Latest news with #MiddleEastImages
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Newsweek
Savannah Chrisley Says Being White Celebrity Didn't Help Get Parents Pardon
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Savannah Chrisley, the daughter of reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, said she does not believe being a white celebrity did not help her secure her parents' pardon from President Donald Trump. Newsweek reached out to a lawyer who represented the family for comment via email. Why It Matters Trump's decision to pardon the Chrisleys adds to his record of using executive clemency for politically aligned figures and public personalities. The Chrisleys were found guilty in 2022 of submitting fraudulent documents to secure tens of millions in loans, then using the money to fund a lavish lifestyle including luxury cars, designer clothing and real estate. What to Know During a press conference on Friday, Savannah Chrisley addressed those who believe her parents were pardoned due to their status as celebrities. "The biggest misconception right now is that I either paid for a pardon or slept for a pardon. That's the biggest misconception right now. If people knew the countless hours and the money and the time that I spent going to D.C., literally with not a meeting scheduled, and I just got on a plane and said I'm going to be in the right room at the right time and meet the right people," she said. She said she "fought hard" for her parents and "begged for meetings" to secure a pardon. Savannah Chrisley attends the Conservative Political Action Conference in Oxon Hill, Marland on February 22, 2025. Savannah Chrisley attends the Conservative Political Action Conference in Oxon Hill, Marland on February 22, 2025. DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images "People think, 'Oh you're a celebrity. You're white. You have money.' That we got an upper hand and we didn't," she said. "I had to fight, and I was relentless and that's how it happened. Finally, people listened." After their conviction, Todd Chrisley was sentenced to 12 years in prison and Julie Chrisley to seven; they were also ordered to pay $17.8 million in restitution. An appellate court upheld their convictions but returned Julie's case to the lower court for resentencing due to an error in how her sentence was calculated. Savannah Chrisley said she hoped Trump would pardon her parents in a February interview with People magazine. "I know that I am going through the proper channels to do so, and I'm going to bring as much awareness to it as possible because these things should not happen," she told the outlet. The family rose to fame for their reality TV show Chrisley Knows Best, which aired for 10 seasons from 2014 to 2023. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump said on the phone with Savannah Chrisley: "It's a terrible thing, but it's a great thing, because your parents are going to be free and clean, and I hope we can do it by tomorrow." Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, wrote on X (formerly Twitter): "A jury convicted TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley of financial fraud and tax evasion. They were cheating and stealing to buy luxury cars and clothes. Then their daughter campaigned for Trump. This pardon is a get-out-of-jail-free card for the rich & famous who cozy up to Trump." Alex Little, an attorney representing the family in a statement: "This pardon corrects a deep injustice and restores two devoted parents to their family and community. President Trump recognized what we've argued from the beginning: Todd and Julie were targeted because of their conservative values and high profile. Their prosecution was tainted by multiple constitutional violations and political bias." Joy Behar, a co-host of The View, said this week: "According to this administration, if you are a reality star with a lot of money and a tax cheat and you create fraud, then that's good, we're going to give you a pardon. But poor people on Medicaid or food stamps, according to this administration, those are the real moochers in this country." What Happens Next The Chrisleys have been released from prison. People magazine reported that Lifetime has greenlit a new show focusing on the family.
Forbes
26-05-2025
- Climate
- Forbes
Poor Soil Management Fuels Sand And Dust Storms Across The Middle East
Sand and dust storms in southeastern Iran, near the Hamun Lake in Sistan and Baluchistan Province. ... More Image taken in October 2018. (Photo by Hamed Gholami / Middle East Images / Middle East Images via AFP). The Middle East is no stranger to sand and dust storms. Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia are among the countries hit hardest by this transboundary problem, which costs billions of dollars each year in damages to infrastructure and health systems. In May, Iran's local media reported severe sand and dust storms in the southeast near the border with Afghanistan, which swept through the area, sent hundreds to the hospital with respiratory illnesses, and disrupted local livelihoods. 'Dust storms happen when strong winds lift loose, dry, and fine soil particles from barren or degraded land surfaces into the atmosphere,' says Nima Shokri, professor of geo-hydroinformatics at the Hamburg University of Technology in Germany. 'Unlike people, dust particles don't require visas to cross international borders- they can travel effortlessly thousands of kilometers from one country to another,' adds Shokri. The Middle East is naturally prone to strong winds, extreme heat, and arid landscapes—factors that create an ideal environment for sand and dust storms when coupled with climate change. But decades of poor water management, which have dried up lakes, rivers, and wetlands that once helped contain these storms, have turned sand and dust storms into a pressing challenge for the region, with many consequences. Food and water insecurity, air pollution, conflict, and forced migration are just a few examples. Meanwhile, as governments across the Middle East struggle to combat the growing problem of SDS, experts highlight soil degradation as a significant contributing element that demands urgent global attention. Sand and dust left behind after a storm on dry soil in southeastern Iran's Sistan and Baluchistan ... More Province. Image taken in July 2021. (Photo by Oshida / Middle East Images / Middle East Images via AFP). According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, healthy soil is defined as having the ability to perform functions such as retaining water or sustaining plant and animal life. Soil then becomes degraded when it loses vegetation and organic matter, like manure, and is exposed to long periods of drought. Research indicates that in the Middle East, soil in many parts of the region has been harmed because of the excessive extraction of groundwater for irrigation and farming, as well as climate change. This mix of problems has caused a big issue for many countries called soil salinization, where water dries up and leaves salt behind, preventing crops from growing. Scientists say Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan are among the nations in the region experiencing the highest salt increases in their soil. In a part of the world with no shortage of environmental problems, soil degradation poses an added threat to food, water, and the resilience to cope with disasters such as floods and wildfires. But that's not all that it does. Pete Smith, a professor of plant and soil science at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, told me in an interview that poor soil management can also increase the severity of sand and dust storms. 'Failing to retain plant cover on the soil and practices like overgrazing lead to the destabilization of soil, making it easier for particles to be picked up and carried by the wind,' adds Smith. On the other hand, scientists have discovered that wet and heavy soil is less likely to release dust into the air quickly or in large quantities. This means the drier the land, the worse the dust storms, experts say. 'Dust emissions greatly depend on soil moisture,' says Paolo D'Odorico, a professor of environmental science at the University of California, Berkeley. Particularly in the Middle East, 'there are a few basins of internal drainage that are drying out and exposing the sediment to the action of wind and consequent dust storms,' D'Odorico adds. Agricultural land ruined by the relentless onslaught of drifting sand in a village in Iran's ... More southeastern Sistan and Baluchistan Province. Image taken in August 2021. (Photo by Oshida / Middle East Images / Middle East Images via AFP). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) plan to help nations achieve peace and prosperity by 2030. They include objectives like fighting climate change and making sure everyone has access to clean and safe water. However, the list does not include the need for well-functioning soil, an essential component of the SDGs that experts say the international community is overlooking. 'It would be naive to think we can achieve any of these goals without giving soil the proper attention it deserves,' says Shokri. 'In the absence of that, the whole foundation of sustainable development will begin to crumble,' he adds. The World Bank reckons that over 40% of the land in the Middle East has already lost its productivity. As droughts become increasingly severe and temperatures rise, scientists believe that healthier soil can be a key solution for mitigating these problems. When it comes to sand and dust storms, 'it can certainly reduce the impact and severity for communities," says Smith. Decision makers 'should definitely discuss it as a tool for tackling climate change, food security, and combating land degradation and desertification,' he adds. 'This is truly the definition of a transboundary issue in need of serious global cooperation,' Shokri adds.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The SAVE Act Could Threaten Voting Access—And Repeat History
People participate in a protest in front of the Capitol building in Washington D.C. on Presidents' Day, Feb. 17, 2025. Credit - Dominic Gwinn—Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images On April 10, 2025, the House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act on a largely party-line vote. Republicans hailed the bill as a way to safeguard American elections from undocumented migrants voting. Critics, by contrast, warn it could make voting more difficult—if not impossible—for legally eligible voters. That's especially true for tens of millions of married women, who may not be able to provide the required documentation to prove their citizenship to register to vote. Presenting a birth certificate remains the easiest way to do so under the Act. However, many married women take their husband's surnames and therefore don't have birth certificates that match their current legal names. If the Senate passes the SAVE Act and President Donald Trump signs it into law, it will mean that millions of American women could find themselves in the shoes of Ethel Mackenzie, an early 20th century suffragist. Like McKenzie, they might see their ability to register and vote inhibited due to a congressional effort to prevent non-citizens from voting. When Mackenzie tried to register to vote after California adopted woman suffrage in 1911, she was shocked to find out she couldn't—despite being born in the Golden State. The culprit: the 1907 Expatriation Act, a federal law that stripped American women of their citizenship when they married non-citizens. Mackenzie's case exposed how nativist policies could harm not just immigrants, but also the rights of American women. Now, the Save Act threatens to do the same. In 1855, Congress passed the Naturalization Act. The law made any immigrant woman who married a citizen man into a citizen herself, as long as she met the racial requirements for citizenship. In 1868, the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship for all people born in the U.S., except for American Indians and the children of foreign diplomats. Surprise over Trump's Gains With Latinos and Asian Americans Stems From a Flawed Assumption In the last three decades of the 19th century, however, nativist sentiment surged. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, banning Chinese laborers from immigrating to the U.S. In 1892, Congress extended and expanded the ban in the Geary Act. And in 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt negotiated the Gentleman's Agreement with Japan restricting Japanese immigration to the U.S. That same year, the State Department pressured Congress to pass the Expatriation Act. Officials argued that marriages between citizens and non-citizens were handled differently by different nations and without a uniform rule in the U.S., the department couldn't determine who was entitled to an American passport and protection while outside of the country. Advocates for women's suffrage thought the bill wasn't a good idea and expected the courts to find it unconstitutional. They believed it was was wildly out of step with the ongoing erosion of coverture, a set of legal practices that the State Department had specifically used to justify their recommendation to Congress. Coverture derived from English common law and dictated that women suffered "civil death" upon marriage. They ceased to have a legal identity, and instead became covered by their husband's legal identity. This left them unable to sign contracts or own property. Suffragists fought to curtail coverture. But they also pushed another agenda item—one that helped propel the passage of the Expatriation Act—disfranchising non-citizens. In the colonial era and the Early Republic, voting eligibility was often tied to property ownership and residency, rather than citizenship. As such, non-citizen voting was often legal and common. The practice surged again in the midwest in the 1830s, and was added to several state constitutions in the Deep South as a Reconstruction reform after the Civil War to counter the votes of unreconstructed white southerners. But in the nativist climate of the early 20th century, the practice had fallen out of favor, and suffragists and other progressives fought to end it. Some suffragists argued that immigrants opposed suffrage for women and prohibition, and therefore immigrant voting posed a threat to their agenda. Reflecting how the two concepts became intertwined, South Dakota, Texas, and Arkansas put amendments on their ballots to enfranchise women while simultaneously ending non-citizen voting. The amendments passed in South Dakota and Arkansas. As adoption of the Expatriation Act proved, the push to end non-citizen voting proved too powerful for suffragists to control. The new law made married women dependent citizens; their citizenship status was now entirely derived from that of their husbands. When McKenzie discovered that the new law prevented her from voting, she filed suit, arguing that Congress could not take away by law what the Constitution granted her by birthright. While suffragists expected the courts would overturn the Expatriation Act, the nativist sentiments of the day were stronger than the trend towards women's rights. In 1915, the Supreme Court ruled against Mackenzie. As Ohio Representative John Cable summarized, the Court found that citizenship 'was not such a right, privilege, or immunity that it could not be taken away by an act of Congress.' The justices found that Mackenzie's decision to marry a non-citizen amounted to 'voluntary expatriation.' She was now stateless and unprotected in her own country. The decision left suffragists concerned that without married women' independent citizenship, suffrage would be an impossibility. Such fears proved wrong: in 1920 the ratification of the 19th Amendment prohibited states from barring women from voting on account of sex. Passage of the suffrage amendment encouraged Congress to revisit married women's independent citizenship, because it meant that immigrant women naturalized through marriage could vote, while American women denaturalized by marriage were disfranchised. The League of Women Voters, formed out of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, lobbied Congress for married women's independent citizenship. In 1922, they scored a partial victory when Congress passed the Cable Act, which ended automatic denaturalization for American women if their spouse was an immigrant racially eligible for citizenship. The law also provided a pathway for denaturalized women to reclaim their citizenship. But it still excluded women who married Asian immigrants. Some politicians used this period of denaturalization strategically to their own advantage. In 1928, Ruth Bryan Owen, daughter of William Jennings Bryan, became the first woman to win election to the U.S. House of Representatives from a former Confederate state. But upon her victory, her opponent sued arguing that her period of denaturalization after marrying a British serviceman during WWI meant that she hadn't been a citizen for the previous seven years—a constitutional requirement to serve. The challenge forced Owen, a native born citizen; daughter of a three-time presidential candidate, congressman, and Secretary of State; and a duly elected official from Florida to plead her case before Congress. Her fellow lawmakers chose to seat Owen, rejecting the challenge that threatened to undo the will of her constituents. Voter Suppression Grew Up From the Soil of Emancipation Itself During the 1920s, Congress amended the Cable Act several times. Then, in 1933 the Senate voted to adopt the convention of the Pan American Conference, which argued that differences in nationality laws based on sex should be eliminated. The next year, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Equal Nationality Act, through which American women achieved full, independent citizenship. Sixty years later, a new round of concerns of undocumented migration prompted Congress to make it a crime for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. Lawmakers did so even though it hadn't been legal for non-citizens to vote in either state or federal elections in any state since Arkansas's ban went into effect in 1926. Republicans allege that the SAVE Act will help enforce this existing law. But instead, it threatens to disenfranchise millions of married American women. The law stipulates that people can prove citizenship either by presenting a REAL ID or a military identification card, if they confirm a person's citizenship status. But many can not, which leaves people registering to vote with the option of presenting a state identification card or driver's license in conjunction with a certified birth certificate that includes the 'full name' of the applicant. It's this last provision which poses a problem for up to 69 million women who took their husband's name upon getting married. That means their birth certificates no longer include their full legal names. The law makes no allowances for such situations. It does leave room for states to decide which secondary documents to accept, but this would still be an additional burden on married women, could be applied unevenly across the country, and may open the door for challenges to election results—like the one faced by Ruth Bryan Owen—on the grounds that states didn't meet these onerous requirements. A century after the suffrage movement, the SAVE Act threatens to echo the harms of the Expatriation Act. While it's supporters claim it will target non-citizen voters, instead it could prevent American women from voting. Rachel Michelle Gunter is a public historian currently writing a book titled 'Suffragists, Soldiers, and Immigrants: Drastic Changes to Voting Rights in the Progressive Era.' Her series with the Great Courses, "Forgotten America: Rediscovering Events that Changed the Nation" premieres on May 9, 2025. She is on social media as @PhDRachel Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. Write to Made by History at madebyhistory@
Scotsman
12-05-2025
- Business
- Scotsman
Rangers 'set' for shock managerial appointment as Ancelotti jnr lined up for Ibrox job
Rangers said to be closing in on Real Madrid assistant Sign up to our Football newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Rangers are reportedly closing in on the shock appointment of Davide Ancelotti as their new manager. The Real Madrid assistant, who is the son of head coach Carlo Ancelloti, has ambitions to become a boss in his own right having also served as his father's number two at Bayern Munich, Napoli and Everton. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ancelloti senior is leaving his Real Madrid post at the end of the season in order to take up the head coach position with the Brazil national team, with much of his backroom staff also departing the Bernabeu. Rangers are reportedly 'pushing' to hire Davide Ancelotti, assistant manager of Real Madrid, as their next manager. (Photo by GOKHAN TANER/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images) | Middle East Images/AFP via Getty According to reports in Spain, Ancelotti junior is destined for Ibrox with Rangers incoming new owners - an American consortium fronted by Andrew Cavenagh and 49ers Enterprises - said to have identified the 35-year-old as the man they want to appoint as the permanent successor to Philippe Clement, who was sacked in February and replaced by Barry Ferguson on an interim basis until the end of the season. It is claimed that Ancelloti junior will continue to assist his father in his new role with Brazil for the June internationals against Ecuador and Paraguay before heading to Glasgow for pre-season training. Madrid coach Franceso Mauri, 36, is also tipped to join him at Ibrox.
Express Tribune
11-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Express Tribune
Storytelling for truth
Saeed Jaras and Samar Abu Elouf use their work to give voice to voiceless. PHOTOs: File Visual storytelling is important in shedding light on harsh realities, said Palestinian photographer Saeed Jaras, who won the Photo of the Year award at ?stanbul Photo Awards 2025, according to AA. ?stanbul Photo Awards, organized by Anadolu for its 11th consecutive year, awarded 29 photographers across 10 categories. The selections were made from approximately 22,000 submissions from around the world, a testament to the contest's growing prestige which has attracted entries from more than 20,000 photographers globally since its inception. Jaras, representing Middle East Images, received the top honor for his striking image titled, "Gaza-Deir al-Balah." He described the profound responsibility inherent in his profession, stating that a news photographer must document events with "honesty, integrity, and respect for the people involved." His winning photograph, Jaras explained, marks a pivotal point. "This image represents a crucial moment for my career — a responsibility to document the truth and give a voice to those who can no longer speak," he said. He believes it serves as a vital reminder of visual storytelling's importance in revealing difficult truths and ensures the subjects' "pain and loss are not forgotten." "It serves as a reminder of why visual storytelling is important in shedding light on harsh realities," Jaras said. Power to ignite change Jaras firmly believes in photography's capacity to transcend barriers. "A compelling photograph can break through political barriers, challenge narratives and ignite change," he asserted. He added that such images force people "to confront uncomfortable truths" along with fostering empathy. Recounting the moment he captured the award-winning photograph, Jaras conveyed his profound emotional state: "When I took this photo, I was overwhelmed with deep sorrow and shock." He described the devastating scene before him as "a mother holding her two children who had been killed in an Israeli airstrike, while the father stood in a state of utter disbelief, and the surviving child wept uncontrollably." Jaras also highlighted the significant challenges including "dealing with the strong emotions of those present and the psychological stress of witnessing tragic scenes." His primary aim, despite the immense emotional toll, was to document the "tragic reality" and convey the suffering to the world. 'Mixed emotions' He said learning of his award brought a complex wave of feelings. "...I was overwhelmed with mixed emotions - gratitude, disbelief and deep contemplation," said Jaras. He said he views the award not merely as a personal triumph but as "an appreciation of the story behind the photo and the life it represents." The recognition, Jaras said, "is extremely important" as "it affirms the power of visual storytelling to draw attention to critical issues." Jaras dedicated the honor "to the families affected by war and to all the journalists and photographers who risk their lives to document the truth," adding that the award motivated him to continue his work with increased dedication. Resilience amid pain Gaza-based photojournalist Samar Abu Elouf secured the Story Portrait First Prize for her poignant series "Gaza War Survivors," which she took for The New York Times. Her work chronicles the arduous journey of Palestinians wounded in the Gaza conflict receiving medical care in Qatar. "My emotions were deeply heavy as I took photos and listened to the stories of the wounded Palestinians," said Abu Elouf. She said she felt "helpless in front of them ... overwhelmed by the horror they had been through." Abu Elouf said her photographic approach prioritizes profound human connection. "I was deeply committed to being close to them, to listening to their stories and what they had gone through, even before thinking of taking a photo. To me, they are not just images. They are a part of my own story," she said. This series, she noted, represents a continuation of a long-standing commitment. "These images are a continuation of the journey I began in Gaza, 14 years ago, a commitment to storytelling, to shedding light on life under siege and the enduring cruelty of war," Abu Elouf said. Having previously won in the 2024 contest's Single News category second prize, Abu Elouf found this year's award particularly meaningful because "it helps bring vital stories from Gaza to the world — stories that need to be seen, heard, and remembered." While proud of the achievement, she acknowledged the difficulty of feeling conventional joy, given the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and her own family's suffering there, noting: "The story itself, and the people in the photos, are too heavy with pain." Istanbul Photo Awards has become a cornerstone of global photojournalism, celebrating the art of visual storytelling while shedding light on critical issues worldwide.
