Thane Cyber Fraud: 54-Year-Old Woman Duped Of ₹12 Lakh In Digital Arrest Scam After Fake Police Call; Case RegisteredBy BILL BARROW, Associated Press PLAINS, Ga. (AP) — Newly married and sworn as a Naval officer, Jimmy Carter left his tiny hometown in 1946 hoping to climb the ranks and see the world. Less than a decade later, the death of his father and namesake, a merchant farmer and local politician who went by “Mr. Earl,” prompted the submariner and his wife, Rosalynn, to return to the rural life of Plains, Georgia, they thought they’d escaped. The lieutenant never would be an admiral. Instead, he became commander in chief. Years after his presidency ended in humbling defeat, he would add a Nobel Peace Prize, awarded not for his White House accomplishments but “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” The life of James Earl Carter Jr., the 39th and longest-lived U.S. president, ended Sunday at the age of 100 where it began: Plains, the town of 600 that fueled his political rise, welcomed him after his fall and sustained him during 40 years of service that redefined what it means to be a former president. With the stubborn confidence of an engineer and an optimism rooted in his Baptist faith, Carter described his motivations in politics and beyond in the same way: an almost missionary zeal to solve problems and improve lives. Carter was raised amid racism, abject poverty and hard rural living — realities that shaped both his deliberate politics and emphasis on human rights. “He always felt a responsibility to help people,” said Jill Stuckey, a longtime friend of Carter’s in Plains. “And when he couldn’t make change wherever he was, he decided he had to go higher.” Carter’s path, a mix of happenstance and calculation , pitted moral imperatives against political pragmatism; and it defied typical labels of American politics, especially caricatures of one-term presidents as failures. “We shouldn’t judge presidents by how popular they are in their day. That’s a very narrow way of assessing them,” Carter biographer Jonathan Alter told the Associated Press. “We should judge them by how they changed the country and the world for the better. On that score, Jimmy Carter is not in the first rank of American presidents, but he stands up quite well.” Later in life, Carter conceded that many Americans, even those too young to remember his tenure, judged him ineffective for failing to contain inflation or interest rates, end the energy crisis or quickly bring home American hostages in Iran. He gained admirers instead for his work at The Carter Center — advocating globally for public health, human rights and democracy since 1982 — and the decades he and Rosalynn wore hardhats and swung hammers with Habitat for Humanity. Yet the common view that he was better after the Oval Office than in it annoyed Carter, and his allies relished him living long enough to see historians reassess his presidency. “He doesn’t quite fit in today’s terms” of a left-right, red-blue scoreboard, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who visited the former president multiple times during his own White House bid. At various points in his political career, Carter labeled himself “progressive” or “conservative” — sometimes both at once. His most ambitious health care bill failed — perhaps one of his biggest legislative disappointments — because it didn’t go far enough to suit liberals. Republicans, especially after his 1980 defeat, cast him as a left-wing cartoon. It would be easiest to classify Carter as a centrist, Buttigieg said, “but there’s also something radical about the depth of his commitment to looking after those who are left out of society and out of the economy.” Indeed, Carter’s legacy is stitched with complexities, contradictions and evolutions — personal and political. The self-styled peacemaker was a war-trained Naval Academy graduate who promised Democratic challenger Ted Kennedy that he’d “kick his ass.” But he campaigned with a call to treat everyone with “respect and compassion and with love.” Carter vowed to restore America’s virtue after the shame of Vietnam and Watergate, and his technocratic, good-government approach didn’t suit Republicans who tagged government itself as the problem. It also sometimes put Carter at odds with fellow Democrats. The result still was a notable legislative record, with wins on the environment, education, and mental health care. He dramatically expanded federally protected lands, began deregulating air travel, railroads and trucking, and he put human rights at the center of U.S. foreign policy. As a fiscal hawk, Carter added a relative pittance to the national debt, unlike successors from both parties. Carter nonetheless struggled to make his achievements resonate with the electorate he charmed in 1976. Quoting Bob Dylan and grinning enthusiastically, he had promised voters he would “never tell a lie.” Once in Washington, though, he led like a joyless engineer, insisting his ideas would become reality and he’d be rewarded politically if only he could convince enough people with facts and logic. This served him well at Camp David, where he brokered peace between Israel’s Menachem Begin and Epypt’s Anwar Sadat, an experience that later sparked the idea of The Carter Center in Atlanta. Carter’s tenacity helped the center grow to a global force that monitored elections across five continents, enabled his freelance diplomacy and sent public health experts across the developing world. The center’s wins were personal for Carter, who hoped to outlive the last Guinea worm parasite, and nearly did. As president, though, the approach fell short when he urged consumers beleaguered by energy costs to turn down their thermostats. Or when he tried to be the nation’s cheerleader, beseeching Americans to overcome a collective “crisis of confidence.” Republican Ronald Reagan exploited Carter’s lecturing tone with a belittling quip in their lone 1980 debate. “There you go again,” the former Hollywood actor said in response to a wonky answer from the sitting president. “The Great Communicator” outpaced Carter in all but six states. Carter later suggested he “tried to do too much, too soon” and mused that he was incompatible with Washington culture: media figures, lobbyists and Georgetown social elites who looked down on the Georgians and their inner circle as “country come to town.” Carter carefully navigated divides on race and class on his way to the Oval Office. Born Oct. 1, 1924 , Carter was raised in the mostly Black community of Archery, just outside Plains, by a progressive mother and white supremacist father. Their home had no running water or electricity but the future president still grew up with the relative advantages of a locally prominent, land-owning family in a system of Jim Crow segregation. He wrote of President Franklin Roosevelt’s towering presence and his family’s Democratic Party roots, but his father soured on FDR, and Jimmy Carter never campaigned or governed as a New Deal liberal. He offered himself as a small-town peanut farmer with an understated style, carrying his own luggage, bunking with supporters during his first presidential campaign and always using his nickname. And he began his political career in a whites-only Democratic Party. As private citizens, he and Rosalynn supported integration as early as the 1950s and believed it inevitable. Carter refused to join the White Citizens Council in Plains and spoke out in his Baptist church against denying Black people access to worship services. “This is not my house; this is not your house,” he said in a churchwide meeting, reminding fellow parishioners their sanctuary belonged to God. Yet as the appointed chairman of Sumter County schools he never pushed to desegregate, thinking it impractical after the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board decision. And while presidential candidate Carter would hail the 1965 Voting Rights Act, signed by fellow Democrat Lyndon Johnson when Carter was a state senator, there is no record of Carter publicly supporting it at the time. Carter overcame a ballot-stuffing opponent to win his legislative seat, then lost the 1966 governor’s race to an arch-segregationist. He won four years later by avoiding explicit mentions of race and campaigning to the right of his rival, who he mocked as “Cufflinks Carl” — the insult of an ascendant politician who never saw himself as part the establishment. Carter’s rural and small-town coalition in 1970 would match any victorious Republican electoral map in 2024. Once elected, though, Carter shocked his white conservative supporters — and landed on the cover of Time magazine — by declaring that “the time for racial discrimination is over.” Before making the jump to Washington, Carter befriended the family of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., whom he’d never sought out as he eyed the governor’s office. Carter lamented his foot-dragging on school integration as a “mistake.” But he also met, conspicuously, with Alabama’s segregationist Gov. George Wallace to accept his primary rival’s endorsement ahead of the 1976 Democratic convention. “He very shrewdly took advantage of his own Southerness,” said Amber Roessner, a University of Tennessee professor and expert on Carter’s campaigns. A coalition of Black voters and white moderate Democrats ultimately made Carter the last Democratic presidential nominee to sweep the Deep South. Then, just as he did in Georgia, he used his power in office to appoint more non-whites than all his predecessors had, combined. He once acknowledged “the secret shame” of white Americans who didn’t fight segregation. But he also told Alter that doing more would have sacrificed his political viability – and thus everything he accomplished in office and after. King’s daughter, Bernice King, described Carter as wisely “strategic” in winning higher offices to enact change. “He was a leader of conscience,” she said in an interview. Rosalynn Carter, who died on Nov. 19 at the age of 96, was identified by both husband and wife as the “more political” of the pair; she sat in on Cabinet meetings and urged him to postpone certain priorities, like pressing the Senate to relinquish control of the Panama Canal. “Let that go until the second term,” she would sometimes say. The president, recalled her former aide Kathy Cade, retorted that he was “going to do what’s right” even if “it might cut short the time I have.” Rosalynn held firm, Cade said: “She’d remind him you have to win to govern.” Carter also was the first president to appoint multiple women as Cabinet officers. Yet by his own telling, his career sprouted from chauvinism in the Carters’ early marriage: He did not consult Rosalynn when deciding to move back to Plains in 1953 or before launching his state Senate bid a decade later. Many years later, he called it “inconceivable” that he didn’t confer with the woman he described as his “full partner,” at home, in government and at The Carter Center. “We developed a partnership when we were working in the farm supply business, and it continued when Jimmy got involved in politics,” Rosalynn Carter told AP in 2021. So deep was their trust that when Carter remained tethered to the White House in 1980 as 52 Americans were held hostage in Tehran, it was Rosalynn who campaigned on her husband’s behalf. “I just loved it,” she said, despite the bitterness of defeat. Fair or not, the label of a disastrous presidency had leading Democrats keep their distance, at least publicly, for many years, but Carter managed to remain relevant, writing books and weighing in on societal challenges. He lamented widening wealth gaps and the influence of money in politics. He voted for democratic socialist Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in 2016, and later declared that America had devolved from fully functioning democracy to “oligarchy.” Yet looking ahead to 2020, with Sanders running again, Carter warned Democrats not to “move to a very liberal program,” lest they help re-elect President Donald Trump. Carter scolded the Republican for his serial lies and threats to democracy, and chided the U.S. establishment for misunderstanding Trump’s populist appeal. He delighted in yearly convocations with Emory University freshmen, often asking them to guess how much he’d raised in his two general election campaigns. “Zero,” he’d gesture with a smile, explaining the public financing system candidates now avoid so they can raise billions. Carter still remained quite practical in partnering with wealthy corporations and foundations to advance Carter Center programs. Carter recognized that economic woes and the Iran crisis doomed his presidency, but offered no apologies for appointing Paul Volcker as the Federal Reserve chairman whose interest rate hikes would not curb inflation until Reagan’s presidency. He was proud of getting all the hostages home without starting a shooting war, even though Tehran would not free them until Reagan’s Inauguration Day. “Carter didn’t look at it” as a failure, Alter emphasized. “He said, ‘They came home safely.’ And that’s what he wanted.” Well into their 90s, the Carters greeted visitors at Plains’ Maranatha Baptist Church, where he taught Sunday School and where he will have his last funeral before being buried on family property alongside Rosalynn . Carter, who made the congregation’s collection plates in his woodworking shop, still garnered headlines there, calling for women’s rights within religious institutions, many of which, he said, “subjugate” women in church and society. Carter was not one to dwell on regrets. “I am at peace with the accomplishments, regret the unrealized goals and utilize my former political position to enhance everything we do,” he wrote around his 90th birthday. The politician who had supposedly hated Washington politics also enjoyed hosting Democratic presidential contenders as public pilgrimages to Plains became advantageous again. Carter sat with Buttigieg for the final time March 1, 2020, hours before the Indiana mayor ended his campaign and endorsed eventual winner Joe Biden. “He asked me how I thought the campaign was going,” Buttigieg said, recalling that Carter flashed his signature grin and nodded along as the young candidate, born a year after Carter left office, “put the best face” on the walloping he endured the day before in South Carolina. Never breaking his smile, the 95-year-old host fired back, “I think you ought to drop out.” “So matter of fact,” Buttigieg said with a laugh. “It was somehow encouraging.” Carter had lived enough, won plenty and lost enough to take the long view. “He talked a lot about coming from nowhere,” Buttigieg said, not just to attain the presidency but to leverage “all of the instruments you have in life” and “make the world more peaceful.” In his farewell address as president, Carter said as much to the country that had embraced and rejected him. “The struggle for human rights overrides all differences of color, nation or language,” he declared. “Those who hunger for freedom, who thirst for human dignity and who suffer for the sake of justice — they are the patriots of this cause.” Carter pledged to remain engaged with and for them as he returned “home to the South where I was born and raised,” home to Plains, where that young lieutenant had indeed become “a fellow citizen of the world.” —- Bill Barrow, based in Atlanta, has covered national politics including multiple presidential campaigns for the AP since 2012.646 jili 。

Hail Flutie: BC celebrates 40th anniversary of Miracle in MiamiThe 41-year-old has been in charge of the Baggies since October 2022, recording 47 wins from his 107 matches in charge. Having established West Brom as a Championship promotion contender since his arrival, the Spaniard has recently been linked with the likes of Wolverhampton Wanderers and Southampton. However, according to Marca , it appears that it will be a La Liga club that push through a deal for his services. © Imago Earlier in the day, Valencia made the decision to part ways with Ruben Baraja courtesy of their lowly position in Spain's top flight. Just 12 points have been accumulated from 17 matches to leave Valencia sitting second-bottom in the table , four points adrift of safety. Despite recent draws with Alaves and Espanyol, the club's board have preferred to go in a different direction, sacking the club legend after 78 matches in charge. An earlier report suggested that Corberan and Quique Sanchez Flores were the two candidates in contention to replace Baraja, yet it now appears that a concrete decision has been made to go with Corberan. Valencia are allegedly prepared to pay the £2.8m release clause in his contract with Corberan having already given the green light to a move. Providing that a deal goes through as expected, Corberan will be returning to a club where he spent time in their academy ranks and 'B' team as a player. © Imago West Brom have endured a relatively positive campaign thus far, collecting 35 points from their 22 matches in the second tier of English football. Although they have suffered just three defeats, there have been 11 draws, yet they are within two points of fifth-placed Blackburn Rovers in the Championship table . Furthermore, the West Midlands outfit have lost just one of their last 14 games and prevailed in two of their most recent three fixtures.NBA fines Minnesota guard Edwards $75,000 for outburst

CHENNAI: Refuting the allegations made by PMK founder S Ramadoss, the State Minister for Food and Civil Supplies R Sakkarapani on Friday stated that there is no shortage of tur dal in the Public Distribution System (PDS). The minister assured that a sufficient quantity of tur dal has been sent to all fair-price shops across the State. "2,03,84,122 kg tur dal was allocated for November. Out of it 1,62,83,486 kg has been already distributed, accounting for 92 per cent of the allocated amount. A stock of 68,44,719 kg of tur dal is available in all ration shops," Sakkarapani said in a statement. An additional 66,91,000 kg of tur dal is stored in the warehouses of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, he said, adding that in the Chennai zone, 87 per cent of the allocated tur dal has been sent to PDS shops. "The neighbouring districts of Tiruvallur, Kancheepuram, and Chengalpattu have received 96%, 94%, and 97% of their allocated tur dal, respectively, " he noted. The minister further said that tenders have been floated for 6 crore kg of tur dal and 6 crore litres of palm oil for January, February, and March 2025, to ensure a smooth supply of products in PDS shops for the upcoming months. "The government's efforts to maintain a steady supply of essential commodities are aimed at supporting the welfare of its citizens," he added. Earlier in the day, the PMK founder S Ramadoss alleged that there is a shortage of tur dal in ration shops and urged the state government to ensure an uninterrupted supply of essential commodities under the PDS scheme in Chennai and its neighbouring districts.Jimmy Carter: Many evolutions for a centenarian ‘citizen of the world’

Trump’s bizarre plot to expand US by seizing Panama Canal, buying Greenland & making Canada 51st stateNEW YORK , Dec. 9, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Report on how AI is redefining market landscape - The commercial and residential cleaning services market in US size is estimated to grow by USD 36.81 billion from 2024-2028, according to Technavio. The market is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 6.05% during the forecast period. Rising popularity of multifamily dwellings in US is driving market growth, with a trend towards increasing number of strategic alliances. However, fluctuations in labor wages poses a challenge. Key market players include ABM Industries Inc., Anago Cleaning Systems Inc., Angi Inc., Authority Brands., Bonus Building Care, Buildingstars, City Wide Cleaning Services, CleanNet USA Inc., Coit Services Inc., Coverall North America Inc., Harvard Maintenance, ISS AS, Jan Pro Franchising Inc., Jani King International Inc., MaidPro, Neighborly Co., OFFICE PRIDE, Stratus Building Solutions, The ServiceMaster Co. LLC, and Vanguard Cleaning Systems Inc.. Key insights into market evolution with AI-powered analysis. Explore trends, segmentation, and growth drivers- View Free Sample PDF Market Driver The commercial and residential cleaning services market in the US is characterized by intense competition due to the presence of numerous local and international players. To stay competitive, vendors are focusing on enhancing their service offerings and expanding their customer base. Strategic partnerships have emerged as a popular strategy for gaining a competitive edge. For instance, ABM's partnership with the Arizona Diamondbacks and Chase Field in March 2024 for providing janitorial services as a single source. These collaborations enable vendors to broaden their reach and offer comprehensive services through new distribution channels. The formation of such strategic alliances is expected to increase in number, thereby boosting the availability of commercial and residential cleaning services in the US and driving market growth during the forecast period. The Commercial and Residential Cleaning Services market in the US is thriving, with a focus on maintaining high hygiene standards for both business and home environments. General cleaning duties include various techniques and methods, such as deep cleaning, sanitizing, and disinfection, using specialized equipment and supplies. Customer experience is key, with trained cleaners ensuring dependability and cleanliness. Industry trends include electrostatic spray disinfection, green cleaning, and adherence to strict cleaning standards. Facility types, from offices to cleanrooms, medical facilities, schools, and commercial kitchens, have unique sanitary requirements and cleaning needs. Bonded and insured companies prioritize property damage prevention and effectiveness of cleaning. Residential cleaning for domestic dwellings quality and customer satisfaction, while commercial cleaning requires frequency based on layout differences. In summary, the market prioritizes health, hygiene, and customer experience, with specialized technology and trained cleaners ensuring cleanliness and dependability for various facility types. Request Sample of our comprehensive report now to stay ahead in the AI-driven market evolution! Market Challenges The commercial and residential cleaning services market in the US is subject to continuous fluctuations in labor wages, which can adversely impact market growth. Underpayment of labor results in low efficiency and challenges in hiring and training processes. Increasing labor costs are driven by supply-demand imbalances and government regulations on minimum wages. For instance, the US government's frequent updates to minimum wage rules can lead to increased base salaries or employee benefits. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, wages and salaries rose by 0.9% and benefit costs increased by 0.7% in 2023. These wage increases will negatively affect the revenues of vendors in the commercial and residential cleaning services market in the US, hindering market growth during the forecast period. The Commercial and Residential Cleaning Services market in the US faces unique challenges in delivering quality cleaning solutions for various facility types. Customer experience is key, with Foreman Pro Cleaning prioritizing trained cleaners, specialized technology, and tailored services to meet specific sanitary requirements and cleaning needs. Office buildings, cleanrooms, medical facilities, healthcare facilities, schools, commercial kitchens, and domestic dwellings all have distinct sanitize and hygienic conditions. Effectiveness and dependability are essential, with industrial-grade equipment and green cleaning practices ensuring both. Bonded and insured services protect against property damage. Layout differences, cleaning frequency, and cleaning intensity necessitate specialized equipment. Client expectations for cleanliness and adherence to standards are high. Electrostatic spray disinfection and green cleaning further enhance the quality of cleaning offered. Ultimately, the goal is to maintain cleanliness and meet the unique cleaning needs of each facility type. Discover how AI is revolutionizing market trends- Get your access now! Segment Overview This commercial and residential cleaning services market in US report extensively covers market segmentation by 1.1 Commercial 1.2 Residential 2.1 Janitorial services 2.2 Carpet and upholstery cleaning services 2.3 Outdoor areas 2.4 Others 3.1 Traditional techniques 3.2 Eco-friendly techniques 4.1 North America 1.1 Commercial- The commercial segment of the US cleaning services market caters to various end-users, including hospitality establishments, spas and salons, food service industries, healthcare organizations, and institutions, as well as offices. The commercial segment is projected to witness substantial growth due to the increasing demand for cleaning services from commercial office buildings and healthcare organizations. In the healthcare sector, stringent government regulations necessitate the hiring of cleaning services to maintain clean and hygienic environments in hospitals and healthcare centers, preventing the spread of hospital-acquired infections. The hospitality industry, with numerous hotel projects underway, is another significant contributor to the demand for cleaning services. The expansion of the services sector, indicated by its growing contribution to the US GDP, is expected to fuel the growth of the commercial and residential cleaning services market further. Thus, the commercial segment will experience growth during the forecast period. Download a Sample of our comprehensive report today to discover how AI-driven innovations are reshaping competitive dynamics Research Analysis The Commercial and Residential Cleaning Services Market in the US is a significant industry focused on maintaining the hygiene and cleanliness of various facility types. This market caters to the cleaning needs of both commercial and residential properties, ensuring health and safety for all. General cleaning duties include vacuuming, dusting, mopping, and trash removal. Deep cleaning and sanitizing are essential for offices, cleanrooms, medical facilities, and healthcare centers to maintain high sanitary requirements. Cleaning techniques and methods vary from traditional to specialized, utilizing advanced cleaning equipment and supplies. Industrial cleaning services cater to large-scale facilities, while customer experience is a top priority for cleaning companies. Trained cleaners follow established cleaning standards to deliver consistent results. Specialized technology, such as UV-C light disinfection, enhances cleaning effectiveness. The importance of cleanliness in promoting health and well-being cannot be overstated. Foreman Pro Cleaning and other cleaning services provide essential services to maintain cleanliness and adhere to strict sanitary regulations. The market continues to evolve with new technologies and methods to meet the diverse cleaning needs of various facility types. Market Research Overview The Commercial and Residential Cleaning Services Market in the US is a significant industry focused on maintaining clean and hygienic environments in various facility types. General cleaning duties include vacuuming, dusting, mopping, and trash removal. Deep cleaning involves more intensive tasks like scrubbing, sanitizing, and disinfection. Hygiene and health are top priorities, with cleaning processes tailored to meet specific sanitary requirements. Residential properties require different cleaning methods than commercial facilities. Customer experience is crucial, with trained cleaners using specialized equipment and cleaning supplies to deliver dependable, high-quality cleaning services. Industrial cleaning involves heavy-duty tasks and may require industrial-grade equipment. Cleaning needs vary based on facility type. Offices, cleanrooms, medical facilities, healthcare facilities, schools, commercial kitchens, and domestic dwellings all have unique cleaning standards. Effectiveness, cleanliness, and client expectations are key considerations. Electrostatic spray disinfection and green cleaning are emerging trends. Bonded and insured cleaning services prioritize property damage prevention. Specialized technology, such as HEPA filters, ensures thorough sanitization and disinfection. Tailored services cater to client needs and expectations. Table of Contents: 1 Executive Summary 2 Market Landscape 3 Market Sizing 4 Historic Market Size 5 Five Forces Analysis 6 Market Segmentation Sector Commercial Residential Service Type Janitorial Services Carpet And Upholstery Cleaning Services Outdoor Areas Others Technique Traditional Techniques Eco-friendly Techniques Geography North America 7 Customer Landscape 8 Geographic Landscape 9 Drivers, Challenges, and Trends 10 Company Landscape 11 Company Analysis 12 Appendix About Technavio Technavio is a leading global technology research and advisory company. Their research and analysis focuses on emerging market trends and provides actionable insights to help businesses identify market opportunities and develop effective strategies to optimize their market positions. With over 500 specialized analysts, Technavio's report library consists of more than 17,000 reports and counting, covering 800 technologies, spanning across 50 countries. Their client base consists of enterprises of all sizes, including more than 100 Fortune 500 companies. This growing client base relies on Technavio's comprehensive coverage, extensive research, and actionable market insights to identify opportunities in existing and potential markets and assess their competitive positions within changing market scenarios. Contacts Technavio Research Jesse Maida Media & Marketing Executive US: +1 844 364 1100 UK: +44 203 893 3200 Email: [email protected] Website: www.technavio.com/ SOURCE TechnavioCarragher identifies ‘ridiculous’ moment behind Romero’s injury in Tottenham’s 4-3 defeat to ChelseaIn a world context marked by the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Palestine, the return of Donald Trump to the White House and the emergence of a new Right, the debates on war and imperialism, notions that seemed to have been filed in the drawer of memories by a large part of critical theories, are coming back to the forefront. But what do we mean when we speak of imperialism, and what is the relationship between imperialism and capitalism? What is the centrality of the anti-imperialist struggle for socialist strategy in the 21st century? On all these issues, there are important divisions on the Left. In what follows, we will focus in particular on some recent debates. On the one hand, there are those who argue that the Marxist theory of imperialism is obsolete, either because of the transformations of capitalism at the global level, or because it has always been wrong. For Vivek Chibber, editor of Catalyst Magazine and other authors of Jacobin Magazine, it isn’t necessary to build an “anti-imperialist Left,” but the key is to develop “class struggle at home” around “bread and butter” demands, namely, the elementary economic demands of the working class. From another angle, there are those who emphasize the inequalities between the “Global South” and the “Global North” while considering China and Russia as new axes of support for the struggle against imperialism. While the former seeks to recreate a kind of “welfare chauvinism,” the latter “Global South” positions denounce Western imperialism, but align themselves with other powers with strong imperialist traits. In the following, we will address some of these debates, in a counterpoint with Vivek Chibber and John Bellamy Foster. The first position is the one defended by the editors of Jacobin magazine in the United States, a magazine linked to the DSA (Democratic Socialist of America). In several articles, such as here and here , Matías Maiello polemicizes with the recovery of Karl Kautsky’s work by these authors and points out that there is no struggle for socialism without anti-imperialism. The debate is not secondary. In an interview published in the Jacobin Review , Vivek Chibber argued that the theory of imperialism developed by Lenin in his classic pamphlet “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” was wrong. For Chibber, as far as this question is concerned, the “Leninist legacy produced much damage” in the Marxist left. His arguments can be synthesized as follows: 1) imperialism must be distinguished from capitalism, to confuse them would be a serious mistake; 2) the idea that capitalism entered a “new stage” characterized by monopolies is wrong; 3) the thesis that the confrontation between “rich countries” would be a constant in the following decades was “spectacularly wrong”; 4) Kautsky was right with his theory of ultra-imperialism when he “predicted that what there would be would be cooperation between capitalist countries, not competition”; 5) Lenin’s errors led to a mistaken position on “bourgeois revolutions” in countries like China and others, which gave rise to support for “anti-feudal” or “anti-imperialist” bourgeois nationalist sectors; and 6) there never existed a “labor aristocracy” in the central countries. Chibber artificially separates imperialism from capitalism , as if the former referred only to the “aggressions” of some nations over others, and the latter to economic or class relations. On that basis, he concludes that anti-imperialism means nothing more than “collective action in your country against militarism and aggression by your government against other countries, and convincing your working class that its material interests are tied to the de-escalation of conflict and the demilitarization of its own state.” We will return to these conclusions, but first let us address their foundations. The Marxist theory of imperialism, developed by Lenin, Luxemburg, and Trotsky, among others, is precisely counter to the idea that imperialism was a “militaristic excess” of some states, which could be contained by diplomatic means, as if wars between powers or colonial plunder were not inscribed in the tendencies of capitalism itself. In this sense, taking up the studies of Hilferding and other Marxist authors on financial capital, Lenin defined that the transformation of “free competition” capitalism into monopoly capitalism had given rise to a new stage of development of the capitalist system, its imperialist stage. And that this opened the way to an epoch marked by the tendency to wars, crises, and also revolutions. Chibber, like other authors, centered his criticisms of Lenin’s theory of imperialism on the definitions of his classic pamphlet “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” focused above all on the economic dynamics of monopoly capitalism and on the inter-imperialist contradictions. While authors like Bellamy Foster rightly point out that to “understand the complex theoretical and historical issues involved” in this theory, one must put this work “in relation to his entire body of writings on imperialism from 1916-1920,” where the political elements and the question of national oppression have much more weight. In the Second International, the debate on imperialism divided the waters between Marxists and revisionists. At the beginning of the 20th century, the sector headed by Bernstein came to propose that there was a progressive, civilizing colonialism, and that there could even be a “socialist colonialism.” These positions were not in the majority and were rejected by different socialist congresses, which approved internationalist resolutions in the face of the possibility of the outbreak of a world war. At that time, Kautsky was still in the left-wing of the International. However, the chauvinist positions were becoming increasingly more pervasive in the leadership of the social democratic parties, gaining a foothold among the trade union bureaucracies and the labor aristocracy. From 1910 onwards, Kautsky moved towards centrist positions that diluted the struggle against imperialism and conciliated with the reformist and social chauvinist wing. Kautsky–as Chibber now proposes–in his analysis of imperialism, separated militarist tendencies from economic tendencies. He argued that capitalist expansion into new regions could be carried out by violent as well as peaceful means. He asserted that “imperialist methods,” which involved clash and confrontation between powers, were more a hindrance than a foothold for capitalist development, so that the capitalists themselves would seek ways to “coordinate” on an international scale. On this basis, Kautsky formulated the theory of “ultra-imperialism.” Just as capitalism had given rise to monopolies, these could give rise to the “cartelization” of the foreign policy of the states. That is to say, a phase that would not be marked by geopolitical and military confrontation between powers, but by their unification in a “Holy Alliance.” Remarkably, the article in which Kautsky formulated these ideas was published in September 1914, a few weeks after the outbreak of the First World War. We need hardly recall that what followed was not anything like greater concord among the states, but several years of imperialist carnage. The brutal tendencies towards military clashes between powers would explode again on a new scale in the Second World War. Yet, even after the whole 20th century passed with two world wars and was plagued by regional wars, Chibber affirms that Lenin was wrong, since from the 1950s onwards, the world had become “more Kautskyan.” However, in the postwar years, what there was was not an “ultra-imperialist” tendency toward harmony among the powers, but a “ Pax Americana” imposed after the defeat of the Axis powers (with the end of the war being a huge demonstration of imperial power with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The post-war “boom,” which followed the previous enormous destruction of productive forces, was not the beginning of a new “ultra-imperialist” epoch as Kautsky announced. The pact with the Stalinist bureaucracy at Yalta and Potsdam allowed imperialism to avoid the danger of revolution in the capitalist center for an entire period (not so in the periphery) and to postpone the confrontations between powers. But that would not last forever. That post-war order was questioned on all its flanks at the end of the 1960s, with a profound workers’ and popular upsurge in the central countries, the capitalist periphery, and the countries behind the “iron curtain” (which was combined with the economic crisis from 1973 onwards). The defeats and deviations of these processes gave way to the neoliberal period, the leap in the internationalization of value chains, and the formation of an Atlanticist global order from which all major powers benefited for several decades. Now, was this the proof that Kautsky was right, that as a result of the internationalization of capital a harmonization of the interests of the powers had been achieved in an “ultra-imperialism”? The disputes between the imperialist states were partially suspended during the period of “globalization,” even with the formation of supranational structures such as the WTO, the European Union, or free trade agreements between regional blocs. But that does not mean that contradictions were eliminated. Chibber confuses here American hegemony (undisputed for a long period) with the historical overcoming of the imperialist epoch. And although the tendencies to clash between powers were largely contained since the second post-war period (there was no new world war), the current crisis of the neoliberal order poses its actualization in a violent way. Chibber’s timing for the defense of the thesis of “ultra-imperialism” does not seem much better than that of Kautsky. At present, it is not difficult to recognize the leap towards greater conflagrations between rival powers, with the return of war to European territory. Mainstream analysts write in the latest Foreign Affairs Magazine about a dynamic towards what they call a “total war,” with Donald Trump’s upcoming presidency adding uncertainty to the global outlook. Imperialism’s warmongering tendencies are also on display in the Middle East, with the brutal genocide in Palestine, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, and Israel’s escalation with Iran. In Gaza, Netanyahu has deployed old-school colonial violence with state-of-the-art weapons provided by the U.S., Germany, and others. Now, Israel’s massacres and the complicity of Western powers have generated a wave of outrage and solidarity with the Palestinian cause not seen for decades. In the streets and on university campuses in the U.S., UK, France, and Spain, a massive youth movement emerged in support of the Palestinian people and against Zionist crimes. Hundreds of thousands of young people point the finger at their own imperialist governments as accomplices of genocide. In the United States, this led many to break politically with the Democratic Party and “ Genocide Joe,” and refuse to support Kamala Harris as the “lesser evil,” as Bernie Sanders or Alexandra Ocasio Cortez called for. Those who believe that the socialist Left in the U.S. can recreate itself with one foot in and one foot out of the Democratic Party, like Jacobin ‘s editors and DSA leaders suggest, are opposed to fighting for an anti-imperialist Left. The theory of ultra-imperialism served Kautsky to reconcile positions with the chauvinist wing of social democracy, which closed ranks with its own bourgeoisie in the war. It enables Chibber to continue to harbor illusions that the Democrats can be a progressive alternative, should they decide to take up the “bread and butter” agenda to seduce the working class. Let us now return to Chibber’s conclusions about what “anti-imperialism” means. In the interview with Jacobin , he states that it would be to push for “collective action in your country against your government’s militarism and aggression against other countries, and convincing your working class that their material interests are bound up with the de-escalation of conflict and the demilitarization of their own state.” In other words, it would be a matter of demanding, on a national level, that less money be allocated to military budgets, to be reinvested in schools and hospitals. This policy, while partially correct, when considered in isolation from a consistent anti-imperialist program, has enormous contradictions. In the first place, it seeks to obtain partial improvements for a sector of the working class in the central countries, without questioning the imperialist oppression of the semicolonial and dependent peoples. In the United States, paradoxically, it has been Donald Trump who has questioned the billionaire funds destined to the war in Ukraine, demagoguing that these funds should be dedicated to “making America great again.” Second, he generates illusions that militaristic tendencies and greater clashes between powers can be moderated with a little union pressure. And, finally, he believes that all of this would be possible with a Democratic government, if it were to adopt some old-fashioned social-democratic policies. In a recent article, John Bellamy Foster puts forward in a very suggestive way that: It is a sign of the depth of the structural crisis of capital in our time that not since the onset of the First World War and the dissolution of the Second International — during which nearly all of the European social democratic parties joined the inter-imperialist war on the side of their respective nation-states — has the split on imperialism on the left taken on such serious dimensions. He finds that “the gap between the views of imperialism held by the Western left and those of revolutionary movements in the Global South is wider than at any time in the last century.” He goes on to list some of the (contradictory) ideas that characterize what he defines as a Eurocentric Left. These include the denial of national oppression by imperialism and the idea that imperialism “is simply a political policy of aggression of one state against another” as we have already seen in the case of Chibber. This is also often accompanied by the justification of a “humanitarian imperialism aimed at protecting human rights.” He also notes the idea that “imperialist rivalry and exploitation between nations has been displaced by global class struggles within a fully globalized transnational capitalism,” or, in other occasions, the idea that “economic imperialism has been ‘reversed’ with the Global East/South now exploiting the Global West/North.” In the article, Bellamy Foster traces various debates on the Marxist Left about imperialism in the 20th century, from the Second and Third Internationals, to the elaborations of dependency theory, world-system theory, the cultural turn of the post-colonial left, and the more contemporary debates on global value chains and uneven development. He rightly points out that at the heart of all Eurocentric positions is the negation of Engels’ and Lenin’s theses on the labor aristocracy. In response, he responds that “existence of a labor aristocracy at some level is difficult to deny on any realistic basis.” As an example, he points out that the AFL-CIO leadership has historically been linked to the military-industrial complex in the United States and “has worked with the CIA throughout the post-Second World War era to repress progressive unions throughout the Global South, backing the most exploitative regimes.” As part of the “abandonment of the theory of imperialism on the left,” Bellamy Foster mentions among others, Empire by Toni Negri and Michael Hardt; David Harvey’s elaborations on the so-called accumulation by dispossession or the positions of Vivek Chibber, to which we refer. In particular, he argues that Chibber’s attack on the concept of monopoly capital shows “his ignorance of the enormous growth in recent decades in the concentration and centralization of capital associated with successive merger waves, leading to the continuing augmentation of monopoly power, along with the centralization of finance.” Now, while Chibber and other sectors of the Left deny the existence of imperialism from an abstract definition of class, Bellamy Foster tends to make the national question absolute in the periphery, diluting the struggle for class independence in what he calls “the Global South.” Vivek Chibber considers that the “Leninist legacy” has been detrimental to the Left, because in the case of revolutions in the periphery it meant support for the national bourgeoisies, with the idea of “anti-feudal” or “anti-imperialist revolutions.” One of the examples he gives is the support of the Chinese Communist Party to Chiang Kai-shek and his nationalist party, the Kuomintang, during the Revolution of 1925-28. However, what he omits is that there was no continuity between the Marxist theses on imperialism and the policy of Stalinism: the latter took up Menshevik stagism, subordinating the workers vanguard to the leadership of the reactionary Chinese bourgeoisie, which led to the defeat of the revolution. The important lessons on the Chinese Revolution and the opposition to that stagist orientation were the basis for the generalization of the Theory of the Permanent Revolution by Leon Trotsky. For his part, Bellamy Foster correctly questions Chibber for denying the national oppression imposed by imperialism on the “third world” or “Global South.” However, he does so by aligning himself politically with the national bourgeoisies (as in his defense of Chavism) and with China, which is another bloc with a strong dynamic of imperialist development. On this particular issue, he deploys several arguments. On the one hand, he argues that it is wrong to present “the People’s Republic of China as an imperialist (and straightforwardly capitalist) power in the same sense as the United States, disregarding the role of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and the whole Chinese road to development, as well as processes of unequal exchange.” He goes on to state that China’s foreign policy is geared towards “promoting the self-determination of nations, while opposing bloc geopolitics and military interventions. Beijing’s threefold Global Security Initiative, Global Development Initiative, and Global Civilization Initiative together constitute the leading proposals for world peace in our era.” For Bellamy Foster it would be necessary to stand politically with the “underdeveloped nations” (he includes China among them) against imperialism. He points out that this would not mean “abandoning the class struggle in the core capitalist nations themselves, quite the contrary.” But what about class struggle in the nations of the “global south”? What he proposes is a new stagism of the 21st century, as if imperialism could be confronted without fighting the national bourgeoisies in Latin America, Asia and Africa. It is as if there were a progressive way out of imperialist warmongering, on the basis of the proposals “for world peace” of the authoritarian Chinese government. A Left that leaves aside the struggle against imperialism, as Chibber proposes, is evidently contrary to the increasingly warlike tendencies of the world situation and also of the international movement in solidarity with Palestine. But the struggle against imperialism and capitalism are intertwined, so it is not possible to recreate a socialist and anti-imperialist perspective without class independence. To deepen these debates seems more and more necessary. Originally published in Spanish in La Izquierda Diario . Translated by Sou Mi. Capitalism China Imperialism Karl Kautsky

Wicked star Ariana Grande says she and Cynthia Erivo were ‘insufferable’Hail Flutie: BC celebrates 40th anniversary of Miracle in MiamiNFC's No. 1 seed comes down to Vikings-Lions showdown at Detroit in Week 18

STRICTLY'S Shirley Ballas' whopping six figure salary has been revealed and some fans may be shocked to know it is WAY more than the late Len Goodman’s pay. Shirley , 64, took over as head judge in 2017, when Len left the show to focus on Dancing With The Stars in the US. Advertisement 7 Shirley Ballas' Strictly Come Dancing's whopping salary has been revealed Credit: PA 7 The late Len Goodman was hugely popular on the show Credit: PA 7 Len was head of the judging panel from 2004 until 2017 and was paid a lot less than Shirley 7 Shirley has been the Strictly head judge since 2017 Credit: PA Now, it's been revealed just how much the ballroom champ banks every year for her work on Strictly Come Dancing. Shirley started at £180K when she joined seven years ago. However, she now earns around £500K per series, according to the Daily Mail. This is in stark contrast to the late Len, who was reportedly on £120K. Advertisement read more on Shirley Ballas shirley not Strictly fans slam Shirley Ballas as she 'overscores' Pete Wicks AGAIN FOR PETE'S SAKE Strictly's Shirley Ballas reveals the real reason Pete Wicks has got so far Meanwhile, Shirley's fellow judges are also on far less than her. Craig Revel Horwood started on £110K in 2004, and is now understood to be earning around £200K, while Anton Du Beke is reported to earn between £175K and £200K. Motsi Mabuse was reportedly offered a starting salary of £200K when she joined in 2019. It's not been the best week for Shirley, who has been accused of ‘blatant favouritism’ by fans threatening to switch off. Advertisement Most read in Reality Exclusive NO A-POLL-OGIES MAFS UK's Polly reveals truth behind fiery off camera feud with co-star Exclusive Star Power Coleen and Wayne Rooney at centre of bidding war for reality show Exclusive Cameras Off This Morning's Cat Deeley and Alison Hammond party at boozy Christmas bash Strictly Snub Toyah Willcox reveals the TWO Strictly pros she refused to dance with Last month, she was forced to hit back back after online trolls launched a petition to get her kicked off the show. It followed her decision to vote off singer Shayne Ward - which also led to abuse on social media. Strictly's Shirley Ballas reveals the real reason Pete Wicks has got so far in the competition But it appears BBC viewers have come for her again, ranting on Reddit that they won't tune in to the next series if she returns. In a forum titled, "If Shirley is still Head Judge next year, I probably won’t watch," one wrote: "As Head Judge, they have the deciding vote so they MUST be impartial. Advertisement "Her blatant favouritism puts the integrity of the entire competition into disrepute and I cannot see how her position is anything other than untenable." Another added: "Shirley's inconsistent with her making, and her comments to Chris [McCausland] are so patronising, as well. She's an uncomfortable watch, at best." 7 This week Shirley was accused of ‘blatant favouritism’ by fans Credit: BBC Someone else said: "Shirley I liked when she first started but she has got worse over time and it's clear when she has favourites (e.g. Pete [Wicks])." Advertisement Poor Shirley got a barrage of stick after November's shock dance-off between Coronation Street actor Shayne and Wynne Evans . It resulted in the judges saving the opera singer. Some people started a petition calling for Shirley to be sacked from her role. She later hit out at the “vitriol” and pledged her future to the show. Advertisement Asked if she is going to be part of the line-up next year, Shirley said: “You know, I’m not going anywhere as long as the BBC would like to have me.” Read more on the Scottish Sun SCOT MY FIRST RODEO! Popular music festival coming to three Scots cities for first time CHILL OUT Scots to be gripped by grim -10C freeze as weather map reveals temperature plunge She added firmly: “I judge without fear or favour. “I’m just someone who sits in that chair as head judge to stay in my lane and judge the dancing — legs, feet, body co-ordination, synchronisation and chemistry between the leader and the follower.” Strictly stars at risk of the axe in 2025 Gorka Marquez joined Strictly Come Dancing as a professional dancer in 2016 when he was partnered with EastEnders actress Tameka Empson. The following year he was partnered with singer Alexandra Burke. They reached the final and finished as one of the runners-up. In 2020, he was partnered with actress Maisie Smith. Again, he made it to the final and finished as a runner-up. He failed to make it third time lucky in 2022, finishing runner-up again with Helen Skelton. Nadiya Bychkova joined the show in 2017 with EastEnders actor Davood Ghadami. The pair reached Week 11, finishing in 6th place. Her best performance to date came in 2021 when she finished fifth with Dan Walker. Neil Jones has been without a celebrity partner more times than he's had one since joining in 2016. His best finish was with ex-footballer Alex Scott in 2019, finishing in fifth. Katya Jones was another 2016 addition and made an instant impression with politician Ed Balls. Their Gangnam Style routine is still a favourite to this day. In 2017 she lifted the Glitterball with Joe McFadden. The following year she was at the heart of a show scandal after snogging her dance partner, the comedian Seann Walsh. Karen Hauer has been an ever-present since 2012. Despite her lengthy association with the show, she's never lifted the Glitterball. The closest she came was in 2020 when she finished runner-up with Jamie Laing. 7 She came under fire when Shayne Ward was knocked out of the competition Credit: Eroteme Advertisement 7 Fans also claimed the show was 'so fixed' after Towie star Pete Wicks and Jowita Przystał took to the dance floor Credit: PAMedical dental X-ray flat panel detector

NoneBrowser-based games company Arkadium today revealed more information about its 2024 titles. According to the company, it released 18 games in 2024, the most in the company’s history. It also announced the first game to be released as part of Arkadium for Developers, its third-party publishing program: Dangle Drop, a puzzle title available exclusive on its platform. It’s also launched five other games in the final quarter of the year. Dangle Drop, which was developed by Supernapie. is the first game to launch under Arkadium’s new publishing initiative , which it debuted in August. At the time, the company also revealed its $1 million Arkadium Publishing Fund 1, which provided monetary support for developers. The other games that launched on Arkadium in the final quarter of the year were Crosswordling, Word Clash, Mr. Runner X, Swipe City and Mr. Racer. Dan Butchko, Arkadium’s director of developer relations, said in a statement, “We are so proud to finish the year strong with the launch of these great titles and kick off our third-party publishing with Dangle Drop. 2024 was a monumental year for not only Arkadium but the browser-based gaming industry at large, and it’s rewarding to be able to share a variety of new and popular games with our community and fans just in time for the holidays. There’s something for everyone!” The entirety of 2024 has been marked by stories of layoffs and underwhelming game sales, but Arkadium says it’s able to show positive growth for its publishing and the browser-based game genre. The company offers developers a 75% revenue share in the latter’s favor. According to Arkadium, it plans to continue its partnership efforts with developers in 2025. Stay in the know! Get the latest news in your inbox daily By subscribing, you agree to VentureBeat's Terms of Service. Thanks for subscribing. Check out more VB newsletters here . An error occured.

NBA fines Minnesota guard Edwards $75,000 for outburst

Latest loss shows issues go beyond coach as Bears' skid hits 7 in first game under Thomas BrownKitchens will lead Tar Heels in Fenway Bowl against UConn. Another ex-Browns coach is standing by