Windows installations have come a long way over a few decades. It used to be that you had to hand-hold the system, but it’s increasingly automatic — you can even nuke an existing install with relative ease. And now, you don’t even need to touch the…
Health officials in Hawaii have been warning residents not to touch snails or slugs with their bare hands because of an increase in cases of people coming into contact with a rare parasitic infection known as a rat lungworm. Experts are blaming its sudden spread across the United States on climate change and…
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke by phone on Saturday about the situation in Syria after the U.S. strikes on a Syrian air base, the Russian ministry said in a statement.
Lavrov pointed out that “an attack on a country whose government fights terrorism only plays into the hands of extremists, creates additional threats to regional and global security,” the Russian ministry said.
He also told Tillerson that assertions that the Syrian military used chemical weapon in Idlib province on April 4 do not correspond to reality, the ministry added.
It said Lavrov and his U.S. counterpart agreed to continue discussions on Syria in person. Tillerson is expected in Moscow for talks with Russian officials next week.
— 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.
Hunters in Alaska can now track and kill hibernating bears thanks to a U.S. House and Senate resolution rolling back Obama-era regulations against the practice.
President Donald Trump signed the bill into law on Monday, which rolled back Alaska’s ban on killing the vulnerable bears, along with wolf cubs in dens. It also allows for hunters to target the animals from helicopters.
The Republican-sponsored legislation impacts 76.8 million acres of federally protected national preserves across Alaska.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) took to the Senate floor last month to denounce the previous rule that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued in August.
Murkowski called it “bad for Alaska, bad for hunters, bad for our native peoples, bad for America,” and a “direct attack on states’ rights.”
In Sullivan’s argument, the lawmaker said the change was for Alaskans “who value hunting as a deep part of their culture.”
The Humane Society of the United States condemned the rollback.
“What the House did today should shock the conscience of every animal lover in America,” said Humane Society CEO Wayne Pacelle in a statement. “If the Senate and president concur, we’ll see wolf families killed in their dens [and] bears chased down by planes.”
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who introduced the measure, argued that states’ rights were being infringed upon by the rule.
“We have to recognize this is not about the little polar bears, the little grizzly bears or wolves on television, this is about the state’s right to manage — not allowing the federal government to do so,” Young said in testimony in February. “We want to be able to take and manage our fish and game for the sustainable yield — so that our fish and game will be there forever.”
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said killing predators in such a “cruel, unsportsmanlike fashion is outrageous.”
“Senate Republicans have shown just how mean-spirited and petty they are with today’s vote,” he said in a statement following the passed measure in March.
Young said that if Alaskans weren’t happy with the bill, they should stop re-electing him.
— 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.
SHANGHAI/BEIJING (Reuters) – Chinese state media on Saturday cheered the meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping as one that showed the world that confrontation between the two powers was not inevitable.
The official China Daily newspaper said it was encouraging to see the two-day summit that ended on Friday “going as well as it could” after earlier “confusing signals” from Washington about how it was approaching the U.S.-China relationship.
Trump had campaigned with strident anti-China rhetoric and had angered Beijing before taking office by talking to the president of Taiwan, the self-ruled island Beijing claims as its own.
But the two sides avoided any diplomatic gaffes at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida that would have tarnished the meeting in the eyes of the protocol-conscious Chinese.
China Daily said both parties appeared “equally enthusiastic about the constructive relationship they have promised to cultivate.”
“This may sound surreal to those preoccupied with an ‘inescapable’ conflict scenario between what they see as rising and incumbent powers,” the newspaper wrote in an editorial.
“But that Beijing and Washington have so far managed to do well in preventing conflicts shows confrontation is not inevitable.”
State-run Chinese tabloid Global Times said the meeting “served as an indicator that the China-U.S. relationship is still very much on course since the Trump administration took office in January” and it was likely the two nations would develop a more “pragmatic relationship.”
“It seems that both countries have understood the importance of how essential a smooth transition needs to be and not just for the two countries involved here but really for the entire world over,” it said.
Their comments were echoed by a front-page commentary in the overseas edition of the ruling Communist Party’s official People’s Daily, which said the meeting established the tone for the development of U.S.-China relations.
In a tweet on Saturday, Trump wrote of the meeting: “goodwill and friendship was formed, but only time will tell on trade.”
The Chinese commentaries, however, made no mention of the U.S. missile strike on a Syrian government air base, which overshadowed the summit.
Wang Dong, associate professor of international studies at China’s elite Peking University, said the move may have had the added bonus in Trump’s eyes of sending North Korea a message over its nuclear program, but that China was unlikely to be fazed.
“There are great differences between the Syria situation and the Korean peninsula situation,” Wang said, noting North Korea’s conventional military capability to strike back at South Korea in the event of U.S. military action.
“Any use of force or pre-emptive strikes against North Korea will carry huge ramifications, which would probably lead to a drastically different outcome compared to Syria,” Wang said.
In the talks, Trump pressed Xi to do more to curb North Korea’s nuclear program and the two agreed to a 100-day plan for trade talks aimed at boosting U.S. exports and reducing the gaping U.S. trade deficit with Beijing.
U.S. industry had hoped Trump would deliver a strong message to Xi behind closed doors to end what they see as discriminatory trade policies, but not do anything rash to spark a trade war.
In an outcome likely to play well in China, state news agency Xinhua said U.S. and Chinese officials initiated new dialogue mechanisms on economic issues, as well as security and diplomatic issues, in what appeared to be a reimagining of the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue held under President Barack Obama.
Some within U.S. industry had suggested those earlier talks yielded little substance, and urged the Trump administration to scrap them until Beijing displayed more initiative to address complaints about its industrial policies.
“We would like to see more results-oriented outcomes coming out of these new dialogues and fewer laundry lists,” said Beijing-based Jacob Parker, vice president of China operations at the U.S.-China Business Council, although he added that he saw the meeting as “generally positive” on commercial issues.
— 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.
One of the latest international teasers for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is out, and it’s got a few cute moments… including a brief shot of dancing Baby Groot. But holy hell, German Guardians sound amazing. I’m already regretting minoring in French.
With a week of stormy weather again hitting the east coast of the United States and backing up airline operations nationwide as a result, tens of thousands of weary passengers are left stranded at airports across the country waiting for an empty seat on another flight to become available. In times like these ― and this past week has been particularly bad ― we hear stories of angry travelers yelling at gate agents, sleeping in airports, and venting about it all on social media.
But this series of storms, which seems to have been more disruptive than usual, should serve to remind travelers that it is not only a good idea, but also their responsibility, to have a reasonable backup plan prepared before embarking on itineraries that may intersect with inclement weather.
The storms that hit the southeastern U.S. this week were reported days in advance. National weather services issued alerts and warnings and diligent travelers checking weather forecasts not only in destinations but in layover cities as well could have easily predicted the disruptions to come and either altered travel plans or requested a re-routing through an unaffected connection airport.
The importance of such pro-activity in travel planning becomes self-evident when we see how many transiting passengers were caught off guard by the well publicized approaching storms. Most became frustrated with the ensuing delays and cancellations, and understandably so. But some decided to lash out and blame their air carriers and airline staff for their misfortunes, even going so far as to demand meals and accommodations during weather delays.
Some airlines did improvise to provide food to standard passengers, such as when Delta ordered several enormous pizza deliveries and passed out slices to stranded passengers in airports like Norfolk and Atlanta and even on planes that were stuck out on runways. But this example was just a generous gesture on Delta’s part. The airline was by no means obligated to dip into its own pockets to feed passengers in airports while waiting for bad weather to pass.
In fact, there’s little that airlines are required to do in cases of delays caused by weather or even air traffic control issues. These are situations beyond the airline’s control, and such delays are commonly disclosed risks about which passengers should be well-informed and adequately prepared.
So what can one do to prepare if you’re stuck transiting through a region that may get hit with weather delays? Other than the initial options mentioned above ― change dates or request re-routing ― you can also research alternate forms of transportation and make backup reservations to use in case the worst comes to pass.
As planes finally got clearance to return to the air in parts of the southeast on Thursday and passengers on canceled flights realized that they would have to be accommodated on a space-available basis as regularly scheduled flights began departing again, some started getting the idea to rent cars and drive to their final destinations. A few passengers in Atlanta took to social media to declare that they were securing one-way rentals for under $100 to make 5-10 hour drives and get home in the same day, while many more who caught wind of this strategy later were out of luck after car rental agencies quickly sold out.
But a prepared passenger, knowing bad weather was highly probable this week, could have made a refundable rental car reservation in advance just in case it might be needed. The same could be done for a hotel room, just in case you’re stuck overnight. Most hotels have a refundable reservation option, even if it costs slightly more than the standard rate. By the time a late flight is canceled and a frustrated passenger realizes that the airline cannot provide accommodation because the cancellation was due to weather, hotel room capacity in major hub cities will disappear very quickly as other passengers rush to book from their smart phones before even leaving the gate.
Right now I am sitting in the SkyClub at Reagan National Airport in our nation’s capital and listening to countless stories of passengers around me who have been trying to get home for days. In a city like Washington, DC, here is what I would have done knowing that severe weather warnings had been issued for the area to or through which I was flying.
First, I would have checked my itinerary to make sure I was not flying into the chaos. In this past week’s case, Atlanta seems to have been hit the worse. Unfortunately that’s the largest hub for Delta, which is a major carrier out of the national capital region. But Charlotte, an American Airlines hub, was also predictably affected, as well as other cities up and down the east coast.
If I could not alter my travel dates or re-route through the northeast or midwest, I would have made a hotel reservation with free cancellation near the airport in case I ended up being stuck here overnight. I would have also booked a one-way car rental reservation if my destination was within reasonable driving distance, but I would have made sure not to use a pre-paid option. That option may offer a small five or ten percent discount off of the rate, but it would not have been refundable had I decided not to use the reservation in the end.
I would have also considered booking a backup train ticket on Amtrak too, which usually allows refunds with only a very small fee deducted. This would have been ideal had I been traveling to or transiting somewhere in the northeast like New York City or Boston, and just adds another level of preparedness and options that my fellow passengers may not have if our flight were severely delayed or canceled.
As I sit for hours and hours in this crowded airport today, I watch as my weekend jet-setting plans fade farther and farther into the realm of fantasy. Good thing I thought to make a weekend car rental reservation just in case. So instead of jetting off to the Caribbean to escape the returning cool weather as I had planned, I have decided instead to bundle up and embark on a weekend road trip out to a dog-friendly northern Virginia winery.
I have never been to a winery anywhere, so now I will be able to check that off my must-do travel list. But one experience I will not be checking off my list today, thanks to some foresight and pre-planning, is camping out in an airport.
— 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.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has offered to travel to Montana to help boost insurgent House candidate Rob Quist, who is running in a surprisingly competitive special election for the at-large seat previously held by Ryan Zinke, who is now secretary of the department of interior. The stop would be part of a national tour Sanders is doing with Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez after Easter, the Vermont senator told The Huffington Post in an interview.
The duo plan to hit roughly nine states, but the details are still being worked out.
Sanders, whose organization, Our Revolution, has endorsed Quist, said that the House hopeful is the kind of candidate Democrats should be putting up in traditionally Republican areas.
“The idea that we have a major political party today, which has essentially given up on half of the country is beyond absurd. It is pathetic, because many of those states are some of the states in the most economic distress,” he said.
“My impression is [Quist]’s a very strong candidate who stands up for working people, understands that we need a government that represents all of us and not the one percent. So if we can be of help to Quist, happy to do that as well.”
Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, will already be in the neighborhood, so to speak, with plans to stop in Omaha, Nebraska. “There is going to be a mayor’s race and my understanding is that the Democratic candidate there has a chance to win if voter turnout is high, and we’ll do what we can to create high voter turnout,” Sanders said. “In Montana, if it works out, we’d love to go to Montana and help Quist in his race.”
Quist, a bluegrass legend in the state, starts with unusually high name recognition for a first-time candidate. He endorsed Sanders during the Democratic primary and has run a populist campaign based on preserving access to and conserving public lands, expanding healthcare coverage and protecting reproductive freedom rights.
He did not immediately return a request for comment, nor did Quist’s spokeswoman. Republicans in red districts often try to paint Democrats as beholden to coastal elites such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), as the party is trying to do to both Quist and Jon Ossoff, a Democrat running in a special election in suburban Atlanta, Georgia. Quist has already been attacked for his support of Sanders during the primary, though it’s unclear if that approach is effective against him, as the senator is a rural populist from Vermont, not an urban-center politician.
Sanders thinks his politics can play in rural areas across the country. “In Kentucky, for example, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul should have to explain to their state, which may have benefited more than any other state in this country from the ACA, why it is that they think it is appropriate to throw hundreds of thousands of people in their own state off of healthcare,” Sanders said. “I look forward to their explanation as to why they think that is good public policy. Our job is to go to Kentucky and go to other states and say to working class people and young people that they are not alone. That in their own state, there are a whole lot of people who are prepared to stand up and fight against a right wing agenda which benefits the wealthy and the powerful at the expense of their middle class and working families.”
— 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.
BEIRUT, April 8 (Reuters) – A Syrian air base targeted in a U.S. cruise missile attack is operating again, the governor of Syria’s Homs province confirmed on Saturday.
The United States launched the missile strikes on Friday in response to a chemical attack that killed 90 people including 30 children. It says the Syrian government launched the attack from the Shayrat air base. Damascus has strongly denied carrying out the attack and says it does not use chemical weapons.
The Syrian army said on Friday the attack had caused extensive damage to the base, which the United States says it targeted with 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
“The airport is operating as a first phase,” Homs governor Talal Barazi told Reuters. “Planes have taken off from it,” he added, without saying when.
Asked if it was true that Syrian planes were now taking off from Shayrat or that the air base is operating, a Pentagon spokesman referred questions to the Syrian government.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based organization that reports on the war, said warplanes had taken off from the base on Friday and carried out air strikes on rebel-held areas in the eastern Homs countryside.
An activist with an opposition air raid warning service said however that the first flight from the base was on Saturday morning.
U.S. President Donald Trump suggested on Twitter that the runway itself had not been the target of the missile strikes.
“The reason you don’t generally hit runways is that they are easy and inexpensive to quickly fix (fill in and top)!,” he said.
A senior military source in the alliance fighting in support of President Bashar al-Assad said the airbase had been mostly evacuated thanks to a warning from Russia, which has deployed its military to Syria in support of Assad.
The senior military source, a non-Syrian, said only a few out-of-service jets were destroyed.
The United States warned Russia ahead of the attack.
Assad is also backed in the war by Iran and the Lebanese group Hezbollah, and other Iranian-backed groups.
The Pentagon said the missiles targeted aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage areas, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars.
(Reporting by Kinda Makieh in Damascus, Laila Bassan and Tom Perry in Beirut, Yeganeh Torbati in Washington; Writing by Tom Perry; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
— 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.
WASHINGTON ― Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said she received death threats after she cast her vote against launching the “war on terror”. She was the only member of Congress to do it.
Lee cast the only vote against the 2001 bill that would give President George W. Bush the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, also known as the AUMF, that he needed to start the war against al Qaeda and its affiliates.
But 16 years later, the California Democrat would do it again. The airstrikes launched by President Donald Trump on Syria this week only further convince her that her vote was the right one.
“I knew such a broad authorization could be used for any action, anywhere in the world in perpetuity,” Lee told the Huffington Post on Friday. “It’s really shocking to me that we haven’t had any debate and vote on a new authorization.”
When former President Barack Obama intervened in Libya in 2011, the administration pointed to the 2001 AUMF as all the authority it needed. Obama nearly struck Syria in 2013, again saying he didn’t need congressional approval but planned to ask for it. On Thursday, Trump approved an airstrike that followed plans drafted by his predecessor, and a number of senators from both parties reasoned that the president had the legal authority under that same AUMF. But that initial war authorization doesn’t have anything to do with Syria or Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The White House offered no legal rationale for why Trump felt justified in carrying out the strike during a briefing with all senators on Friday.
Lee said she wants to respond to the alleged chemical attack conducted by Assad on civilians as much as anyone else in Congress.
“The question is does one surgical strike stop it?” she said. “I would suggest we got to do something to remove Assad from power. But I don’t think military strikes will do that.”
If Trump wants to take any further action, the 2001 war authorization should be repealed and Trump needs to send a new AUMF request to Congress, Lee added.
“Because presidents ― including President Obama ― they’re hiding behind it to engage in unilateral action,” Lee said of the war powers authorization.
After that vote, Lee was ostracized, and during her next reelection in 2002, she faced protesters who carried signs that had images of her smiling in front of the burning World Trade Center towers, and that read, “Barbara Lee hates America.”
But the tone has changed somewhat. “I think more people are beginning to see what a huge blank check that authorization was,” she said.
“You know what, I think that was the right vote,” Lee continued. “Sometimes you come to these moments in life, and you have to follow what your Constitution and your conscience dictates.”
— 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.
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
