esports industry Walmart’s Bold Move into Gaming! Can Retail Thrive in the Virtual World?As more older adults live alone, resources are cropping up to help them

Thomas scores 25 as Austin Peay defeats Georgia State 62-50US: Trump outlines sweeping policy agenda in TV interview

Furious Cucurella changes cleats after slipping twice to concede early goals, then helps Chelsea winWe’ve curbed oil theft, degraded criminal elements in Akwa Ibom – Army

Brock Purdy will miss Sunday's game for the 49ers with a shoulder injury

AKOOL Announces Strategic Bollywood Partnership to Revolutionize AI in Digital Immersion and Video MarketsUnderstanding the science behind Hinton and Hopfield's Nobel Prize in physics

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of commentary online and in print each day. To contribute, click here . ••• FBI background checks have been the gold standard for clearing presidential cabinet picks for decades and should retain that status. That’s why three Upper Midwest senators merit commendation for stressing this high-caliber vetting’s importance for President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet nominations. The recent commonsense, bipartisan pushback from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D, and Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., reflects well on the region and hopefully will be noted and acted upon by the incoming administration. The Midwestern trio’s conscientious call comes on the heels of CNN’s recent report that Trump’s transition team is “bypassing traditional FBI background checks for at least some of his Cabinet picks while using private companies to conduct vetting of potential candidates for administration jobs.” The main rationale, according to CNN’s sources: the FBI’s clearance can take time. Of course, there’s another obvious downside: an exhaustive and thorough process can also turn up embarrassing information. But that’s the whole point of clearing nominees through the federal government’s top law enforcement agency before officially nominating them. Not following the precedent can actually require far more subsequent time if a nominee gets derailed by questions about character or conflicts of interest. As Matt Gaetz’s failed nomination for U.S. attorney general just illustrated, Republicans’ control of the U.S. Senate is no guarantee that questionable nominations will sail through that chamber. If the Trump team thinks the FBI process is too slow, consider the time wasted on the Gaetz nomination and the need to restart the process with another nominee. On Sunday, Klobuchar laudably made a forceful case for continued FBI vetting on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning news show. “We require these background checks of DEA agents — drug enforcement agents. We require them of first-time prosecutors for the federal government,” she said on the show. “Why wouldn’t we get these background checks for the most important jobs in the United States government?” In a follow-up interview Monday, Klobuchar said that FBI clearance has been the standard since former President Dwight Eisenhower’s administration. She noted that some of these jobs involve national security, which underscores the need to ensure unquestioned integrity. She also pointed out that there shouldn’t be a double standard that requires employees of these agencies to undergo FBI vetting but not people holding the top jobs: “You can’t say ‘Oh you have to have one but I don’t.’ ” Klobuchar fortunately has company from several Republican senators. North Dakota’s Cramer and South Dakota’s Rounds are among those who have spoken out about FBI background checks’ importance. Cramer has accurately noted that the FBI has wider access to information gathered by law enforcement than private companies. “If you wanted to supplement it with a private firm, I’d say OK. But the FBI does have access to information that probably a private firm wouldn’t have, even a really good savvy one,” Cramer said in a recent report in The Hill. Rounds has said that “not having the FBI conduct background checks for high-level nominees by the time Trump formally appoints them next year ‘would come under scrutiny at the congressional level,’ " The Hill reported. Two other Republicans , Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, have also admirably stressed the importance of FBI background checks for incoming cabinet picks. Richard Painter , a University of Minnesota law professor and former chief White House ethics lawyer during President George W. Bush’s administration, is also sounding the alarm about foregoing FBI background checks. Painter said the agency’s vetting remains the “gold standard” and that previous administrations have run into trouble when ignoring that. That includes the president that Painter served. During Bush’s second term, the former president nominated Bernard Kerik to lead the Department of Homeland Security before the FBI had conducted a background check. That nomination quickly collapsed after concerns surfaced about a nanny who may have been in the country illegally and alleged nonpayment of taxes related to the caregiver’s employment, according to a 2004 New York Times story . Kerik also faced “questions about his connections to a New Jersey company suspected of having ties to organized crime.” In an interview, Painter stressed that private firms’ background searches aren’t a substitute for the FBI’s work. The FBI likely has “an enormous head start” on private firms when it comes to information collection, “particularly on people who might be a national security risk,” Painter said Monday. In addition, Painter pointed out another reason why the FBI’s work may be more accurate and thorough than an outside firm. “If you lie to the FBI, anybody who they ask questions of, lies to the FBI, that’s a criminal offense,” Painter said. “You lie to a private company, what can they get you for? Nothing.” The collective fortitude of Klobuchar and her Senate colleagues is timely, and certainly appropriate. It’s also not without some risk because it could draw Trump’s ire. That could make them targets of mean-spirited presidential social media posts and create headwinds for legislation they carry. Republicans speaking out could also face a Trump-backed challenger in a future primary. That these senators are asking tough questions anyway suggests that Congress’ upper chamber continues to take its historic “advise and consent” role seriously and that traditional guardrails on the executive branch’s power are holding. That’s a reassuring sign that the checks and balances designed by our nation’s forefathers are working as intended.The Pittsburgh Steelers had a strong start to the season. When Russell Wilson took over for Justin Fields in Week 7, they were 4-2, which was better than most expected. Fields performed so well that most analysts and fans felt the team was making a mistake by setting him aside for Wilson, who felt like an uncertainty. However, the former Super Bowl winner proved all his doubters wrong, going 6-1 in his first seven games. This led many doubters to admit they had been wrong about Wilson. Under the nine-time Pro Bowler , the offense looked better -- crisper and sharper. They were moving the ball down the field and scoring more touchdowns than they had under Fields, and everyone rejoiced. Even the loss to the Cleveland Browns in Week 12 felt like a temporary blip rather than an actual concern. They bounced back and won their next two games, only to drop the two games following that. You’ll find out a lot about the #Steelers this week Arthur Smith pic.twitter.com/cQ9UdGNqK0 The recent losses to the Philadelphia Eagles and the Baltimore Ravens have raised red flags, particularly about the offense. In the past, they got off to some slow starts, but Wilson was able to lead them back to win. According to a video from 93.7 The Fan on X , Offensive Coordinator Arthur Smith acknowledged to the media that the two losses changed the tone surrounding the team. "It's easy for everybody to be great vibes and everybody smiling when you're winning, but you're going to find out a lot about us in how we respond," said Smith. During the recent loss to the Ravens, Wilson had an inconsistent performance. He completed 22 of 33 passes for 217 yards and two touchdowns. However, he also had an interception and a lost fumble. They were both very costly, leading to 14 points for the Ravens. Those two turnovers led to Wilson receiving a lot of criticism from the fan base. However, the fault was not all on him. They had several key defenders out with injuries, including Larry Ogunjobi , DeShon Elliott , and Donte Jackson . In addition to those, they were also missing Fields and George Pickens from the offense. Joey Porter Jr went out during the game and could not return due to a knee injury. The missing players and the inconsistencies from the offense and defense cost the Steelers and made Wilson's overall 2024 record 6-3 . They have two games left against the Kansas City Chiefs and the Cincinnati Bengals, and they need to win both to win the AFC North, although they have already secured a playoff spot. Steelers' Russell Wilson Spoke Up About His Fumble If the Steelers had beaten the Ravens, they would have locked up the AFC North. Wilson took the brunt of the blame because of his turnovers. The Steelers have been winning the turnover battle all season, but could not do that in the two most recent losses. While the defense has been able to force turnovers, the offense hasn't been able to capitalize on them consistently. Wilson spoke to the media after the game about that devastating fumble. He told them he thought he would be able to get it in the end zone and spark some life into the offense. Unfortunately, the opposite occurred, and the momentum stayed with Baltimore. In watching the play, it is obvious that Wilson is just trying to make something happen. He has not displayed a tendency to fumble or turn the ball over in his first nine games in black and gold very much, so the assessment by many fans that he was reckless seems unfair. So far this season, Wilson has thrown 15 touchdowns and only had four interceptions. Do you agree with Smith that how the team responds to these losses will show a lot about who they actually are? Click to This article first appeared on SteelerNation.com and was syndicated with permission.

AP News Summary at 6:13 p.m. EST

B. Riley Financial Provides Update on Quarterly Filing Process

AUSTIN, Texas — The University of Texas Board of Regents has voted to sell a unique piece of property in South Texas to SpaceX. The space technology company owned by Elon Musk will buy the Stargate Technology Center, which is located near Boca Chica Beach, about 20 miles east of the UT Rio Grande Valley campus in Brownsville. The facility was built in 2017 and was originally used in a partnership between the university and SpaceX for astronomy research, prior to the university discontinuing the program. SpaceX then began leasing the building and has expanded its operations there, even building a multistory rocket hangar on the property. While the exact price of the sale hasn't been revealed, the deal must be made fair market value in accordance with Texas law. Given that the facility was built with federal grant money, the university may also be required to repay about 70% of its value back to the U.S. government once the sale is finalized.