ace of spades wildcard

ace of spades wildcard VICTORIA - British Columbia Premier David Eby says 25-per-cent U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods would be “devastating” for the province’s lumber and forestry industries. He made the comment ahead of a meeting with fellow first ministers and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Eby was scheduled to participate in the virtual meeting on Wednesday to discuss U.S. president-elect Donald Trump’s threat to imposethe tariffs unless Canada and Mexico stop illegal border crossings and prevent illicit drugs from entering the United States. Eby said the lumber and forestry sectors are already strained by a recent increase in duties amid the ongoing U.S.-Canada dispute over softwood lumber. He said after the first meeting of his new cabinet in Victoria that the tariffs are “unjustified,” and they would hurt Americans as much as they would Canadians. The premier said B.C. is a source of natural gas, wood products, minerals and other products that U.S. businesses depend on, and the tariff would hinder jobs and opportunities in the province while making “life more expensive for Americans.” Eby and Ottawa have called for a united front dealing with Trump’s tariff plan, which he announced on social media on Monday. Eby said B.C. officials had repeatedly raised concerns with Ottawa over organized crime and illicit drugs, such as fentanyl, in relation to border security. “It’s a priority for us. It has been for a while, we’ve written to Ottawa about it. Doesn’t justify the tariffs, but it does mean that we can talk about those issues as well.” Eby said Trump’s proposed tariff “doesn’t make economic sense,” and the measure is not necessary to address issues at the border. The premier said he believes B.C. has a strong case to make for the tariff being “badly placed” if Trump’s priority is to reduce costs for Americans. “I think the premiers are unified,” Eby said. “There are 13 of us plus the prime minister. It’s a big group of people with different political perspectives, but on this issue of ensuring that we’re protecting the people in our country from these unjustified tariffs, I believe we’re completely in line on that question.” This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 27, 2024.

Shops demolished existed on JDA land: Relief Commissioner Migrants - Greater KashmirT wo-faced Janus, the ancient Roman god of January, looks both backwards to the year that has gone and forwards to the year to come. He presides over beginnings and endings, war and peace, he is the god of transitions, often portrayed above doorways. In short, Janus provides an excellent metaphor as the world stands on the threshold of the incoming Trump administration. The second coming of Donald Trump marks a historic moment with uncanny similarities to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Trump consciously echoed the promise of Reagan to “make America”, and one might add, the West, “great again’”. But the similarities don’t end there. Although Reagan is now recognised, even by the Left, as a great leader who, with Margaret Thatcher and John Paul II, brought about the fall of the Soviet Union, during his presidency he was mocked and derided as viciously as Trump. Both are political outsiders, even in their own party. Both have the common touch. Both have a...

NoneSouth Korea's President Yoon Suk Yeol was banned Monday from travelling abroad, the justice ministry said, less than a week after he plunged the country into chaos by briefly imposing martial law. Yoon sent special forces and helicopters to parliament on the night of December 3 before lawmakers forced him to rescind the order by rejecting his decree. The unpopular leader narrowly survived an impeachment motion in parliament Saturday even as huge crowds braved freezing temperatures to call for his ouster. Despite remaining in office, a clutch of investigations has been closing in on Yoon and his close allies, including a probe for alleged insurrection. The ministry of justice confirmed on Monday that Yoon had become the first sitting South Korean president to be banned from leaving the country. A lawmaker was asked at a Monday parliamentary hearing whether Yoon had been banned from international travel. "Yes, that's right," replied Bae Sang-up, an immigration services commissioner at the ministry. Also under travel bans for their roles in last week's events are former defence minister Kim Yong-hyun -- currently in detention -- and ex-interior minister Lee Sang-min. General Park An-su, the officer in charge of the martial law operation, and defence counterintelligence commander Yeo In-hyung are also barred from leaving South Korea. Investigators hauled Park in for further questioning Monday, and Yonhap news agency reported that prosecutors had asked for a warrant for Kim's formal arrest. The impeachment push failed to pass after members of Yoon's own People Power Party (PPP) walked out of parliament, depriving it of the necessary two-thirds majority. The PPP says that in exchange, the 63-year-old Yoon has agreed to hand power to the prime minister and party chief, prompting howls of protest from the opposition. "This is an unlawful, unconstitutional act of a second insurrection and a second coup," Democratic Party floor leader Park Chan-dae said. Under South Korea's constitution, the president remains head of government and commander in chief of the army unless he or she is incapacitated, resigns or steps down. In such a case, power would then be handed to the prime minister on an interim basis until elections could be held. Claiming Yoon can remain in office but has delegated his powers to the prime minister and leader of his ruling PPP -- who is not an elected official -- is "a blatant constitutional violation with no legal basis", Park said. "Their attitude of placing themselves above the constitution mirrors that of insurrectionist Yoon Suk Yeol," he said. South Korea's ally the United States indicated it would still deal with Yoon but said it "will keep lines of communication open with all relevant parties". "President Yoon is the president of Korea, and the political process in Korea will play out, as it should, under Korea's laws and Korea's constitution," State Department spokesman Matthew Miller told reporters. The defence ministry confirmed Monday that the embattled Yoon still oversees the country's security apparatus, despite the apparent power vacuum in a country that remains technically at war with nuclear-armed North Korea. "Legally, (control of military forces) currently lies with the commander in chief," defence ministry spokesperson Jeon Ha-kyou said. Yoon has apologised for "anxiety and inconvenience" caused by his declaration of martial law but has not stepped down, saying instead he would entrust decisions about his fate to his party. He also said he would accept all political and legal responsibility for the martial law fiasco. There is no constitutional basis supporting the ruling party's claim that Yoon can stay in office but hand over his power to unelected party officials, said Kim Hae-won, a constitutional law professor at Pusan National University Law School. "It seems to resemble an unconstitutional soft coup," he told AFP. "If there are issues with the president, there are ways laid out in the constitution such as suspending the president from his duties, and then move on to proceedings set out in the constitution, such as impeachment," he said. The opposition has already said they would try again to impeach Yoon, with leader Lee Jae-myung saying another vote would be held Saturday. burs-stu/ceb/bgs-sct/mlmB.C. Premier Eby says U.S. tariffs would be 'devastating' for forest industry

(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) A uthor: Huseyn Abdulla , University of Tennessee In 2018, L.L. Bean ended its century-old “lifetime” return policy , limiting returns to one year after purchase and requiring receipts. The demise of this popular policy sparked backlash, with several customers filing lawsuits . It also inspired my team of operations management researchers to study how customers respond when retailers make their return policies more strict. Our key finding : Whether they often or rarely return products they’ve purchased, consumers object – unless those retailers explain why. I work with a group of researchers examining product return policies and how they affect consumers and retailers. As we explained in an article published in the Journal of Operations Management , we designed experiments to study whether and why return policy restrictions irk customers. We also wanted to understand what retailers can do to minimize backlash after making it harder for customers to return stuff. We conducted three experiments in which we presented scenarios to 1,500 U.S. consumers who played the role of loyal customers of a fictional retailer. We examined their reactions to the fictional retailer’s return policy restrictions, such as charging a 15% restocking fee and limiting open-ended return windows to 365, 180 and 30 days. Participants became less willing to buy anything from the fictional retailer after it restricted its long-standing lenient return policy. They also said they would become less willing to recommend the retailer to others. This occurred because the customers began to distrust the retailer and its ability to offer a high-quality service. The backlash was stronger when the restriction was more severe. Even those consumers who said they usually don’t return any products often reacted negatively. When the fictional retailer announced its new, harsher return policy using official communication channels and provided a rationale, there was less backlash. Consumers found the changes more justified if the retailer highlighted increased “ return abuse ,” in which customers return products they’ve already used, or the high cost of processing returns. You might presume that making it harder and more costly to return stuff could drive some shoppers away . Our research shows that the concern is valid and explains why. It also shows how communicating return policy changes directly with customers can help prevent or reduce backlash against retailers. Customers visit Macy’s department store on Nov. 29, 2024, in Chicago for holiday shopping. Kamil Krzaczynski/Getty Images Americans returned products worth an estimated US$890 billion to retailers in 2024. Processing a single item typically costs $21 to $46 . Most of this merchandise ends up in landfills . The rise of e-commerce and other technological changes have contributed to this trend. Another factor is the ease with which consumers may return stuff long after making a purchase and get a full refund. Many other retailers besides L.L. Bean have done away with their long-standing lenient return policies. Over the past decade, for example, Macy’s, a department store chain, and Kohl’s, a big-box clothing store chain, have shortened the time frames for returns. Macy’s restricted its open-ended return window to one year in 2016, further winnowed it to 180 days in 2017, then to 90 days in 2019. It then stopped accepting returns after 30 days in 2023. Kohl’s didn’t have any time limit on returns it would accept until 2019. Then it imposed a 180-day limit. Others, such as fast-fashion giants Zara and H&M, now charge their customers fees when they return merchandise . However, research shows that customers value no-questions-asked return policies and see them as a sign of high-quality service. And when these arrangements become the industry standard, customers can get angry if retailers fail to meet it. Interestingly, most retailers that restricted their policies didn’t tell customers directly. Instead, they quietly updated the new policies on websites, store displays and receipts. Although not drawing attention to bad news might appear prudent – as most customers wouldn’t notice the changes that way – dozens of threads on Reddit about these changes suggest that this isn’t always true. We focused on restrictions on refunds and how long after a purchase customers could return merchandise. Other restrictions, such as retailers making heavily discounted items ineligible for returns, could also be worth investigating. The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/retailers-that-make-it-harder-to-return-stuff-face-backlash-from-their-customers-245239 . More from PennLive Opinion Pursuing Liz Chaney is nothing more than seeking a Jan. 6 scapegoat | Column You can put away your cash on the Pennsylvania Turnpike; they have other ways to make you pay | PennLive Editorial Mandate, shmandate! Trump didn’t even win the majority of the popular vote | Opinion From new commercial Moon landers to asteroid investigations, expect a slate of exciting space missions in 2025Carleton University faces backlash for employing professor convicted in 1980 Paris synagogue bombing

India took command on Day 2 of the first Test against Australia on Saturday. The scoreboard highlighted India's strong performance, as they bowled out Australia for a meager 104 runs despite scoring only 150 in their own first innings. Fast bowler Jasprit Bumrah was the star of the day, achieving a five-wicket haul. His spell dismantled Australia's batting line-up, removing key players like Usman Khawaja and Steven Smith. Bumrah's brilliant bowling, supported by strong efforts from Mohammed Siraj and Harshit Rana, led to a historic performance at the ground. Rana and Siraj also contributed significantly, capturing critical wickets. Australia struggled to form partnerships, crumbling against the Indian bowling attack. The fall of wickets painted a challenging picture for Australia, as they lost batsmen rapidly to finish 46 runs behind by the end of the day. (With inputs from agencies.)

One of the striking things about how furiously many people reacted to the news last week that MSNBC “Morning Joe” hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski met with President-Elect Donald Trump was how quaint their defenders sounded. “It is insane for critics to NOT think all of us in the media need to know more so we can share/report more,” Jim VandeHei, co-founder of Axios and Politico, said on social media. It would be journalistic malpractice for the hosts of a morning television news program not to take a meeting with a president-elect, right? But “Morning Joe” isn’t traditional journalism, and last week’s incident is a telling illustration of the broader trend of impartial fact-finding being crowded out in the marketplace by opinionated news and the expectations that creates. Scarborough, a former congressman, and his wife, veteran newswoman Brzezinski, didn’t just talk about the presidential campaign from their four-hour weekday perch. They tirelessly and emotionally advocated for Democrat Kamala Harris, likening Trump to a fascist-in-waiting. “They have portrayed themselves as bastions of integrity standing up to a would-be dictator,” says Frank Sesno, a former CNN Washington bureau chief now professor at George Washington University’s school of media and public affairs. “What the followers see is the daily procession of people on the show constantly talking about the evils of Donald Trump and then Joe and Mika show up and have high tea with the guy.” The social media blowback was instant and intense. “You do not need to talk to Hitler to cover him effectively,” was one of the nicer messages. More telling is the people who have responded with action. “Morning Joe” had 770,000 viewers last Monday, its audience — like many shows on MSNBC — down from its yearly average of 1.09 million because some of the network’s liberal-leaning viewers have tuned away after what they regard as depressing election results. That’s the day Scarborough and Brzezinski announced they had met with Trump the previous Friday. By Tuesday, the “Morning Joe” audience had slipped to 680,000, according to the Nielsen company, and Wednesday’s viewership was 647,000. Thursday rebounded to 707,000. It’s only three days of data, but those are the kind of statistics about which television executives brood. “The audience for the polarized news-industrial complex has become unforgiving,” says Kate O’Brian, outgoing head of news of the E.W. Scripps Co. The Washington Post learned this last month when it lost a reported 250,000 subscribers — presumably the bulk of them non-Trump supporters — after announcing it would not endorse a candidate for president. A draft of an editorial endorsing Harris had already been in the works. Mixing news and opinion isn’t new; many U.S. newspapers in the 1800s were unabashedly partisan. But for most of the past century, there was a vigorous effort to separate the two. Broadcast television, licensed to serve the public interest, built up fact-based news divisions. What began to change things was the success of Fox News in building a conservative audience that believed it was underserved and undervalued. Now there’s a vigorous industry catering to people who want to see their points of view reflected — and are less interested in reporting or any content that contradicts them. The most notable trend in 2024 campaign coverage was the diminishing influence of so-called legacy news brands in favor of outlets like podcasts that offered publicity-hungry politicians a friendly, if not supportive, home. Trump, for example, visited several podcasters, including the influential Joe Rogan, who awarded Trump with an endorsement. “I won’t even call it journalism,” Sesno says. “It’s storytelling.” The past decade’s journey of Megyn Kelly is one illustration of how opinion can pay off in today’s climate. Once one of the more aggressive reporters at Fox News, she angered Trump in a 2015 debate with a pointed question about his treatment of women. She moved to the legacy outlet NBC News, but that didn’t work for her. She has since started a flourishing podcast with conservative, and Trump-friendly, opinion. Among cable TV-based news brands, CNN has tried hardest to present an image of impartiality, even if many conservatives disagree. So the collapse in its ratings has been noteworthy: the network’s audience of 4.7 million people for its election night coverage was essentially half the 9.1 million people it had for the same night in 2020. O’Brian is leaving Scripps at the end of the year because it is ending its 24-hour television news network after finding impartiality was a tough business. Scripps is continuing a streaming news product. That’s the environment Scarborough and Brzezinski work in on “Morning Joe.” “They are very talented show hosts,” Sesno says. “But they are not out on the front lines doing journalism, seeking truth in the way that a professional journalist does.” Hours after the hosts’ announcement that they had met with Trump, an MSNBC colleague, legal contributor and correspondent Katie Phang, said on X that “normalizing Trump is a bad idea.” Scarborough had made a point of saying that was not what he was attempting to do. “It’s not up to you or your corrupt industry to ‘normalize’ or not ‘normalize’ any politician who wins an election fair & square,” Christina Pushaw, the pugnacious aide to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, replied to Phang. “Americans had their say; Trump will be your president come January whether you ‘normalize’ it or not. I would suggests journos should accept reality.” Quaintness alert: Sesno is among those who believe the “Morning Joe” hosts did the right thing. Whatever the motivations — and there are some who believe that worries that a Trump administration could make life difficult very difficult for them was on the hosts’ minds — opening a line of communication to ensure that a show based on politics is not completely cut off from the thinking of a presidential administration makes business sense, he says. A little humility doesn’t hurt. Even if her own job has proven that it’s not a great business now, Scripps’ O’Brian has seen enough focus groups of people who yearn for a more traditional journalism-based approach to believe in its importance. “I think that there is still a need for nonpartisan news,” says the former longtime ABC News producer, “and maybe what brings it back to where it used to be will be an exhaustion from the hyper-polarized climate that we currently live in.”

“Gladiator II” asks the question: Are you not moderately entertained for roughly 60% of this sequel? Truly, this is a movie dependent on managed expectations and a forgiving attitude toward its tendency to overserve. More of a thrash-and-burn schlock epic than the comparatively restrained 2000 “Gladiator,” also directed by Ridley Scott, the new one recycles a fair bit of the old one’s narrative cries for freedom while tossing in some digital sharks for the flooded Colosseum and a bout of deadly sea-battle theatrics. They really did flood the Colosseum in those days, though no historical evidence suggests shark deployment, real or digital. On the other hand (checks notes), “Gladiator II” is fiction. Screenwriter David Scarpa picks things up 16 years after “Gladiator,” which gave us the noble death of the noble warrior Maximus, shortly after slaying the ignoble emperor and returning Rome to the control of the Senate. Our new hero, Lucius (Paul Mescal), has fled Rome for Numidia, on the North African coast. The time is 200 A.D., and for the corrupt, party-time twins running the empire (Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger), that means invasion time. Pedro Pascal takes the role of Acacius, the deeply conflicted general, sick of war and tired of taking orders from a pair of depraved ferrets. The new film winds around the old one this way: Acacius is married to Lucilla (Connie Nielsen, in a welcome return), daughter of the now-deceased emperor Aurelius and the love of the late Maximus’s life. Enslaved and dragged to Rome to gladiate, the widower Lucius vows revenge on the general whose armies killed his wife. But there are things this angry young phenom must learn, about his ancestry and his destiny. It’s the movie’s worst-kept secret, but there’s a reason he keeps seeing footage of Russell Crowe from the first movie in his fever dreams. Battle follows battle, on the field, in the arena, in the nearest river, wherever, and usually with endless splurches of computer-generated blood. “Gladiator II” essentially bumper-cars its way through the mayhem, pausing for long periods of expository scheming about overthrowing the current regime. The prince of all fixers, a wily operative with interests in both managing gladiators and stocking munitions, goes by the name Macrinus. He’s played by Denzel Washington, who at one point makes a full meal out of pronouncing the word “politics” like it’s a poisoned fig. Also, if you want a masterclass in letting your robes do a lot of your acting for you, watch what Washington does here. He’s more fun than the movie but you can’t have everything. The movie tries everything, all right, and twice. Ridley Scott marshals the chaotic action sequences well enough, though he’s undercut by frenetic cutting rhythms, with that now-familiar, slightly sped-up visual acceleration in frequent use. (Claire Simpson and Sam Restivo are the editors.) Mescal acquits himself well in his first big-budget commercial walloper of an assignment, confined though he is to a narrower range of seething resentments than Crowe’s in the first film. I left thinking about two things: the word “politics” as savored/spit out by Washington, and the innate paradox of how Scott, whose best work over the decades has been wonderful, delivers spectacle. The director and his lavishly talented design team built all the rough-hewn sets with actual tangible materials the massive budget allowed. They took care to find the right locations in Morocco and Malta. Yet when combined in post-production with scads of medium-grade digital effects work in crowd scenes and the like, never mind the sharks, the movie’s a somewhat frustrating amalgam. With an uneven script on top of it, the visual texture of “Gladiator II” grows increasingly less enveloping and atmospherically persuasive, not more. But I hung there, for some of the acting, for some of the callbacks, and for the many individual moments, or single shots, that could only have come from Ridley Scott. And in the end, yes, you too may be moderately entertained. “Gladiator II” — 2.5 stars (out of 4) MPA rating: R (for strong bloody violence) Running time: 2:28 How to watch: Premieres in theaters Nov. 21. Michael Phillips is a Tribune critic.ACCRA, Ghana Former President John Dramani Mahama has been declared the winner of Ghana's 2024 presidential election, securing a decisive victory over his closest rival, Vice President Mahamudu Bawumia, after eight years out of office. Electoral authorities in the West African country announced Mahama's victory on Monday, confirming he received nearly 6.33 million votes (56.55%) compared to Bawumia’s 4.66 million (41.61%). This outcome marks Mahama’s return to the presidency after an eight-year hiatus, during which he faced two electoral defeats. The elections, held on Saturday, saw a voter turnout of 60%, a significant drop from 78.89% in 2020, reflecting voter disillusionment with the state of the economy under the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP). Vice President Bawumia, the NPP candidate, conceded defeat on Sunday, even before the official results. He congratulated Mahama in a phone call, pledging to support a smooth transition. Mahama, representing the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), thanked Ghanaians for their trust. Campaign shaped by economic concerns Mahama’s campaign resonated with voters by focusing on Ghana’s economic crisis, characterized by rising inflation, a depreciating currency, and soaring public debt. He accused the NPP administration, under President Nana Akufo-Addo and Bawumia, of mismanagement. “This mandate represents many things for all political actors. It shows that Ghanaians have very little tolerance for bad governance," said Mahama in a victory speech late Monday. This is Mahama’s second electoral victory, following his 2012-2017 presidency. He previously lost to Akufo-Addo in 2016 and 2020, but this year’s campaign leveraged widespread discontent with the NPP government to secure a historic comeback. The NDC also gained a parliamentary majority, with preliminary results showing that two-thirds of the 276 seats went to the party. Challenges and transition Despite Mahama’s emphatic win, the election was not without challenges. Incidents of violence at some polling stations resulted in fatalities, raising concerns about electoral security. Nonetheless, international observers praised the overall conduct of the elections, commending electoral authority’s transparency. Mahama’s victory underscores Ghanaians’ demand for change as the country grapples with its worst economic crisis in decades. He is set to be sworn in on Jan. 7, as Akufo-Addo’s term ends. Mahama has promised to prioritize economic recovery, job creation, and infrastructure development, as well as investigate alleged mismanagement of state resources by the outgoing administration. Many Ghanaians believe Mahama’s return presents an opportunity to rebuild Ghana’s economy and restore public trust in governance.None

Big Central Conference all-division football teams for 20242 convicted in human smuggling case after Indian family froze to death on US-Canada borderWellworth, city of St. Paul offer lottery for six months free parking, co-working space

The streets of The were filled with passion and determination on Monday as an estimated 20,000 students, educators, and university staff marched in protest against the Dutch government’s proposed €1 billion cuts to higher education funding. The demonstration, backed by MPs and key public figures, sent a clear message: the country’s educational future is non-negotiable. Why are the Cuts so Controversial? The proposed budget reductions are set to halt funding for grants to young researchers and force institutions to slash resources across the board. Critics argue this will result in: : The equivalent of closing two major colleges or a large university. Most Read on Euro Weekly News : A threat to the global standing in research and innovation. : Universities like Leiden and Utrecht have already announced cuts to several programmes. Thijs Roovers, chairman of the AOb teachers’ union, warned: “These cuts will rob our society of knowledge and opportunity. This is not what we want, nor what our country needs.” Leaders and Students Unite The protest began at Malieveld, a symbolic gathering point near The Hague’s central station, and moved to the education ministry before returning. High-profile political leaders, including D66’s Rob Jetten and GroenLinks-PvdA’s Frans Timmermans, stood in solidarity with the demonstrators. Abdelkader Karbache, president of the LSVb student union, addressed the crowd: “This is more than a fight against budget cuts. It’s a fight for our future—and it doesn’t end with this one protest.” A Threat to the Netherlands’ Global Standing The cuts come at a time when Dutch universities are slipping in global rankings. Eight out of 13 institutions have fallen on the Times Higher Education rankings, with Delft University of Technology dropping from 48th to 56th place. No Dutch university now remains in the top 50. Meanwhile, Amsterdam and Leiden saw modest gains, but the overall trend has sparked concern among educators and students alike. Political Pushback Grows There may still be hope for a reversal. The upper house of parliament, which previously blocked plans to raise VAT on culture and books, now appears to hold a majority against the education cuts. Wageningen Mayor Floor Vermeulen, speaking as chairman of the Dutch Knowledge City Network, called the proposed cuts “extremely irresponsible and damaging for the Netherlands’ future.” What’s Next? As MPs prepare to debate the proposal later this week, momentum from Monday’s demonstration could shape the outcome. Protesters vow to continue their fight, emphasising that investing in education is essential to maintaining the Netherlands’ reputation as a knowledge-based economy. The message from The Hague is loud and clear: education is the foundation of the future, and its value cannot be measured in euros alone.