Tag Archives: Here

The mystery of MH370 remains more than 5 years later — here are all the theories, dead ends, and unanswered questions from the most bizarre airline disaster of the century

The mystery of MH370 remains more than 5 years later — here are all the theories, dead ends, and unanswered questions from the most bizarre airline disaster of the centuryMalaysian Airlines flight MH370 disappeared in 2014 with 239 people on board en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur. Mystery has swirled since.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

From 'vindication' to 'meltdown,' here are how UK newspapers are announcing Boris Johnson's landslide election win

From 'vindication' to 'meltdown,' here are how UK newspapers are announcing Boris Johnson's landslide election winThis marks a huge victory for Boris Johnson ahead of a fast-approaching Brexit deadline which has been extended by the EU to January 31, 2020.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Nancy Pelosi made her case for articles of impeachment at a CNN town hall. Here are the 5 biggest takeaways.

Nancy Pelosi made her case for articles of impeachment at a CNN town hall. Here are the 5 biggest takeaways.Pelosi touched on a number of topics at the town hall, namely Trump's impeachment, bills passed by the House, and health care.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Supreme Court in Major Gun Case: What Are We Even Doing Here?

Supreme Court in Major Gun Case: What Are We Even Doing Here?The Supreme Court heard the most important gun-rights case in 10 years today—one with the potential to be doomsday for gun-control supporters, and a huge win for the National Rifle Association—but may not decide it.That’s because the case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, is probably moot, since New York City (and state) withdrew the challenged regulation after the Supreme Court took the case.The reason was obvious: With Justice Brett Kavanaugh having replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy on the court, there are probably five votes for overturning the law and, more importantly, expanding the court’s jurisprudence on what the Second Amendment does and does not cover.New York has three types of firearms licenses, in order of strictness: concealed carry, a “premises license,” and a license to carry during employment. The middle form of license is the subject of today’s case.The now-repealed version of New York City’s premises license only allowed the licensee to possess the firearm at home and at one of seven shooting ranges in the city—not to carry the gun around, or transport it out of the city for any reason.Several gun owners sued. One complained he couldn’t take it to his country house upstate. Another wanted to shoot at target ranges outside the city. And so on.After the Supreme Court took the case, those restrictions were loosened. Under the current law, premises licensees can take their guns to second homes, to places of business, and to shooting ranges outside of the city.Case closed?Not when it’s this important an issue. The court has only ruled twice in the last century on how the Second Amendment affects individual gun owners, and since its landmark decision in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, it has repeatedly declined to take gun cases in recent years.As a result, neither gun-rights activists nor gun-control activists really know what the U.S. Constitution allows as far as gun regulations, and lower courts have begun to diverge from one another. The stakes are high, especially since a decision would probably be rendered just in time for the 2020 election.So, the challengers maintained, there are still live issues here. What if a gun owner wants to stop for coffee on the way to their country house? (Yes, this was an actual question raised in challengers’ briefs.) And what about the period during which the broader regulations were in place? Couldn’t New York City penalize someone now for breaking the rules then?But these are thin reeds on which to hang a major constitutional ruling, and in fact, most of the oral argument on Monday was devoted not to the merits of the law, but to the questions of whether there’s even a live case here. That’s a bad sign for the NRA. While the justices did spend some time talking about the Second Amendment, they spent much more time talking about when cases become moot. Most importantly, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed inclined toward New York City’s position that the case should be dismissed. He seemed most concerned about the claim that someone who violated the old law could still be prosecuted, but Richard Dearing, the lawyer for New York, said that they could not be and that the state and city had stipulated that they could not be.As for the other justices, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch seemed convinced that the case was live—and, not coincidentally, that the regulations raised serious Second Amendment issues. Justice Clarence Thomas was silent, as usual, but has recently issued opinions complaining that the Second Amendment has become a “disfavored right” and a “constitutional orphan,” which strongly suggests he would take this case.Uncharacteristically, Justice Kavanaugh was also silent. He has made many statements supporting an expansive view of the Second Amendment in the past, and court-watchers have generally counted him in the pro-gun camp, but he asked no questions today.All of the court’s more liberal members seemed convinced that the case was moot, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg parsing the rules of procedure like an expert law professor.As in many other cases, then, it appears that Roberts will be the swing vote in this one. And if his concern is that gun owners could still be prosecuted for violations under the old law, it appears that concern has been answered.If the court does come down that way, though, it would be foolish for gun-control activists to declare victory.First, as we’ve seen in other high-profile cases, Roberts is difficult to predict. He’s a judicial conservative, an institutionalist, a pragmatist, and someone focused on restoring the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. In this case, both conservative and liberal senators filed amicus briefs urging the court not to let politics dictate their decision—meaning, of course, that whichever way the court rules, the other side will say it is playing politics. For an institutionalist like Roberts, the case is a minefield.Second, even if New York wins this case, there will be another one soon. At most, a dismissal on mootness grounds is a reprieve for gun-control supporters—not a victory.Eventually, the court will take a Second Amendment case—possibly one with a more important set of regulations than these somewhat quixotic ones, and with more opportunity to expand the meaning of the Second Amendment. And when that happens, it’s quite likely that Americans’ gun rights will grow, just like the number of mass shootings at concerts, malls, and schools.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

The B-21 Stealth Bomber is Almost Here (And It Will Be Glorious)

The B-21 Stealth Bomber is Almost Here (And It Will Be Glorious)Stealth technology is being pursued by a determined U.S. Air Force.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Here are the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates who have qualified for the November debate

Here are the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates who have qualified for the November debateCandidates need both 165,000 individual donors and to earn either 3% in four DNC-approved national polls or 5% in three approved early-state polls.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Buttigieg, surging in Iowa, has a plan to win it all. Here it is.

Buttigieg, surging in Iowa, has a plan to win it all. Here it is.Reminder: There are 105 days until the Iowa caucuses and 379 days until the 2020 election. It happened to Kamala Harris during the summer. Now it’s starting to happen to South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who was widely proclaimed one of the “winners” of last week’s Democratic primary debate in Westerville, Ohio.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

China's civil liberties crackdown can happen here

China's civil liberties crackdown can happen here"We must save Hong Kong, the present Hong Kong and the future Hong Kong," declared the city's chief executive, Carrie Lam, in a Friday announcement of a ban on wearing masks in public. Enacted under a colonial-era emergency powers ordinance, the mask ban takes effect Saturday and is ostensibly a "deterrent to radical behavior," a way to tamp down the rising violence from a minority segment of the anti-government protesters who have flooded the city's streets for weeks.Yet, as demonstrators have been quick to note, punishing the use of face coverings with jail time will do far more than make the violent few easier to apprehend. It will also expose thousands to tear gas employed by increasingly brutal police, and it bares protesters' identities to China's panopticon surveillance state. Hong Kong is right to bristle at this ban — and we in the United States would do well to take it as a warning. The civil liberties violations now underway in China can happen here, and they almost certainly will if we do not proactively reject them.In some arenas, the march of technological development does not substantively change the questions policymakers must address. Civil liberties are different. A century ago — even a few decades ago — the surveillance capabilities now available to the government were the stuff of science fiction. Imagine telling someone in 1919 or 1979 that in some cities the state can tap into thousands or even millions of cameras to spy on citizens.Chinese cities top the global list of camera concentration, with as many as 168 cameras for every 1,000 people, per a recent study. And this is not the grainy, black-and-white footage of a gas station security cam. Chinese researchers have built a camera capable of taking images five times more detailed than those perceived by the unaided human eye. Paired with facial recognition technology, it will be able to identify individuals in crowds of thousands. China's facial recognition tech will soon gatekeep much of the country's internet usage, too, as a facial screening will be required to obtain new cell phone service beginning in December.This degree of spying is difficult to fathom, and it is not hyperbolic to say it is a legitimately new development in state power. Think of our stories of heroic outlawry, historic and fictional alike: Robin Hood, the Scarlet Pimpernel, the Underground Railroad, resistance to the Nazis in occupied Belgium and France. Would any of that be possible now? Can Robin give the sheriff the slip when his escape is caught on camera? How do you run the Underground Railroad under the watchful eye of CCTV? How do you resist a tyranny that can listen to your every word and watch your every move?I'm not sure we've grasped the extent to which this technology makes preemptive limits of state authority vital. It is inherently and perhaps uniquely self-preservative. The omniscience of which modern surveillance tech is capable gives it a built-in omnipotence. By its nature, it makes resistance extremely difficult. Other forms of state oppression may be more obviously threatening, but pervasive surveillance has a special quality of self-enforcement.That quality is what makes the warning from China so urgent. The technology available to Beijing is available to Washington, and the lust for power which encourages its employ knows no national bounds. What is happening there absolutely can happen here. Chinese cities lead the list of surveillance camera concentration worldwide, yes, but Atlanta and Chicago make the top 20, and Washington, D.C., San Francisco, San Diego, and Boston are in the top 50. Facial recognition use is growing among American law enforcement, too, including at the federal level.Our situation and that of the demonstrators in Hong Kong (and Chinese citizens more broadly) are not as far apart as we might like to think. All that really stands between the two is law.That is why the civil liberties crackdown in Hong Kong, of which this mask ban is but a portion, should prompt us here in the States to get our legal house in order. We must strengthen privacy protections before we have finished assembling a panopticon of our own. The surveillance state suppresses the very dissent it occasions. Once the cameras go up, they are exceedingly unlikely to come down.Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Here Are All the 2019 Nobel Prize Winners (So Far)

Here Are All the 2019 Nobel Prize Winners (So Far)The first award went to a trio for their research into cellular oxygen use



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines

Over half of the House of Representatives support the impeachment inquiry against Trump — see all of them here

Over half of the House of Representatives support the impeachment inquiry against Trump — see all of them hereCurrently, almost the entire House Democratic caucus and one Independent are publicly supporting the ongoing impeachment inquiry against Trump.



Yahoo News – Latest News & Headlines