Hasta La Gadget!

By now everyone probably has a rough idea of what the next iPhone will look like, and that is it will resemble the iPhone 6s/6s Plus with some minor design changes. One of those design changes is the removal of the antenna bands running across the back of the back of the phone, and now it looks like the camera could be redesigned too.

The newly leaked photo is courtesy of Nowhereelse.fr where it shows the alleged iPhone 7 with a new camera design. Now if you hated the camera bump on the iPhone 6s/6s Plus, we have a feeling you might not like this design even more which we have to say kind of reminds us of a bug’s eye.

Apparently this is a multi-angle lens cover for the phone, although what exactly this is supposed to be accomplished remains to be seen, but it definitely does not look good. It is entirely possible that the photo pictured above is simply a doctored one so it’s best to take it with a grain of salt for now. This design also seems to contradict an earlier leak which shows the flash has been moved to sit below the camera lens.

However for the most part, its design (save for the camera) is in line with everything else we’ve seen so far.

New iPhone 7 Leak Shows Off Weird Camera Design , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Like virtually all Americans, I come from a family of immigrants. Family lore has it that my paternal grandfather was born on a ship coming over from Europe and opened his eyes just in time to see Ellis Island and the Statute of Liberty beckoning. My grandfather drove a truck to earn a living and my grandmother worked as a “chicken flicker,” meaning she plucked the feathers from a freshly killed chicken. As a kid, I thought she pretty much had the coolest job ever. Today, not so much.

While my grandparents worked humble jobs, my parents had the opportunity to “do better.” They attended college and worked as professionals. And the generation after them–my sister and I–continued an upward path by earning graduate degrees. For my family, the American dream of opportunity, education, and a better life for future generations came true.

I’m worried that today’s immigrants and their families may not have those same opportunities. We are a nation of immigrants, and those who are in this country working hard to give their families a better life should be able to achieve the same goals that my grandparents did. I’d call it un-American to climb the ladder of success and then pull up the ladder behind you, denying opportunities to others.

Yet, opportunity is denied when people aren’t healthy. Children can’t learn and adults can’t work to their full potential when they are sick and in need of medical care. Health care is expensive and health insurance is the ticket into the American health care system. There is a mountain of evidence that having health insurance leads to improved health, better access to care, greater financial security, and longer life.

Sadly, many of today’s immigrants do go without coverage. Nationwide, the most recent Census data show that more than 31% of non-native residents are uninsured, compared with 8.7% of those born in the United States. Coverage rates for noncitizen children are better, although those children are still more than three times more likely to be uninsured than their native-born counterparts (20.8 % compared to 5.8%).

Insurance coverage among immigrants remains stubbornly low, in part, because many undocumented immigrants are simply ineligible for coverage. With few exceptions, undocumented individuals are barred from accessing public coverage like Medicaid. They are even prohibited from using their own money to purchase coverage through the health insurance exchanges established under Obamacare. Obamacare has dramatically increased coverage rates for Americans. The nation’s uninsured rate fell to 9.1% in 2015, a record low, according to a new survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The difference between 2013 and 2015 translates to 16.2 million more people with health insurance. Yet, these gains have left undocumented residents behind. Remember that ladder? It feels further out of reach for some.

Some states are bucking the trend and honoring their immigrant histories by making coverage more accessible. New York State has expanded opportunities for immigrant coverage, taking advantage of a presidential executive order known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). For millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States who were brought to the country before the age of 16 years and who have been in the country for five or more years, DACA can provide employment authorization, temporary protection from deportation, and a Social Security number to work legally and pay taxes. In New York State, DACA also provides an opportunity for Medicaid eligibility for tens of thousands of immigrants (using State-only dollars).

Awareness of this opportunity for Medicaid coverage has been low. Recently, a targeted ad campaign in New York City (where an estimated three-quarters of undocumented New York State residents live) launched to educate New Yorkers about their potential eligibility for health insurance coverage.

New York State could do more still if it chooses to. A well-functioning, stable, and strong health care market, as well as continued access to care, will depend on creating additional insurance mechanisms for New York’s undocumented immigrants. The Community Service Society of New York has modeled the design and cost of three insurance options for undocumented immigrants in New York State.

Aggressive efforts are also underway in California to cover undocumented immigrants; recent legislation aims to allow undocumented immigrants to use their own funds to purchase health insurance on the State’s health insurance exchange. Doing so would require federal approval, however, and the likelihood of that approval is unclear.

Historically, New York has been a welcoming gateway for immigrants to the United States. Recently, New York has gone the extra mile to extend State-financed Medicaid coverage to immigrants and been a leader in this area. Emma Lazarus, whose words adorn the Statue of Liberty, would be proud.

Immigration is clearly a charged issue in the national political discussion right now. But we need to rise above politics. When more people have health insurance coverage, we all win in terms of our physical, financial, and societal health. Opportunity, health, education, and jobs–that’s the American dream. Let’s keep it alive.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Iraqi forces clashed with Islamic State militants near Falluja on Monday while bombing central districts in the initial hours of an offensive to retake the militant stronghold just west of Baghdad that could take several weeks.

Some of the first direct engagement occurred in al-Hayakil area on the city’s southern outskirts, a resident said. Air strikes and mortars overnight targeted neighborhoods inside the city proper where Islamic State is thought to maintain its headquarters. But the bombardment had eased by daylight.

Residents living in the center said they had fled to relative safety in outlying northern areas but roadside bombs planted by Islamic State prevented them from leaving the city.

Falluja, a longtime bastion of Sunni Muslim jihadists, 50 km (30 miles) from Baghdad, was the first city to fall to Islamic State, in January 2014. Six months later, the group declared a caliphate spanning large parts of Iraq and neighboring Syria.

Iraqi forces have surrounded the city since last year but focused most combat operations on IS-held territories further west and north. The authorities have pledged to retake Mosul this year in keeping with a U.S. plan to dislodge Islamic State from their de facto capitals in Iraq and Syria.

But the Falluja operation, which is not considered a military prerequisite for advancing on Mosul, could push back that timeline. Two offensives by U.S. forces against al Qaeda insurgents in Falluja in 2004, which left the city badly damaged, each lasted about a month.

Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who also faces political and economic crises in the major OPEC producer, visited a command center set up nearby to oversee operations, state television said on Monday.

Abadi, announcing the offensive in a late-night speech, said it would be conducted by the army, police, counter-terrorism forces, local tribal fighters and a coalition of mostly Shi’ite Muslim officials.

Iraqi officials say the militias, including ones backed by Iran, may be restricted to operating outside the city limits, as they were largely in the battle for nearby Ramadi six months ago, to avoid aggravating sectarian tensions with Sunni residents.

State television showed footage of armored vehicles sitting among palm groves on the city’s outskirts, a green tracer glow emanating from shells and machine gun fire.

Video showed a family standing in the daylight outside a simple one-storey home, cheering and waving a white flag as a military convoy passed by.

Iraqi and U.S. officials estimate there are as many as 100,000 civilians still living in Falluja, a city on the Euphrates river whose population was three times that size before the war. Besieging the city has created acute shortages of food and medicine.

The government has called on civilians to flee and said it would open safe corridors to areas south of the city, but bombs planted by Islamic State along the roads are complicating evacuation.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Chechnya’s strongman leader Ramzan Kadyrov likes to project an image of strength. A quick glance through the autocratic ruler’s Instagram account shows him frequently working out, cuddling big cats and appearing to wrestle crocodiles. 

So it may have come as something of a shock to his 1.8 million followers last Tuesday when Kadyrov posted a heartfelt message in a bid to find his missing cat.

“We have completely lost our cat,” Kadyrov wrote, alongside an old photo of himself cradling the adorable kitty:

Kadyrov, a staunch ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, said his pet toyger looked “like a little tiger cub.” The kitty vanished 10 days earlier, and hasn’t been seen since.

“We all thought that he would reappear since he is very attached to the children and loves to play with them and go out with them in the yard,” the father of 8 posted. “But now we have begun to seriously worry.”

Kadyrov said he feared his cat could be hanging out with someone nearby.

“That person may not know how to find the owners,” he wrote, “I am sure that no one needs someone else’s cat. Therefore, we would be grateful for any information. Thanks in advance.” 

With no updates on his missing cat since the initial post, it’s presumed that the feline is still missing.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

I remember with a shudder an exchange I had with Elmar Brok on 5 March 2015 on The Network, a debate program of Euronews. Brok, a German, is the chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. He comes from Angela Merkel’s CDU party and within the Parliament is in the European People’s Party bloc, on the center right, the bloc which really calls the shots in the EP.

Brok is big, brash and does not hesitate to throw his weight around, especially when talking with someone outside the Establishment whom he has no reason to fear. We were discussing the shooting of Boris Nemtsov, which occurred just days before. Brok insisted the murder was the responsibility of Vladimir Putin. Not that Putin pulled the trigger, but he created the atmosphere where such things could happen, etc., etc. One way or another the talk shifted to the allegedly autocratic nature of the Putin ‘regime,’ with its crackdown on freedoms, and in particular ever tightening control of media.

At that point, I objected that the Russia media were very diverse editorially, with many different points of view expressed freely. Brok shot back that this was patently untrue, and he did not hesitate to cross all red lines and indulge in libel on air by asking how much the Kremlin paid me to say that.

Apart from the obvious truth that an authoritarian like MEP Brok would not know freedom of speech if he tripped on it, I think back to that exchange every week whenever I turn on Russian state television and watch one or another of the main political talk shows. These shows are very popular with Russians and draw in audiences numbering tens of millions. The longest running is by veteran presenter Vladimir Soloviev. A competing show in this format on Pervy Kanal, the country’s flagship television station, is Special Correspondent hosted by a journalist twenty years Soloviev’s junior, Yevgeni Popov.

Now that I have just made my first appearance on Popov’s program on 11 May (https://russia.tv/video/show/brand_id/3957/episode_id/1299446/video_id/1472056/ -Russian only), I can state with full confidence that my impressions as a viewer are borne out by what I experienced as a participant: respect for diversity of opinion in a marketplace of ideas.

My landing on the program was the result of one of those chance encounters that have a core of pre-determination in them. I happened to be in the European Parliament auditorium in Brussels on 26 April awaiting the screening of Andrei Nekrasov’s film on Bill Browder and the manufactured myth of Sergei Magnitsky’s murder when Yevgeni and his Russian cameraman looked around the nearly empty room to find someone to comment on the film’s last minute cancellation. They settled on me, I delivered the needed sound bite and we made contact.

My article on the Mariinsky Symphony Orchestra concert in Palmyra on 5 May was published on Consortium News, Russia Insider and other portals that Yevgeni’s staff monitor. So, when they had a talk show devoted to terrorism, the Islamic State and Western press reaction to the Mariinsky concert, I was identified as a welcome new face and got an email inviting me to their Moscow studio to join the ‘regulars’ on Special Correspondent.

The regulars on these talk shows are a mix of Russians and foreigners, pro-Kremlin and anti-Kremlin voices. There inevitably is at least one American who can be counted on to purvey the Washington Narrative. A reliable regular in this category has been Michael Bohm, who was for a long-time op-ed manager at The Moscow Times and now is said to be teaching journalism in Moscow. On the 11th Michael’s place was kept warm by another upstanding Neocon, the bureau chief of The New York Post. Then there is an Israeli regular who delivers the Netanyahu perspective on events. And you can be sure to see a Pole or Ukrainian who will spice up any discussion of Maidan and the regime in Kiev.

From among Russians, the talk show hosts bring in one or more representatives of opposition parties. On the 11th it happened to be a personality from the Yabloko Party (Liberals). But at other times there will be the leader of the Communist Party, Gennady Zyuganov, the founder of the right nationalist LDPR, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, or the leader of the social democratic party, Just Russia, Sergei Mironov. They all get their time on air in these shows.

For the pro-Kremlin position, in my show on the 11th we had a member of the Russian federal Security Council, a professor of television journalism from Moscow State University, a very loyal Vesti journalist and someone from a Moscow think tank.

There are those who will object that the anti-Kremlin foreigners who are invited time and again to speak out in the Russian political talk shows are selected precisely because they are so outrageous and/or appear so dim-witted that they serve the purposes of the official party line. There is a good deal of truth to this, although to rise to the level of self-caricature of Michael Bohm still takes extraordinary linguistic skills, which no doubt escapes the attention of Russian viewers.

However, the Russian opposition leaders who are invited on air are a totally different story. They are shrewd observers of the Russian political system with deep resources of insider experience and analytical skills. Here different factors are operative. Firstly, their criticism of the Kremlin today is almost exclusively on domestic policy; like the population in general, the opposition leaders who appear on state television have rallied around the flag in the face of economic warfare and information warfare deemed to be initiated by the West. Secondly, they are nearly all representatives of parties with seats in the Duma. The so-called ‘non-systemic’ opposition who could not pass the 5% barrier of electoral support to enter the legislature receive no or very limited air time on the talk shows.

From the standpoint of the authorities, these odious personalities will not be allowed to disseminate seditious views on state television. Let us take a few outstanding cases on the level of the party leaders mentioned above. Mikhail Kasyanov, head of the Parnas party or, more properly speaking, movement, where he shared power with Boris Nemtsov, has spent too much time paying court to the anti-Russian bloc of Guy Verhostadt in the European Parliament or visiting the Arizona home of Senator John McCain in support of anti-Russian sanctions. Alexei Navalny effectively called for violent overthrow of the regime when he fired up the crowds on Bolotnaya Square on 5 December 2011. It is hard to imagine any country where the authorities would hand them the microphone, least of all on prime time.

The Russians are great fans of boxing or wrestling matches without rules, where almost anything goes. And the talk shows are often a free for all, especially if there is no particularly important politician among the panelists. In this spirit, each of us received a round of applause from the live audience as we entered the studio, like so many Roman gladiators on their way into the colosseum.

However, the presenter does keep order, and not just to ensure the breaks for advertising are respected. In this way I was assured before we went on air that I did not have to shout down the regulars to be heard, as they often do among themselves, but would be given the mike when I indicated I wanted to jump in.

I jumped in three times during the program, at greatest length when the discussion finally turned on what I had researched and wanted to share: my take on the Western media coverage of the Mariinsky’s concert in Palmyra. Yevgeni Popov knew very well that what I was about to say was 180 degrees at variance with what he had said about this coverage in a broadcast several days earlier. His position was that the world at large viewed the Russian cultural mission to Palmyra with great sympathy. My position was and is that the immediate PR return from bringing 100 foreign journalists to the concert was very meager and largely negative. To this I add that it is much too early to draw conclusions, because Western media were similarly negative initially following Valery Gergiev’s concert in South Ossetia in August 2008 at the conclusion of the Russian-Georgian war, but that within 6 months the views changed in the West completely in Gergiev’s favor.

Popov let me have my say to the end, holding the others back. There was no question for me that his objective was to challenge his audience, not to coddle them. How nice it would be if similar rough and tumble debates on foreign policy towards Russia and the rest of the world were allowed to appear on prime time television in the USA.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.