USA & CANADA (857)
Latest News
Beyond the Iran deal: nuclear proliferation is a myth
Wednesday, 15 July 2015 00:00 Written by theconversationAfter nearly two years of incremental and painstaking negotiations, a full deal on Iran’s nuclear programme has at last been struck. In a feat of diplomacy and patience, Iran and the P5+1 – the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China – have managed to construct a deal that limits Iran’s nuclear activity and the sanctions imposed on it.
Early reactions deemed this a “new chapter of hope” in more ways than one; not just a victory for diplomacy, but a major victory in the efforts against nuclear weapons proliferation.
This is misguided. In reality, however, even a nuclear-armed Iran would not have meant that a nuclear weapons proliferation among states was underway.
Proliferation, after all, means rapid spread. And whereas nuclear weapons have proliferated “vertically”, with existing nuclear states adding to their existing nuclear arsenals, there has not been a “horizontal” nuclear weapons proliferation – that is, a fast spread of these weapons to new nations.
On the contrary, nuclear weapons have spread slowly across the world, even though academics, politicians and the media frequently discuss horizontal nuclear weapons proliferation as if it was a matter of fact.
Reality check
Currently, there are only nine states in the world with nuclear weapons among the UN’s 193 members: the US (since 1945), Russia (since 1949), the UK (since 1952), France (since 1960), China (since 1964), India (since 1974), Israel (since 1979, unofficial), Pakistan (since 1998) and North Korea (since 2006).
Other countries have dropped off the list. South Africa joined the nuclear club in the 1980s, but dismantled its weapons in the early 1990s. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union when they became independent states after the Cold War, but they transferred their nuclear arsenal to Russia in the 1990s.
In other words, only a handful of countries in Europe, Asia and North America possess these weapons, while Africa, Australasia and Latin America are devoid of nuclear weapons states.
In fact, the number of nuclear weapons states has actually decreased ever since the 1990s. And even though the Pakistani nuclear weapons scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan confirmed the existence of a global nuclear black market which purportedly provided nuclear technology, expertise, and designs to various countries, including Libya, no horizontal nuclear weapons proliferation has taken place.
Libya eventually voluntarily renounced its secret nuclear weapons efforts in December 2003. Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan have also shelved their nuclear weapons programs.
As of now, there are 31 countries with nuclear power plant units in operation; countries such as Australia, Canada, and Japan are widely believed to have the technological sophistication to become nuclear weapons states in relatively short amount of time should they want to – but they have not pursued that path.
In other words, even though there have been opportunities for nuclear weapons proliferation across a range of new states, such a development has not materialised.
All of the available evidence thus unanimously suggests that no horizontal nuclear weapons proliferation has taken place throughout the 70 years that these weapons have existed. Claims to the contrary lack basis, whether they are made for political or economic reasons, sheer ignorance, or for any other purposes. Horizontal nuclear weapons proliferation is a bogeyman that does not exist. If we are to devise sound strategies and policies regarding nuclear weapons we have to ground them in existing reality. Recognising that there is no horizontal nuclear weapons proliferation is a good place to start.
Author: Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou: Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow in Politics & International Relations at University of Bath
CREDIT LINK: https://theconversation.com/beyond-the-iran-deal-nuclear-proliferation-is-a-myth-42441?<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/42441/count.gif" width="1" /
The article was originally published on The Conversation (www.conversation.com) and is republished with permission granted to www.oasesnews.com
So Bill Cosby Confessed To Drugging And Raping Young Women For Fun
Wednesday, 08 July 2015 00:00 Written by ekekeee
(AP) — Bill Cosby admitted in 2005 that he secured quaaludes with the intent of giving them to young women he wanted to have sex with and that he gave the sedative to at least one woman and other people, according to documents obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
Cosby’s lawyers insisted that two of the accusers knew they were taking quaaludes from the comedian, according to the unsealed documents.
Nevertheless, attorneys for some of the numerous women suing Cosby seized on the testimony as powerful corroboration of what they have been saying all along: that he drugged and raped women.
The AP had gone to court to compel the release of a deposition in a sexual-abuse case filed by former Temple University employee Andrea Constand, the first of a cascade of lawsuits against him that have severely damaged his good-guy image.
Cosby’s lawyers had objected to the release of the material, arguing it would embarrass him. Ultimately, a judge unsealed just a small portion of the deposition.
“The stark contrast between Bill Cosby, the public moralist and Bill Cosby, the subject of serious allegations concerning improper (and perhaps criminal) conduct is a matter as to which the AP — and by extension the public — has a significant interest,” U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno wrote.
Cosby, with his oft-espoused views on topics including childrearing, family life, education and crime, “has voluntarily narrowed the zone of privacy that he is entitled to claim,” the judge wrote.
Cosby, who starred as Dr. Cliff Huxtable on “The Cosby Show” from 1984 to 1992, settled Constand’s lawsuit under confidential terms in 2006. His lawyers in the Philadelphia case did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment on Monday. Constand consented to be identified but did not want to comment, her lawyer said.
“This evidence shows a pattern in which defendant ‘mentored’ naive young women and introduced drugs into the relationship, with and without the woman’s knowledge, in order for him to achieve sexual satisfaction,” Constand’s lawyer, Dolores M. Troiani, argued in court papers.
Cosby, 77, has been accused by more than two dozen women of sexual misconduct in episodes dating back more than four decades. Cosby has never been charged with a crime, and the statute of limitations on most of the accusations has expired.
“If today’s report is true, Mr. Cosby admitted under oath 10 years ago sedating women for sexual purposes,” said Lisa Bloom, attorney for model Janice Dickinson, who says she was drugged and raped. “Given that, how dare he publicly vilify Ms. Dickinson and accuse her of lying when she tells a very similar story?”
Celebrity attorney Gloria Allred, who is representing several women, said she hopes to use the admission in court cases against the comedian.
Cosby, giving sworn testimony in the lawsuit accusing him of sexually assaulting Constand at his home in Pennsylvania in 2004, said he obtained seven quaalude prescriptions in the 1970s. Constand’s lawyer asked if he had kept the sedatives through the 1990s, after they were banned, but was frustrated by objections from Cosby’s attorney.
“When you got the quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?” Troiani asked.
“Yes,” Cosby answered.
“Did you ever give any of these young women the quaaludes without their knowledge?” Troiani asked.
Cosby’s lawyer again objected, leading Troiani to petition the federal judge to force Cosby to cooperate.
Cosby later said he gave Constand three half-pills of Benadryl, although Troiani in the documents voices doubt that was the drug involved.
Cosby had fought the AP’s efforts to unseal the testimony, with his lawyer arguing that the deposition could reveal details of Cosby’s marriage, sex life and prescription drug use.
“It would be terribly embarrassing for this material to come out,” lawyer George M. Gowen III argued in June.
He also said the material would “prejudice him in eyes of the jury pool in Massachusetts,” where Cosby is fighting defamation lawsuits brought by women who say his representatives smeared them by accusing them of lying.
Robreno, the judge, had temporarily sealed some documents in the Constand lawsuit but never ruled on a final seal before the case was settled. Under federal court rules in Pennsylvania, documents must be unsealed after two years unless a party can show specific harm. The judge ruled that Cosby’s potential embarrassment was insufficient.
Robreno asked last month why Cosby was fighting the release of his sworn testimony, given that the accusations in the Constand lawsuit were already public.
“Why would he be embarrassed by his own version of the facts?” the judge said.
Cosby resigned in December from the board of trustees at Temple, where he was the popular face of the Philadelphia school in advertisements, fundraising campaigns and commencement speeches.
Lawyer Gayle Sproul, representing the AP, in court last month called the married Cosby “an icon” who “held himself out as someone who would guide the public in ways of morality.”
Troiani, summarizing her evidence, painted a starkly different picture.
Cosby “has evidenced a predilection for sexual contact with women who are unconscious or drugged. His victims are young, ‘star struck’ and totally trusting of his public persona,” Troiani argued.
Reunited Even In Death: Bobbi Kristina To Be Buried in Whitney Houston's Grave
Monday, 06 July 2015 00:00 Written by
Bobbi will be buried in Westfield, New Jersey with her late mother.
A source exclusively tells RadarOnline: "Whitney's headstone now has a circular brick border garden, and two rosary necklaces have been added. A new sign spelling out 'Love' has also been placed to the back left of the stone".
A source tells the site: "The graves around Whitney are occupied. Bobbi Kristina's remains could be placed atop Whitney's coffin, with mother and daughter together into eternity".
Bobbi, 21, has been on life support and fighting for her life since January 31, 2015 when she was found face-down in the bathtub unresponsive by her husband, Nick Gordon, in the bathroom of their home in Roswell, Georgia.
She was only just last week moved into a hospice where she would reportedly live out her last days.
Canadian economy heading for recession: banks
Sunday, 05 July 2015 00:00 Written by nation.co.keThe Canadian economy is likely headed for recession, two major banks said Thursday, predicting a successive contraction in the second quarter.
Canada, the world's fifth-biggest oil producer, has been hard hit by tumbling global oil prices and its economy shrank 0.6 percent at an annualized rate in the first quarter.
A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction.
Nomura bank said it expected the Gross Domestic Product to contract by 0.5 percent in the second quarter, while Bank of America Merrill Lynch said a 0.6 percent decline in that period was likely.
SURPRISED
"The economy has surprised to the downside this year and appears to have entered a recession in 1H 2015, even after policy easing in January," Bank of America economist Emanuella Enenajor said.
Nomura's Charles St-Arnaud said the dip was not just the result of forest fires in Alberta that forced the temporary closure of two facilities that account for 10 percent of the oil sands' output.
"The Canadian economy is likely in recession," he said.
The downturn is likely to hit the Canadian dollar, which could drop down to 70 cents on the US dollar by the end of the year.
AFP
Popular News
Obamacare victory shows failure of Scalia’s conservative revolution
Tuesday, 30 June 2015 00:00 Written by theconversation
By upholding a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in King v Burwell, a majority of the US Supreme Court demonstrated that while the conservative revolution led by Justice Antonin Scalia may have had a strong impact on the court (and on the nation) it has not succeeded in winning over Justice Anthony Kennedy or Chief Justice John Roberts. Thus, while Justice Scalia has won many battles, he has not won the war. And in today’s King v Burwell decision he lost a major battle.
Justice Scalia has fought tirelessly both to limit the court’s focus in interpreting statutes (in other words, to look only at the letter of the law and not at the broader purpose of the legislation) and to limit the power of the national government.
King v Burwell seemed tailor-made to vindicate both goals.
The basic question in King v Burwell was whether the phrase an “exchange established by the state” included health care exchanges established by the federal government in states that refused to create their own. The plaintiffs in King v Burwell argued that “established by the State” means that health insurance subsidies could not be offered in states that had chosen to use the federal health insurance market instead of their own. This is, indeed, a very strict interpretation.
For Justice Scalia, the answer was easy: “established by the state” could not possibly mean “established by the state or the federal government.” Had Justice Scalia’s textualism prevailed, the decision would have gutted the ACA. Six million people in the 34 states where the federal government runs the insurance marketplace could have lost subsidies, and premiums could have skyrocketed.
But that didn’t happen. Instead, Chief Justice Roberts wrote an otherwise unremarkable opinion that invoked traditional principles of statutory interpretation and examined the meaning of the phrase “established by the state” in context.
The chief justice looked beyond the plain language of the clause at issue. He insisted that a court should interpret the language of the law in light of the overall legislative purpose. As the chief justice wrote:
Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.
And a contrary interpretation would have defeated the central purpose of the statute. In this approach, the court acts as Congress’s partner, not its censor.
In his dissent, Justice Scalia was clearly furious that Chief Justice Roberts refused to endorse his revolutionary approach to statutory interpretation.
From Justice Scalia’s perspective, Chief Justice Roberts’ heresy was magnified by the fact that the chief justice cast the deciding vote to validate the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v Sebelius in 2012, in which the legality of the individual mandate was upheld.
When Justice Scalia gets mad, he does not hold back. He has often adopted fairly sharp language in his dissents, but even by that standard, his dissent in King v Burwell is extraordinary in tone:
normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present court: the Affordable Care Act must be saved.
His vituperation reaches a crescendo in the conclusion where he snipes, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
One can debate the appropriate moniker for the ACA, and one can debate whether we should call this the Roberts Court or the Kennedy Court, but what is beyond debate is that this is not the Scalia Court.
Author: Dean and Professor of Law at Emory University
credit link: https://theconversation.com/obamacare-victory-shows-failure-of-scalias-conservative-revolution-43890<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/43890/count.gif" width="1" />
NBC Fires Presidential Candidate Donald Trump For Inflammatory Comments
Monday, 29 June 2015 00:00 Written by ekekeee
Following Donald Trump‘s inflammatory comments about Mexican immigrants during a speech announcing his candidacy for president, NBC will no longer be airing the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants.
The controversy started when Trump announced his run for president and called for a great wall to be built in order to stop illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States. “The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
“At NBC, respect and dignity for all people are cornerstones of our values,” reads a network statement released to Deadline on Monday. “Due to the recent derogatory statements by Donald Trump regarding immigrants, NBCUniversal is ending its business relationship with Mr. Trump.”
The statement continues: “To that end, the annual Miss USA and Miss Universe Pageants, which are part of a joint venture between NBC and Trump, will no longer air on NBC.”
Trump, 69, will also not be participating in The Apprentice, according to NBC, “as Mr. Trump has already indicated.”
Gay marriage now legal all over America
Saturday, 27 June 2015 00:00 Written by newsexpressngr
In one of the most anticipated decisions in the United States, the country’s Supreme Court yesterday ruled in favour of gay marriages.
It ruled 5-4 in favor of legalising gay marriage across all the states in the American federation.
The battle over whether gay people should be given the right to marry had raged on with, conservatives maintaining that marriage should strictly be between a man and a woman. However, the cultural landscape of America has experienced vast changes with polls before the Supreme Court’s ruling showing a majority support for gay marriage among Americans. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll showed a record 61 percent of Americans say they support same-sex marriage. The acceptance is driven by higher margins among the young.
In the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court said: “The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them.”
The case before the court was known as Obergefell v Hodges, after James Obergefell, who wanted his name on his terminally ill husband’s death certificate. But he was denied that right by the state of Ohio, which banned gay marriage.
Justice Kennedy added: “...marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these (gay) men and woman to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.
“Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilisation’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.The Constitution grants them that right."
US president Barack Obama had called on the court to affirm the equal treatment of gay Americans in all facets of American life.
“In a world in which gay and lesbian couples live openly as our neighbors, they raise their children side by side with the rest of us, they contribute fully as members of the community . . . it is simply untenable — untenable — to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals,” he said.
The Supreme Court repudiated the idea that “the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State,” it said.
Opponents of gay marriage have been left dismayed by the court’s decision.
The ruling came following some confusion about the legality of gay marriage in America, with some states recognising it and others refusing to do so.
Many all over the world have kept an eye on gay rights debates in America, a country where several culture-related battles (including those relating to race and other civil rights matters) with potential international ramifications have been waged and decided by the apex court of the country.
Source News Express
Boston Bomber Sentenced To Death, Apologises For The Lives He Took
Friday, 26 June 2015 00:00 Written by abusidiquUS judge formally sentenced convicted Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death on Wednesday.
Tsarnaev, who alongside his brother Tarmalin committed the gruesome act went both went on the run and killed a police officer, before Tamerlan was shot dead and Tsarnaev arrested, four days later.
He was found, injured, in a grounded boat on which he had scrawled a bloody message defending the attacks as a means to avenge US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Judge George O’Toole officially imposed the death sentence, which had been reached unanimously by the 12-person jury on May 15.
“I sentence you to the penalty of death by execution,” O’Toole told Tsarnaev, before he was led away by US Marshals.
Moments before he was sentenced, Tsarnaev apologized for the first time to his victims for the suffering he caused.
“I would like to now apologize to the victims and to the survivors,” said the 21-year-old former university student in his first public remarks since the April 15, 2013 bombings that killed three people.
“I am guilty,” he said, standing pale and thin in a dark blazer. “Let there be no doubt about that.”
The former pot-smoker said he listened throughout the 12-week trial as he learnt about the victims from often harrowing testimony.
“I am sorry for the lives I have taken, for the suffering, the damage that I have done,” he said, beginning his remarks in the name of Allah and asking for God’s forgiveness.
“I pray to Allah to bestow his mercy upon the deceased,” he said. “I ask Allah to have mercy upon me, upon my brother, upon my family.”
