Conor McGregor calls rape accuser a ‘vicious liar’ and slams ‘kangaroo court’Remember this moment because it probably won’t last: A U.S. lottery jackpot is projected to soar above $1 billion, and that’s still a big deal. Friday’s Mega Millions drawing is worth an estimated $1.22 billion, evoking headlines and likely luring more people to convenience stores with dreams of private spacewalks above the Earth. It doesn’t seem to matter that the nation’s top 10 jackpots — not including this one — already have boasted 10-figure payouts. For many of us, something stirs inside when a number ticks one dollar above $999,999,999. “The question lurking is, what happens when $1 billion becomes routine and people don’t care about it anymore?” said Jonathan D. Cohen, author of the 2022 book “For a Dollar and a Dream: State Lotteries in Modern America.” “There’s no easy round number after a billion,” Cohen said. “But also, how much money can one person possibly, possibly, possibly need?” Meanwhile, Mega Millions’ ticket prices will rise from $2 to $5 in April. The increase will be one of many changes that officials say will result in improved jackpot odds, more frequent giant prizes and even larger payouts. Here’s brief history of lotteries and why jackpots are growing: Lotteries date back to at least ancient Rome Cohen notes in his book that lotteries have existed in one form or another for more than 4,000 years. In Rome, emperors and nobles held drawings at dinner parties and awarded prizes that ranged from terra cotta vases to people who were enslaved. As early as the 1400s, lotteries were used in Europe to fund city defenses and other public works. Sweepstakes were common in the American colonies, helping to pay for the revolution against Britain. Cohen noted in his book that Thomas Jefferson approved of lotteries, writing that they were a tax “laid on the willing only.” Lotteries began to fall out of favor in the U.S. in the 1800s because of concerns over fraud, mismanagement and impacts on poor people. But starting in the 1960s, states began to legalize them to help address financial shortfalls without raising taxes. “Lotteries were seen as budgetary miracles, the chance for states to make revenue appear seemingly out of thin air,” Cohen wrote. Mega Millions’ first jackpot started at $5 million When Mega Millions started in 1996, it was called “The Big Game” and involved only six states. It was meant to compete with Powerball, which then had 20 states and the District of Columbia. The original payout for The Big Game started at $5 million. The value would be nearly twice that today accounting for inflation. In 2024 dollars, the before-taxes prize could buy a rare copy of the U.S. Constitution or cover Michael Soroka’s $9 million contract to pitch next season for the Washington Nationals. By contrast, the pre-tax winnings from Friday’s Mega Millions prize could theoretically buy a Major League Baseball team. The Nationals would be too expensive. But Forbes recently valued the Miami Marlins at $1 billion. A better comparison might be Taylor Swift’s tour revenue at the end of 2023. Her Eras Tour became the first to earn more than $1 billion after selling more than 4 million tickets. Swift, however, was expected to bring in a total of more than $2 billion when her tour finally wrapped up Dec. 8, according to concert trade publication Pollstar. Why jackpots are getting bigger These days, Mega Millions and its lottery compatriot Powerball are sold in 45 states, as well as Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Powerball also is sold in Puerto Rico. In October, Mega Millions said it hoped increased ticket revenue and less stratospheric odds would lead to more people winning, even as prizes grow extraordinarily high. Games with massive payouts tend to be more popular despite the slimmer odds. Larger jackpots also attract more media attention, increase ticket sales and bring in new players, Cohen said. Lottery officials have allowed the odds to become lower with a larger pool of numbers to pick from, Cohen said. And that has made games harder to win, leading to payouts rolling over into even larger prizes. The first $1 billion jackpot was in 2016. Cohen said he expects the upward trajectory to continue. Meanwhile, he warned against the tropes of the troubled or bankrupt lottery winner. A well-known example is Andrew “Jack” Whittaker Jr. He won a record Powerball jackpot after buying a single ticket in 2002 but quickly fell victim to scandals, lawsuits and personal setbacks as he endured constant requests for money, leaving him unable to trust others. Most winners don’t turn out like him, Cohen said. “Even if we deny it, we all sort of believe in the meritocracy — this belief that if you won your money through luck, then you probably didn’t actually deserve it,” Cohen said. And yet various studies have shown “lottery winners are happier, healthier and wealthier than the rest of us.” (AP) — A ninth U.S. telecoms firm has been confirmed Remember this moment because it probably won't last: A U.S. Sales rose this year during the holiday shopping season even Stock indexes drifted to a mixed finish on Wall Street
BIG TEN ROUNDUPKansas once required voters to prove citizenship. That didn't work out so well
BIG TEN ROUNDUPJimmy Carter, a peanut farmer and little-known Georgia governor who became the 39th president of the United States, promising “honest and decent” government to Watergate-weary Americans, and later returned to the world stage as an influential human rights advocate and Nobel Peace Prize winner, has died. He was 100. When his turbulent presidency ended after a stinging reelection loss in 1980, Carter retreated to Plains, his political career over. Over the four decades that followed, though, he forged a legacy of public service, building homes for the needy, monitoring elections around the globe and emerging as a fearless and sometimes controversial critic of governments that mistreated their citizens. He lived longer than any U.S. president in history and was still regularly teaching Bible classes at his hometown Maranatha Baptist Church well into his 90s. During his post-presidency, he also wrote more than 30 books, including fiction, poetry, deeply personal reflections on his faith, and commentaries on Middle East strife. Though slowed by battles with brain and liver cancer and a series of falls and hip replacement in recent years, he returned again and again to his charity work and continued to offer occasional political commentary, including in support of mail-in voting ahead of the 2020 presidential election. Carter was in his first term as Georgia governor when he launched his campaign to unseat President Gerald Ford in the 1976 election. At the time, the nation was still shaken by President Richard Nixon’s resignation in the Watergate scandal and by the messy end of the Vietnam War. As a moderate Southern Democrat, a standard-bearer of what was then regarded as a more racially tolerant “new South,” Carter promised a government “as good and honest and decent and competent and compassionate and as filled with love as are the American people.” But some of the traits that had helped get Carter elected — his willingness to take on the Washington establishment and his preference for practicality over ideology — didn’t serve him as well in the White House. He showed a deep understanding of policy, and a refreshing modesty and disregard for the ceremonial trappings of the office, but he was unable to make the legislative deals expected of a president. Even though his Democratic Party had a majority in Congress throughout his presidency, he was impatient with the legislative give-and-take and struggled to mobilize party leaders behind his policy initiatives. His presidency also was buffeted by domestic crises — rampant inflation and high unemployment, as well as interminable lines at gas stations triggered by a decline in the global oil supply exacerbated by Iran’s Islamic Revolution. “Looking back, I am struck by how many unpopular objectives we pursued,” Carter acknowledged in his 2010 book, “White House Diary.” “I was sometimes accused of ‘micromanaging’ the affairs of government and being excessively autocratic,” he continued, “and I must admit that my critics probably had a valid point.” Carter’s signature achievements as president were primarily on the international front, and included personally brokering the Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel, which have endured for more than 40 years. But it was another international crisis — the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries and the government’s inability to win the release of 52 Americans taken hostage — that would cast a long shadow on his presidency and his bid for reelection. Carter authorized a secret military mission to rescue the hostages in April 1980, but it was aborted at the desert staging area; during the withdrawal, eight servicemen were killed when a helicopter crashed into a transport aircraft. The hostages were held for 444 days, a period that spanned Carter’s final 15 months in the White House. They were finally freed the day his successor, Ronald Reagan, took the oath of office. Near the end of Carter’s presidency, one poll put his job approval rating at 21% — lower than Nixon’s when he resigned in disgrace and among the lowest of any White House occupant since World War II. In a rarity for an incumbent president, Carter faced a formidable primary challenge in 1980 from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, a favorite of the Democratic Party’s liberal wing. Although Carter prevailed, his nomination was in doubt until the party’s August convention. The enmity between Carter and Kennedy, two of the most important Democratic political figures of their generation, continued throughout their lives. In Kennedy’s memoir, published shortly after his death in 2009, he called Carter petty and guilty of “a failure to listen.” While promoting the publication of “White House Diary,” Carter said Kennedy had “deliberately” blocked Carter’s comprehensive healthcare proposals in the late 1970s in hopes of defeating the president in the primary. In the 1980 general election, Carter faced Reagan, then 69, who campaigned on a promise to increase military spending and rescue the economy by cutting taxes and decreasing regulation. Carter lost in a 51% to 41% thumping — he won just six states and the District of Columbia — that devastated the man known for his toothy smile and sent him back to his hometown, an ex-president at 56. A year later, he and Rosalynn founded the Carter Center, which pressed for peaceful solutions to world conflicts, promoted human rights and worked to eradicate disease in the poorest nations. The center, based in Atlanta, launched a new phase of Carter’s public life, one that would move the same historians who called Carter a weak president to label him one of America’s greatest former leaders. His post-presidential years were both “historic and polarizing,” as Princeton University historian Julian E. Zelizer put it in a 2010 biography of Carter. Zelizer said Carter “refused to be constrained politically when pursuing his international agenda” as an ex-president, and became “an enormously powerful figure on the international stage.” When Carter appeared on “The Colbert Report” in 2014, host Stephen Colbert asked him, “You invented the idea of the post-presidency. What inspired you to do that?” “I didn’t have anything else to do,” Carter replied. He traveled widely to mediate conflicts and monitor elections around the world, joined Habitat for Humanity to promote “sweat equity” for low-income homeownership, and became a blunt critic of human rights abuses. He angered conservatives and some liberals by advocating negotiations with autocrats — and his criticism of Israeli leaders and support for Palestinian self-determination angered many Jews. A prolific author, Carter covered a range of topics, including the Middle East crisis and the virtues of aging and religion. He penned a memoir on growing up in the rural South as well as a book of poems, and he was the first president to write a novel — “The Hornet’s Nest,” about the South during the Revolutionary War. He won three Grammy Awards as well for best spoken-word album, most recently in 2019 for “Faith: A Journey For All.” As with many former presidents, Carter’s popularity rose in the years after he left office. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for “decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts” and to advance democracy and human rights. By then, two-thirds of Americans said they approved of his presidency. “Jimmy Carter may never be rated a great president,” wrote Charles O. Jones, a University of Wisconsin political scientist, in his chronicle of the Carter presidency. “Yet it will be difficult in the long run to sustain censure of a president motivated to do what is right.” :::: The journey for James Earl Carter Jr. began on Oct. 1, 1924, in the tiny Sumter County, Georgia, town of Plains, home to fewer than 600 people in 2020. He was the first president born in a hospital, but he lived in a house without electricity or indoor plumbing until he was a teenager. His ancestors had been in Georgia for more than two centuries, and he was the fifth generation to own and farm the same land. His father, James Earl Carter Sr., known as Mr. Earl, was a strict disciplinarian and a conservative businessman of some means. His mother, known as Miss Lillian, had more liberal views — she was known for her charity work and for taking in transients and treating Black residents with kindness. (At the age of 70, she joined the Peace Corps, working in India.) Inspired by an uncle who was in the Navy, Carter decided as a first-grader that he wanted to go to the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. He became the first member of his family to finish high school, then attended Georgia Tech before heading for the academy, where he studied engineering and graduated in 1946, 59th in a class of 820. Before his last year in Annapolis, while home for the summer, he met Eleanor Rosalynn Smith, a friend of his sister Ruth’s. He and a friend invited the two young women to the movies, and when he returned home that night, he told his mother he had met “the girl I want to marry.” He proposed that Christmas, but Rosalynn declined because she felt she was too young (she was 18 and a sophomore in college). Several weeks later, while she was visiting Carter at the academy, he asked again. This time she said yes. Carter applied to America’s new nuclear-powered submarine program under the command of the icy and demanding Capt. (later Adm.) Hyman Rickover. During Carter’s interview, Rickover asked whether he had done his best at Annapolis. “I started to say, ‘Yes, sir,’ but ... I recalled several of the many times at the Academy when I could have learned more about our allies, our enemies, weapons, strategy and so forth,” Carter wrote in his autobiography. “... I finally gulped and said, ‘No, sir, I didn’t always do my best.’” To which Rickover replied: “Why not?” Carter got the job, and would later make “Why not the best?” his campaign slogan. The Carters had three sons, who all go by nicknames — John William “Jack,” James Earl “Chip” and Donnel Jeffrey “Jeff.” Carter and Rosalynn had wanted to have more children, but an obstetrician said that surgery Rosalynn had to remove a tumor on her uterus would make that impossible. Fifteen years after Jeffrey was born, the Carters had a daughter, Amy, who “made us young again,” Carter would later write. While in the Navy, Carter took graduate courses in nuclear physics and served as a submariner on the USS Pomfret. But his military career was cut short when his father died, and he moved back to Georgia in 1953 to help run the family business, which was in disarray. In his first year back on the farm, Carter turned a profit of less than $200, the equivalent of about $2,200 today. But with Rosalynn’s help, he expanded the business. In addition to farming 3,100 acres, the family soon operated a seed and fertilizer business, warehouses, a peanut-shelling plant and a cotton gin. By the time he began his campaign for the White House 20 years later, Carter had a net worth of about $800,000, and the revenue from his enterprises was more than $2 million a year. Carter entered electoral politics in 1962, and asked voters to call him “Jimmy.” He ran for a seat in the Georgia Senate against an incumbent backed by a local political boss who stuffed the ballot box. Trailing by 139 votes after the primary, Carter waged a furious legal battle, which he described years later in his book “Turning Point.” Carter got a recount, the primary result was reversed, and he went on to win the general election. The victory was a defining moment for Carter, the outsider committed to fairness and honesty who had successfully battled establishment politicians corrupted by their ties to special interests. In two terms in the Georgia Senate, Carter established a legislative record that was socially progressive and fiscally conservative. He first ran for governor in 1966, but finished third in the primary. Over the next four years, he made 1,800 speeches and shook hands with an estimated 600,000 people — a style of campaigning that paid off in the 1970 gubernatorial election and later in his bid for the White House. In his inaugural address as governor in 1971, Carter made national news by declaring that “the time for racial discrimination is over.” He had a portrait of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. hung in a hall at the Capitol in Atlanta. But when Carter launched his official campaign for the White House in December 1974, he was still so little-known outside Georgia that a celebrity panel on the TV show “What’s My Line?” couldn’t identify him. In the beginning, many scoffed at the temerity of a peanut farmer and one-term governor running for the highest office in the land. After Carter met with House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr., the speaker was asked whom he had been talking to. “Some fellow named Jimmy Carter from Georgia. Says he’s running for president,” O’Neill replied. In a meeting with editors of the Los Angeles Times in 1975, Carter said he planned to gain the presidency by building a network of supporters and by giving his candidacy an early boost by winning the Iowa caucuses. Until then, Iowa had been a bit player in the nominating process, mostly ignored by strategists. But Carter’s victory there vaulted him to front-runner status — and Iowa into a major role in presidential nominations. His emergence from the pack of Democratic hopefuls was helped by the release of his well-reviewed autobiography “Why Not the Best?” in which he described his upbringing on the farm and his traditional moral values. On the campaign trail, Carter came across as refreshingly candid and even innocent — an antidote to the atmosphere of scandal that had eroded confidence in public officials since the events leading to Nixon’s resignation on Aug. 9, 1974. A Baptist Sunday school teacher, Carter was among the first presidential candidates to embrace the label of born-again Christian. That was underscored when, in an interview with Playboy magazine, he made headlines by admitting, “I’ve looked on many women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times. God knows I will do this and forgives me.” Carter had emerged from the Democratic National Convention in July with a wide lead over Ford, Nixon’s vice president and successor, but by the time of the Playboy interview in September, his numbers were tumbling. By election day, the contest was a dead heat. Carter, running on a ticket with Walter F. Mondale for his vice president, eked out a victory with one of the narrower margins in U.S. presidential history, winning 50.1% to 48% of the popular vote and 297 electoral votes, 27 more than needed. Many of Carter’s supporters hoped he would usher in a new era of liberal policies. But he saw his role as more of a problem-solver than a politician, and as an outsider who promised to shake things up in Washington, he often acted unilaterally. A few weeks into his term, Carter announced that he was cutting off federal funding to 18 water projects around the country to save money and protect the environment. Lawmakers, surprised by the assault on their pet projects, were livid. He ultimately backed down on some of the cuts. But his relationship with Congress never fully healed. Members often complained that they couldn’t get in to see him, and that when they did he was in a rush to show them the door. His relationship with the media, as he acknowledged later in life, was similarly fraught. Carter’s image as a reformer also took a hit early in his presidency after he appointed Bert Lance, a longtime confidant, to head the Office of Management and Budget. Within months of the appointment, questions were raised about Lance’s personal financial affairs as a Georgia banker. Adamant that Lance had done nothing wrong, Carter dug in his heels and publicly told his friend, “Bert, I’m proud of you.” Still, Lance resigned under pressure, and although he was later acquitted of criminal charges, the damage to Carter had been done. As Mondale later put it: “It made people realize that we were no different than anybody else.” When Carter did score legislative victories, the cost was high. In 1978, he pushed the Senate to ratify the Panama Canal treaties to eventually hand control of the canal over to Panama. But conservatives criticized the move as a diminution of U.S. strength, and even the Democratic National Committee declined to endorse it. Carter’s most significant foreign policy accomplishment was the 1978 Camp David agreement, a peace pact between Israel and Egypt. But he followed that with several unpopular moves, including his decree that the United States would not participate in the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, as a protest against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. It was the only time in Olympic history that the United States had boycotted an Olympics; the Soviets responded by boycotting the 1984 Summer Games in Los Angeles. Carter had taken a series of largely symbolic steps to dispel the imperial image of the presidency. After he took the oath of office on a wintry day, he and the new first lady emerged from their motorcade and walked part of the way from the Capitol to the White House. He ended chauffeur-driven cars for top staff members, sold the presidential yacht, went to the White House mess hall for lunch with the staff and conducted town meetings around the country. He suspended the playing of “Hail to the Chief” whenever he arrived at an event, though he later allowed the practice to resume. On the domestic front, he was saddled with a country in crisis. Inflation galloped at rates up to 14%, and global gasoline shortages closed service stations and created high prices and long lines. Interest rates for home mortgages soared above 14%. In his first televised fireside chat, he wore a cardigan sweater and encouraged Americans to conserve energy during the winter by keeping their thermostats at 65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night. He also proposed a string of legislative initiatives to deal with the crisis, but many were blocked by Congress. In what would become a seminal moment in his presidency, Carter addressed the nation — and a television audience of more than 60 million — on a Sunday evening in 1979, saying the country had been seized by a “crisis of confidence ... that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will.” He outlined a series of proposals to develop new sources of energy. The address, widely known as the “malaise speech” even though Carter never used that word, was generally well-received at the time, though some bristled at the implication that Americans were to blame for the country’s problems. Any positive glow disappeared two days later, when Carter fired five of his top officials, including the Energy, Treasury and Transportation secretaries and his attorney general. The value of the dollar sank and the stock market tumbled. Sensing that Carter was politically vulnerable, Kennedy moved to present himself as an alternative for the 1980 Democratic nomination, publicly criticizing the president’s agenda. But Kennedy damaged his own candidacy in a prime-time interview with CBS’ Roger Mudd: Asked why he was running for president, Kennedy fumbled his answer, and critics cited it as evidence that the senator didn’t want the job so much as he felt obligated to seek it. A few months after the malaise speech, in late 1979, revolutionaries loyal to Iran’s spiritual leader, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking 52 Americans hostage. Weeks stretched into months, with Iran refusing all efforts to negotiate a hostage release. In April 1980, Carter approved Operation Eagle Claw, a secret Delta Force rescue mission. But it ended in disaster — mechanical trouble sidelined three helicopters and, after the mission was aborted, one of the remaining helicopters collided with a transport plane on the ground, killing eight soldiers. Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance resigned before the mission, believing the plan too risky. Negotiations to free the hostages resumed, and Carter desperately tried to win their release before the November election. But the Iranians prolonged the talks and the hostages weren’t released until Jan. 20, 1981, moments after Carter watched Reagan being sworn in. The journey home for Carter was painful. Of those who voted for Reagan in 1980, nearly 1 in 4 said they were primarily motivated by their dissatisfaction with Carter. :::: Carter faced “an altogether new, unwanted and potentially empty life,” as he later put it. He sold the family farm-supply business, which had been placed in a blind trust during his presidency and was by then deeply in debt. Then, as Rosalynn later recalled, Carter awoke one night with an idea to build not just a presidential library but a place to resolve global conflicts. Together, they founded the nonprofit, nonpartisan Carter Center. His skill as a mediator made Carter a ready choice for future presidents seeking envoys to navigate crises. Republican President George H.W. Bush sent him on peace missions to Ethiopia and Sudan, and President Bill Clinton, a fellow Democrat, dispatched him to North Korea, Haiti and what then was Yugoslavia. Carter described his relationship with President Barack Obama as chilly, however, in part because he had openly criticized the administration’s policies toward Israel. He felt Obama did not strongly enough support a separate Palestinian state. “Every president has been a very powerful factor here in advocating this two-state solution,” Carter told the New York Times in 2012. “That is now not apparent.” As an election observer, he called them as he saw them. After monitoring presidential voting in Panama in 1989, he declared that Manuel Noriega had rigged the election. He also began building houses worldwide for Habitat for Humanity, and he wrote prodigiously. The Nobel committee awarded Carter the Peace Prize in 2002, more than two decades after he left the White House, praising him for standing by “the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation.” During his 70s, 80s and even into his 90s, the former president showed an energy that never failed to impress those around him. In his 1998 book “The Virtues of Aging,” he urged retirees to remain active and engaged, and he followed his own advice, continuing to jog, play tennis and go fly-fishing well into his 80s. When his “White House Diary” was published in 2010, he embarked on a nationwide book tour at 85, as he did in 2015 with the publication of “A Full Life: Reflections at 90.” When he told America he had cancer that had spread to his liver and brain, it was vintage Carter. Wearing a coat and tie and a pair of blue jeans, he stared into the television cameras and was unflinchingly blunt about his prognosis. “Hope for the best; accept what comes,” he said. “I think I have been as blessed as any human being in the world.” Former Times staff writers Jack Nelson, Robert Shogan and Johanna Neuman contributed to this report. ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.Manmohan Singh Had 'Pivotal Role' In Shaping India's 'Economic Trajectory': GuterresAP News Summary at 3:01 p.m. EST
Matt Gaetz is mercilessly mocked over surprising new career move: 'Not on my bingo card'
Washington recovers from upset, rolls past NJIT
US to send $1.25 billion in weapons to Ukraine, pushing to get aid out before Biden leaves officeWASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is expected to announce that it will send $1.25 billion in military assistance to Ukraine, U.S. officials said Friday, as the Biden administration pushes to get as much aid to Kyiv as possible before leaving office on Jan. 20. The large package of aid includes a significant amount of munitions, including for the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems and the HAWK air defense system. It also will provide Stinger missiles and 155 mm- and 105 mm artillery rounds, officials said. The officials, who said they expect the announcement to be made on Monday, spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details not yet made public. The new aid comes as Russia has launched a barrage of attacks against Ukraine’s power facilities in recent days, although Ukraine has said it intercepted a significant number of the missiles and drones. Russian and Ukrainian forces are also still in a bitter battle around the Russian border region of Kursk, where Moscow has sent thousands of North Korean troops to help reclaim territory taken by Ukraine. Earlier this month, senior defense officials acknowledged that that the Defense Department may not be able to send all of the remaining $5.6 billion in Pentagon weapons and equipment stocks passed by Congress for Ukraine before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in. Trump has talked about getting some type of negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia, and spoken about his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin . Many U.S. and European leaders are concerned that it might result in a poor deal for Ukraine and they worry that he won't provide Ukraine with all the weapons funding approved by Congress. The aid in the new package is in presidential drawdown authority, which allows the Pentagon to take weapons off the shelves and send them quickly to Ukraine. This latest assistance would reduce the remaining amount to about $4.35 billion. Officials have said they hope that an influx of aid will help strengthen Ukraine’s hand, should Zelenskyy decide it’s time to negotiate. One senior defense official said that while the U.S. will continue to provide weapons to Ukraine until Jan. 20, there may well be funds remaining that will be available for the incoming Trump administration to spend. According to the Pentagon, there is also about $1.2 billion remaining in longer-term funding through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which is used to pay for weapons contracts that would not be delivered for a year or more. Officials have said the administration anticipates releasing all of that money before the end of the calendar year. If the new package is included, the U.S. has provided more than $64 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since Russia invaded in February 2022.
Short Interest in Achilles Therapeutics plc (NASDAQ:ACHL) Drops By 33.9%
Acting President and Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok speaks during a National Security Council meeting at Government Complex in Seoul, Friday, following the National Assembly's impeachment of former acting President Han Duck-soo. Yonhap By Lee Yeon-woo Korea's bond market has remained stable, even in the aftermath of a brief imposition of martial law that rattled other exchanges, leading to a sharp weakening of the won against the U.S. dollar and increased volatility in the domestic stock market . However, with projections indicating an inevitable supplementary budget next year, concerns are growing over the potential spillover of economic uncertainties into the bond market. "Currently, the bond market's focus is on the supplementary budget," Eugene Securities analyst Kim Ji-na said. "Next year's supplementary budget is expected to further strain the supply of long-term bonds." The amount of government bond issuance anticipated next year already reached a record-high of 197.6 trillion won. In addition, the government plans to issue up to 20 trillion won in won-denominated foreign exchange stabilization bonds to bolster external credibility and stabilize the currency market. As a significant portion of the supplementary budget will be financed through government bond issuance, this additional supply is expected to place further pressure on the bond market. The increase in government bond issuance could drive up bond yields, raising borrowing costs for businesses and households in need of essential funds. Kim noted that while a supplementary budget itself is not unprecedented and would not surprise the market, the key issues are the amount and the timing of its implementation. "The upcoming supplementary budget could exceed 10 trillion won, driven by the political imperative of stabilizing livelihoods and the need to defend against economic growth falling below 1 percent. Depending on the next ruling party, it may not be limited to a single round," Kim said. Calls for a supplementary budget in 2025 gained momentum as the country's economy continues to struggle. Some indicators, including the won weakening to the 1,480 level against the dollar, are reminiscent of the global financial crisis of 2008. The finance ministry is projecting just 1 percent economic growth next year. The finance ministry has officially opposed a supplementary budget, citing concerns over fiscal sustainability. Instead, it plans to front-load 75 percent of the total budget , or 431 trillion won, in the first half of next year. "I agree with the perception that the government needs to take an active role given the struggles of the public and uncertainties both at home and abroad," acting President and Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok said at a press meeting, Dec. 23. "However, the current budget must be executed first, so I will prioritize its execution ." Many experts believe a super supplementary budget worth tens of trillions of won will ultimately be implemented to support the sluggish economy. "Given the domestic economic uncertainties and external tariff risks, a supplementary budget amounting to 1.1 percent of gross domestic product will be necessary to ease fiscal shortages in 2025," Citi Korea Chief Economist Kim Jin-wook said. "We expect 10 to 15 trillion won to be allocated in the first quarter of next year, with an additional 15 to 20 trillion won following a presidential election in the second half of next year."
Maupay also had a dig at Everton when he departed on loan to Marseille in the summer and his latest taunt has further angered the Premier League club’s supporters. The 28-year-old said on X after Sean Dyche’s side had lost 2-0 to Nottingham Forest at Goodison Park on Sunday: “Whenever I’m having a bad day I just check the Everton score and smile.” Whenever I’m having a bad day I just check the Everton score and smile 🙂 — Neal Maupay (@nealmaupay_) December 29, 2024 Former boxer Tony Bellew was among the Toffees’ supporters who responded to Maupay, with the ex-world cruiserweight champion replying on X with: “P****!” Maupay endured a miserable spell at Everton, scoring just one league goal in 29 appearances after being signed by the Merseysiders for an undisclosed fee in 2022. He departed on a season-long loan to his former club Brentford for the 2023-24 season and left Goodison for a second time in August when Marseille signed him on loan with an obligation to make the deal permanent. After leaving Everton in the summer, Maupay outraged their fans by posting on social media a scene from the film Shawshank Redemption, famous for depicting the main character’s long fight for freedom.
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republicans made claims about illegal voting by noncitizens a centerpiece of their 2024 campaign messaging and plan to push legislation in the new Congress requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Yet there's one place with a GOP supermajority where linking voting to citizenship appears to be a nonstarter: Kansas. That's because the state has been there, done that, and all but a few Republicans would prefer not to go there again. Kansas imposed a proof-of-citizenship requirement over a decade ago that grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory. The law, passed by the state Legislature in 2011 and implemented two years later, ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. That was 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn't been enforced since 2018. Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rare risks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote. The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, championed the idea as a legislator and now says states and the federal government shouldn't touch it. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Schwab, a Republican. “It didn’t work out so well.” Steven Fish, a 45-year-old warehouse worker in eastern Kansas, said he understands the motivation behind the law. In his thinking, the state was like a store owner who fears getting robbed and installs locks. But in 2014, after the birth of his now 11-year-old son inspired him to be “a little more responsible” and follow politics, he didn’t have an acceptable copy of his birth certificate to get registered to vote in Kansas. “The locks didn’t work,” said Fish, one of nine Kansas residents who sued the state over the law. “You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.” Kansas' experience appeared to receive little if any attention outside the state as Republicans elsewhere pursued proof-of-citizenship requirements this year. Arizona enacted a requirement this year, applying it to voting for state and local elections but not for Congress or president. The Republican-led U.S. House passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer and plans to bring back similar legislation after the GOP won control of the Senate in November. In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state revised the form that poll workers use for voter eligibility challenges to require those not born in the U.S. to show naturalization papers to cast a regular ballot. A federal judge declined to block the practice days before the election. Also, sizable majorities of voters in Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and the presidential swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin were inspired to amend their state constitutions' provisions on voting even though the changes were only symbolic. Provisions that previously declared that all U.S. citizens could vote now say that only U.S. citizens can vote — a meaningless distinction with no practical effect on who is eligible. To be clear, voters already must attest to being U.S. citizens when they register to vote and noncitizens can face fines, prison and deportation if they lie and are caught. “There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, the leading sponsor of the congressional proposal, said in an email statement to The Associated Press. After Kansas residents challenged their state's law, both a federal judge and federal appeals court concluded that it violated a law limiting states to collecting only the minimum information needed to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. That's an issue Congress could resolve. The courts ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, Kansas couldn't justify a law that kept hundreds of eligible citizens from registering for every noncitizen who was improperly registered. A federal judge concluded that the state’s evidence showed that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote from 1999 through 2012 — an average of just three a year. In 2013, then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican who had built a national reputation advocating tough immigration laws, described the possibility of voting by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as a serious threat. He was elected attorney general in 2022 and still strongly backs the idea, arguing that federal court rulings in the Kansas case “almost certainly got it wrong.” Kobach also said a key issue in the legal challenge — people being unable to fix problems with their registrations within a 90-day window — has probably been solved. “The technological challenge of how quickly can you verify someone’s citizenship is getting easier,” Kobach said. “As time goes on, it will get even easier.” The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Kansas case in 2020. But in August, it split 5-4 in allowing Arizona to continue enforcing its law for voting in state and local elections while a legal challenge goes forward. Seeing the possibility of a different Supreme Court decision in the future, U.S. Rep.-elect Derek Schmidt says states and Congress should pursue proof-of-citizenship requirements. Schmidt was the Kansas attorney general when his state's law was challenged. "If the same matter arose now and was litigated, the facts would be different," he said in an interview. But voting rights advocates dismiss the idea that a legal challenge would turn out differently. Mark Johnson, one of the attorneys who fought the Kansas law, said opponents now have a template for a successful court fight. “We know the people we can call," Johnson said. “We know that we’ve got the expert witnesses. We know how to try things like this.” He predicted "a flurry — a landslide — of litigation against this.” Initially, the Kansas requirement's impacts seemed to fall most heavily on politically unaffiliated and young voters. As of fall 2013, 57% of the voters blocked from registering were unaffiliated and 40% were under 30. But Fish was in his mid-30s, and six of the nine residents who sued over the Kansas law were 35 or older. Three even produced citizenship documents and still didn’t get registered, according to court documents. “There wasn’t a single one of us that was actually an illegal or had misinterpreted or misrepresented any information or had done anything wrong,” Fish said. He was supposed to produce his birth certificate when he sought to register in 2014 while renewing his Kansas driver's license at an office in a strip mall in Lawrence. A clerk wouldn't accept the copy Fish had of his birth certificate. He still doesn't know where to find the original, having been born on an Air Force base in Illinois that closed in the 1990s. Several of the people joining Fish in the lawsuit were veterans, all born in the U.S., and Fish said he was stunned that they could be prevented from registering. Liz Azore, a senior adviser to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said millions of Americans haven't traveled outside the U.S. and don't have passports that might act as proof of citizenship, or don't have ready access to their birth certificates. She and other voting rights advocates are skeptical that there are administrative fixes that will make a proof-of-citizenship law run more smoothly today than it did in Kansas a decade ago. “It’s going to cover a lot of people from all walks of life,” Avore said. “It’s going to be disenfranchising large swaths of the country.” Associated Press writer Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.Ingram Micro Holding Corp. (NYSE:INGM) Receives Consensus Rating of “Moderate Buy” from BrokeragesIn their final fixture of 2024, Kai Havertz scored the only goal of the game midway through the opening period. Arsenal’s victory takes them back to within six points of leaders Liverpool, having played one match more than the Reds, and a point clear of Chelsea following their Boxing Day defeat to Fulham. Ipswich, although much improved in the second half, have now lost five of their last six games, and remain just one place off the bottom of the table, three points away from safety. Mikel Arteta’s men have been rocked by Bukayo Saka’s hamstring injury which could keep the England winger, who has nine goals and 13 assists this season, out of action for the next two months. Gabriel Martinelli was handed the unenviable task of filling Saka’s shoes on Arsenal’s right-hand side and the Brazilian was involved in the only goal of the evening. The Ipswich defence failed to deal with Martinelli’s cross, with the ball falling to Leandro Trossard on the opposite side of the area. Trossard fought his way to the byline before fizzing his cross into the box for Havertz to convert from a matter of yards. It was Havertz’s third goal in four matches, his 12th of the season, and no less than the hosts, who at that stage of the match had enjoyed a staggering 91.4 per cent of the possession, deserved. Heading into Friday’s fixture, Arsenal had lost only one of their last 75 Premier League games when they had opened the scoring, and their triumph here rarely looked in doubt following Havertz’s strike. Havertz thought he had doubled Arsenal’s lead with 34 minutes gone when he converted Gabriel Jesus’ cross. But Jesus – handed his third successive start for the first time in a year – strayed into an offside position in the build-up. When referee Darren England blew for half-time, Ipswich had failed to touch the ball in Arsenal’s box, becoming just the second side to do so in the Premier League this season. Nottingham Forest were the other, away at Liverpool, before they went on to inflict Arne Slot’s sole defeat of his tenure so far. And for all of Arsenal’s possession, while they held just a one-goal advantage, Ipswich knew they were still in the game. An encouraging start to the second half for the Tractor Boys ensued, albeit without testing David Raya in the Arsenal goal. Shortly after the hour mark, Gabriel should have settled any growing Emirates nerves when he arrived unmarked to Declan Rice’s corner, but the defender headed wide of Arijanet Muric’s post when it looked easier to score. Martin Odegaard then forced a fine fingertip save from Muric at his near post after a mazy run and shot from the Arsenal skipper. Rice’s stinging goal-bound volley from the following corner was blocked by Dara O’Shea as Arsenal pushed for a game-killing second. Havertz should have tapped home Trossard’s header but he fluffed his lines. And moments later, substitute Mikel Merino’s effort was diverted from danger by a diving Muric. Ipswich looked to catch Arsenal on the counter, but the match ended without them registering a single effort on Raya’s goal. Ipswich fans goaded their opponents with chants of “boring, boring Arsenal”, but it was the Gunners who enjoyed the last laugh as they saw out 2024 with a win which keeps the pressure on Liverpool.
In a surprising turn of events, NVIDIA (NASDAQ:NVDA) witnessed a slight dip of 0.8% in its stock price on Thursday, closing at $139.04. This price movement saw a significant reduction in trading volume, with only about 44.6 million shares exchanged compared to the usual 379.6 million, marking an 88% decline in average daily volume. Analysts’ Optimism Despite the Dip Despite the unexpected stock performance, brokerage firms remain optimistic about NVIDIA’s future. Recent evaluations from firms like Phillip Securities and Oppenheimer highlight an upward revision in price targets. Notably, Stifel Nicolaus and Wells Fargo have set their sights on higher targets, emphasizing a “buy” and “overweight” rating, respectively. Strong Financials Fuel Confidence NVIDIA’s latest earnings report offers even more reason for investor optimism. The company outperformed expectations, with revenue hitting $35.08 billion for the quarter, signifying a significant 93.6% increase from the previous year. Earnings per share also surpassed forecasts, coming in at $0.81 against the anticipated $0.69. Share Buyback and Dividend News NVIDIA has also declared a quarterly dividend and announced a substantial share buyback program worth $50 billion, indicative of confidence in its undervalued stock. This move could potentially drive share prices higher as the company repurchases up to 1.6% of its outstanding shares. Insider Transactions in the Spotlight Recent insider transactions have garnered attention, with directors like Mark A. Stevens and John Dabiri selling significant shares. However, these sales haven’t dampened market sentiment, which continues to view NVIDIA as a strong player with robust growth prospects. Institutional Interest on the Rise Several institutional investors and hedge funds have ramped up their holdings in NVIDIA, underscoring the tech giant’s appeal. With analysts maintaining a “Moderate Buy” rating, NVIDIA remains a compelling investment opportunity amidst temporary market fluctuations. Is NVIDIA a Good Buy Right Now? Analyzing the Latest Trends and Financial Moves NVIDIA, often seen as a cornerstone in the tech industry, recently experienced a slight dip in its stock price, closing at $139.04—a 0.8% decrease from previous figures. Despite this fluctuation, the company’s financial undertakings and market performance continue to capture the attention of investors and analysts alike. Innovative Financial Strategies Provide Stability One of NVIDIA’s most compelling moves is its announced share buyback program worth $50 billion. By repurchasing up to 1.6% of its outstanding shares, NVIDIA sends a strong signal of confidence in its valuation and financial health, which investors regard as a catalyst for potential stock price growth. Solid Financial Performance Amidst Market Challenges In terms of financial performance, NVIDIA has outdistanced previous predictions. The latest quarterly results showcased a revenue influx of $35.08 billion—an impressive 93.6% increase from the year before. The earnings per share also exceeded forecasts, confirming the company’s operational efficiency and market demand. Growing Institutional Interest Signals Confidence The increased interest from institutional investors and hedge funds demonstrates NVIDIA’s resilience and potential long-term value. This uptick in attention shows the company’s promising trajectory and has spurred more confidence among market analysts, maintaining a “Moderate Buy” consensus despite brief stock market volatility. Anticipated Price Increases Reflect Market Faith Analysts from brokerage firms such as Stifel Nicolaus and Wells Fargo have raised their price targets, with “buy” and “overweight” ratings signaling continued confidence in NVIDIA’s future capitalization growth. This positive outlook is bolstered by NVIDIA’s recent financial performance and strategic maneuvers. Examining Insider Transactions: Market Sentiment Remains Positive Recent insider transactions have captured the market’s attention, as significant share sales by directors such as Mark A. Stevens and John Dabiri were observed. Yet, these actions have not overshadowed the prevailing bullish sentiment regarding NVIDIA’s growth outlook. Sustainability Innovations on the Horizon As part of its long-term strategy, NVIDIA is continuously innovating in AI technology and sustainable computing solutions. These developments are expected to drive future revenue streams and align with global trends towards sustainability in tech, ensuring competitiveness in a rapidly evolving sector. Final Insight: Rising Stars in the Tech Market NVIDIA stands out as a robust investment opportunity thanks to its dynamic market approach, financial resilience, and strategic innovations. For more information about NVIDIA’s financial strategies and market presence, visit their official website . In conclusion, NVIDIA remains a favored entity among investors seeking potential growth in the semiconductors and tech industry, suggesting that the current dip might be an entry point for foreseeing investors.Arsenal up to second after Kai Havertz goal sees off struggling Ipswich
Kejriwal calls Punjab bypolls win ‘semi-final’ before Delhi Assembly pollsIn their final fixture of 2024, Kai Havertz scored the only goal of the game midway through the opening period. Arsenal’s victory takes them back to within six points of leaders Liverpool, having played one match more than the Reds, and a point clear of Chelsea following their Boxing Day defeat to Fulham. Ipswich, although much improved in the second half, have now lost five of their last six games, and remain just one place off the bottom of the table, three points away from safety. Mikel Arteta’s men have been rocked by Bukayo Saka’s hamstring injury which could keep the England winger, who has nine goals and 13 assists this season, out of action for the next two months. Gabriel Martinelli was handed the unenviable task of filling Saka’s shoes on Arsenal’s right-hand side and the Brazilian was involved in the only goal of the evening. The Ipswich defence failed to deal with Martinelli’s cross, with the ball falling to Leandro Trossard on the opposite side of the area. Trossard fought his way to the byline before fizzing his cross into the box for Havertz to convert from a matter of yards. It was Havertz’s third goal in four matches, his 12th of the season, and no less than the hosts, who at that stage of the match had enjoyed a staggering 91.4 per cent of the possession, deserved. Heading into Friday’s fixture, Arsenal had lost only one of their last 75 Premier League games when they had opened the scoring, and their triumph here rarely looked in doubt following Havertz’s strike. Havertz thought he had doubled Arsenal’s lead with 34 minutes gone when he converted Gabriel Jesus’ cross. But Jesus – handed his third successive start for the first time in a year – strayed into an offside position in the build-up. When referee Darren England blew for half-time, Ipswich had failed to touch the ball in Arsenal’s box, becoming just the second side to do so in the Premier League this season. Nottingham Forest were the other, away at Liverpool, before they went on to inflict Arne Slot’s sole defeat of his tenure so far. And for all of Arsenal’s possession, while they held just a one-goal advantage, Ipswich knew they were still in the game. An encouraging start to the second half for the Tractor Boys ensued, albeit without testing David Raya in the Arsenal goal. Shortly after the hour mark, Gabriel should have settled any growing Emirates nerves when he arrived unmarked to Declan Rice’s corner, but the defender headed wide of Arijanet Muric’s post when it looked easier to score. Martin Odegaard then forced a fine fingertip save from Muric at his near post after a mazy run and shot from the Arsenal skipper. Rice’s stinging goal-bound volley from the following corner was blocked by Dara O’Shea as Arsenal pushed for a game-killing second. Havertz should have tapped home Trossard’s header but he fluffed his lines. And moments later, substitute Mikel Merino’s effort was diverted from danger by a diving Muric. Ipswich looked to catch Arsenal on the counter, but the match ended without them registering a single effort on Raya’s goal. Ipswich fans goaded their opponents with chants of “boring, boring Arsenal”, but it was the Gunners who enjoyed the last laugh as they saw out 2024 with a win which keeps the pressure on Liverpool.
