May.

“The message is clear that anyone expressing scepticism about the crown prince’s rights agenda faces time in jail.”

Rothna Begum, a researcher at HRW, said the government is trying to silence critics, particularly those who champion women’s rights reforms.

“While it’s not clear why they were arrested, today we have seen Saudi press reports come to suggest that these women are traitors and have been arrested because they are undermining the national unity of the country,” Begum told Al Jazeera at the time.

“What we know is that the Saudi crown prince wants to make it clear to all of his citizens that they are his subjects who must be grateful for whatever liberties he gives them, but they must not demand any of their rights.”

The mother of three obtained her undergraduate degree from the University of Birmingham and worked as a schoolteacher and later as a university assistant.

Al-Nafjan then earned her master’s degree from the same university in teaching English as a foreign language.

She began blogging in 2008, writing mainly about social and cultural issues with a focus on women in Saudi Arabia, referring to the system in place as “gender apartheid”, according to the Washington Post.

A few years later, she joined the women’s driving campaign and published articles in western media outlets to shed light on the campaign to allow women to drive in the kingdom.

When the ban on women driving was lifted, she wrote, “The manner in which the ban was lifted seemed too simple to be real.

Initially, I was overwhelmed with my own powerlessness as a woman living in a patriarchal absolute monarchy. Were our efforts the reason the ban was lifted? Or was it a decision that had been made regardless of our struggles?”

Prior to her arrest, al-Nafjan was working towards completing a PhD in linguistics.

Hatoon al-Fassi

[Illustration by Jawahir Al-Naimi/Al Jazeera]

Hatoon al-Fassi is a women’s rights activist and writer who was arrested by Saudi authorities on June 24. Prior to her arrest, she had been under a travel ban since June 19.

Considered a leading figure in the women’s rights movement in the region, al-Fassi has long been fighting for the rights of Saudi women, including their right to participate in municipal elections.

Al-Fassi, originally from Mecca, is an associate professor of women’s history at King Saud University (KSU) in Saudi Arabia and at the International Affairs Department at Qatar University.

She secured an undergraduate degree in history from KSU, and in 2000, earned a PhD in women’s history from the University of Manchester.

As a scholar, her work focuses on women’s history and politics.

Her most notable work “Women In Pre-Islamic Arabia”, argues women in the pre-Islamic period enjoyed considerable rights in the Nabataean state, an urban Arabian kingdom centred in modern Jordan, south Syria and northwest Saudi Arabia during the Roman empire.

Women in Nabataea enjoyed more freedom than in Saudi Arabia today because Muslim leaders have misunderstood the origins of Islamic law, her research said.

“One of the objectives of this book is to question the assumption of subordination of women in pre-Islamic Arabia,” al-Fassi said.

وما هي صفات الشيوخ؟ وهل بهذا السؤال نسبغ الكمال على الرجال؟

مقالي يتناول الحق ويوضح مدى خسارتنا في ظل احتكار السلطة الدينية دون النساء ومنظورهن للفقه وللقضايا الإنسانية المختلفة. https://t.co/thNcoE9wJg

— د.هتون أجواد الفاسي (@HatoonALFASSI) June 16, 2018

Translation: “And what are the characteristics of sheikhs? Does this question imply perfection in men? My article deals with the truth and clarifies how much we lose when religious authority is monopolised to the exclusion of women and their perspective on fiqh and the issues that affect humanity.”

In 2011, she joined a campaign called “Baladi”, which called for women’s participation in the municipal elections.

To help women interested in running for election, the Baladi campaign had planned to organise training sessions to educate participants on campaigning techniques and help them create agendas.

“The ministry has stopped us from holding these workshops as they wanted the election programme to be more unified and centralised,” al-Fassi said at the time, according to Saudi Gazette.

“As evidenced by the 250 female members of the Baladi campaign, women have expressed their commitment to elect the best person for the job … Whether it is a woman or a man,” she said.

The initiative’s efforts were blocked again during the 2015 municipal elections.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2raMA8m
via IFTTT

Michael Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress


Michael Cohen

In August, Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer, pleaded guilty to federal charges involving his taxi businesses, bank fraud and his campaign work for Trump. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

NEW YORK – Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, made a surprise appearance before a federal judge in New York on Thursday to plead guilty to lying to Congress about work he did on an aborted project to build a Trump Tower in Russia.

Flanked by his lawyers, Cohen admitted making false statements in 2017 to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the project.

Story Continued Below

Cohen told the judge he lied about the timing of the negotiations and other details to be consistent with Trump’s “political message.”

Cohen and prosecutors referred to Trump as “individual one” throughout Thursday’s proceedings and said he lied “to be loyal to Individual One.”

Among other lies, Cohen said he told Congress that all discussions of the Moscow Trump Tower project ended by January 2016, when they had actually continued until June of that year.

One of the prosecutors working with Special Counsel Robert Mueller was present in the courtroom.

Cohen’s lawyer, Guy Petrillo, said he would give the court a letter outlining how his client has cooperated with Mueller’s investigation.

In August, Cohen pleaded guilty to other federal charges involving his taxi businesses, bank fraud and his campaign work for Trump.

Reacting to the plea to the new charges, House Speaker Paul Ryan said Cohen “should be prosecuted to the extent of the law. That’s why we put people under oath.”

Cohen gave a statement to congressional committees last year saying the president’s company pursued a project in Moscow during the Republican primary but that the plan was abandoned “for a variety of business reasons.”

Cohen also said he sent an email to the spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin as part of the potential deal.

In his statement, he said that he worked on the real estate proposal with Felix Sater, a Russia-born associate who he said claimed to have deep connections in Moscow.

The discussions about the potential development began after Trump had declared his candidacy. Cohen had said the talks ended when he determined that the project was not feasible.

Cohen had also disclosed that Trump was personally aware of the deal, signing a letter of intent and discussing it with Cohen on two other occasions.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2FNKCVN
via IFTTT

Ariana Grande’s ‘Breathin’ Gets Reimagined As A Symphonic Adventure Via Mumford & Sons



Getty Images

Mumford & Sons have written their share of songs that champion holding on. They’ve given them names like “Guiding Light,” “After the Storm,” and “I Will Wait.” So it makes sense that the quartet — who just released their fourth album, Delta, last month — would be drawn to one of the most celebratory anthems of self-perseverance of the year: Ariana Grande‘s “Breathin.”

They stopped by BBC Radio 1’s Live Lounge this week to cover it, perhaps surprisingly maintaining its orchestral elements and electronic pulse. In fact, there’s nary an acoustic guitar to be found here (though there is a banjo, if you were checking), all in keeping with the group’s more panoramic new(ish) direction as heard on Delta. “This is Mumford & Sons in 2018,” multi-instrumentalist Ben Lovett told MTV News earlier this year.

While Mumford’s “Breathin” might be missing the stakes of Ari’s beloved original (and that incredible drum sound courtesy of producer Ilya), the band does bring in about two dozen strings to pull off the cresting swells of its melody. And Marcus Mumford doesn’t try to be Ari in his vocal inflections, letting the hopeful lyrics speak for themselves without much flourish.

It’s the second time this week we’ve heard a new take on one of Ari’s modern classics, after The 1975 reimagined “Thank U, Next” as a soulful gospel stomp.

You can watch the cover above, then check out Mumford & Sons talking to MTV News about Delta in full in the clip below.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2rb6ksn
via IFTTT

Trump’s trade war collides with economic reality


Donald Trump

President Donald Trump signaled this week that failure to make progress with Chinese President Xi Jinping could lead him to impose tariffs as high as 25 percent on everything that China exports to the United States. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Trade

Ahead of a critical meeting with China’s leader, the Trump administration’s tariffs are already slamming parts of the U.S. economy.

President Donald Trump is approaching an economic crossroads as he pushes closer to a full-scale trade war with China, even as warning signs flash that the U.S. economy is decelerating and growing increasingly vulnerable to a major shock.

Trump’s trade battles are already slamming parts of the American economy, especially in Midwestern and farm belt states that helped propel him to the White House. Automakers like GM are cutting jobs, closing plants and complaining about billions in tariff-related costs. Soybean crops are rotting in fields with China’s market now closed.

Story Continued Below

Dairy farmers hit by retaliatory charges are selling family businesses. And blue-chip American companies from Whirlpool to Caterpillar and Stanley Black & Decker Inc. have cited higher prices generated by Trump’s tariffs.

As Trump prepares for a high-stakes meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires on Saturday, economists are warning that a full-scale trade war with the world’s second-largest economy could tip markets into panic mode. That could sap business and consumer confidence and further weaken the U.S. economy, presenting an existential risk to Trump’s re-election prospects.

“A disaster meeting in Buenos Aires would be a complete breakdown in negotiations and that would result in big market losses,” said Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic adviser at Allianz. “Tariffs are ‘stagflationary.’ That’s why economists warn about them all the time. They lower growth and they raise inflation.”

But Trump also has an opportunity for a “Reagan moment,” El-Erian noted, by facing down the Chinese and winning some concessions on long-running American complaints about intellectual property theft, forced transfer of western technology and other barriers to U.S. firms doing business in the world’s No. 2 economy.

If Trump’s big bet proves correct — that Xi and the Chinese really don’t want a trade war that will hurt them badly — he could wind up getting a deal and declaring victory much as he did after inking a new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, even if the changes are mostly around the edges.

“Even a modest deal with China would give Trump an immediate victory, give markets a bounce and farmers would rejoice that their lives are not being totally ruined,” said Scott Lincicome, a trade attorney and adjunct scholar at the free-market Cato Institute. “And Trump needs a pick-me-up right now given that economic news is not that great and the dream of 4 percent GDP growth is pretty much off the table and even 3 percent is a real long shot.”

Trump signaled this week that failure to make progress with Xi could lead him to impose tariffs as high as 25 percent on everything that China exports to the United States, meaning significantly higher prices for manufacturers and anyone who uses a cell phone, laptop computer or scores of other consumer goods. The Consumer Technology Association estimates that 80 percent of U.S. cell phones and 92 percent of U.S. tablets and laptops are imported from China.

Trump’s more trade-friendly advisers including National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin are fervently hoping for at least some progress in Buenos Aires even if the Xi meeting ends without any significant concessions from the Chinese.

Economic damage from Trump’s tariff battle with China — as well as levies on imported steel, aluminum, washing machines and solar panels — has already been piling up, especially in states that Trump carried in 2016.

Just this week, GM announced it would shutter several plants including a pair in Ohio and Michigan — critical Trump states that Democrats will target in 2020 — sparking a series of tirades in which the president blamed Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell for the moves and threatened across-the-board auto tariffs.


GM said it would cut about 14,000 jobs, including 6,200 factory worker positions, though that number could decline during labor union negotiations and relocations. The company cited changing consumer demand for the cuts but has also said tariffs will reduce revenue by $1 billion and would require aggressive cost-cutting. Costs are rising across the auto industry as a result of tariffs even as demand for new vehicles declines.

The pain is even more intense for farmers across the Upper Midwest. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis recently reported that farm bankruptcies are rising sharply in Wisconsin, Minnesota North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana following declining prices for soybeans, milk, beef and other farm products that face retaliatory tariffs from China, Mexico and other countries hit by Trump tariffs. The Chinese market is now essentially closed to U.S. soybeans, leading many farmers to simply let crops rot in the field.

Dairy farmers are having an even more difficult time, especially as retaliatory tariffs from Mexico close down a critical market for U.S. cheese exports. Mexico has said it will not remove the barriers until Trump removes steel and aluminum tariffs, something he did not do even after agreeing to the new U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement.

“The impact at the farm level is very real and declining prices are the difference between surviving and not surviving,” said Rick Naerebout, CEO of the Idaho Dairymen’s Association. “Dairy farmers are having to sell off their family businesses because they can’t make it. Tariffs are not the sole factor but they are a main factor. We’ve seen drops in cheese exports of up to 20 percent in some of the latest numbers that have come out. Those are big numbers and they are real numbers.”

So far, the impact of Trump’s trade battles have mainly hit individual sectors like automakers and farmers. But if the president can’t make a deal with Xi and decides to move ahead with tariffs on everything China exports to the United States, consumers would immediately start to feel the impact, economists say. Trump said in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal that if China doesn’t make a deal he will put tariffs on all Chinese imports of between 10 percent and 25 percent and suggested that he doesn’t worry much about consumers paying higher prices.

“I can make it 10 percent and people could stand that very easily,” he said. During the interview, Trump repeatedly referred to the tariff rate as an “interest rate” even though it is actually a tax paid by American consumers and manufacturers.

And many economists and industry groups do not share the president’s view that a tax on all Chinese imports would have such a limited impact on the American economy.

“While the additional U.S. tariffs would create headwinds for both the U.S. and Chinese economies … U.S. households would bear the burden as demand shifts away from Chinese products and prices increase on a range of items,” Elana Duggar, associate managing director at Moody’s Investors Service, said in statement on Wednesday.

In a research note, the pro-free trade group Tax Foundation estimated that 25 percent tariffs on all Chinese exports to the U.S. would cost the American economy around 290,000 jobs over the long term.

The rising toll of existing tariffs and the threats that come with an escalation of a trade war with China have trade observers and some White House officials fairly confident that Trump will make whatever deal he can. The president, after all, loves to trumpet the rising stock market and does not want to run for re-election in a sagging economy.

But there is also widespread concern that Trump’s firm belief in the effectiveness of tariffs and his highly unpredictable nature in high-stakes encounters like the Xi meeting could push the U.S. to the brink of full-scale trade war.

“The fact is that nobody knows what is going to happen in Buenos Aires, not even Trump,” said Lincicome. “A lot of it will depend on what Xi brings to the table and some of it could depend on what Trump had for breakfast that morning.”

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2FOI5KU
via IFTTT

Against backdrop of suicides and debt, farmers demand action

New Delhi/Mumbai – On Wednesday, thousands of farmers, labourers, and rural workers from across India boarded trains to the capital to participate in a two-day “Dilli Challo” (Let’s go to Delhi) march.

They are gathering in central New Delhi on Thursday in preparation for their march to parliament on Friday and ask legislators to tackle the many challenges facing agrarian society.

They will demand the passing of two bills – one to relieve farmers from debt and the other to secure minimum prices for their crops.

Takadya Tapar, 41, is from Dhamangaon village in Maharashtra’s coastal district of Palghar and like most people in the region, she is a sustenance farmer belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community. 

She is attending the New Delhi event to protest the acquisition of her land for the 508km-long high-speed rail corridor connecting Mumbai with another state capital, Ahmedabad.

Folk songs spoke to their collective resistance against being enslaved. Gulamgiri la devu ya maat, Adivasi na devu ni saath (We will put an end to slavery, we will lend a hand to the Adivasi) [Shone Satheesh/Al Jazeera]

A pet project of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the train will reduce travel time between the two cities from eight hours to two hours. But it will affect the land and livelihoods of 195 Scheduled Tribe households in Palghar district alone.

“More than 100 people … have received notices for acquisition. We protested against it at the [grassroots] level but nothing came of it. So we are going to Delhi,” says Tapar.

For hundreds of women, undertaking a 28-hour train journey to reach New Delhi involves a fair amount of sacrifice. This is because their absence will be acutely felt during the crucial harvest season back home. 

#ChaloDilli #farmersmarch pic.twitter.com/ApwMEkhhHE

— Neha Dixit (@nehadixit123) November 29, 2018

“This is a question about our existence. If we don’t go now, how will our children survive,” she says.  

Unlike farmers who grow commercial crops over relatively larger tracts of land in the rest of Maharashtra, farmers belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in Palghar, Thane, Nashik and Nandurbar districts engage in farming for personal consumption.

Their landholdings are small – two acres (0,8 hectares) on average on which they grow vegetables, rice, and millet – but crucial for their survival. In 2016, the district recorded 557 child deaths due to malnutrition.

Jitendra Ibadh took a loan to build a compound wall to keep stray cattle from destroying his field. Like thousands of others, he is joining the protest march in New Delhi to seek a waiver [Shone Satheesh/Al Jazeera]

Jitendra Ibhad, 54, is a council member of a local farmers’ union in Dhamangaon, a village. He has a degree in history and geography, but after unsuccessful attempts to secure a job with the state electricity board and local school, he turned back to farming.

“The last two years saw a very dry spell of rain, so my crops were ruined. For four months a year, we depend on the rain for irrigation. The rest of the year we have to manually water the crop, which can cost up to 300 rupees ($4.25) per session.”

Ibhad also spent money on building compound walls for his vegetable field because of stray cattle. 

“Since the government banned beef, and [briefly] the sale of cattle, the number of cattle on the roads has increased exponentially. Like thieves, they raid our fields at night. I took a loan of 30,000 rupees ($425) to build a compound wall to keep the cattle out. I doubt I’ll be able to pay it back.”

He is joining the march to demand a loan waiver, and a reduction in the prices of input material like seeds, fertilisers, and irrigation equipment.

Neelam Prakash Ravate is one of thousands of women attending the march [Shone Satheesh/Al Jazeera]

One of the most pressing demands of this group of farmers from Palghar is the allotment of their land title deed, called 7/12, under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

Under the act, they are entitled to the ownership of the forest land they use for growing, grazing, and foraging. 

For HD Karbat, a 65-year-old farmer from Jamset village in Palghar, getting the land deed means being eligible for various government schemes and benefits.

“We want the government to declare our region as drought-affected, which it is unwilling to. The rains have failed our crops continuously in the past two years. But when the government itself denies there is a problem, how will it help us?” he asks. 

Karbat is referring to a controversial change in the definition of drought by the central government in 2016. By measuring drought-affected areas on the basis of districts, rather than sub-divisions, the total number of drought-affected regions was brought down considerably.

Previous farmers’ marches have turned violent [Shone Satheesh/Al Jazeera]

Ashok Dhawale, president of the All India Kisan Sabha farmers’ union which has been leading protests, says the pressure on agriculture workers and businesses has been aggravated by policies of Modi administration. 

He refers specifically to demonetisation, a move on November 8, 2016, in which currency notes of 500 rupees ($7,16) and 1,000 rupees ($14,31) were declared null and void. 

“In a recent report, the Ministry of Agriculture admitted that demonetisation had badly affected the farmers, which is what we had been saying all alone,” says Dhawale.  

“Then there’s the issue of farmer suicides, which increased by 42 percent in the first two years of the Modi government.” 

In 2016, the National Crimes Record Bureau stopped publishing farmer suicide rates, which Dhawale alleges is an attempt to clear the government’s track record.

The protesters are expected to march to parliament on Friday demanding support and action [Shone Satheesh/Al Jazeera]

The past three years have seen more farmer marches across the country. 

In some cases, they have become deadly. 

In June 2017, police shot at a group of farmers in Mandsaur, killing at least six.

In August 2017, farmers from the southern state of Tamil Nadu started a hunger strike in New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. Exasperated by what they viewed as government indifference, they escalated their protest by holding human bones and dead rats in their mouth, even threatening to ingest faeces if their demands were not met.  

In November 2017, more than 180 protesting farmer groups joined to form the All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKASCC). 

The Dilli Chalo march is being organised under the same banner.

The protesters want two bills passed, one to deal with farmers’ debts and the other to set minimum prices [Shone Satheesh/Al Jazeera]

Sudhir Kumar Suthar, assistant professor at the centre for political studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, says the Dilli Chalo march is broadening the definition of a farmer. 

“If you look at the two bills they are asking to be passed in parliament, it includes the landless labourers, artisans, and women, besides the farmer.” 

He believes the support the march has garnered from the urban population is a new phenomenon. 

“People’s perception of the rural and urban is changing. Living in our cities with its pollution and shrinking job prospects, people want to reimagine the rural. 

“Therefore, rural distress is not just the farmer’s problem, it is everyone’s problem.”

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2PYeeUZ
via IFTTT

Pro-Bernie group hacked in quarter-million dollar email scam


A podium at an Our Revolution sponsored event

Our Revolution blamed “an international syndicate of cyber-thieves targeting nonprofit organizations globally” for the scam. | Scott Eisen/Getty Images

Elections

Our Revolution had raised the money to help a Native American tribe fight an oil pipeline.

The political nonprofit launched by Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2016 lost nearly a quarter-million dollars to an email scam that year, according to new tax documents obtained by POLITICO.

Our Revolution “was the victim of a Business E-Mail Compromise scam that took place in December 2016 but was not discovered until January 2017, resulting in the loss of approximately $242,000 via an electronic transfer of funds to an overseas account,” the group disclosed in its tax forms covering the year 2017, which were filed earlier this month.

Story Continued Below

“Our Revolution worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Our Revolution’s counsel and an independent cyber-security consultant in an effort to identify the thieves and to recover the funds but, unfortunately, these efforts were unsuccessful.”

According to the FBI, the type of hack is also known as a “CEO impersonation.” In a common version of the scam, perpetrators infiltrate a company’s computer network and then make a fake wire transfer request that looks like it’s from a vendor with which the firm frequently does business. The type of scam had resulted in billions of dollars in losses, the FBI wrote in 2017.

Our Revolution blamed “an international syndicate of cyber-thieves targeting nonprofit organizations globally” for the incident, which robbed the group of about 7 percent of its total fundraising in 2016. The group said in its tax filing that it “continues to put into place additional safeguards, including both technical and human security measures, procedures and protocols.”

The breach took place at a time of growing concern about cybersecurity in the Democratic Party and the progressive movement, after revelations earlier in 2016 that Russian intelligence officers had hacked into the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as well as the private email of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

The money stolen had been raised as part of a campaign to aid the Standing Rock Sioux Native American tribe, which was protesting the construction of an oil pipeline near tribal land, said Lucy Flores, a former Our Revolution board member. The group still gave the tribe the $242,924 it promised, using other funds it had raised, according to its tax filing.

“We’d done fundraising specifically on behalf of the tribe, and to have that money just be gone and never reach its intended purpose was unacceptable,” Flores told POLITICO. “So we decided to give them the money that was raised and take the loss as an organization.”

Our Revolution president Nina Turner added in a statement that after “the discovery of the theft, we hired a cybersecurity firm to advise us on how to prevent these types of crimes in the future.”

The financial loss is coming to light nearly two years after the fact because the group, which Sanders launched in 2016 as an organizing hub after his presidential campaign before stepping back from its operations, is set up as a “social welfare” nonprofit instead of a political action committee. Political committees have to file regular reports with the Federal Election Commission or Internal Revenue Service itemizing their fundraising and spending.

As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Our Revolution has instead filed two yearly tax returns covering 2016 and 2017. The forms give broad overviews of the group’s finances, but they do not fully describe specific donations or outlays — which is why critics label such groups “dark money” organizations.

Our Revolution self-publishes donor names (but not amounts) on its website, though it has not updated that section of the site since the first quarter of 2018.

The group raised $3.42 million in 2016, after its founding in July of that year, and raised $3.45 million in 2017, mostly from small online contributions. Our Revolution spent nearly $3.2 million in 2017, including over $1 million on salaries, over $489,000 on grants to other organizations and $258,000 on digital messaging.

Our Revolution also accepted seven contributions of $5,000 or more in 2017, according to its return, which redacts the names of the donors who gave them. By far the biggest contribution, $100,000, came from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, another D.C.-based progressive nonprofit, according to that group’s tax filings.

In addition to the money given to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in 2017, Our Revolution also distributed over $126,000 in grants to four state-based Our Revolution groups in Maryland, Massachusetts, Texas and Wisconsin. Our Revolution gave a further $100,000 to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee for a “training event” and distributed $12,500 to the Rights and Democracy Education Fund, a nonprofit based in Burlington, Vt.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2RlZlsl
via IFTTT

Jewish academic’s office splashed with swastika in New York

New York City – A Jewish professor’s office at a university in New York City has been vandalised with anti-Semitic graffiti, including swastikas and an anti-Semitic slur, underlining recent concerns of a rising number of hate crimes against Jews in the United States.

According to the New York Police Department (NYPD), Elizabeth Midlarsky, a professor in psychology and education at Columbia University’s Teachers College in Manhattan, discovered the swastikas on the wall of her office on Wednesday afternoon.

“There were two swastikas and the word “YID” on the wall,” Detective Hubert Reyes, from the NYPD, told Al Jazeera.

“YID”, from “Yiddish”, is widely considered a slur against Jews.

The detective said no one had been arrested, adding that the NYPD’s hate crime task force was investigating for “a possible biased crime”.

‘Outraged and horrified’ 

FBI: Reported hate crimes surged by 17 percent in US last year

Midlarsky did not respond to requests from Al Jazeera for comment, but the college newspaper Columbia Daily Spectator, quoted her saying that she was in a state of shock.

“I stopped for a moment, because I couldn’t believe what I was seeing,” Midlarsky said.

According to multiple reports, it is the second time Midlarsky’s office has been defaced with anti-Semitic slurs. The first time it happened was in 2007.

Columbia University’s Teachers College did not respond to questions sent by Al Jazeera but in a letter to its community, Thomas Bailey, President of the college, said “we are outraged and horrified by this act of aggression.”

“We unequivocally condemn any expression of hatred, which has no place in our society. We are outraged and horrified by this act of aggression and use of this vile anti-Semitic symbol against a valued member of our community,” Bailey wrote.

Rising hate crimes

‘Leave Pittsburgh’: Protesters greet Trump after synagogue attack

The US has seen an uptick in hate crimes, particularly against Black, LGBTQ, Jewish and Muslim communities since President Donald Trump took office in 2016.

In early November, the NYPD said there has been a 22 percent increase in anti-Jewish hate crimes in 2018.

Writing in the Washington Post following the massacre of 11 people at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue in October, Rabbi Danny Schiff, foundation scholar at the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh, said though anti-Semitism is at a low ebb in the contemporary US compared with any other moment in Jewish history, “anxiety over an anti-Semitic resurgence is never far from the surface, and the inexorable drumbeat of anti-Semitism can hardly be said to have been silenced”.

White nationalist Robert Bowers attacked the synagogue during Saturday Sabbath service on October 27 screaming “all Jews must die”.

Earlier this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) said that hate crimes had increased in 2017 by 17 percent, the largest increase in more than 10 years.

It said it had documented 7,175 hate crimes across the country through the course of the year. At least 20 percent of all incidents were linked to anti-religious bias.

It also said that anti-Semitic incidents had increased by 37 percent between 2016 and 2017.

How worrying is the rise of US right-wing extremism?

The FBI report corroborated earlier findings published in May by the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, that found that hate crimes reported to the police in the country’s largest cities had increased by 12.5 percent in 2017.

The report concluded that in New York City, home to 1.1 million Jews and considered the largest concentration of Jews outside Israel, the community “have consistently been the top target and the overwhelming majority of anti-Semitic attacks in the ten largest cities”.

In early November, police arrested a suspect for vandalizing a Brooklyn synagogue with pro-Nazi slogans earlier in the month. The man had written “Hitler,” “Jews better be ready” and “Die Jew rats”.

Read More

from Daily Trends Hunter https://ift.tt/2Az3YYP
via IFTTT