RelatedScott-Mottley Calls for Investment in Cultural Industries Scott-Mottley Calls for Investment in Cultural Industries UncategorizedMarch 20, 2006 RelatedScott-Mottley Calls for Investment in Cultural Industries FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail Senator Donna Scott-Mottley has called on the government to lend greater support to the development of cultural industries in Jamaica.“It is the international recognition of the role of creative industries in the future economic prosperity of developing countries, as well as Jamaica’s strong cultural industries, that demand that we stop paying lip service to this area,” Senator Scott-Mottley remarked, during her contribution to the State of the Nation Debate in the Upper House on March 17.She lamented that the area continued to reflect high levels of under investment “yet it has so much potential for poverty reduction, youth empowerment and employment, crime reduction and wealth creation.” Calling for private sector investment in culture, she noted that cultural industries were very lucrative and “was a multi-billion business in the United States alone”.She proposed that local investors “should begin to look at how they can break with their traditional requirements and become creative in their banking thrust and enter into joint venture agreements with musicians to earn money”.“Sugar days are done, banana days are done but in this globalised world, our culture is what sells us and we have to begin to look at it as a business,” Mrs. Scott Mottley said. RelatedScott-Mottley Calls for Investment in Cultural Industries Advertisements
With contributions from Associated Press journalists Martha Collins in London; and Padmananda Rama, Mary Clare Jalonick and Laurie Kellman in Washington.Tags :Iran generalThreattrumpUS killingshare on Facebookshare on Twitteradd a commentCity releases Workers’ Compensation Annual ReportMalibu Invites Community Members to Volunteer for the Annual Homeless CountYou Might Also LikeFeaturedNewsBobadilla rejects Santa Monica City Manager positionMatthew Hall7 hours agoFeaturedNewsDowntown grocery to become mixed use developmenteditor17 hours agoNewsBruised but unbowed, meme stock investors are back for moreAssociated Press17 hours agoNewsWedding boom is on in the US as vendors scramble to keep upAssociated Press17 hours agoNewsCouncil picks new City ManagerBrennon Dixson17 hours agoFeaturedNewsProtesting parents and Snapchat remain in disagreement over child protection policiesClara Harter17 hours ago HomeNewsGovernmentLegal basis for US killing of Iran general depends on threat Jan. 04, 2020 at 5:00 amGovernmentNewsPoliticsLegal basis for US killing of Iran general depends on threatAssociated Press1 year agoIran generalThreattrumpUS killing BEN FOXAssociated PressDid President Donald Trump have the legal authority to order the killing of a top Iranian general in Iraq?The answer depends largely on facts that aren’t publicly known yet. And experts are quick to point out that even if it was legally justified that doesn’t make it the right decision, or one that will be politically smart in the long run. Iran and its allies are vowing revenge.In its limited explanation so far, the Pentagon said Gen. Qassem Soleimani was “actively developing” plans to kill American diplomats and service members when he was killed in a U.S. drone strike Friday near the Baghdad airport shortly after arriving in the country.That would appear to place the action within the legal authority of the president, as commander in chief, to use force in defense of the nation under Article II of the Constitution, said Bobby Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who specializes in national security issues.“If the facts are as the Defense Department said, then the president relatively clearly has Article II authority to act in self-defense of American lives,” Chesney said.That justification would apply even if Soleimani hadn’t already launched an attack under the established doctrine of “anticipatory” self-defense, according to Jeff Addicot, a retired Army officer and expert in national security law at St. Mary’s University School of Law in San Antonio.“Legally there’s no issue,” Addicot said. “Politically, however, it’s going to be debated, whether it’s the correct response. In my opinion it’s the appropriate response, but it’s certainly legal.”Self-defense would be a legal justification under both U.S. law and the laws of international armed conflict, though the experts consulted by The Associated Press repeatedly stressed that this would depend on what intelligence prompted the killing, and American authorities may never release that information.“Under international law, self-defense, to be lawful, will need to be invoked in situations where there is an imminent attack against the interest of the territory, in this case of the United States,” said Agnès Callamard, United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions. “At this point in time, the United States has not thus far provided any information suggesting that there was an imminent attack against the American interest.”Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the general posed an “imminent” threat. “He was actively plotting in the region to take actions — a big action, as he described it – that would have put dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk,” he told CNN.The U.S. has used such justification in the past. In April 1986, President Ronald Reagan launched strikes against Libya based on what he said was “solid evidence” of attacks planned by longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi against U.S. installations, diplomats and American tourists. The attack, which the president said was “carefully targeted to minimize casualties” among civilians, killed about 40 people but not the Libyan leader.One problem with relying on the self-defense rationale is that the justification is undermined if the risk of retaliation would create more of a threat to Americans, said David Glazier of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “This is an incredibly complex question,” he said. “I’d be very wary of anyone who says they know the answer.”There are separate but related legal questions about other aspects of the attack that Iran state TV said killed a total of 10 people, including a deputy commander, five Revolutionary Guard members and Soleimani’s son-in-law. Among them: Was this a legitimate military target? Yes, since the general was a military and not a civilian figure, according to experts.Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, oversaw foreign operations that U.S. officials say have killed hundreds of American troops.Callamard said the deaths of civilians make this potentially an “arbitrary killing” under international human rights law. But U.S. experts said so-called collateral deaths have long been an unfortunate fact of war and whether this would amount to a war crime would depend on factors such as how many of the people killed could be considered legitimate targets in a conflict.Democratic leaders of Congress complained they weren’t notified of the strike in advance. Chesney said the administration could argue it has legal authority to protect the troops in the Middle East who were dispatched under congressional authorizations in 2001 and 2002 in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.That argument, however, starts to get shakier if the killing of Soleimani escalates into a wider conflict, said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who specializes in national security law and the prosecution of war crimes.“Even though the Executive Branch has pursued ever-broader theories of the President’s unilateral power to use force in self-defense, one of the critical considerations in each case has been whether the force comes with a risk of escalation,” Vladeck said by email. “Where, as here, there is no question that it does, the argument that the President needed clearer buy-in from the legislature is much, much stronger.”House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said the world is “better off” without Soleimani. But after receiving a classified briefing on the intelligence that led to the strike he questioned the timing and expressed concern about what might happen next.“Sulemani has been engaged in deadly and malevolent action throughout the region for a long time,” Schiff said. “And the question is why the administration chose this moment, why this administration made the decision to remove him from the battlefield and other administrations, both parties, decided that would escalate the risks, not reduce them.”
Reality is a constraint Let’s see which rules came out of the trap, shall we?Number style is a must Ryan Vargas says the mark of a good throwback is the willingness of a team to change its number font to match the car it’s mimicking. We’ll allow it. Besides, the No. 4 team already raced one of the finest displays of early 1990s cars-manship we’ve ever seen with its Generation X paint scheme at Pocono Raceway. If you’re paying tribute to a paint scheme, respect its original colors, some say.“Fauxbacks” are acceptableFauxbacks are fine— Hester (@TheHestercution) August 26, 2019Ah, yes, the fauxback – or a fake throwback car based only off period-correct design elements and not so much one car in particular. Once a staple of NASCAR Throwback Weekend, we’ve seen fewer and fewer fauxbacks hit the track over the years.The closest we’ve got to a fauxback this year is Kevin Harvick’s Busch Big Buck Hunter car.No, a Big Buck Hunter car never raced in NASCAR in the early ‘90s – at least to our knowledge – but the sponsor harks back to a time where we loaded our quarters into the machine at the mall pizza-arcade. stop changing the colors of them— garry lunselman (@larrygunselman) August 26, 2019 We don’t know what the future holds, but I say we give this one a shot next year: Let’s guess what NASCAR paint schemes will look like in the year 2050.Throw it back, or elseDon’t be a party pooper. Everybody else is dressing up. If you don’t participate, bad things might happen. And, sure, some teams have it easy in this regard – they’re throwing it back to themselves. Respect the colorsA common thread among those on Twitter (how rare!): I suppose this is technically a correct response to the prompt.Or … too many rules?There’s an angle I hadn’t considered. Are we looking at this the wrong way? It’s true. William Byron’s throwback car does share some similarities with a quiche, defined by Google’s auto-suggestion thing as “a baked flan or tart with a savory filling thickened with eggs.” Mmm, tasty! Have we wasted our time with this entire discussion? Should we just be happy to have sponsor participation instead of arguing over the nuances of what makes a good throwback?Maybe we should just sit back and enjoy the show and party like it’s sometime between 1990 and 1994.Now, armed with knowledge and opinions, don’t forget to cast your vote for the throwback paint scheme you think deserves the title Best in Show. WHOA, partner. Calm down with this extreme hot take. NASCAR Throwback Weekend is upon us once again, and that means watching dozens of old-school-looking paint schemes take on Darlington Raceway – this time, each car themed from the early ‘90s era. It’s one of the coolest and most unique weekends of the year, but it’s also one that draws some of the most discourse on Twitter – particularly when it comes to which paint schemes are best.The teams this year have done an excellent job of designing their throwback paint schemes. And since we can’t award a tie for all the cars as the coolest designs, this year I decided to form my opinion by listening to people on Twitter.RELATED: Every 2019 throwback paint scheme for DarlingtonI carefully set a hot-take trap to gather only the most informed opinions – those, of course, come from the people who engage with me on Twitter, each of them terrific, beautiful specimens of people. Throwback Thursday is real. Wikimedia Commons imageThere are some color similarities between the two, at least.Now do a silly one!Sometimes tweets elicit responses that are fun. These are the best types of tweets online.