how to register milyon88 COLUMN: The divide in WVU’s football fan base was a participant at Rich Rodriguez’s press conferenceome U.S. presidents have the (mis)fortune of having their entire foreign policy defined by their handling of one part of the world. For Jimmy Carter, who died on Sunday, Dec. 29, 2024, aged 100, it was the Middle East. There, he reached his highest point as a peacemaker and his lowest one as a seemingly inept protector of Americans. His legacy in the region is a complex one, featuring stunning triumphs and bitter defeats—and setting dubious precedents. In November 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel to seek peace, creating an opening for an agreement between the heretofore bitter enemies. By July 1978, however, the talks had stalled. In an attempt to resurrect them, Carter audaciously proposed that he, Sadat, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin meet at the presidential retreat at Camp David in September. After of arduous negotiations and diplomacy, Carter brokered the . The agreement had two parts: a framework for peace between Egypt and Israel, and a framework for negotiations on Palestinian autonomy. Although Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty in March 1979, the Palestinian autonomy talks ultimately went nowhere, in large part due to Israeli intransigence. This left a mixed legacy for the agreement. On the one hand, it ended the threat of conflict between Israel and the strongest Arab state, thereby drastically decreasing the chances of another large-scale Arab-Israeli war like those that took place in 1967 and 1973. That not only prevented mass casualties and destruction, but it also reduced the possibility of a nuclear war between the superpowers—something that had seemed possible during the 1973 war when there was a nuclear standoff between the United States and Soviet Union. On the other hand, Egypt’s peace with Israel hamstrung the Palestinians, depriving them of their greatest source of pressure on Israel to negotiate fairly. Furthermore, the United States repeatedly missed or the chance to involve the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the negotiations. When Carter’s ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young, secretly met with a PLO representative, Carter fired him. Carter for that decision, and he had for not wanting to upset the Israelis—after all, without them, there could be no negotiations—or to suffer the potential domestic political costs of engaging the Palestinians. Yet, the move punctuated Carter’s failure to seriously and directly engage with “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people,” or to sufficiently Carter also rebuffed Soviet attempts to engage in the peace talks, which erased the possibility of securing comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, as historian Galen Jackson argues in his . Without Soviet involvement, there was no way to bring the other Arab nations to the table, making a broader deal and regional peace impossible. But Cold War considerations trumped all for Carter, and instead of working on a peace deal, the Soviets to oppose the Egyptian-Israeli peace. While Carter was preoccupied with guiding the Egyptian-Israeli talks to completion and negotiating a strategic nuclear arms deal with the Soviets, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran, America’s closest partner in the Middle East, faced a revolution at home, beginning in November 1978. When pushed by his hawkish national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to encourage the Shah to use force against the opposition, Carter refused, and the Shah abdicated in January. Ultimately, the radical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took power and turned Iran from a close American ally into a staunchly anti-Western force in the region, despite the Carter Administration’s with the new government. Iran’s collapse added to the anxiety of other American partners in the region—especially Saudi Arabia—who were unsure whether the United States would support them if revolution crept to their doors. This fear was punctuated by a border conflict between the Yemen Arab Republic (YAR) and its southern Marxist neighbor, the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY) in February and March 1979, which threatened Saudi Arabia’s security. Hoping to reassure U.S. allies, Carter ordered a Navy carrier to the Gulf of Aden and used a congressional waiver to hasten arms deliveries to the YAR. That conflict ultimately ended in a cease-fire in mid-March. Though short-lived, this crisis, sometimes called the Second Yemenite War, was a for Carter’s Middle East policy that signaled his increased openness to military intervention. This willingness stemmed from the administration’s impression that the Persian Gulf was vital to American security, that the situation was and that it through a in the region—what Brzezinski dubbed a “ .” Accordingly, the administration also undertook a in arms sales to Saudi Arabia as part of a recognition of its outsize role in American interests in the region, especially due to its oil production. Carter’s mettle would be tested again later that year, when, on Nov. 4, Iranian student protesters seized the American embassy in Tehran and took over 60 U.S. Embassy personnel and expatriates hostage, only releasing some of the African American and female captives in a show of solidarity. Despite tireless diplomatic efforts to free the hostages, 52 Americans languished in captivity in Iran for 444 days—a colossal embarrassment to the Carter Administration (though reporting has over whether the Reagan campaign may have quietly signaled to Iran not to release the hostages while Carter was in office). To make matters worse, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late December 1979, marking the end of the period of improved Soviet-American relations known as detente. The Soviets of American moves in the Middle East and that Afghanistan could become an American proxy on their border. Western intelligence agencies were shocked by the invasion and American policymakers worried that the Soviet Union might be angling to control the Persian Gulf and its oil, through Iran or Saudi Arabia. This possibility represented a significant threat to American interests, as it raised the specter of worsening the existing oil crisis caused by the Iranian Revolution, and prompted Carter to promulgate what came to be known— —as the “Carter Doctrine.” In his , Carter bluntly declared that “An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” The Carter Doctrine set the stage for a more militant American policy toward the Middle East and created a policy rationale that allowed for the disastrous April 1980 (the first offensive U.S. military action in the region since 1958), the even-more-catastrophic U.S. intervention in Lebanon between 1982 and 1984, the 1991 Gulf War, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Carter also helped create the and necessary for projecting American power into the Middle East, a feat that was previously far more difficult because of the lack of U.S. bases and forces in the region. What, then, is Carter’s Middle East legacy? He was a peacemaker but was unable to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict — something he his successors to do by recognizing a Palestinian state. He believed in restraint but ended up looking weak to many Americans, which contributed significantly to his defeat in 1980. He was an advocate for human rights and a reluctant interventionist, but paved the way for decades of American policy excesses in the Middle East, including unjust wars and torture. This mixed record reflected not only the complexity of Carter, but also the difficulty of the region and the cross pressures facing American policymakers as they determine a course in the Middle East. .

Bieber re-signs with Guardians

Trump invites China's Xi to his inauguration even as he threatens massive tariffs on BeijingSlovakia protests against minister who tests culture, LGBT limits

HICKSVILLE, N.Y. , Dec. 13, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Flagstar Financial, Inc. (NYSE: FLG) ( the "Company"), today announced the appointment of Lee Smith as Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO), effective December 27, 2024 . The appointment follows the decision of current CFO Craig Gifford to step down to reengage in personal endeavors outside of the banking industry. Gifford will remain with the Bank through March 31, 2025 , and work closely with Smith during the transition period, ensuring a seamless hand-over and continued support for the Bank's ongoing initiatives. "For more than a decade, Lee has been an instrumental member of Flagstar's executive team. He is a proven leader with a strong track record, has the requisite experience and expertise, and possesses deep knowledge of the Company. The Board of Directors and I have full faith and confidence in Lee to continue to help guide the Company in this financial leadership position," said Joseph M. Otting , Chairman, President, and CEO. Smith joined legacy Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. in 2013 as Chief Operating Officer and his transition to CFO comes after serving on Flagstar's executive management team for more than a decade, most recently as President of Mortgage. He has an extensive background in accounting, finance, mortgage, private equity, and operations, spanning more than 25 years. His experience in managing large-scale transactions, optimizing financials and operations, and working with regulators demonstrates a strong ability to drive financial performance, ensure compliance, and lead financial operations. Additionally, his leadership in M&A deals, capital markets, and financial management positions him well to oversee financial strategies, risk mitigation, and operational efficiency at a senior financial level. His prior roles include Partner at Matlin Patterson Global Advisers LLC, a private investment firm. He is also a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) since 1998 and has a BSc in Economics and Accountancy from Loughborough University in England . Otting added, "I want to express our sincere appreciation to Craig for his impactful contributions over the past year. His leadership during this time has been invaluable, and we wish him all the best. As all of our stakeholders know, we have been working relentlessly to elevate Flagstar to new heights. I also recognize the personal sacrifices and time commitment required away from our personal lives for this journey. Given the substantial progress we've made as a Company, I am comfortable that this is a good time for this transition, and I am confident the momentum we've gained will only strengthen as we move forward." About Flagstar Financial, Inc. Flagstar Financial, Inc. is the parent company of Flagstar Bank, N.A., one of the largest regional banks in the country. The Company is headquartered in Hicksville, New York . At September 30, 2024, the Company had $114.4 billion of assets, $73.0 billion of loans, deposits of $83 .0 billion, and total stockholders' equity of $8 .6 billion. Flagstar Bank, N.A. operates over 400 branches, including a significant presence in the Northeast and Midwest and locations in high growth markets in the Southeast and West Coast. In addition, the Bank has approximately 80 private banking teams located in over 10 cities in the metropolitan New York City region and on the West Coast, which serve the needs of high-net worth individuals and their businesses. Cautionary Statements Regarding Forward-Looking Statements This release may include forward‐looking statements by the Company and our authorized officers pertaining to such matters as our goals, beliefs, intentions, and expectations regarding (a) revenues, earnings, loan production, asset quality, liquidity position, capital levels, risk analysis, divestitures, acquisitions, and other material transactions, among other matters; (b) the future costs and benefits of the actions we may take; (c) our assessments of credit risk and probable losses on loans and associated allowances and reserves; (d) our assessments of interest rate and other market risks; (e) our ability to execute on our strategic plan, including the sufficiency of our internal resources, procedures and systems; (f) our ability to attract, incentivize, and retain key personnel and the roles of key personnel; (g) our ability to achieve our financial and other strategic goals, including those related to our merger with Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., which was completed on December 1, 2022, our acquisition of substantial portions of the former Signature Bank through an FDIC-assisted transaction, and our ability to fully and timely implement the risk management programs institutions greater than $100 billion in assets must maintain; (h) the effect on our capital ratios of the approval of certain proposals approved by our shareholders during our 2024 annual meeting of shareholders; (i) the conversion or exchange of shares of the Company's preferred stock; (j) the payment of dividends on shares of the Company's capital stock, including adjustments to the amount of dividends payable on shares of the Company's preferred stock; (k) the availability of equity and dilution of existing equity holders associated with amendments to the 2020 Omnibus Incentive Plan; (l) the effects of the reverse stock split; and (m) transactions relating to the sale of our mortgage business and mortgage warehouse business. Forward‐looking statements are typically identified by such words as "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "intend," "outlook," "estimate," "forecast," "project," "should," "confident," and other similar words and expressions, and are subject to numerous assumptions, risks, and uncertainties, which change over time. Additionally, forward‐looking statements speak only as of the date they are made; the Company does not assume any duty, and does not undertake, to update our forward‐looking statements. Furthermore, because forward‐looking statements are subject to assumptions and uncertainties, actual results or future events could differ, possibly materially, from those anticipated in our statements, and our future performance could differ materially from our historical results. Our forward‐looking statements are subject to, among others, the following principal risks and uncertainties: general economic conditions and trends, either nationally or locally; conditions in the securities, credit and financial markets; changes in interest rates; changes in deposit flows, and in the demand for deposit, loan, and investment products and other financial services; changes in real estate values; changes in the quality or composition of our loan or investment portfolios, including associated allowances and reserves; changes in future allowance for credit losses, including changes required under relevant accounting and regulatory requirements; the ability to pay future dividends; changes in our capital management and balance sheet strategies and our ability to successfully implement such strategies; recent turnover in our Board of Directors and our executive management team; changes in our strategic plan, including changes in our internal resources, procedures and systems, and our ability to successfully implement such plan; changes in competitive pressures among financial institutions or from non‐financial institutions; changes in legislation, regulations, and policies; the imposition of restrictions on our operations by bank regulators; the outcome of pending or threatened litigation, or of investigations or any other matters before regulatory agencies, whether currently existing or commencing in the future; the success of our blockchain and fintech activities, investments and strategic partnerships; the restructuring of our mortgage business; our ability to recognize anticipated expense reductions and enhanced efficiencies with respect to our recently announced strategic workforce reduction; the impact of failures or disruptions in or breaches of the Company's operational or security systems, data or infrastructure, or those of third parties, including as a result of cyberattacks or campaigns; the impact of natural disasters, extreme weather events, military conflict (including the Russia / Ukraine conflict, the conflict in Israel and surrounding areas, the possible expansion of such conflicts and potential geopolitical consequences), terrorism or other geopolitical events; and a variety of other matters which, by their nature, are subject to significant uncertainties and/or are beyond our control. Our forward-looking statements are also subject to the following principal risks and uncertainties with respect to our merger with Flagstar Bancorp, which was completed on December 1, 2022 , and our acquisition of substantial portions of the former Signature Bank through an FDIC-assisted transaction: the possibility that the anticipated benefits of the transactions will not be realized when expected or at all; the possibility of increased legal and compliance costs, including with respect to any litigation or regulatory actions related to the business practices of acquired companies or the combined business; diversion of management's attention from ongoing business operations and opportunities; the possibility that the Company may be unable to achieve expected synergies and operating efficiencies in or as a result of the transactions within the expected timeframes or at all; and revenues following the transactions may be lower than expected. Additionally, there can be no assurance that the Community Benefits Agreement entered into with NCRC, which was contingent upon the closing of the Company's merger with Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., will achieve the results or outcome originally expected or anticipated by us as a result of changes to our business strategy, performance of the U.S. economy, or changes to the laws and regulations affecting us, our customers, communities we serve, and the U.S. economy (including, but not limited to, tax laws and regulations). More information regarding some of these factors is provided in the Risk Factors section of our Annual Report on Form 10 ‐ K/A for the year ended December 31, 2023, Quarterly Report on Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2024 , June 30, 2024 , and September 30, 2024 , and in other SEC reports we file. Our forward ‐ looking statements may also be subject to other risks and uncertainties, including those we may discuss in this news release, on our conference call, during investor presentations, or in our SEC filings, which are accessible on our website and at the SEC's website, www.sec.gov . Investor Contact: Salvatore J. DiMartino (516) 683-4286 Media Contact: Steven Bodakowski (248) 312-5872 View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/flagstar-financial-inc-names-lee-smith-as-chief-financial-officer-302331680.html SOURCE Flagstar Financial, Inc.

Nordson Corporation Reports Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2024 Results

How Jimmy Carter’s Presidential Election Victory Helped ‘Heal Ancient Wounds’ of RacismOntario to restrict electricity exports to US and bar American-made alcohol if Trump tariffs applied

ST Picks: How have budget airlines changed air travel in Singapore?New law could see Ottawa councillors fired for bad behaviourThis talk of nuclear is a waste of time: Wind, solar and firming can clearly do the job

UDST hosts first-aid training for NGOsNo. 24 UCLA, Arizona have first reunion since Pac-12 days

Rockfire Resources (LON:ROCK) Trading Down 8.9% – Should You Sell?Azincourt Energy (CVE:AAZ) Trading Up 50% – Time to Buy?VICTORIA — A Vancouver Island First Nation whose people were the first to greet European explorers in the region almost 250 years ago is taking British Columbia to court, seeking title to their traditional territories and financial compensation. Chief Mike Maquinna, a descendent of Chief Maquinna who met British explorer Capt. James Cook in 1776, says the claim in B.C. Supreme Court seeks to return decision-making, resource and ecological stewardship to the Mowachaht/Muchalalaht First Nation. He says the province has been acting as the sole decision-making authority in the Gold River-Tahsis areas of northern Vancouver Island, especially with regards to the forest resource, without the consent of his nation. Hereditary Chief Jerry Jack says the claim filed today seeks title to about 430,000 hectares of land from Friendly Cove to Tahsis in the north and Buttle Lake in the east, and an undisclosed amount of financial compensation. Jack says the land title case does not make any claims against private land owners, home owners or recreational hunting and fishing operators. Jack says the First Nation decided against pursuing formal treaty talks with the federal and provincial government years ago and has been planning the land title court case "for many decades." This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 12, 2024. Dirk Meissner, The Canadian Press49ers look to maintain 'urgency' against rival Rams

African Union Sports Council’s (AUSC) regional organising committee chairperson, Stanley Mutoya, on Tuesday declared the country capable of hosting the eleventh edition of the Re ... If you are an active subscriber and the article is not showing, please log out and back in. Free access to articles from 12:00.

Australia news LIVE: Dutton to announce Coalition’s nuclear policy; Early rates cut unlikely as unemployment dips

With no house to call home as temperatures plummet, Richard Tremblay and his dog are attempting to weather another winter without a home. For the past two years, Tremblay, who lives with diabetes, and his dog, Fergus, an American Eskimo, have called his 2010 Hyundai Genesis Coupe home, and its back seat their bedroom. “I’ll take any chance I can to get into a place in just about any condition, but those don’t exist, at least that I’ve found,” said the 46-year-old former machinist from Welland, who is preparing to hunker down to eke out another season in the vehicle. Niagara Centre MPP Jeff Burch took up Tremblay’s case in a letter sent to Ontario Premier Doug Ford on Tuesday, two days before Ford’s government introduced changes to give municipalities and police more money immediately and powers in legislation to help find shelter and services for homeless people — and punish scofflaws. With homelessness rising and growing numbers of encampments, the province is earmarking an additional $75.5 million for shelters and affordable housing and toughening up trespassing laws . “Enough is enough,” Ford said Thursday. “This has to stop and it will stop. Families deserve to play in and enjoy their parks without fearing for the safety of their kids. “These encampments are taking over public spaces with illegal drug use happening out in the open, creating huge safety risks for people and communities,” said the premier, as critics warned he’s seeking to criminalize homelessness that has grown worse under his watch. Burch’s letter outlined homelessness situations like Tremblay’s, criticizing the premier for “giving mayors permission to tear down tents and move desperate people along,” while offering no real solutions. He chided Ford’s approach to homelessness that suggested people “get an application and drop it off at one of these companies and start working.” Burch said that’s not feasible for unhoused people, who lack the simplest necessities to get a job. “He’s (Tremblay) one of those people who shouldn’t be homeless and if he needs financial assistance to get him through a rough period, it should be enough so he can house and feed himself while he finds a job,” said Burch. People like Tremblay, living in their cars, on friends’ couches or in temporary accommodations without long-term housing stability are considered hidden homeless, and about 15 per cent of unhoused people in Canada are part of that population. Tremblay has experienced ups and downs over the past few years, including multiple hospital stints due to ketoacidosis, complications of diabetes and homelessness. His unhoused journey started in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. After losing his job, he quickly fell behind on rent, resulting in eviction. The premier said his government will earmark an additional $75.5 million on shelters and ensure Tremblay lost most of his possessions when that happened, including sentimental items left by his father. “I lost 80 per cent of everything I owned including all my tax files, all the stuff my mom had given me from my dad when he passed away, things I can’t get back,” he said. Since then, Tremblay has struggled to find accommodations, due to limited employment, help or money, resulting in him taking to his car to survive. It’s tough to find a job, as it requires housing and housing requires having a job, he said. “Ultimately I have no income to support or be a feasible renter in a (landlord’s) eyes,” he said. Tremblay said his 78-year-old mother has helped him, despite his protestations, as he only receives basic needs from Ontario Works of about $350 a month to survive on. Living in his car has impacted his mental health, causing him to isolate from people he knows. “If I’ve recoiled from friends, it’s because they think I’m living in my car by choice because it’s been so long, but that’s not by choice,” he said. In his desperation, Tremblay considered going to a shelter, but was told he would have to leave his dog, as most shelters do not accommodate animals. “There’s no point in me calling any of them, because they will not accept someone with a pet, that’s ridiculous,” Tremblay said. “Pets bring people comfort, half the time they mean more to people than other people, you can understand why they’re called man’s best friend.” Looking for help, Tremblay approached Burch’s office. “Richard is, unfortunately, a fairly typical example of homelessness and an example of how many people are falling through the cracks who may not have ended up homeless in the past, but it’s becoming all too frequent,” said Burch, the NDP’s municipal affairs critic. As wages and social assistance rates stagnate, Burch said more people are having to take drastic measures just to survive. “It’s an example of the connection between housing and homelessness because things have become so bad in Ontario with a lack of affordable housing and options such as co-operative housing, social housing, rent geared to income and those kinds of housing developments,” he said. “So, we’re seeing that connection more between lack of housing and people becoming homeless and living in poverty.” People like Tremblay are falling into a “vicious cycle,” said Burch. “When someone is homeless through no fault of their own, it’s impossible for them to find a job, like the premier seems to think, as they’re spending all their time trying to survive and there’s no time to devote to finding a job.” — With files from the Toronto Star

Tarar says no formal dialogue between PTI and govt yetNEW YORK —The New York Department of State’s Division of Consumer Protection is providing tips to help consumers navigate return and refund policies. According to the National Retail Federation, this year’s holiday weekend from Thanksgiving Day through Cyber Monday set record levels for consumer spending. The State of Retail Returns 2024 Report states $743 billion dollars’ worth of merchandise were returned last year. However, policies vary from store to store, making returns and refunds a challenge at times. Consumers should be aware of laws that protect them so they can make informed decisions about holiday returns and understand what to look for when reviewing return and refund policies. “As the holiday shopping season comes to an end, both gift givers and receivers may have changed their minds about what they bought,” Secretary of State Walter T. Mosley said in a news release. “But depending on where you’re returning the items, there may be some limitations. It’s important for consumers to pay attention, prior to purchase, the return and refund policy so you can exchange that item you’ll never use for something you love.” The Division of Consumer Protection offers the following tips to help consumers navigate return and refund policies: Pay Attention to Return Policies: New York State law requires that stores post their refund policies conspicuously – on the item, at the store entrance or on or near the cash register. Retailers must provide a written copy of the store’s return policy when requested. New York State Law does not require retailers to accept returns; however, they must post a conspicuous notice visible to consumers before the point of sale, advising that no returns will be accepted.If the retailer does not post a return policy, the law requires the retailer accept returns of unused, undamaged merchandise within 30 days of the purchase date. The returned item must include a proof of purchase and the refund must be in the form of cash or credit based on the customer’s preference.Understand the Refund Terms: For retailers that allow returns, New York State law does not require refunds to be given in any specific manner. However, it does require the form of the refund – cash, credit or exchange – be clearly disclosed in advance of purchase. Retailers must also disclose any fees associated with the return. If no fee is listed, customers should inquire whether the store imposes a re-stocking fee for returned merchandise and determine prior to purchase if the item can be returned for a refund or only store credit. Retain Any Proofs of Purchase: Consumers should hold on to receipts in the event a product needs to be returned. If purchasing gifts, ask if a gift receipt is available. It is also advised to keep the packaging of an item, along with its confirmation number. Consumers having difficulty obtaining a refund are encouraged to file a complaint with the New York State Division of Consumer Protection. About the New York State Division of Consumer Protection Follow the New York Department of State on Facebook, X and Instagram and check in every Tuesday for more practical tips that educate and empower New York consumers on a variety of topics. Sign up to receive consumer alerts directly to your email or phone here. The New York State Division of Consumer Protection provides voluntary mediation between a consumer and a business when a consumer has been unsuccessful at reaching a resolution on their own. The Consumer Assistance Helpline 1-800-697-1220 is available Monday to Friday from 8:30am to 4:30pm, excluding State Holidays, and consumer complaints can be filed at any time at www.dos.ny.gov/consumerprotection. The Division can also be reached via X at @NYSConsumer or Facebook.