Apple Cash: How to use it to send and receive moneyPRESS RELEASE Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Senator Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., called for the Defense Department’s top watchdog to investigate the Pentagon’s failure to secure its communications from foreign spies, following the devastating “Salt Typhoon” hack of major telecom companies by Chinese government hackers. In a letter to Department of Defense Inspector General Robert Storch, Wyden and Schmitt highlighted the DOD’s failure to secure its communications from foreign spies. The senators revealed that DOD informed Congress that it signed a major contract this year, worth up to $2.7 billion, for wireless phone services for U.S. military personnel, even though DOD knew that the phone companies’ networks were vulnerable to foreign surveillance. Last month, the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency confirmed hackers working for the Chinese government breached multiple telecommunications companies and targeted call information for President-elect Trump, Vice President-elect Vance and Senate Majority Leader Schumer, among other high-profile targets. “DOD’s failure to secure its unclassified voice, video, and text communications with end-to-end encryption technology has left it needlessly vulnerable to foreign espionage. Moreover, although DOD is among the largest buyers of wireless telephone service in the United States, it has failed to use its purchasing power to require cyber defenses and accountability from wireless carriers,” Wyden and Schmitt wrote. “We urge you to investigate DOD’s failure to secure its communications, and to recommend the changes in policy necessary to protect DOD communications from foreign adversaries.” Wyden and Schmitt revealed multiple concerning new details about DOD’s inability and unwillingness to protect soldiers and civilian employees who rely on wireless phone networks, in their letter today: Read the full letter here .
The US presidential election on Nov 5 was one of the most anticipated events of the year and the result was a surprisingly clear victory for Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Trump won the important swing states -- Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina and Wisconsin -- and secured more than the 270 electoral votes necessary for a second term as president. Voters appear to have punished the Democratic administration of Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris for higher living costs, a legacy of the pandemic, as well as concerns about Middle East politics and a perceived lack of clarity about Ms Harris's profile, failing to win over voters despite an otherwise strong US economy. In our view, the Trump sweep promises to support US economic growth, which is already running at a decent level. US growth will end up well above its potential, contributing to rising inflationary pressures. Inflationary risks could also increase depending on trade policy, should large tariffs be implemented on a global scale. Given the unique global position of the US as a driver of consumer demand and its notable absence in the rest of the world, we see a good chance that US tariffs could be largely absorbed by importing countries rather than US consumers. The result is a modest impact on US inflation, while tariffs could become a disinflationary driver in China and possibly Europe. Judging from the initial reaction post-election, markets are taking the results in stride, as the likely extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and looser regulations could potentially translate to higher economic growth in the US. These developments, combined with generally higher fiscal spending, should translate into a positive impact on earnings growth for US equities, giving a further boost to cyclical sectors such as industrials and quality mid-caps, which are among our favourites to position for the cyclical recovery in global growth. Moreover, Trump's perceived policy preferences favour segments such as banks, oil and gas, and defence stocks. We maintain our long-standing preference for remaining invested in US equities, which should receive a further boost from a Trump sweep relative to their European peers. The higher potential for new trade tariffs should increase the risk premiums of European equities. In our opinion, industries such as automobiles, semiconductors and chemicals are most exposed to the tariff risks. ALL EYES ON THE FED With US election uncertainty now out of the system, the markets are once again returning to data dependency and a focus on the Federal Reserve until more clarity on policies becomes available after Trump's inauguration on Jan 20. The day after the election, the Fed followed through with its expected interest rate cut of 25 basis points (bps) and refrained from any pre-commitment to further moves. The question remains how much higher the terminal rate will be as a result of Trump's policies. We expect two more rate cuts of 25bps, to a range of 4% to 4.25% by March 2025, which would leave the policy rate in slightly restrictive territory to fight rising inflation. In the fixed income space, as the most bond-bearish outcome -- a Republican sweep of the presidency, Senate and House -- appears to have crystallised, yields are moving higher in the aftermath. Given the volatility in US Treasury markets, it is difficult to declare that longer-term yields have reached an attractive entry point just yet, even if the level looks more appealing again. We still see more value in corporate debt, which remains in a position to dampen some moves in a world of higher fiscal vulnerabilities and uncertainties. Considering gold's record-breaking run this year, which recently reflected the growing chances of another Trump presidency, its dip in the aftermath of the election looks like a "buy the rumour, sell the fact" situation. ECHOES OF 2016? Looking ahead, the big question for the gold market is how different today's version of Trump will be from the one who won the election eight years ago. Back then, expectations of pro-growth policies supported the dollar and lifted US bond yields, which in turn weighed on gold prices. By the end of 2016, gold prices were down more than 10% from election day. While we expect higher growth, a stronger dollar and higher bond yields this time around, the outlook for gold seems different. There are broad-based concerns in the gold market about ballooning fiscal deficits and rapidly rising debt levels in the US, which at some point could undermine the US dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. In addition, there is Trump's geopolitical agenda, which is shaped much more by confrontation than conciliation. In our view, the bigger picture for the yellow metal remains very much unchanged. Central banks are increasing their gold reserves to be less dependent on the dollar and less susceptible to US sanctions. This applies particularly to the People's Bank of China, which still has a rather low share of gold in its currency reserves. Renewed signs of central bank buying, particularly from China, should be much more important than the outcome of the US presidential elections. Kean Tan is Head of Investment Solutions at SCB-Julius Baer Securities Co Ltd.Ducks F Trevor Zegras leaves game abruptly, ruled out with lower-body injury
California vows to step in if Trump kills US EV tax creditThe AP Top 25 men’s college basketball poll is back every week throughout the season! Get the poll delivered straight to your inbox with AP Top 25 Poll Alerts. Sign up here . CONWAY, S.C. (AP) — Jestin Porter had 26 points in Middle Tennessee’s 95-88 win over South Florida on Friday. Porter shot 9 for 12 (4 for 6 from 3-point range) and 4 of 4 from the free-throw line for the Blue Raiders (5-1). Essam Mostafa scored 20 points and added 10 rebounds. Kamari Lands shot 6 for 12, including 4 for 8 from beyond the arc to finish with 17 points. The Bulls (3-3) were led in scoring by Jayden Reid, who finished with 18 points, four assists and three steals. Jamille Reynolds added 17 points and nine rebounds for South Florida. Kasen Jennings finished with 13 points. Middle Tennessee led 51-33 at halftime, with Porter racking up 14 points. Mostafa led the way with a team-high 14 second-half points. ___ The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar .
Supreme Court seems likely to uphold Tennessee's ban on treatments for transgender minors
Maksym Tkachenko, a Ukrainian MP from Servant of the People party, states that over 150,000 internally displaced people (IDPs) have returned to the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, with approximately one-third of those who fled during the full-scale war returning to Mariupol. Source: Maksym Tkachenko, member of the parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, De-occupation and Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territories of Ukraine, National Minorities and Interethnic Relations, in an interview with Ukrinform news agency Quote: "Already, around 150,000 internally displaced people have returned to the temporarily-occupied territory. According to available data, 200,000 Mariupol citizens fled their city to escape the conflict that Russia had brought to our land. At the same time, one-third of them returned home, to Mariupol, to live under occupation. It appears that there are around 67-70,000 people there. I think those are horrible figures." Details: The main reason for the return of internally displaced individuals to the occupied territories, according to Tkachenko, is that they were unable to start a new life in Ukrainian-controlled territory because they "did not receive proper assistance from the state – no housing, no social support, compensation, work, etc." According to him, a big percentage of IDPs "could not find work because of the sceptical attitude of employers towards them, and all those offers that are provided to IDPs are actually very low-paid." He asserted that these people face prejudice in the labour market. According to Tkachenko, their incomes seldom reach UAH 8,000-12,000 (US$194 to US$290), while the cost of renting housing in Ukraine's relatively safe districts begins at UAH 10,000. At the same time, when IDPs start working, they lose their entitlement to receive state assistance to cover the expense of renting accommodation. At the same time, there are very few sites that provide "acceptable living conditions" for free. Tkachenko stated that there are currently over 5 million internally displaced people in Ukraine. "We're talking about about five million people. Why approximately? Because, on the one hand, the number of IDPs has increased due to the enemy's advancement... On the other hand, the number of IDPs is decreasing as individuals return home, in particular to temporarily occupied territories, or travel overseas. We are losing people because the state is delaying support and its volume is insufficient," Tkachenko said. Support UP or become our patron !
Levis throws 2 TD passes to help Titans outlast Texans 32-27Greens concede on Labor’s housing bills
Pakistani police arrest thousands of Imran Khan supporters ahead of rally in the capitalNuclear exceptionalism In April 2024, three Chinese and one Belarusian company were sanctioned for exporting missile-enabling technology to Pakistan Pakistani military personnel stand beside a Shaheen III surface-to-surface ballistic missile during Pakistan Day military parade in Islamabad, Pakistan March 23, 2019. — Reuters The US has imposed sanctions on four entities allegedly involved in nuclear proliferation. These include the National Development Complex (NDC) and three Karachi-based companies: Affiliates International, Akhtar and Sons Private Limited, and Rockside Enterprise. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1700472799616-0'); }); In April 2024, three Chinese companies and one Belarusian company were sanctioned for exporting missile-enabling technology to Pakistan. More recently, in September, a Chinese research institute and several other companies were sanctioned on similar grounds. Following the announcement of these sanctions, US government spokesperson Matthew Miller warned that the US would not hesitate to sanction even its allies over disagreements concerning security concerns. However, one cannot help but question why this security concern is not applied universally to other nations with similar profiles. The US deputy national security adviser, speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace forum, claimed that Pakistan has developed sophisticated missile technology capable of enabling larger rocket motors, potentially extending the range of its missiles beyond South Asia – even reaching the US. To any unbiased observer, this concern might seem paranoid unless it were applied consistently and based on principles that hold all nations accountable without exceptions. Pakistan has repeatedly conveyed its nuclear intentions to the US, citing its serious security concerns vis-a-vis a larger adversary in the subcontinental conflict equation. This adversary is heavily armed with nuclear weapons and remains fixated on dismembering Pakistan further, as it did in 1971. The US strategy of recruiting India as a regional gendarme to counterbalance China may backfire when push comes to shove. India has mastered the art of playing both sides, skillfully leveraging global powers' fears to extract concessions for itself. It projects itself as a regional bulwark against Chinese expansion while simultaneously engaging in strategic relationships with both China and Russia – two of the primary adversaries of the US. India has long been indulged in nuclear and missile development domains. In 2008, it received a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) restrictions, effectively exempting it from rules that apply to nuclear export controls for countries outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This is particularly galling to morality-conscious members of the global community, given that the NSG itself was created in response to India’s 1974 nuclear test, ironically named ‘Smiling Buddha’. An even greater deviation from the rules-based order occurred in 2016, when India was granted membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), despite its history of lax nuclear export controls. India continues to avoid adopting comprehensive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards for its nuclear facilities and remains evasive on nuclear liability laws. It has repeatedly failed to control the illegal smuggling of fissile materials. As recently as August 2024, a gang was caught in illegal possession of highly radioactive material – californium – worth $100 million, echoing three similar incidents in 2021. The recurrent imposition of sanctions on Pakistan appears to stem from a misplaced ‘range phobia’ in the US. Rooted in the paranoia of its Indian and other allies, this policy unfairly targets Pakistan. Meanwhile, India’s development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), such as the Agni V with a range exceeding 5,000 kilometres, raises no alarms among the so-called international security community. In contrast, Pakistan’s longest-range ballistic missile, the Shaheen III, has a range of 2,750 kilometres, explicitly designed as a deterrent against specific threats. It poses no danger to any other country, including US allies. The US must understand that its allies might be misleading it into adopting a coercive policy that risks alienating an erstwhile partner. Despite its disappointments, Pakistan has consistently expressed a desire to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with the US. The international community must also recognise that unchecked nuclear, ballistic missile defence (BMD), and missile technology support for India, coupled with unjust sanctions against Pakistan, undermine the stability of nuclear deterrence in South Asia. This imbalance threatens to ignite a renewed arms race and increases the risk of conflicts escalating uncontrollably. Granting nuclear exceptionalism to one party in the deterrence equation poses significant risks to regional and global stability. This lesson must be internalised by global powers. History has shown that the unfair application of sanctions regimes rarely achieves their intended outcomes. Instead, such measures often strengthen the resolve of the sanctioned nations to circumvent these inequitable restrictions. Domestically, it is crucial for Pakistan’s detractors and uninformed segments of society to grasp the importance of social cohesion and national resolve. A coordinated barrage of negative propaganda targeting the country’s strategic deterrence capabilities – and the associated costs – must be met with clarity and unity. Social media platforms, in particular, have become fertile ground for such campaigns. However, the lessons from countries like Libya, Iraq, and Syria serve as stark reminders of the consequences of abandoning a robust defence posture. These nations, despite their material and human wealth, now lie in ruins. The cost of liberty and sovereignty far outweighs the price of maintaining a credible strategic deterrent. Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programmes are not driven by aggression but by the fundamental need to secure its sovereignty against existential threats. Any coercive policies aimed at undermining this capability will not only fail but may also exacerbate regional instability. For the sake of global peace, it is imperative that international policies be guided by fairness, consistency, and a genuine commitment to equitable treatment for all nations. The writer is a security and defence analyst. He can be reached at: rwjanj@hotmail.comPakistani police arrest thousands of Imran Khan supporters ahead of rally in the capital
Bengaluru became a powerful site for the convergence of art and activism on Saturday, November 23, through Filmistin’s ‘No Pride in Genocide’. The event, organised by a coalition of civil society organisations called Bengaluru for Justice and Peace, brought people face-to-face with the lived realities of queer Palestinians, combining cinematic storytelling with critical discourse. With a focus on Israel’s pinkwashing—a tactic by which LGBTQIA+ rights are used to mask the systemic oppression of Palestinians—the event marked the Indian debut of a global series that has travelled across six countries. The evening began with three short films, each offering a unique perspective on queer Palestinian lives. The films— by Hadi Moussally, by Moaad Ghadir, and by Dean Spade—provided intimate glimpses into the lives of queer Palestinians, unveiling stories of exile, systemic violence, and resistance. Together, they underscored the ways in which pinkwashing not only erases these struggles but also perpetuates colonial narratives that fragment and marginalise Palestinian voices. The screening was followed by a deeply resonant discussion featuring Palestinian activist Haneen Maikey, alongside Indian voices such as Arvind Narrain, a Bengaluru-based lawyer and writer; Namita Avitri, curator of Bangalore Queer Film Festival; and Twisha Mehta from Collective Bangalore. The conversation, moderated by playwright and director Nisha Abdulla, moved beyond the films to address global patterns of oppression, the resonances between Palestine and India, and the urgent need for intersectional solidarity. Pinkwashing emerged as the central theme of the evening, with Haneen Maikey delivering a searing critique of the Israeli state’s use of LGBTQIA+ rights as a propaganda tool. Maikey described pinkwashing as “not just propaganda, but colonial violence.” She detailed how the tactic fragments queer Palestinian communities by spreading racist myths about Palestinian society and erasing the voices of indigenous queer movements. This erasure, she explained, makes it harder for queer Palestinians to fight not only state oppression but also the stigmas and biases within their own communities. “ felt like a warm echo of the early days of our movement,” Maikey remarked, reflecting on her decades of activism. “It reminded me of the joy, complexity, and a political language we used to articulate our struggle before finding our collective voice.” Her personal anecdotes about building a unified queer Palestinian movement highlighted the challenges of transcending the borders imposed by colonial powers, while emphasising the need for a deeply intersectional approach to activism. The discussion also drew significant parallels between Israel’s colonial policies and India’s right-wing authoritarianism. Panellists pointed out that both states employ similar tactics to divide and oppress marginalised communities. In India, queerphobia and Islamophobia are often weaponised to divide movements and communities, mirroring the divisions Israel enforces through its categorisation of Palestinians based on geography and legal status. These tactics, as panellists noted, are designed to undermine solidarity and prevent the formation of unified movements for justice. Twisha Mehta, an activist with Collective Bangalore, drew particular attention to the rise of “bulldozer politics” in India and how it mirrors the Israeli state’s demolition of Palestinian homes. In both contexts, militarised violence is used to target marginalised communities, stripping people of their homes and dignity under the guise of maintaining security or order. Mehta highlighted the dangerous logic of these practices, rooted in state violence and racialised oppression, and pointed out how they disproportionately affect Muslims, Dalits, and other vulnerable groups in both India and Palestine. The panellists also discussed the role of boycotts in challenging oppression. Namita Avitri emphasised the power of divestment and grassroots pressure as a tool for change, pointing to global successes such as Norway and Finland’s divestments from Israeli businesses and the closure of several international franchises under public pressure. “Our small actions matter,” she said, urging the audience to think critically about their roles as consumers, creators, and activists. Avitri also shared her experiences curating queer cultural spaces in India and the challenges of maintaining these spaces free from corporate complicity and oppressive state influences. Another critical aspect of the discussion was the role of technology in perpetuating oppression. Panellists noted the extensive use of surveillance tools, such as Pegasus spyware and AI-driven monitoring systems, in both Palestine and India. These tools are used to suppress dissent, track activists, and maintain state control. In the context of Palestine, these technologies are used to surveil and intimidate both the Palestinian population and international solidarity movements. Twisha Mehta made a direct connection between the use of such surveillance tools and the increasingly repressive political climate in India, where activists are similarly targeted by the state. The discussion stressed how these technologies work in tandem with militarised violence to silence resistance and sustain colonial power structures. Twisha also highlighted the ongoing challenges faced by activists in Karnataka under Congress rule. Organisers in the state, especially those involved in Palestinian solidarity, have faced harassment, surveillance, and detentions when attempting to hold events or protests. Twisha recalled several instances where police demanded lists of attendees at solidarity events, forcing organisers to cancel or shift the events online. “The tactics employed by the Congress government in the state paint them in the exact same way as the fascist government,” she said, underscoring the need for continued vigilance and pressure on all political entities, regardless of their ideological leanings. Arvind Narrain framed the conversation within a broader historical and legal context, urging the audience to understand queer liberation as intrinsically tied to broader struggles against colonialism and authoritarianism. Narrain argued that resistance to oppression must go beyond the queer community to include all marginalised groups. He pointed to the global history of anti-apartheid activism, drawing parallels to the ongoing fight for Palestinian liberation. He emphasised that art, like the films showcased, plays an essential role in challenging dominant narratives and creating spaces for resistance, helping to bridge the gaps between different movements and struggles. Narrain also spoke on the importance of having a broader imagination and inclusive understanding of ‘victimhood’. Referencing Hannah Arendt’s , he highlighted Arendt’s argument that instead of “crimes against the Jewish people,” the statute should say “crimes against humanity” committed on the bodies of Jews. “Her point is that it is a crime of such a high order that we can only call it a crime against humanity, not crimes against Jews. The problem with that is twofold. One, you’re making the case that Jewish people are forever victims, they can never be perpetrators. And Arendt saw this in the 1960s. The second point is that when you say ‘crimes against the Jewish people,’ you’re using the whole cast of what is only the Jewish people. We know it wasn’t just Jews—this was also the extermination of homosexual people, disabled people, the Roma community, as well as Slavic and Islamic peoples. So, all these communities were being eliminated, and to use only the Jewish people as the reference is problematic.” He further added, “The counter to that is to think in terms of crimes against humanity, not just crimes against the Jewish people. In justice, you have to think in terms of an international tribunal, not a tribunal for Jews. Because again, you’re downgrading the suffering of the Jewish people.” As the discussion drew to a close, the panellists explored what solidarity looks like in practice. Maikey argued that solidarity must go beyond surface-level gestures to actively engage with the lived realities of oppressed communities. “For Indian activists, this means recognising the interconnectedness of struggles against casteism, communalism, and capitalism with the fight for Palestinian liberation,” Narrain said. “Queer liberation necessitates Palestinian liberation,” Maikey said in her closing remarks. “And that liberation is incomplete without solidarity that bridges borders and movements.”
193 offenders arrested for drunk driving in HyderabadBut alongside his stark warning of the threats facing Britain and its allies, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin said there would be only a “remote chance” Russia would directly attack or invade the UK if the two countries were at war. The Chief of the Defence Staff laid out the landscape of British defence in a wide-ranging speech, after a minister warned the Army would be wiped out in as little as six months if forced to fight a war on the scale of the Ukraine conflict. The admiral cast doubt on the possibility as he gave a speech at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) defence think tank in London. He told the audience Britain needed to be “clear-eyed in our assessment” of the threats it faces, adding: “That includes recognising that there is only a remote chance of a significant direct attack or invasion by Russia on the United Kingdom, and that’s the same for the whole of Nato.” Moscow “knows the response will be overwhelming”, he added, but warned the nuclear deterrent needed to be “kept strong and strengthened”. Sir Tony added: “We are at the dawn of a third nuclear age, which is altogether more complex. It is defined by multiple and concurrent dilemmas, proliferating nuclear and disruptive technologies and the almost total absence of the security architectures that went before.” The first nuclear age was the Cold War, while the second was “governed by disarmament efforts and counter proliferation”, the armed forces chief said. He listed the “wild threats of tactical nuclear use” by Russia, China building up its weapon stocks, Iran’s failure to co-operate with a nuclear deal, and North Korea’s “erratic behaviour” among the threats faced by the West. But Sir Tony said the UK’s nuclear arsenal is “the one part of our inventory of which Russia is most aware and has more impact on (President Vladimir) Putin than anything else”. Successive British governments had invested “substantial sums of money” in renewing nuclear submarines and warheads because of this, he added. The admiral described the deployment of thousands of North Korean soldiers on Ukraine’s border alongside Russian forces as the year’s “most extraordinary development”. He also signalled further deployments were possible, speaking of “tens of thousands more to follow as part of a new security pact with Russia”. Defence minister Alistair Carns earlier said a rate of casualties similar to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would lead to the army being “expended” within six to 12 months. He said it illustrated the need to “generate depth and mass rapidly in the event of a crisis”. In comments reported by Sky News, Mr Carns, a former Royal Marines colonel, said Russia was suffering losses of around 1,500 soldiers killed or injured a day. “In a war of scale – not a limited intervention, but one similar to Ukraine – our Army for example, on the current casualty rates, would be expended – as part of a broader multinational coalition – in six months to a year,” Mr Carns said in a speech at Rusi. He added: “That doesn’t mean we need a bigger Army, but it does mean you need to generate depth and mass rapidly in the event of a crisis.” Official figures show the Army had 109,245 personnel on October 1, including 25,814 volunteer reservists. Mr Carns, the minister for veterans and people, said the UK needed to “catch up with Nato allies” to place greater emphasis on the reserves. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said Defence Secretary John Healey had previously spoken about “the state of the armed forces that were inherited from the previous government”. The spokesman said: “It’s why the Budget invested billions of pounds into defence, it’s why we’re undertaking a strategic defence review to ensure that we have the capabilities and the investment needed to defend this country.”
