qtpiebaby.com

Friday, November 13, 2009

Italian goalkeeper Carlo Cudicini has been seriously injured in a motorcycle accident in London. The player, who plays for Tottenham Hotspurs, was involved in a collision with a car at 10:30 GMT. The football club reported that he has fractured his wrists and injured his pelvis.

A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police released a statement saying “A 36-year-old male suffered injuries described by the London Ambulance Service as possibly life-changing and was taken to Whipps Cross Hospital for further assessment and treatment”. No arrests have been made.

Cudicini crashed his motorcycle into a Ford Fiesta with a female driver and a child passenger. Neither the driver or passenger were injured in the accident.

Cudicini is the son of former AC Milan goalkeeper Fabio Cudicini. During his career he has played for Lazio, AC Milan and Chelsea. He played for Chelsea for 10 years until he was transferred to Tottenham in January. He made one appearance for the Italian national team.

Friday, November 3, 2006

On November 13, Torontonians will be heading to the polls to vote for their ward’s councillor and for mayor. Among Toronto’s ridings is Don Valley West (Ward 25). Three candidates responded to Wikinews’ requests for an interview. This ward’s candidates include John Blair, Robertson Boyle, Tony Dickins, Cliff Jenkins (incumbent), and Peter Kapsalis.

For more information on the election, read Toronto municipal election, 2006.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

The Iranian police forces have faced criticism from Ayatollah Hashemi Shahrudi, the head of the judiciary who was appointed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for their re-invigorated campaign to do away with un-Islamic dress.

Ayatollah Shahroudi proclaimed, “Tough measures on social problems will backfire and have counter-productive effects.” Others have, of course, made it clear that un-Islamic dress can lead to moral corruption, engender innumerable vices, and hurt the Islamic character of the nation.

Some believe that no one had any issue with the creation of an Islamic atmosphere. The core of the matter revolves around the implementation of the Islamic dress code; additionally, heavy-handed measures should be shunned. For instance, Mehdi Ahmadi, information head of Tehran’s police, told Al Jazeera: “Some citizens may complain about the way the law is being enforced but they all agree with the plan itself.”

According to one student, “You simply can’t tell people what to wear. They don’t understand that use of force only brings hatred towards them, not love.” Nevertheless, Hojatoll-Islam Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi, Iran’s interior minister who is in charge of policing, prognosticated positive feedback from the populace when he said, “People are unhappy with the social and moral status of the society. They expect that the fight against social insecurity be properly implemented.” Thus, Hujjat al-Islam Pour-Mohammadi re-iterated the necessity of proper implementation and methodology towards the restoration of morality in the Islamic Republic. Islamic officials and religious people affirm that this is indispensable to promote righteousness, curb sin, and bring open sinners to justice.

Following the Islamic Revolution in 1979, hijab became mandatory in Iran for every woman including foreigners after over 98% of citizens voted for an Islamic government. Women may face caning up to 74 strokes for failing to observe hijab. In this recent crackdown, the authorities have arrested many citizens throughout the country. Not only have women been taken into custody for their hair being uncovered on their foreheads and tight clothes that show body shapes, For men they need to cover from knee to their waist as according to Sharia. Even a foreign journalist was detained because the photograph on her press card was indecent.

It has not been clear whence the directive for the re-newed clampdown emanated. Some have blamed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while Gholam Hossein Elham, the government spokesman, stated to reporters, “The police work as agents of the judiciary to confront crimes. The government as an executive body does not interfere in the affairs of the judiciary.” The following pre-election speech seems to corroborate this latter statement:

Friday, August 25, 2006

Residents in the city of Port Harcourt said that Nigerian troops burnt down hundreds of slum dwellings, allegedly as reprisal after an Army sergeant was killed in Thursday’s abduction of oil workers in the area.

Residents told news agencies that troops poured petrol over slum houses located near a compound belonging to Saipem, a subsidiary of Italian oil company Eni, and set them alight. The fires have reportedly destroyed hundreds of homes and shops and hundreds of people are said to have fled from the area. On Friday, people returning to the area and onlookers were chased away by soldiers.

Speaking to the Associated Press, Army Brigadier General Samuel Salihu denied that Nigerian troops were responsible for the arson. He said that militants active in the area had set the fires, wearing Army camouflage.

On Thursday, oil workers were kidnapped from a bar near the slums by armed men who shot dead an Army soldier guarding the workers, and injured another soldier. Nigerian military sources said at least two foreign oil workers were missing, one of them, Italian. The Italian foreign ministry, though, said that three foreigners were missing.

The oil-rich Niger Delta region has witnessed a spate of kidnappings recently. Nineteen people were held captive in eight separate abductions this month. All but three of them have been released since, some after the state government and the oil companies paid a ransom.

The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), a militant group which has taken hostages and attacked oil facilities, but says it does not kidnap for ransom, said in a statement that it the state government has encouraged such abductions by paying ransoms.

Last week, as part of a tougher line adopted by the Nigerian government, President Obasanjo sent in the Army, with orders to use “force for force” against militants in the region. Over 160 people were taken into custody in a two day crackdown, including over 100 from a nearby slum, but most have been released since then.

The BBC’s Alex Last reports that local leaders and oil companies are concerned that this new tough policy will increase tensions in the region.

Friday, April 30, 2021

On Tuesday, the Governor of the US state of Arizona Doug Ducey signed into law a bill banning abortion if sought solely because of a foetus’ genetic abnormality.

Senate Bill 1457, which stalled twice for criticism by opponents of abortion, passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature last week in a party-line vote, amended twice along the way to alleviate concerns by two hesitant Republicans.

The bill makes it a Class 6 felony, the least severe, to seek or perform an abortion “because of a genetic abnormality of the child”, defined as “the presence or presumed presence of an abnormal gene expression in an unborn child”, but not a “severe fetal abnormality” considered “incompatible with life.” Intimidating someone to get an abortion and soliciting or accepting monies to finance an abortion for this purpose has been made a Class 3 felony.

The bill also allows the unborn child’s father or, in case the mother is under 18, a maternal grandparent to sue, as well as including the applicability of state law to “an unborn child at every stage of development”, which Senator Kirsten Engel and Representative Melody Hernandez wrote in a submitted minority report “would open up the potential for prosecutors to charge persons including the pregnant individual whose conduct results in a woman having a miscarriage with murder, manslaughter or child endangerment.”

Other provisions of the bill includes a prohibition on the distribution “via courier, delivery or mail service” of abortion-inducing drugs, a ban on any public educational institution from performing or aiding non-life saving abortion, a ban on the use of public or tax monies paid by the state or students for university research involving foetal remains or somatic cell nuclear transfer, or any state money towards organisations providing abortion care, and requiring all foetal remains to be buried or cremated.

KYMA-DT reported Ducey is an anti-abortion rights governor who ran on the Republican ballot and has never vetoed anti-abortion legislation. In a statement, Duckey said, “[t]here’s immeasurable value in every single life — regardless of genetic makeup […] We will continue to prioritize protecting life in our preborn children, and this legislation goes a long way in protecting real human lives.” The news release, originally published on his website also read, “[w]ith this legislation, Arizona remains among the top pro-life states in the nation.”

Senator Nancy Barto said, according to the release “[w]e need to protect our most vulnerable, especially those with treatable genetic conditions […] They are loved, integral members of our community that make Arizona whole”. Cathi Herrod, president of Center for Arizona Policy said in her own news release, according to the Associated Press “[t]oday, Arizonans win.”

Representative Diego Espinoza wrote in a tweet, “I’m disappointed to see Arizona moving in this direction, ignoring the needs and desires of doctors, women, and families for an extreme political agenda.” Representative and House Democratic Leader Reginald Bolding wrote in a statement “it’s disturbing and wrong that the legislature is not focusing on policies to help [women], and instead is stripping away the fundamental freedom to choose if, when, and how to start or grow a family.”

In a letter shared to a Facebook post, the union United Campus Workers at Arizona State University urged last Saturday to the Arizona Board of Regents, university president Michael M. Crow and University of Arizona president Robert D. Robbins to “immediately speak out against SB 1457”, calling it “a blatant attack on reproductive freedom”.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

File:Tom scotto.jpg

The United States President, Barack Obama, announced on Saturday he was seeking Congressional authorisation for military intervention in Syria.

Wikinews interviewed Professor of Government Dr. Thomas Scotto from the UK’s University of Essex and Senior Lecturer in American and Canadian Studies Dr. Steve Hewitt from the UK’s University of Birmingham about the proposed military intervention by the USA in Syria.

((Wikinews)) What is your job role?

Dr. Thomas Scotto: I am a Professor of Government, teaching courses in quantitative methods, public opinion, political behaviour, and American Politics. I have been at Essex since January, 2007. I am the Principal Investigator of a major ESRC grant on public opinion on foreign policy attitudes in five nations (Great Britain, United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy).

Dr. Steve Hewitt: Dr. Steve Hewitt, Senior Lecturer in American and Canadian Studies [at the University of Birmingham].

((WN)) The Republican speaker John Boehner is endorsing Barack Obama’s strategy, do you think this will lead to Congress authorising military intervention?

TS: Ultimately, I believe that the President will succeed, but I doubt it will be a neat voter — there will be a significant number of Democrats and Republicans who do not fall into line and vote against intervention.

I think the real story is that in the past two weeks, we have seen an amazing shift in how the Executives of the United States (President Obama) and the United Kingdom (Prime Minister Cameron) execute foreign policy. In the post-War period, committing the nation to take military action was seen as the prerogative of the President and Prime Minister, with the legislatures of both countries providing, at best, weak oversight.

In the United States, there is the War Powers Act and the authorisation of the first Gulf War, but the President’s authority was rarely challenged nor was it really believed that the President needed to consult Congress. In the UK, you would have to go back to the late 1700s to find the last time a Prime Minister was truly rebuffed on a matter of military intervention.

Why is that? I think it’s war fatigue on the part of the public and the average member of the UK Parliament and the US Congress. A significant number of those sitting on the backbenches of Parliament and in the Congress are thinking of balancing their nations’ budgets in times of fiscal austerity, and they have ties to constituencies, which don’t want to see their country shed blood and treasure in another prolonged conflict in the Middle East where the backgrounds of the rebel groups the US and UK are supporting is not well defined and the end goals are uncertain.

SH: Not necessarily. Boehner has not been able to carry Republicans in the past. His being onside increases the chances of authorization but it doesn’t make it inevitable.

((WN)) Is the US general public in support of taking military intervention in Syria?

TS: No, not at all. We’ve polled a representative sample of the American public in June of 2012, February of 2013, and this summer. Support for intervention in Syria has not moved. In our surveys fewer than 1 [in] 5 respondents were open to the idea of sending American ground troops into Syria. This was true regardless whether their aim was to provide humanitarian assistance or topple al-Assad. There are also low levels of support for arming the rebels. What is amazing is that, despite the reported use of chemical weapons and the deaths and displacement of 100,000s of Syrians, there has been little change in support levels over the time period we’ve been in the field with our surveys.

SH: No, clearly the American public is not in favour of intervening in Syria. About 60% are opposed in the latest poll.

((WN)) The British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, do you think this has led Obama to put a vote to Congress?

TS: I think Obama wants Congress to own this. Some in Congress believe that the United States would be doing too little if it only carried out limited missile strikes to punish al-Assad. Other Members are dead set against intervention of any type. The President was finding it impossible to please everyone, and instead, basically said sort out what you want me to do. It is an amazing turn of events where the President might be constraining himself in terms of the response he could take. Obama’s decision may have ramifications for Executive-Legislative relations in the US for years to come.

SH:That may have played a role but it is still not clear why President Obama has taken this course. It may also be the case that he is looking to share the political risk that goes with attacking with Republicans and Congress in general.

((WN)) After more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, does the US general public feel disillusioned in taking military action?

TS: Yes, definitely. Less than half of the American public believes the Iraq war was a success, and we have found that those who believe that the previous conflicts in the Middle East were a failure are likely to be those opposing action against Syria. So many people think the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions cost too much and did little good — it’s really weighing on the public’s mood at this time.

SH: Yes, there clearly is fatigue in relation to interventions and the lack of clear resolutions of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

((WN)) Do you think military intervention in Syria will affect Russia–United States relations?

TS: It is hard to say — in the short term, yes. In the long term, it really depends on how Putin sees the long term interests of himself and his nation vis-à-vis the United States and America’s western allies.

SH: Yes, although relations are already tense. How extensive any attack by the US on Syria will determine the full impact on US–Russia relations.

Thursday, August 4, 2005

Seoul National University’s Hwang Woo-Suk has reported his findings in the Journal Nature after being involved in producing the first cloned dog.

The dog, named Snuppy, was born on April 24. He is an Afghan hound. The issue presents a whole host of ethical questions for researchers in the stem cell field.

Companies like Amgen are interested in the technology, as is accounted in Fortune Magazine for making human-safe pharmaceuticals. The business sector relies on technology improvements to make life saving realities.

The Los Angeles Times has reported that Snuppy came from the DNA of the tissue of the ear of the original canine.

According to ABC News Associated Press reporter JI-SOO KIM, Korea has declared that we are still a long way from creating clones of monkeys, which have a great deal more human-like traits.

Slashdot actually reported an RSS feed yesterday at 4:15 p.m. regarding the BBC and Reuters News articles which told of the two successful terms of gestation for Snuppy. “the South Korean team only obtained three pregnancies from more than 1,000 embryo transfers into 123 recipients.” (BBC).

Kennel experts, according to the BBC, agree that there will be many moral issues to contend with, especially among pet lovers.