Latest news with #Agenda
The Herald Scotland
5 days ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
It's no surprise to us the hulking nonsense Glen Sannox is failing
The size and scale of the Glen Sannox, Caledonian Isles, Glen Rosa (and others) is singularly down to the fact that the trade unions and Scottish Government insist that the crew must be provided with onboard accommodation. Free board and lodgings to you and me. For the Glen Sannox, the majority of the upper deck spaces are taken up by the 33 or so ensuite cabins for the crew. Passenger spaces are squeezed around the side of the boat. Check this out next time you travel. This (hotel space) adds an exponential amount to the build cost and ongoing operating costs across many routes. Solution: build bunk houses at the pier side for crew at a fraction of the cost of on-board rooms and this would have three immediate benefits: less bulk above the waterline (using catamarans) meaning greater reliability of sailings; substantially lower build costs; lower operating costs – no need for so many cooks, cleaners and maintenance people and the like. All in all, this is a great example of a government with no spine or reverse gear to break with nonsensical procurement and operating requirements for a ferry service that will forever fail the communities it is meant to serve. Derek A Robertson, Lamlash, Isle of Arran. Read more letters What's so clever about AI? There was a stark contrast between two articles in Tuesday's Herald (June 3) discussing Artificial Intelligence. On page 15, there was Neil Mackay's "When AI kills off the ScotRail lady, you know we're all in trouble… is this what we want?" And on page 17, there was the Agenda article, "How to make AI work for SMEs in Scotland". Neil Mackay's piece is concrete rather than abstract; it lays out an argument that is coherent, intelligible, and intelligent. The meaning is clear; the language is of the real world, humane, and passionate. By contrast, the Agenda article, as a piece of prose, is almost entirely devoid of meaning. It could well have been written by a robot. Every sentence exhibits abstraction, and lack of precision. An example: "The application layer is not a black box, it's an enabler, a multiplier of human potential." I've read the piece several times, and still have no idea what the application in question is supposed to do. George Orwell saw it all coming, this eradication of meaning in abstraction. In Politics and the English Language (1946), he translated a verse from Ecclesiastes into modern prose: "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." Here is Orwell's version in modern English: "Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account." Well done to Neil Mackay for dumping AI from his phone. Dr Hamish Maclaren, Stirling. • Neil Mackay's article on AI strikes a chord with me. A couple of weeks ago while doing my weekly task of making slides of Bible passages for our Sunday service, I was interrupted by my Microsoft Copilot suggesting that "ecstatically happy" would be much better than "very happy". Considering that I was working with an already-typed document I was not inspired to make the change. Having had a few previous interruptions I looked for ways of getting rid of my undesirable "friend" and was delighted to find that I could uninstall it. A couple of sentences later there it was again, this time asking "Is a comma appropriate there?" I spotted the chat box and typed in "I thought I had uninstalled you." Instantly back came the typed reply, "Well, it seems I'm still here". Had it been delivered in the voice of Stanley Kubrick's Hal, I could not have been more freaked out. Who needs this? David Adams, Glasgow. Legal v illegal It is legal to buy and sell tobacco. Restrictions apply so that only adults, who know the health risks, can use it. That's all we need. Banning the purchase of a legal substance by birthdate is nonsense ('MSPs vote to ban tobacco for young', The Herald, May 30, and Letters, June 3). In years to come, can anyone visualise the application of this new law in your local Spar, where middle-aged adults are asked for their birth certificates? The issue is freedom of choice, as it is with the overly emotional discussions around "assisted suicide". The fact is, committing suicide is not illegal. So how can helping someone to do something legal be a crime? AJ Clarence, Prestwick. Beware of the lynx The proposed introduction of the lynx to our countryside reminds me of advice given when I suggested taking a walk in Californian woodland many years ago. 'Sure,' said my host, "...remember to take your gun.' Those walking here should be similarly equipped if the introduction of wild species proceeds. Wolves have also been suggested. These creatures are not jolly Disney characters. They are dangerous wild animals. Malcolm Parkin, Kinross. There is a campaign to reintroduce the lynx to Scotland (Image: Getty) The Red and Green blues For some reason, the Red Route tourist bus still goes to Glasgow Green. I imagine a revised commentary for visitors: 'This is the People's Palace, which is closed and behind it are the Winter Gardens which are also closed and on my left is the Doulton Fountain which doesn't work and has bits of the stonework falling off, so moving swiftly on, let's take you to George Square, oh no, wait a minute...' Stuart Neville, Clydebank.
Sky News AU
6 days ago
- Business
- Sky News AU
‘A joke': Greg Sheridan rips into Albanese's 2 per cent of GDP defence spend
The Australian's Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan has blasted the Albanese government's defence funding of 2 per cent of GDP as 'a joke'. Sky News' Sunday Agenda reported Mr Albanese would not accept the US request and would stand by Labor's existing policy of increasing defence funding. Under the government's projections, defence spending is forecast to reach 2.33 per cent of GDP by 2033–34, up from about 2.05 per cent in 2025-26. 'This is a shocking moment and the government is an absolute derelict failure in national security,' Mr Sheridan said.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell launches campaign for Alabama Attorney General
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WHNT) — Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell has officially launched his campaign for Alabama Attorney General. Mitchell is known for his conservative rulings and tough-on-crime approach to law and order at the Alabama Supreme Court. 'With President Trump in the White House, we have a unique opportunity to get conservative wins here in Alabama,' Mitchell said. 'I'm running for Attorney General to stop the lawlessness, restore order, and dismantle Joe Biden's radical left wing policies.' If elected, Mitchell said that he intends to focus on the following issues: Crack Down on Violent Crime: 'Alabama is safer when criminals face real consequences. I will lock up violent offenders and make sure they stay locked up.' Enforce Immigration Law : 'I will make sure that Alabama does its part to aggressively pursue mass deportations.' Back the Blue: 'Our law enforcement officers are the thin blue line between order and chaos. They have my steadfast support.' Defend the Sanctity of Life: 'No matter the cost, I will stand firm to protect the unborn.' Fight the Woke Agenda: 'No boys in girls' sports. No DEI. No more woke nonsense.' A video of Jay Mitchell officially announcing his campaign can be found here. Mitchell first became a member of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2018, but recently resigned from his post. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Inside Austin's Agenda: Behind the scenes of last week's ‘cap and stitch' vote
AUSTIN (KXAN) — On Wednesday's episode of Inside Austin's Agenda, host Grace Reader will sit down with Austin City Council Member Ryan Alter to talk about last week's vote to commit $104 million to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for the roadway elements of 'caps and stitches' over TxDOT's I-35 project. Those 'caps and stitches' are decks over the highway that may eventually support parks, trails, and community spaces. The funding committed Thursday will support caps between Cesar Chavez Street and Fourth Street, between Fourth Street and Seventh Street and between 11th Street and 12th Street. It also covers two stitches, which are thinner than caps, in north Austin. Parks over I-35: Austin city council agrees on $104M for roadway elements Alter was part of a sub-quorum of council members pushing for as many of those 'caps and stitches' as possible. He presented several ideas in the days leading up to the vote to encourage his remaining colleagues to consider voting for additional highway covers. We will discuss the behind-the-scenes of how that compromise was reached and the public meeting laws the city council has to follow when it's divided into sub quorums, like it was last week. Inside Austin's Agenda is live every other Wednesday at 3 p.m. Watch every episode at the top of this article, on Facebook, and YouTube. You can find previous episodes here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Int'l Business Times
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Int'l Business Times
Supreme Court Questions Trump's Birthright Citizenship Ban
On 15 May 2025, the US Supreme Court heard arguments on President Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship, a policy that would deny citizenship to babies born in the US to non-citizen parents. Issued on his first day back in office, the order challenges the 14th Amendment's guarantee, sparking legal battles and public outcry. As justices debated nationwide injunctions blocking the policy, their skepticism raised questions about its legality and broader implications. What does this mean for Trump's agenda, and can birthright citizenship survive this unprecedented challenge? Trump's Bold Move and Legal Backlash Trump's executive order, signed 20 January 2025, reinterprets the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause , which states, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' The order denies citizenship to newborns unless at least one parent is a US citizen or permanent resident, targeting children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. Trump called the U.S. 'stupid' for upholding birthright citizenship, claiming it benefits 'drug cartels,' per Business Standard . The policy could affect over 150,000 newborns annually, per plaintiffs including 22 Democratic-led states, per Reuters . Three federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state issued nationwide injunctions, ruling the order unconstitutional, citing 120 years of precedent, including the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark , per PBS News . Trump's team, led by Solicitor General John Sauer, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing these injunctions overreach by halting the policy nationwide, not just for plaintiffs. 'The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to former slaves, not illegal aliens,' Sauer argued, per Al Jazeera . Justices' Skepticism and Ideological Divide During over two hours of oral arguments, the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority appeared divided. Liberal justices, like Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the order's consequences, noting, 'Thousands of children will be born and rendered stateless,' per CBC . Justice Elena Kagan questioned the practicality of requiring individual lawsuits, asking, 'Should everyone affected bring their own lawsuit?' per The Guardian . Even conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer on enforcement logistics, noting the order's 30-day implementation timeline, per Yahoo . The Supreme Court avoided ruling on the constitutionality of Trump's birthright citizenship order, focusing instead on whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions. Conservative justices questioned addressing the issue without thorough review, while liberal justices highlighted legal precedents opposing the policy. No justice supported Trump's plan, and protests outside the court defended the 14th Amendment's guarantee, emphasizing the ongoing battle to protect constitutional rights. Implications for Trump's Agenda and Beyond The Supreme Court case challenges Trump's bold attempt to end birthright citizenship and expand his executive authority, potentially allowing policies like mass deportations if nationwide court injunctions are restricted. Legal experts argue the policy contradicts the Constitution's clear protections and a century-old legal precedent, expecting courts to reject it. However, a decision limiting injunctions could lead to inconsistent citizenship rules, varying by state and creating legal uncertainty. Protesters gathered outside the court, passionately defending the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for all born on US soil. The upcoming ruling will significantly influence immigration law and judicial power, deciding whether a historic constitutional principle stands firm or Trump's ambitious agenda takes hold. Originally published on IBTimes UK
