Daily news sites

OSLO, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Norway's government dropped a plan to ban begging on Thursday after opposition parties and rights campaigners said it would criminalize anyone offering help to the poorest people in one of the world's richest nations.
The opposition Center Party dropped its previous support of the proposed law, leaving the minority right-wing government -- which has linked begging to rising crime rates -- without a majority to get it through parliament.
The legislation would have banned both begging and "cooperation" with beggars, with fines or up to a year in jail, in an attempt to outlaw gangs suspected of organizing trips for homeless people from nations including Romania.
But the Center Party said the clause outlawing cooperation could threaten simple acts of charity.
"It cannot be a crime to give clothes, food and shelter," Marit Arnstad, head of the party's parliamentary group, told the NTB news agency. She said the party would now not support any national ban on begging, no matter how it was phrased.
Rights campaigners have also described the law as draconian and against Nordic traditions of tolerance.
Deputy Justice Minister Vidar Brein-Karlsen told Reuters the proposed law had now been dropped. "Everyone knows begging creates debate, and we can only note that the Center Party has changed their standpoint," he said in a statement.
The Center Party has often cooperated with the two-party coalition in cracking down on crime.
Last year the three linked begging to an increase in crime, saying in a joint statement that there had been an "explosion" in pickpocketing in Oslo to match the number of cases in Berlin, which has seven times the population.
Norway, rich from oil and gas, has a sovereign wealth fund worth $860 billion, or $170,000 for each of Norway's 5 million population. Last year, the government passed a law allowing local municipalities to outlaw begging in public places. (Reporting By Alister Doyle; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of U.S. senators pushed Thursday to send arms to Ukraine, saying in a Capitol Hill news conference that the United States needs to send "defensive, lethal" weapons to the country to help stem fresh offensives by Russian-backed separatists.

Sending arms would be a step beyond what many European allies support, and the senators offered no estimates of how far Americans should be willing to go in a new proxy war against Russia or how much the nation should be willing to pay. The White House has already sent $118 million in non-lethal assistance to Ukraine.

"The United States and our allies must deter further Russian aggression by providing defensive, lethal assistance," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said that legislation would be offered soon to allow for the nation to send arms.

McCain also said the move would be carefully calibrated to pose no real threat to Russia, but to raise the stakes for Russian President Vladimir Putin to meddle further in Ukraine.

"Defensive, lethal assistance will not allow the Ukrainian military to defeat the Russian military in a full-fledged war. But it will raise the risks and costs Russia must incur to continue its offensive," McCain said. "It will pierce the veneer of the Kremlin's cynical and false narrative that there are no Russians in Ukraine."

The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), echoed McCain, saying the goal would be to force all the parties back to considering a political solution to the conflict.

"We should be prepared to help Ukraine to defend itself against this aggression," said Reed, who noted that Congress already has approved sending defensive weapons, including anti-tank weapons and radar systems.

"The hope of all of us is that this step will reenergize the political process, and that there will be a respect for the cease-fire, and also help to the president of the Ukraine to deal with the political issue," Reed said.

Germany and France have so far resisted arming the Ukrainian government, and senators were harshly critical on Thursday.

"I'm hopeful that Germans, that under German leadership, that the Europeans will come around, and be much more active in support of Ukraine. Frankly I'm not overly optimistic," McCain said. "They've been a huge disappointment to me. Their actions recently have been reminiscent of the 1930s," he added, referring to infamous appeasement policies towards Nazi Germany before World War II.

McCain said that refusing to give Ukraine weapons was contributing to massacres. "Right now, they have no ability to defend against Russian tanks. That really makes for wholesale slaughter," he said.

Asked about potentially escalating conflicts between the United States and Russia, McCain suggested that the situation was growing more dire because sanctions and diplomacy were not enough to deter Putin.

"There was the belief that if we did not provide defensive weapons to Ukraine, then things would eventually be OK. We didn't want to 'provoke' Vladimir Putin. Well obviously Vladimir Putin has not gotten that message," McCain said.

"We're frankly at the end of the line here. You just can't stand by and watch people being slaughtered with superior equipment. You know, blankets don't do very well against tanks," he said.

Asked about how much cost the United States should bear to supply the weapons, McCain answered, "I have no idea."

His colleagues did not either, but suggested the cost did not matter. They also ruled out sending U.S. forces to fight on the ground in Ukraine.

"The key here is to give the Ukrainians the ability to defend their territory and also to move back to a political solution," said Reed.

Several pointed to an agreement signed 20 years ago called the Budapest Memorandum, in which the United States, Russia and Britain offered assurances to respect the sovereignty and borders of Ukraine. They also noted that the United States has promised to shield other allies along Russia's borders.

"We gave our word. And what is the cost if we don't keep our word that we will be there to protect our friend?" said Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) "Everybody in the region is scared to death, is afraid of what Vladimir Putin is going to do, and if at some point we don't stand up for our friends, it will only get worse."

The White House is reportedly considering taking stronger steps as the situation worsens.

Spokesman Josh Earnest said earlier this week that the aid already sent includes "body armor, helmets, vehicles, night and thermal vision devices, heavy engineering equipment, advanced radios, de-mining equipment, portable explosive ordinance disposal robots, patrol boats, counter-mortar radars, and other items that are required to sustain Ukraine's defense and internal security operations."

Earnest did not say if boosting that effort was in the cards, but he did not rule it out.

"We're continually evaluating our strategy and our response with essentially two goals: One is to isolate Russia's political leadership for the decisions they're making to destabilize the situation in Ukraine, and also to take steps to support our friends in Ukraine that are going through a very difficult time," Earnest said.

"Ultimately, it is the view of the United States that this situation will be resolved diplomatically, that the idea that somehow the United States can offer enough assistance to the Ukrainians to put their military on par with the large Russian military is unrealistic," he added.

McCain did not say exactly when he would advance legislation, but suggested it would be soon.

"We'll be marking up legislation," McCain said.

A group of more than 30 members of the House of Representatives also made a similar appeal Thursday in a letter to the White House, pleading for more war aid.

"Tighter sanctions and greater humanitarian assistance should be part of that support, but now, more than ever, the U.S. must supply Ukraine with the means to defend itself," said the lawmakers, including the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas).

Violence often breaks out between religious groups. Yet, it is a mistake to blame religion for violence. Unfortunately, warfare is a universal human potential that would still exist if we were all atheists.

Not all societies are warlike, however. Anthropologists contrast the peaceful Shoshone with the more belligerent Paiute in North America for instance. The Shoshone wandered widely in small groups in search of food. They did not fight because they had no territory worth defending, as the Paiute did (1).

Land (or territory) remains an important bone of contention around the globe, in places as diverse as Israel and the Ukraine but there are many other resources that stimulate aggression, from oil and minerals, to spices, and opium. Many seemingly religious conflicts have nothing to do with theology even if religion serves as a convenient label for opposing groups.

Ireland's War between Catholics and Protestants Was not a Religious War
Wars fought across lines of religious membership are easily mistaken for wars about religion. Yet, most involve conflict over over vital resources. The problem in Northern Ireland was that Catholics were a discriminated-against minority who were cut out of well-paid jobs and scraped by in substandard housing with minimal political power and plenty of intimidation by police. Of course, Northern Ireland tensions were also fueled by a territorial dispute between England and the Republic of Ireland where Catholics were considered disloyal to the colonial Stormont regime.

So the violence in Northern Ireland had little or nothing to do with theology as such. If both sides had belonged to the same religion, or no religion at all, they would have had just as much reason for conflict.

In Northern Ireland, religion served as a convenient line of demarcation within the population across which the conflict was fought. Religion functioned as a group identifier that evoked an us-versus-them mentality. Social psychologists recognized many decades ago that any arbitrary identifier can be used to foment hostilities between groups that are otherwise equivalent.

Established Religions Mostly Favor Peace
Mainstream religions mostly discourage warfare. There are some historical exceptions, including the days of Papal armies and empires, and the medieval Crusades where the Catholic Church wanted to capture Jerusalem and claim it as a Christian city.

In general though, religious leaders are content to exercise their power indirectly by influencing secular leaders and the public). They promote peace of mind through their rituals rather than stirring up hostility.

Unfortunately, there are some firebrand clerics who ignore that playbook and use their pulpits to inspire aggression against other religious groups. The fact that they cloak their message of hate in religious rhetoric tells us nothing about the mainstream churches that they choose to pervert. Such messages find receptive soil in communities that feel marginalized, despised, or deprived of job opportunities and social mobility.

Radicalization of a small number of individuals can have devastating consequences as recent events in Europe demonstrated. That is particularly true in the context of a global Jihadi movement organized over the Internet. It is disturbing in a world where violent extremists are permitted to hold territory, and even to form governments.

Pirate Societies
Phenomena like the Lord's Resistance Army, ISIS, and Boca Haram, are more dangerous than Al Qaeda because they aim to hold territory by terrorizing civilians and are willing to take on large armies such as those of Iraq and Nigeria, sometimes with stunning success.

That success is partly due to having superior equipment purchased with the proceeds of various crimes from stealing oil, to kidnapping, and human trafficking.

Apart from their religious rhetoric, these terrorist groups have many similarities to pirate societies of the past, complete with a large treasure chest, brutal system of punishment, and distinctive clothing and flags.

With their safe havens in the Caribbean and elsewhere, a relatively small number of pirates defied the great navies of the world for centuries. Some, like Blackbeard, used carnival tricks - such as placing a lighted fuse under his hat - to intimidate his victims.

ISIS and their ilk are little more than the pirate communities of old. They may use religious rhetoric to rationalize their grisly crimes, to justify their punishments, or to attract new recruits from abroad. Yet, their agenda is not religious and it is not new. Their ambition is the same as that of Blackbeard. They enjoy scaring people but they also want the loot.

Nigeria is a promised land; Africa is a great continent; we are marching on; to take our place; among all the nations of the world. This was our marching song at every morning assembly before classes began as elementary school students in the 1980s in Eastern Nigeria. This hymn captured the hope of the founding fathers and mothers of Nigeria about Nigeria's place in both African and world history. More than fifty-four years after independence from Great Britain and after three decades of experimenting with the American presidential system many Nigerians are still waiting for the dividends of democracy. In the words of the late Nigerian singer, Sony Okosun, many Nigerians are asking: "Which way Nigeria?"

As Nigeria prepares for national elections this February, memories of the June 12, 1992 annulled elections in Nigeria loom large. That election was considered the most free and fair elections ever conducted in the country since Independence. However, the violence and breakdown of law and order which followed the annulment of those elections took Nigeria to the brink of a second Civil War. This is why John Kerry's insistence in his recent visit to Nigeria on free and fair elections in Nigeria as basis for continued co-operation between the two nations is well-timed. Violence and anarchy have often characterized elections in Nigeria. Indeed, party politics and national elections in addition to religious fundamentalism have been the greatest sources of violence and war in Nigeria. They have also been fueled by the exploitation of the deep religious and ethnic differences in the country. This is worsened by the shocking economic and social disparity between politicians who have their hands in the till, their religious acolytes who sanctify the corrupt politicians with blessings and praise, and over 70% of Nigerians who live below the poverty line and over 53% of Nigerian youth who are unemployed.

When in 1979 Nigeria abandoned the Westminster Parliamentary system for American-type presidential and constitutional federalism, the hope of most Nigerians was that the country will become a United States of Nigeria. Nigerians hoped that their nation will be a model of good governance, civil liberties, rule of law, checks and balances and other practices and principles of democracy which define American political culture. Nigerians were optimistic then that like America which emerged from her Civil War a progressive and more united nation, that Nigeria through the American Presidential system can witness a national rebirth from the smoldering embers of the Civil War and bad governance which plagued her as a nation.

The sad reality is that a criminal elite--military and their civilian accomplices--has run Nigeria's economy aground by siphoning and mismanaging Nigeria's oil wealth. For instance Nigeria has lost more than 220 billion pounds of her national wealth to corruption and mismanagement in the first 40 years after independence through the political gatekeepers and their military, civilian and religious networks who control 90% of Nigeria's GDP. Nigeria has also lost more than 30 billion dollars from oil theft within the last ten years according to a report by Chatham House. In addition, Nigeria's political elites have preyed on the fragile ethnic and religious divides in the country to sustain a patron-client relationship which has defined the accession and retention of power in Nigeria. Most elections in Nigeria are simply charades and a mockery of democracy. The best candidates do not get any chance to get on the ballot or to win. This is because they cannot break the stranglehold of the prebendal aristocrats who have turned governance in Nigeria into a cesspool of corruption with a high attrition rate for those who refuse to dance to the tune of the political patrons. Elections in Nigeria simply highlight the disenfranchisement and powerlessness of most Nigerians in shaping their national destiny. In Nigeria, power does not belong to the people. Rather, power belongs to a few thin top layer of the Nigerian elites who are kept afloat on the sea of our national wealth, while the rest are drowning in the perilous waters of economic and social deprivation. Breaking this hold is something which lies beyond the capacity of Nigerians because there is no transcending national consciousness or patriotism which can be a template for building a counter narrative of inclusion and being in Nigeria in order to subvert the status quo. Nigeria needs the help of the international community. The US in particular should not support governments in Nigeria and the rest of Africa which emerge through flawed elections or military coups even if such governments are surrogates of the interest of the US in the continent.

Nigeria stands at the crossroads of history. These forthcoming elections in Nigeria could unravel all that is flawed about the Nigerian nation. The fault-lines of ethnic and religious polarities are emerging; there are random incidents of violence against candidates who campaign in areas outside their ethnic or religious stronghold. More worrying to many discerning Nigerians is the absence of any clear policy options between President Goodluck and his main challenger General Buhari on how they will confront the myriad problems which have held Nigeria down including the threat of Boko Haram and general insecurity in the country. Absent is also a plan from both parties on how to resuscitate the collapsing social and public services in Nigeria and how to provide jobs for millions of Nigerian graduates who are roaming the streets of life without hope. Neither the ruling party, PDP nor the opposition party, APC has enough ethical and ideological bandwidth to transmit a new narrative of national identity, or a platform to address the economic woes of Nigeria and her failed power and agricultural sectors. This election has not afforded Nigerians the opportunity to have a national conversation about the way forward. This is because the campaigns have been filled with 'sound and fury' of character assassination, stoking of ethnic and religious sentiments, finger-pointing, etc all of which signify nothing for the future of Nigeria. This is why I cry for my country of birth and the millions of poor Nigerians who have never known the good life despite the huge oil wealth of Nigeria and who do not see any hope beyond the dance, drama, empty promises and grandstanding of the Nigerian elites who are criss-crossing the country for votes.

Aviation authority director Lin Chi-ming told a news conference that two people were killed. The country's Central News Agency said three people were killed.




Footage of the rescue efforts in Taipei.


Taiwan's Central News Agency said at least 10 people were being taking to safety after the incident but gave no immediate information about the other passengers and crew aboard the TransAsia Airways flight.

Taiwanese media posted pictures of the plane in the water several dozen meters (yards) from the shore in the Keelung River.

CNA said the flight from Taipei to the outlying island of Kinmen lost contact with flight controllers at 10:55 a.m. and the fuselage landed in the Keelung River near the city's downtown Sungshan airport.




At least 10 people are awaiting help.

The plane was identified as a French-made twin-engine turboprop ATR 72 with a two-pilot air crew.

The plane's fuselage was seen half-submerged in the shallow river, with passengers and rescuers standing on the hull and swimming in the water.




The accident comes just months after a TransAsia ATR-72 crashed while attempting to land on the island of Penghu off Taiwan's coast, killing 48 people and injuring another 10. Stormy weather and low visibility were suspected as factors in that crash last July.

Liverpool took the lead in the 14th minute when the lively Raheem Sterling was brought down in the area by United defender Phil Jones and skipper Steven Gerrard drilled home the penalty.

The Merseyside team should have doubled its advantage shortly after half-time but Rickie Lambert fluffed his shot after finding space inside the area.

United equalised in the 55th minute with Javier Hernandez delivering a cross deep to the back post and Rooney coolly side-footed home a cushioned volley from a tight angle.

Two minutes later, Mata's well-struck effort from the edge of the box took a slight deflection off Mamadou Sakho and beat Liverpool goalkeeper Simon Mignolet.

United wrapped up the win in the eight-team tournament when substitute Jesse Lingard blasted home from 18 yards out two minutes from time.

Source : www.abc.net.au

Beyonce has joined forces with Nicki Minaj for a surprise remix of "Flawless" that has left the rap blogosphere and Twitter completely blown away. Listen below.

The standout line is Beyonce's declaration, "Of course sometimes shit goes down when there's a billion dollars on an elevator," a once-and-for-all ending to that infamous elevator tussle between  Jay Z and Solange.

But the line "You wish I was your pound cake" is rife for unpacking, too. And then there's Minaj, who marks her first Beyonce collaboration by reestablishing herself as hip-hop's Queen Bee: "Winning is my motherf—ing protocol/'Cuz I score before I ever throw the ball." Minaj's verse is otherworldly in its intensity, recalling the fire she spat at the end of Kanye West's "Monster" four years ago.

There's also a quick sample of Outkast's "SpottieOttieDopaliscious" horn riff in the "Flawless" remix." Outkast wrapped its headlining set at Lollapalooza right before Beyonce posted the remix on her website.

The surprise "Flawless" remix follows the surprise release of "Beyonce," which was released as a "visual album" without warning last December. The album featured guest spots by Frank Ocean, Drake and Beyonce's hubby, Jay Z.

source : www.billboard.com