None

A federal appeals court panel on Friday unanimously upheld a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok in a few short months, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform as it fights for its survival in the U.S. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied TikTok's petition to overturn the law — which requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January — and rebuffed the company's challenge of the statute, which it argued had ran afoul of the First Amendment. “The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court's opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” TikTok and ByteDance — another plaintiff in the lawsuit — are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, though its unclear whether the court will take up the case. “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue," TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people,” Hughes said. Unless stopped, he argued the statute “will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.” Though the case is squarely in the court system, its also possible the two companies might be thrown some sort of a lifeline by President-elect Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok during his first term but said during the presidential campaign that he is now against such action . The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, was the culmination of a years-long saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China. “Today’s decision is an important step in blocking the Chinese government from weaponizing TikTok to collect sensitive information about millions of Americans, to covertly manipulate the content delivered to American audiences, and to undermine our national security,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement Friday. The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits , that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect — a concern mirrored by the European Union on Friday as it scrutinizes the video-sharing app’s role in the Romanian elections. TikTok, which sued the government over the law in May, has long denied it could be used by Beijing to spy on or manipulate Americans. Its attorneys have accurately pointed out that the U.S. hasn’t provided evidence to show that the company handed over user data to the Chinese government, or manipulated content for Beijing’s benefit in the U.S. They have also argued the law is predicated on future risks, which the Department of Justice has emphasized pointing in part to unspecified action it claims the two companies have taken in the past due to demands from the Chinese government. Friday’s ruling came after the appeals court panel, composed of two Republican and one Democrat appointed judges, heard oral arguments in September. In the hearing, which lasted more than two hours, the panel appeared to grapple with how TikTok’s foreign ownership affects its rights under the Constitution and how far the government could go to curtail potential influence from abroad on a foreign-owned platform. On Friday, all three of them denied TikTok’s petition. In the court's ruling, Ginsburg, a Republican appointee, rejected TikTok's main legal arguments against the law, including that the statute was an unlawful bill of attainder or a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He also said the law did not violate the First Amendment because the government is not looking to "suppress content or require a certain mix of content” on TikTok. “Content on the platform could in principle remain unchanged after divestiture, and people in the United States would remain free to read and share as much PRC propaganda (or any other content) as they desire on TikTok or any other platform of their choosing,” Ginsburg wrote, using the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China. Judge Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge on the court, issued a concurring opinion. TikTok’s lawsuit was consolidated with a second legal challenge brought by several content creators - for which the company is covering legal costs - as well as a third one filed on behalf of conservative creators who work with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc. Other organizations, including the Knight First Amendment Institute, had also filed amicus briefs supporting TikTok. “This is a deeply misguided ruling that reads important First Amendment precedents too narrowly and gives the government sweeping power to restrict Americans’ access to information, ideas, and media from abroad,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the organization. “We hope that the appeals court’s ruling won’t be the last word.” Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, lawmakers who had pushed for the legislation celebrated the court's ruling. "I am optimistic that President Trump will facilitate an American takeover of TikTok to allow its continued use in the United States and I look forward to welcoming the app in America under new ownership,” said Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan, chairman of the House Select Committee on China. Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who co-authored the law, said “it's time for ByteDance to accept” the law. To assuage concerns about the company’s owners, TikTok says it has invested more than $2 billion to bolster protections around U.S. user data. The company has also argued the government’s broader concerns could have been resolved in a draft agreement it provided the Biden administration more than two years ago during talks between the two sides. It has blamed the government for walking away from further negotiations on the agreement, which the Justice Department argues is insufficient. Attorneys for the two companies have claimed it’s impossible to divest the platform commercially and technologically. They also say any sale of TikTok without the coveted algorithm - the platform’s secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block under any divesture plan - would turn the U.S. version of TikTok into an island disconnected from other global content. Still, some investors, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, have expressed interest in purchasing the platform. Both men said earlier this year that they were launching a consortium to purchase TikTok’s U.S. business. This week, a spokesperson for McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative, which aims to protect online privacy, said unnamed participants in their bid have made informal commitments of more than $20 billion in capital.

OTTAWA — A Liberal MP says his committee colleagues are wasting time by launching a third inquiry into the former employment minister instead of focusing on important legislation for Indigenous Peoples. Jaime Battiste, who is Mi'kmaq, said there has been an "attack" on fellow Liberal MP Randy Boissonnault, who left his position as employment minister on Wednesday after allegations of shifting claims of Indigenous identity and questions around his past business dealings. Boissonnault has been the subject of two ethics committee probes, and Battiste said a third one by the Indigenous and northern affairs committee is "a waste of time, and it seems to be the Conservatives' way of ensuring that nothing gets done in the House of Commons." The Conservatives, NDP and Bloc Québécois all supported pushing ahead with the third study, even after Boissonnault left cabinet. Though Liberal MPs did not object to the motion Thursday, Battiste said the committee's time would be better spent studying legislation on important issues such as First Nations policing, a modern treaty commissioner and clean water for First Nations. "It’s very much my fear and frustration that politics is now becoming more important at the Indigenous and northern affairs committee than actually Indigenous Peoples that we're there every day to try to make life better for," he said. NDP MP Lori Idlout, who is a member of the committee, said Canadians deserve answers and she doesn't expect the probe to cut into the committee's other work. "It's not a waste of time to have MP Boissonnault answer for why his identity kept changing. Pretending to be Indigenous is a serious matter and we need to have him be transparent to all Canadians." Boissonnault came under intense scrutiny after the National Post reported that a company he previously co-owned described itself as wholly Indigenous-owned in order to apply for government contracts set aside for Indigenous businesses. He has been described as Indigenous multiple times in communications from the Liberal party, and in 2018 referred to himself as "non-status adopted Cree" — a statement he has repeated on other occasions. He also said his great-grandmother was a "full-blooded Cree woman." He has since clarified that his adoptive mother and brother are Métis, and he apologized for his shifting claims last Friday. The House ethics committee has separately investigated Boissonnault's past business dealings after media reports alleged he remained involved in the company he co-founded after he was re-elected in 2021 and joined the federal cabinet. Opposition MPs passed a motion in the House of Commons on Tuesday — a day before Boissonnault left cabinet — for the employment minister to appear as a witness to discuss his claims to Indigenous identity. But because Boissonnault is no longer in cabinet, the Liberal chair of the committee ruled Thursday that newly minted Employment Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor is technically the person the motion called to testify. "I figured this might happen," said Conservative MP and committee member Jamie Schmale. "If there are games to be played here and we have Minister Petitpas Taylor attend, I don't think that goes to the spirit of the House order. I don't think it would be very responsible to go against that ... It's Randy Boissonault that the House determined it needs and is ordered to appear along with several other witnesses. That's who we expect to be in that seat." A new motion from the Conservatives calls directly for Boissonnault to appear at the committee. One of the key concerns raised about Boissonnault in recent weeks is related to the government's Indigenous business procurement strategy. A directory provides the federal government with names of businesses it could consider using to meet its Indigenous procurement target, which states a minimum five per cent of the total value of government contracts should be held by Indigenous-owned businesses. Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu told a House of Commons committee on Tuesday that the company Boissonnault founded was not listed on that directory. Battiste suggested the committee will now be in a position of determining who is eligible for Indigenous programming and determining who is Indigenous, and as a First Nations person he does not agree with that. "I have a lot of concern because no First Nations, Métis or Inuit in this country are asking committees — who are filled with non-Indigenous Peoples — to determine our identity, who we are." Schmale and Bloc MP Sebastian Lemire, who is also a member of the committee, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 21, 2024. Alessia Passafiume, The Canadian PressBeacon Healthcare Systems Expands Leadership Team with Addition of Ayman Mohamed as Chief Technology OfficerCLEVELAND (AP) — Alyssa Nakken, the first woman to coach in a Major League Baseball game, is leaving the San Francisco Giants to join the Cleveland Guardians. Nakken made history in 2022 when she took over as first-base coach following an ejection. A former college softball star at Sacramento State, Nakken joined the Giants in 2014 and was promoted to a spot on manager Gabe Kapler’s staff in 2020, becoming the majors’ first full-time female coach. Nakken has been hired as an assistant director within player development for the Guardians, who won the AL Central last season under first-year manager Stephen Vogt — the AL Manager of the Year. With Cleveland, the 34-year-old Nakken will work with former Giants coaches Craig Albernaz and Kai Correa. Her exact duties are still being determined. “We thank Alyssa Nakken for her incredible contributions to the San Francisco Giants and for trailblazing a path for women in sports,” the Giants said in a statement on Friday. “Her leadership, dedication, and passion for the game have inspired countless individuals, and her impact has been truly transformative for the Giants organization and the baseball community. “As she embarks on this exciting new chapter in her career, we have no doubt that she’ll continue to inspire and achieve great things. We wish her and her family nothing but the best.” Nakken is the second on-field female coach hired by the Guardians. In 2023, the club brought in Amanda Kamekona as their hitting development coach for their year-round training academy in Goodyear, Arizona. Last season, she was an assistant hitting coach at Double-A Akron. Kamekona was twice a third-team All-American at UCLA after transferring from Cal State Fullerton. ___ AP MLB: https://apnews.com/hub/mlb Tom Withers, The Associated PressIf your New Year’s resolution is to establish a wellness practice that promotes health from the inside and out or to cut down on in-office aesthetic treatments for glowing skin, now’s the time to purchase the premium tools to help get you started ahead of 2025. One of our favorite skincare and wellness brands LYMA is having a rare early Black Friday sale and we’ve never seen its products marked down so steeply. was founded by former fashion journalist and luxury publicist Lucy Goff after a postpartum septicemia (blood poisoning) diagnosis opened her eyes to a void in the wellness industry. Dr. Paul Clayton, an expert in preventative degenerative disease, introduced Goff to clinically dosed supplements, inspiring a collaboration. Together, they created , a high-grade nutraceutical made with ingredients like turmeric, ashwagandha, saffron, and vitamins D and K to improve sleep, reduce anxiety, enhance focus, and sharpen immunity. It was an instant success. Cut to 2024, and has solidified itself as a pioneer in the industry, with innovations engineered to keep its customers feeling, as well as looking their best. While still known for its supplements, the beauty brand has recently garnered a cult following for its and clinical-grade skincare. All LYMA products are backed by science and patented technology, and have been shown to reduce skin damage without the pain, downtime or a trip to the dermatologist. The is already live and will continue while supplies last. Its products are on sale for up to 30 percent off, and discounts will be applied at checkout. This is a once-annual opportunity, as LYMA does not discount its products any other time of year. In other words, take advantage while you can.

Say Goodbye to Retirement Plans by 2025 – Problems of American Seniors to Retire and Live on Social Security BenefitsDonald Trump’s reelection could bring new energy to a Washington state fight for abortion access begun in the courts last year. Earlier this month, Bob Ferguson — then attorney general, now governor-elect — filed a summary judgment motion requesting that an ongoing case challenging restrictions on the common abortion drug mifepristone be decided without a trial. If the judge sides with Ferguson, the Food and Drug Administration could be obligated to revisit their policies on the drug used in more than half of all abortions. According to Brionna Aho, a spokesperson with the Attorney General’s Office, the FDA’s response is expected Dec. 6. “We are continuing to fight for reproductive freedom, including access to mifepristone,” said Ferguson in a news release announcing the motion. “The FDA must remove its unnecessary and unlawful restrictions on this safe and effective medication.” In a joint lawsuit with 18 other attorneys general filed last year in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in Spokane, Ferguson and his staff argued that restrictions on mifepristone are illegal, and that the FDA should reevaluate its policies on the drug. In April 2023, Judge Thomas O. Rice approved a preliminary injunction requested by Ferguson that prevents the FDA from interfering with the availability of mifepristone in Washington, Oregon, the District of Columbia, and 16 other states that have signed on to the lawsuit. Rice’s ruling last year was released the same day another decision on mifepristone came out in a Texas lawsuit, in favor of anti-abortion advocates who argued that the already unusually restrictive rules around mifepristone were inadequate. That ruling, which would’ve rescinded FDA approval for the drug, made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where, in June, the Court disagreed, deciding unanimously that the anti-abortion advocates who brought the suit in Texas lacked a legal right to sue . While that case was rejected, abortion challenges are not likely over. Trump has bragged publicly about the reversal of Roe v. Wade enabled by the Supreme Court picks he made during his first presidency, while abortion was an issue in both federal and state elections this year. Mifepristone is limited under what’s known as a Risk Evaluation & Mitigation Strategy, a set of regulations the FDA requires for just 73 drugs, including those with well-established addictive properties or that are known to cause birth defects, for example opioids, thalidomide, and isotretinoin . Mifepristone is also restricted under a policy called Elements to Assure Safe Use, which is typically applied to drugs that carry high risk. For years, abortion rights advocates and providers have argued that the restrictions on mifepristone are scientifically baseless and burdensome, pointing out that there are no similar requirements when mifepristone is prescribed for purposes aside from pregnancy termination. Mifepristone is also commonly used to manage high blood sugar in patients with Cushing syndrome. “There is, truly, zero science or medicine to support it,” said Sarah Prager, a Seattle-area abortion provider and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington. According to Prager, recent changes in how mifepristone is prescribed have made it even more challenging to provide it to patients. “Each individual provider now needs to be registered with each pharmacy that will dispense the medication for them,” she said. “Additionally, mifepristone is a medication safer than many over-the-counter medications and should not have ANY restrictions in use.” The Washington Attorney General’s Office agrees, saying that “The stigma and administrative burdens associated with becoming ‘specially certified’ to prescribe and dispense an abortion medication deters many health care providers and pharmacies from signing up to do so in the first place.” But without the FDA rules, “any qualified health care provider would be able to prescribe mifepristone — just as they can for any other prescription drug, including high-risk drugs such as opioids.” Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, who is co-leading the lawsuit with Ferguson, agrees: “The restrictions simply are not medically necessary.” In medication abortions, mifepristone is typically paired with a second drug, misoprostol, to end a pregnancy. The same FDA rules do not apply to misoprostol, which can also be used on its own to end a pregnancy , a protocol reproductive health care providers have indicated they would pivot to if mifepristone is further restricted. Beyond broader questions of access, the Attorney General’s Office is also concerned that current restrictions on mifepristone could introduce privacy concerns for patients, especially for those seeking care in Washington from states with abortion-hostile policies enacted since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health was decided more than two years ago. That’s because the restrictions on mifepristone currently include written agreements stating that the drug is being used to induce an abortion or resolve a miscarriage, evidence that could leave patients vulnerable to investigation or prosecution by abortion-hostile state officials.

MP to shift 15 tigers to Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, OdishaNone

None“Gladiator II” asks the question: Are you not moderately entertained for roughly 60% of this sequel? Truly, this is a movie dependent on managed expectations and a forgiving attitude toward its tendency to overserve. More of a thrash-and-burn schlock epic than the comparatively restrained 2000 “Gladiator,” also directed by Ridley Scott, the new one recycles a fair bit of the old one’s narrative cries for freedom while tossing in some digital sharks for the flooded Colosseum and a bout of deadly sea battle theatrics. They really did flood the Colosseum in those days, though no historical evidence suggests shark deployment, real or digital. On the other hand (checks notes), “Gladiator II” is fiction. Screenwriter David Scarpa picks things up 16 years after “Gladiator,” which gave us the noble death of the noble warrior Maximus, shortly after slaying the ignoble emperor and returning Rome to the control of the Senate. Our new hero, Lucius (Paul Mescal), has fled Rome for Numidia, on the North African coast. The time is 200 A.D., and for the corrupt, party-time twins running the empire (Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger), that means invasion time. Pedro Pascal takes the role of Acacius, the deeply conflicted general, sick of war and tired of taking orders from a pair of depraved ferrets. The new film winds around the old one this way: Acacius is married to Lucilla (Connie Nielsen, in a welcome return), daughter of the now-deceased emperor Aurelius and the love of the late Maximus’s life. Enslaved and dragged to Rome to gladiate, the widower Lucius vows revenge on the general whose armies killed his wife. But there are things this angry young phenom must learn, about his ancestry and his destiny. It’s the movie’s worst-kept secret, but there’s a reason he keeps seeing footage of Russell Crowe from the first movie in his fever dreams. Battle follows battle, on the field, in the arena, in the nearest river, wherever, and usually with endless splurches of computer-generated blood. “Gladiator II” essentially bumper-cars its way through the mayhem, pausing for long periods of expository scheming about overthrowing the current regime. The prince of all fixers, a wily operative with interests in both managing gladiators and stocking munitions, goes by the name Macrinus. He’s played by Denzel Washington, who at one point makes a full meal out of pronouncing the word “politics” like it’s a poisoned fig. Also, if you want a master class in letting your robes do a lot of your acting for you, watch what Washington does here. He’s more fun than the movie but you can’t have everything. The movie tries everything, all right, and twice. Ridley Scott marshals the chaotic action sequences well enough, though he’s undercut by frenetic cutting rhythms, with that now-familiar, slightly sped-up visual acceleration in frequent use. (Claire Simpson and Sam Restivo are the editors.) Mescal acquits himself well in his first big-budget commercial walloper of an assignment, confined though he is to a narrower range of seething resentments than Crowe’s in the first film. I left thinking about two things: the word “politics” as savored/spit out by Washington, and the innate paradox of how Scott, whose best work over the decades has been wonderful, delivers spectacle. The director and his lavishly talented design team built all the rough-hewn sets with actual tangible materials the massive budget allowed. They took care to find the right locations in Morocco and Malta. Yet when combined in postproduction with scads of medium-grade digital effects work in crowd scenes and the like, never mind the sharks, the movie’s a somewhat frustrating amalgam. With an uneven script on top of it, the visual texture of “Gladiator II” grows increasingly less enveloping and atmospherically persuasive, not more. But I hung there, for some of the acting, for some of the callbacks, and for the many individual moments, or single shots, that could only have come from Ridley Scott. And in the end, yes, you too may be moderately entertained. ‘GLADIATOR II’ 2.5 stars (out of 4) MPA rating: R (for strong bloody violence) Running time: 2:28 How to watch: In theaters

Movie Review: Netflix’s ‘Joy’ is a loud cheer for fertility, for never giving up — and science

DALLAS -- More than 60 years after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated , conspiracy theories still swirl and any new glimpse into the fateful day of Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas continues to fascinate . President-elect Donald Trump promised during his reelection campaign that he would declassify all of the remaining government records surrounding the assassination if he returned to office. He made a similar pledge during his first term, but ultimately bended to appeals from the CIA and FBI to keep some documents withheld. At this point, only a few thousand of the millions of governmental records related to the assassination have yet to be fully released, and those who have studied the records released so far say that even if the remaining files are declassified, the public shouldn't anticipate any earth-shattering revelations. “Anybody waiting for a smoking gun that’s going to turn this case upside down will be sorely disappointed,” said Gerald Posner, author of “Case Closed,” which concludes that assassin Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Friday's 61st anniversary is expected to be marked with a moment of silence at 12:30 p.m. in Dealey Plaza, where Kennedy's motorcade was passing through when he was fatally shot. And throughout this week there have been events marking the anniversary. When Air Force One carrying Kennedy and first lady Jacqueline Kennedy touched down in Dallas , they were greeted by a clear sky and enthusiastic crowds. With a reelection campaign on the horizon the next year, they had gone to Texas on political fence-mending trip. But as the motorcade was finishing its parade route downtown, shots rang out from the Texas School Book Depository building. Police arrested 24-year-old Oswald and, two days later, nightclub owner Jack Ruby fatally shot Oswald during a jail transfer. A year after the assassination, the Warren Commission, which President Lyndon B. Johnson established to investigate the assassination, concluded that Oswald acted alone and there was no evidence of a conspiracy. But that hasn't quelled a web of alternative theories over the decades. In the early 1990s, the federal government mandated that all assassination-related documents be housed in a single collection in the National Archives and Records Administration. The collection of over 5 million records was required to be opened by 2017, barring any exemptions designated by the president. Trump, who took office for his first term in 2017, had boasted that he'd allow the release of all of the remaining records but ended up holding some back because of what he called the potential harm to national security. And while files have continued to be released during President Joe Biden's administration, some still remain unseen. The documents released over the last few years offer details on the way intelligence services operated at the time, and include CIA cables and memos discussing visits by Oswald to the Soviet and Cuban embassies during a trip to Mexico City just weeks before the assassination. The former Marine had previously defected to the Soviet Union before returning home to Texas. Mark S. Zaid, a national security attorney in Washington, said what's been released so far has contributed to the understanding of the time period, giving “a great picture” of what was happening during the Cold War and the activities of the CIA. Posner estimates that there are still about 3,000 to 4,000 documents in the collection that haven’t yet been fully released. Of those documents, some are still completely redacted while others just have small redactions, like someone's Social Security number. There are about 500 documents where all the information is redacted, Posner said, and those include Oswald's and Ruby’s tax returns. “If you have been following it, as I have and others have, you sort of are zeroed in on the pages you think might provide some additional information for history,” Posner said. Trump's transition team hasn’t responded to questions this week about his plans when he takes office. From the start, there were those who believed there had to be more to the story than just Oswald acting alone, said Stephen Fagin, curator of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, which tells the story of the assassination from the building where Oswald made his sniper's perch. “People want to make sense of this and they want to find the solution that fits the crime," said Fagin, who said that while there are lingering questions, law enforcement made “a pretty compelling case” against Oswald. Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said his interest in the assassination dates back to the event itself, when he was a child. “It just seemed so fantastical that one very disturbed individual could end up pulling off the crime of the century," Sabato said. “But the more I studied it, the more I realized that is a very possible, maybe even probable in my view, hypothesis.”None

Shugaba Tinubu ya nada sabon shugaban NUC

Alex Ovechkin Is Expected to Miss 4 to 6 Weeks With a Broken Left Leg