49 jili super ace
Vanna White’s son Nikko reacts to ‘heartthrob’ comments from mom’s fans: ‘They’re thirsty for me’
By Kaushalya Perera Sri Lankans love their educational qualifications. Qualifications permit envious comparisons of value, similar to the ownership of gold jewellery, an expensive watch or a branded pair of shoes, resulting in exactly the same questions of provenance, worth and authenticity, but from a much higher moral ground. For the past two weeks we, the people, have watched as allegations that the (now) ex-Speaker’s educational qualifications were faked, proliferated across the news and social media. We waited for him to prove otherwise, all the while observing how his party and his current place of work (the Parliament) seemed to have neither the will nor the means to verify these claims. As I write, the ‘qualifications war’ has turned into an Absurd play. Why were the ex-Speaker’s qualifications so important? This is a two-fold problem related to the unhealthy relationship that Sri Lankans have with qualifications, coupled with NPP’s self-branding as a ‘clean’ party. Let’s take the second part first. One of the NPP’s pledges was that they would give ‘sudussata sudusu thaena’, i.e., appropriate positions to suitable individuals. This was a constant thread of their election rhetoric and it was accepted as a counter to the rampant nepotism and cronyism we have been seeing. After the (ex) Speaker stepped down, the Prime Minister said in Parliament that her Party includes members with no certificates, as well as those with many qualifications; that all are equally valued because her party values all types of knowledge; and that knowledge cannot be understood narrowly. I fully agree. It is the kind of vision I expect from a Minister of Education. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the NPP knowingly played the qualifications game during their long drawn-out campaign. The JVP’s image—associated in public discourse with ragging, student protests and workers’ strikes—was subsumed into the NPP’s much-vaunted membership of professionals, academics and artists. And the reason why the ‘qualifications game’ was so effective as election currency is precisely because Sri Lankans value qualifications so highly, in such a problematic way. It provided legitimacy to the NPP’s portrayal of themselves as a party standing against a host of corrupt charlatans. This brings us to the first part of the problem – our love of qualifications. In the education sectors, we’re all familiar with that little line: ‘A certificate will be provided’, which is included to increase participant numbers. Also familiar are instances of people registering for a specific course disappearing from the actual class and turning up at the ‘certificate-awarding ceremony’. Further, degrees are often demanded in some sectors for jobs that do not require one. This love of qualifications is not a new phenomenon. In an interesting article, titled ‘The growth of foreign qualification suppliers in Sri Lanka’, published in 2005, Angela W. Little and Jane Evans describe the growth of the ‘qualification marketplace’ in Sri Lanka. They found that advertisements by ‘qualification-suppliers’ in three national newspapers (Sinhala, Tamil and English) grew steeply over three decades, rising from 15 qualification-suppliers in 1965 to 153 in 2000. One can only imagine what a post-2000 study would reveal! The authors chart the rise of the qualifications industry in parallel with the economic liberalisation and economic growth that occurred post-1980. Though they did not make this link, we can connect this rise to the failure to expand higher and vocational education to a growing population and a fast-changing economy, during two decades of political upheaval. During this period, public funds for education declined, and declined even more sharply post-2000, despite large loans from international financial organisations. This is the context for both the deterioration of public education and the rise of privately-funded education, which is symbolised by the desire for a qualification, rather than an education. Qualification versus education Re-creating a society that values learning and education over a certificate of qualification would involve a protracted and difficult journey. It would require a few decades of high quality, widely-accessible education as well as moral re-socialisation: a simple-sounding solution, yet one that is very difficult to initiate and achieve. Indeed, it would be illogical to expect any kind of moral or ethical socialisation from an underfunded and damaged education system, embedded in a decaying society. The fact remains that the education sector desperately needs actual physical resources. Today, while a small proportion of schools in Sri Lanka contemplate installing computer labs, other schools are deprived of the basics; school meals, electricity, running water, uniforms, chairs, desks and books. We also need more and better paid teachers, plus national regulations and explicit minimum standards for the teaching profession, regardless of whether they are in the state, private or international sectors. A larger issue that is not discussed is that we actually do not know enough about our own education system. Our attention has for too long been focused on the state education system, resulting in a lack of attention towards other sectors, e.g., early education, private and international education. The education ecosystem in the country needs urgent study, and researchers across disciplines can contribute to this need. And while the education sector has accepted multiple donations and loans, it is not at all clear if these funds are used in a manner that best fits the purpose. In summary, it is vitally important that the fundamentals must be fixed. But we need to also re-think the way we over-estimate the value of a qualification, as against a wholesome education. A re-examination of values and ethics The fact that we value qualifications rather than an education has been apparent for a long time now. The prevalence of forged certificates and honorary doctorates is not the only indicator. Long before ChatGPT arrived, newspapers and social media were advertising ghostwriting services, i.e., the writing of assignments and dissertations for a fee. This is a business that is clearly unethical and must surely be illegal, but it is now so common that both the suppliers and their clients appear to consider it perfectly normal. We have come to value quantity over quality: two degrees simultaneously, more qualifications, promotions and rankings based on numerical criteria and so on. Start somewhere It is obvious that ethics socialisation has not happened through education in Sri Lanka. This is a major problem that has no simple or quick solution. When the Parliament that is supposed to be discussing the interim budget of a financially distressed country spends that time trading accusations with each other about each other’s educational qualifications; when an MP is unable to prove – even after a week – the qualifications he claims to possess and then imagines that it is sufficient to resign from his position but not from his seat in Parliament; when a party that has pledged immediate action on corruption-related issues takes several days to effect a resignation from a powerful position; and when the Prime Minister and Cabinet Spokesperson are angered when questioned about matters of veracity and authenticity – we know we still have a long way to go to re-socialise a population into ethical beliefs and conduct. It is not enough to prevent bribes and reduce wasteful spending. We also need to start looking at providing meaningful and broad-based public education, where learning and integrity go hand in hand. (Kaushalya Perera teaches at the Department of English, University of Colombo.) Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.Ludhiana: Police have thwarted a murder plot targeting a village sarpanch by arresting two suspects and seizing illegal weapons and ammunition from them. Authorities revealed on Saturday that the accused, driven by a long-standing grudge, had planned the attack with three accomplices who were now on the run. Two days after recovering three illegal pistols, ammunition, and a Thar vehicle, police unveiled this chilling plot to kill a sarpanch, orchestrated by two arrested suspects and their three accomplices. The arrested individuals, Jashandeep Singh and Gagandeep Singh, both from Lalton Kalan, were taken into custody during a routine police patrol on Pakhowal Road. A manhunt is on for three of their associates — Akashdeep Singh Pannu of Badala Kharar, Gagandeep Singh Gyani of Lalton Kalan, and Ketan of Haryana. Akashdeep Singh, previously involved in seven cases, was released from New Nabha Jail on Dec 22, 2022. Jashandeep Singh was released on bail on Oct 6, following the election-related clash. Gagandeep Singh Gagan is out on bail since April 28, 2020. Commissioner of Police (Crime) Amandeep Brar said the duo was arrested on Pakhowal Road after police intercepted them in a vacant plot. Two illegal pistols and ammunition were seized during the arrest, and a third weapon was recovered from their jeep parked nearby, which was also impounded. The investigation is focused on apprehending the remaining accused and identifying the network supplying illegal firearms. We also published the following articles recently Two from MP arrested with illegal pistols Udaipur police, along with SOG and ATS, apprehended two men from Madhya Pradesh, seizing nine illegal pistols and thirteen cartridges. Tosif, residing in Udaipur, and Ajaz, from Ratlam, were arrested. Tosif had procured the weapons from Ajaz and other suppliers. Investigations link them to previous pistol supply cases, including one involving Bada Mewati. Murder accused arrested after police encounter in Deoria dist Deoria police apprehended Deepak Mishra, the prime suspect in the Nihal Singh murder case, during a Saturday encounter in Suroli. Mishra, injured in the leg during the confrontation, is currently receiving medical treatment. Five other accused were previously arrested following the November 7th shooting of Singh, a Musaf Colony resident. Digital arrest scam: Andhra Pradesh police arrest five cybercrooks and seize cash and gold from accused Vizianagaram police apprehended five Maharashtra residents involved in a digital extortion racket. The gang swindled Rs 40 lakh from a retired lecturer by falsely implicating her in a narcotics case. Swift police action led to the recovery of Rs 10 lakh in cash and Rs 9.2 lakh worth of gold jewelry. Stay updated with the latest news on Times of India . Don't miss daily games like Crossword , Sudoku , and Mini Crossword .
Wallabies make mass changes for crunch game - news.com.au
A chilling message was left at the scene of the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson: "Deny," "Defend," and "Depose." This echoes a phrase commonly used to describe tactics employed by insurance companies to avoid paying claims. The 50-year-old health insurance executive was gunned down early Wednesday morning, November 4, outside a hotel in Manhattan, where he was set to attend his UnitedHealthcare's annual investor conference. According to New York Police, three spent 9mm shell casings were found at the scene, along with three live rounds. The three words -- "Deny," "Defend," and "Depose" -- were written on the ammunition a masked gunman used to kill UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, according to two law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. The phrase "Delay, Deny, Defend" is said to have long been associated with insurance industry practices, often used to describe how insurers deny services and payment. These chilling words also echo the title of a 2010 book, “Delay Deny Defend,” whose subtitle is “Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It.” The shooting and the ominous message have ignited a firestorm of criticism on social media, reflecting growing public frustration with the rising costs and complexities of healthcare. Many Americans view health insurance companies as profit-driven entities that prioritise financial gain over patient care. "!! The shooter of UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson wrote “deny” “defend” “depose” on the shell casings left at the scene, ABC News reports. The words echo the name of a book about how insurers won’t pay claims. This is an EARTHQUAKE for corporate America," says a viral post by Alex Berenson. The post on X, formerly Twitter, has so far received 25K-plus likes and 8K retweets. "New Unreported Truths, about the anti-insurance company messages left at the scene of Brian Thompson’s murder - and the rising fury Americans feel over our broken medical system," Berenson said in another post. First time in America's history The targeted murder of a top corporate executive of a major public company is unprecedented in recent American history. The uproar on social media is linking the murder to the insurance industry's 'culture of denial'. The insurance industry in the US is said to have a history of employing strategies to delay or deny claims, often leading to significant financial burdens and emotional distress for policyholders. The recent tragedy has further intensified public scrutiny of the insurance industry, particularly UnitedHealthcare, one of the nation's largest health insurers. Critics argue that the company's focus on profits has led to increased denial rates for claims, delayed treatments, and limited access to care. Social media has been flooded with angry comments and memes, expressing frustration and outrage over the industry's practices. Many users have shared personal stories of being denied coverage for essential medical treatments, highlighting the human cost of these tactics. As the investigation into Thompson's murder continues, the incident has sparked a broader conversation about healthcare affordability, insurance industry practices, and the need for greater transparency and accountability. UnitedHealthcare provides coverage for more than 49 million Americans and brought in more than $281 billion in revenue last year as one of the nation’s largest health insurers. UnitedHealthcare and its rivals have become frequent targets of criticism from doctors, patients and lawmakers in recent years for denying claims or complicating access to care.Lululemon Athletica earnings beat by $0.16, revenue topped estimates
Luka Doncic returns to Dallas Mavericks' lineup after missing two games with left heel contusion
Laura Benanti has slammed her former Broadway co-star Zachary Levi over comments he made about the recent death of their late colleague, Gavin Creel. Benanti, 45, and the Shazam! star, 44, co-led the wildly successful revival of the musical She Loves Me in 2016 alongside Creel, who died in September at the age of 48 from cancer. Benanti spoke about her feelings towards Levi during this week’s episode of That’s a Gay Ass Podcast , hosted by Eric Williams. “I never liked [Levi]. Everyone was like, ‘He’s so great!’ And I was like, ‘No, he’s not. He’s sucking up all the f***ing energy in this room. He wants to mansplain everybody’s part to them,’” Benanti said. “He really sucked everybody in with his dance party energy, like, ‘We’re doing a dance party at half-hour.’ I was like, ‘Good luck, have fun.’” During a pro-Donald Trump rant on Instagram Live in October, Levi baselessly suggested that Creel’s death may have been tied to Covid vaccinations. The Tony Award winner’s death was caused by a metastatic melanotic peripheral nerve sheath sarcoma, a type of nerve cancer that the actor learned he had in July. “I know that this is going to offend some people and make some people mad, and I wish it didn’t. A few weeks ago, my friend Gavin Creel died. He was 48 years old, and he was one of the healthiest people I knew. ... You better believe that, with everything in me, I believe that if these COVID vaccinations were not forced on the American public...” Levi said before trailing off. The American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute have both debunked theories that the Covid vaccine causes cancer. Speaking about Levi spreading the misinformation, an emotional Benanti told Williams: “For him to use Gavin’s memory — a person he was not friends with — to use his memory for his political agenda and to watch him try to make himself cry until he had one single tear, which he did not wipe away, I was like, ‘F*** you forever.’” Levi was widely criticized by other Broadway stars at the time. Wicked alum Jenna Leigh Green wrote in the comments of Levi’s post: “Gavin deserved better. What has happened to you to have flown so far from decency and sanity? It’s just so sad.” “So incredibly disappointed you would politicize Gavin’s death ,” wrote two-time Tony winner Norbert Leo Butz. “Really tried to give you the benefit here. Made it halfway through, which was hard as hell. But was utterly heartbroken, as he would have been, that you felt the need to use his life and legacy to promote this awful platform.” In September, Levi endorsed Trump for president after his first choice, anti-vaxxer Robert F Kennedy Jr. , dropped out of the race . Appearing at the Republican’s rally in Michigan, the DC actor said: “We’re here to make sure that we are going to take back this country, we are going to make it great again, we are going to make it healthy again. And so, I stand with Bobby, and I stand with Tulsi, and I stand with everyone else who is standing with President Trump. Because I do believe, of the two choices that we have, and we only have two, Donald Trump, President Trump is the man that can get us there. And he’s gonna get us there because he’s gonna have the backing and the support and the wisdom and the knowledge and the fight that exists in Robert Kennedy Jr and former representative Tulsi Gabbard.” In January 2023, two months before the release of Shazam! Fury of the Gods , Levi shocked fans with his response to a tweet asking if Covid-19 vaccine maker Pfizer was “a real danger to the world.” “Hardcore agree,” he wrote. While the first Shazam! (2019) film was warmly received, the second was such a critical and financial bomb that the film’s director David F Sandberg vowed to leave the world of superheroes behind . Levi subsequently made a number of public statements decrying the treatment Fury of the Gods received from critics.Julia Wick | (TNS) Los Angeles Times As California politicos look ahead to 2025, the biggest question looming is whether Vice President Kamala Harris — a native daughter, battered just weeks ago by presidential election defeat — will enter the 2026 California governor’s race. Related Articles California Politics | Late Democratic House victories in California gnaw at GOP majority California Politics | In Kamala Harris’ home county 1 in 5 Biden voters disappeared in 2024 California Politics | Adam Schiff sworn in to U.S. Senate by VP Kamala Harris, reflects on ‘big senatorial shoes to fill’ California Politics | Kamala Harris found success with women who have cats, but Donald Trump got the dog owner vote California Politics | Gov. Newsom tours California’s conservative counties with post-election message Harris has yet to give any public indication on her thoughts and those close to her suggest the governorship is not immediately top of mind. But if Harris does ultimately run — and that’s a massive if — her entrée would seismically reshape the already crowded race for California’s highest office. Recent polling suggests Harris would have a major advantage, with 46% of likely voters saying they were somewhat or very likely to support her for governor in 2026, according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies survey co-sponsored by The Times. “If Vice President Harris were to choose to run, I am certain that that would have a near field-clearing effect on the Democratic side,” Rep. Katie Porter, D-Irvine, said during a recent UC Irvine panel interview . Porter, a high-profile Democrat who has been eyeing the wide-open governor’s race, has yet to say whether she plans to run. Porter’s point was broadly echoed in conversations with nearly a dozen California political operatives and strategists, several of whom requested anonymity to speak candidly. Most speculated that a Harris entry would cause some other candidates in the race to scatter, creating further upheaval in down-ballot races as a roster of ambitious politicians scramble for other opportunities. “In politics, you always let the big dogs eat first,” quipped Democratic political consultant Peter Ragone. The current gubernatorial field is a who’s who of California politicians, but lacks a clear favorite or star with widespread name recognition. The vast majority of California’s 22 million voters have yet to pay attention to the race and have little familiarity with the candidates. The list of Democratic candidates includes Los Angeles’ first Latino mayor in more than a century ( Antonio Villaraigosa ); the first female and first out LGBTQ leader of the state Senate ( Toni Atkins ); the sitting lieutenant governor and first woman to hold that post ( Eleni Kounalakis ); the state superintendent of public instruction ( Tony Thurmond ) and the former state controller ( Betty Yee ). Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is serving his second term as California governor, meaning he is ineligible to run again. Several other Democrats, including Porter, outgoing Health and Human Services Director Xavier Becerra and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta have also publicly toyed with the idea of a run. They could be less likely to enter the fray should Harris decide to run. What the billionaire mall mogul Rick Caruso — who has also been exploring a run — would choose to do is an open question, as Caruso might contrast himself with Harris as a more centrist candidate. The real estate developer was a registered Republican until November 2019. It’s unlikely that Harris will proffer a public decision in the immediate term, leaving plenty of time for political insiders to game out hypotheticals in the weeks and months to come. Harris’ office did not respond to a request for comment. “I think every candidate for governor is trying to get some kind of intel,” Mike Trujillo, a Los Angeles-based Democratic political consultant and former Villaraigosa staffer, said of a potential Harris run. Trujillo speculated that Harris’ current state was probably similar to Hillary Clinton’s hiking sojourns in the Chappaqua woods after losing to Donald Trump in 2016, or Al Gore growing a beard in the bruising aftermath of his 2000 defeat. “The first thing she’s probably thinking about is, ‘Well, can I run again for president in four years?’ Not, ‘Do I run for governor in two years?’” said one political operative who’s worked with Harris in the past. Harris maintains a home in Brentwood and previously served as California’s senator and attorney general. A successful run for governor in 2026 would almost certainly impede a grab for the presidency in 2028. (Though if history is any guide, an unsuccessful run for California governor does not definitively preclude a bid for the Oval Office: Two years after losing the White House to John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon lost the 1962 contest for governor to Pat Brown . The Yorba Linda native became the nation’s 37th president in 1969.) As the chief executive of a state that doubles as the world’s fifth-largest economy, Harris would have more power to steer policy and make changes as a California governor than she did as vice president, where her job required deference to President Biden. But leading a state, even the nation’s most populous, could feel like small potatoes after being a heartbeat (and a few dozen electoral votes) from the presidency. The protracted slog to November 2026 would also be a stark contrast to her ill-fated 107-day sprint toward the White House, particularly for a candidate whose 2020 presidential primary campaign was dogged by allegations of infighting and mismanagement. “I don’t think Kamala Harris has a deep psychological need to be governor of California, or to be in elective office in order to feel like she can contribute to society,” said the operative who’s worked with Harris in the past. “I think some of these people do, but she’s somebody who has enough prominence that she could do a lot of big, wonderful things without having to worry about balancing California’s budget or negotiating with Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel,” the Encino Democrat who chairs the Assembly’s budget committee. Technically, Harris has until March 2026 to decide whether she enters a race. But political strategists who spoke to The Times theorized that she probably would make a move by late spring, if she chooses to do so. “People will be more annoyed if she drops in in June,” a Democratic strategist involved with one of the gubernatorial campaigns said. Sending a clear signal by February would be more “courteous,” the strategist continued, explaining that such a move would give candidates more time to potentially enter other races. Kounalakis is a longtime friend and ally of Harris’ , and the vice president also has long-term relationships with some of the other candidates and potential candidates. California has eight statewide elected offices and campaign finance laws allow candidates to fundraise interchangeably for them, meaning money already raised for a candidate’s gubernatorial campaign could easily be redirected should they decide to run for, say, lieutenant governor instead. There are already a number of candidates running for lieutenant governor, including former Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs, former state Sen. Steven Bradford and former state Treasurer Fiona Ma. But that office probably would see even more interest should Harris enter the gubernatorial race. It’s a largely ceremonial position, but one that has served as a launching pad for the governorship. Still, even if Harris does enter the race, Republican political strategist Mike Murphy threw cold water on the idea that she would have an automatic glide path to the governor’s office. “It’s like Hollywood. Nobody knows anything. She’s famous enough to look credible in early polling. That’s all we know for sure,” Murphy said. “Does that predict the future? No. Are there a lot of downsides (to a potential Harris candidacy)? Totally, yes.” ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.