Latest news with #Oren
Kuwait Times
08-05-2025
- Sport
- Kuwait Times
Kuwait Handball Blue face Bahrain in 10th Arab Cup
KUWAIT: Kuwait handball national team will face a new and important challenge when it meets Bahrain in the semi-final round of the 10th Arab Cup, which is hosted by Kuwait until May 11 at Sheikh Saad Al-Abdullah Sports Complex Arena. It will be preceded by an equally important match between Qatar and Egypt. Within the consolation rounds of the 'Arab Cup' from 5-9, two matches will be held on Friday, the first between Tunisia and Morocco, with Saudi Arabia to play Iraq. The 'Handball Blue' seeks, when it meets the 'Bahraini Red' to continue its successful journey and achieve the third consecutive victory and book its place in the final match of the Arab championship, armed with the factors of land and home fans. The 'Blue' advanced to the final of the tournament after topping the third group with two wins over Morocco 39-29 and UAE 32-24, while Bahrain qualified as the first from the first group after beating Iraq 28-26 and Egypt 36-32. Icelandic coach Oren will try to capitalize on the high morale and the outstanding performance of his players in the first round to cross Bahrain, relying on the brilliance of Abdullah Al-Khamis, Saif Al-Adwani, Haider Dashti, Abdulaziz Daif and the distinguished guard Hassan Safar. On the other hand, Bahrain coach Beredraj hopes to counter the ambition of the Blue with collective performance and speed in the transition from defense to attack, based on his group of young players led by veterans Hussein Al-Sayyad and goalkeeper Mohammed Abdulhussain. Qatar and Egypt In the second match, the Qatari 'Al-Anabi' is looking to continue its strong performances, relying on the combination of its young players supported by a number of experienced players to achieve victory and advance to the final match, while the 'Pharaohs', who qualified as the best second place in the tournament, hope to make up for their loss against Bahrain and beat Qatar. The joy of the Blue players The players of Kuwait national handball team expressed their happiness after beating their UAE counterpart in the third round of the preliminary round of the 10th Arab Cup, and topping the third group deservedly. Abdulaziz Al-Shammari, the 'Blue' star, said that achieving victory in two matches, topping the group and qualifying for the semi-finals is the least we can do for our beloved Kuwait and the loyal fans. He continued: 'We are proud to hold the Arab Handball Cup in Kuwait after the tournament was absent for 23 years, and holding it in the country of friendship and peace, and among the Blue fans, is a source of pride for us.' Regarding the match against the UAE, Al-Shammari explained that the team did not provide the hoped-for level, but what is important is to achieve victory. He pointed out that the preparation for meeting Bahrain in the semifinals Friday started since the end of the UAE match.
New York Times
11-04-2025
- Business
- New York Times
‘This Mindless Flailing Creates Recessions': Four Economists Dissect Trump's Tariffs
Matthew Rose, an Opinion editorial director, hosted an online conversation with four economists about President Trump's on-again, off-again tariff plan and the whirlwind it unleashed. Matthew Rose: Well, that was a lot. Seven days after they were announced and less than one day after they went into effect, the Trump administration put on hold the broadest of its tariffs. I don't know about you all, but my head is spinning. The most dramatic effort to remake the post-World War II trade system was underway — until it wasn't. Maybe it's best to start with first principles. We still have a 10 percent tariff rate on all countries, a gargantuan trade standoff with China and the prospect that the other tariffs snap back in July. Oren, you wrote recently in a guest essay that the idea behind the policy was sound, even if the implementation was not. Why do you think these tariffs make sense? Oren Cass: I would divide the regime into three elements. The 10 percent global tariff that remains is something I support because the United States has been running large trade deficits that have weakened domestic manufacturing. Second, when it comes to China, I don't think it's possible to have a constructive economic relationship with an authoritarian communist state, and so we need to decouple our economies. I wouldn't do that overnight, but I think high and permanent tariffs are appropriate. Finally, when it comes to the paused reciprocal tariffs, I would classify them as 'negotiating tariffs,' as the president confirmed on Wednesday. A good example of what he likely has in mind is what Reagan did with the Japanese in the early 1980s, forcing them to shift Toyota and Honda production to America. These tariffs would ideally remain as credible threats, rather than blanket and permanent. Rose: Jason, in your own guest essay on tariffs, you described the reasoning behind reciprocal tariffs as 'obviously absurd.' Where do you part ways with Oren? Jason Furman: If you combine all the remaining tariffs, you're still talking about an overall rate in the 20s, well above anything seen in the United States for over a century, or in any other major country in the world today. This has been unleashed by a misunderstanding of basic economics, which starts with imports. They're good, not bad. They're good for consumers who buy products we barely produce, like bananas. They're good for industries that rely on imported parts to make their products. Any attempt to curb imports also reduces exports. And exports are also good because they let Americans work in higher-paid, more productive jobs. One place I agree with Oren is the implementation has been a disaster. But let's not make tariffs like communism, something people argued was good in theory but bad in practice. If you have a policy with an extremely narrow path to perfect implementation that goes awry, maybe blame the idea, not the implementer. Lawrence H. Summers: It's just wrong to think that trade barriers reduce trade deficits. Think of India before its recent reforms, or Argentina at many moments as examples of countries with high tariffs and, frequently, large trade deficits. Also, Oren and the president forget what Jason mentioned, that many imports contribute to our own exports, and so we hurt our competitiveness. Roughly 55 times more workers are employed in industries that use steel and aluminum to make other products, compared with those that produce it. Lastly, it's essential to remember you can't have much-needed foreign capital flow into our country without having a trade deficit. Rebecca Patterson: I keep going back to President Trump's goal of increasing jobs in American manufacturing. There are structural elements missing if he wants to succeed. American manufacturing businesses consistently point to a lack of qualified or available workers as a problem holding them back. We need to think about finding more manufacturing labor and training them for the jobs of tomorrow. We don't have enough interested workers now. How will we have enough if and when jobs return to the United States? That needs to be part of the conversation. Rose: One observation made about the president is his ability to pinpoint problems (leaving aside the quality of his solutions). In this case, it would be 40 years of trade policy that has disproportionately benefited Chinese workers over American ones, hollowed out industrial regions and contributed to gaping wealth inequalities. Does he have a point, especially now that China appears to be the primary target? Cass: Yes, I think it's an incredibly important point, and one that went overlooked by economists for too long. My starting point in these debates is to emphasize that making things matters, and so our trade policy has to be one that attempts to expand trade as much as possible while ensuring overall balance, so that we actually trade things we make here for things made in other places. That is the classical economic case for trade benefiting both sides, and a constraint we abandoned, especially in the case of China, when we adopted the approach that trade was just about maximizing consumption and that moving production abroad to get more cheap stuff was a good in and of itself. Summers: The problem is that protectionism creates, for example, textile jobs at the expense of high-tech manufacturing jobs. The problem is also that this mindless flailing creates recessions, which hurt almost all of Oren's objectives. If the Trump administration were even half coherent about Oren's objectives, it would be cheering for the CHIPS and Science Act, not opposing it. Yes, we should be doing all kinds of things to promote creation of good jobs in places that are struggling. Declaring economic war on the world and setting off a once-every-two-decade-level financial turmoil is not one of them. Cass: Obviously, we agree on that. I just think it's very important to speak accurately about what free trade has and has not accomplished. The pitch was absolutely: China will compete for some low-wage jobs with Americans. And its market will provide jobs for higher-wage, more skilled people. And that's a bargain for us, to quote the economist Robert Solow. I have not seen much of a reckoning among economists that this simply did not happen as promised, or to the extent it did, those 'more skilled people' were very different people than the ones left behind. Patterson: I think we have to acknowledge the timing and political challenges of this policy approach. For most businesses with global supply chains, building new plants in America is a very expensive proposition and a multiyear process. It's not taken lightly and won't provide tangible employment results quickly. If companies think that a new administration could reverse these tariffs in a few years, reshoring may not be worth the cost. I worry we won't see as much return on this policy investment as some hope for the workers in question. Furman: There is also a danger in overstating the problems in the economy, which was in the premise of Matthew's question. First, the issues with manufacturing are not new — Billy Joel sang 'We're living here in Allentown and they're closing all the factories down' in 1982, long before NAFTA or the rise of China. The main issue then, as it is now, is that technology was rapidly improving, which meant we could produce more with fewer workers. Also, even allowing for the hit from inflation, incomes have been rising reasonably robustly in the United States for the past decade. In fact, wage inequality has been narrowing as the lowest-wage workers get bigger raises than their high-wage counterparts. So we should not think we were living in a hellscape that needed radical change. There is something to small-c conservatism, because if you make big, radical changes, you might get lucky and improve things, but you can also break something, which is what we're seeing now. Rose: So let's spin this forward a little. In 90 days, let's assume the more dramatic tariffs swing back into play. Where does that leave the United States in a year? In four years? Summers: Unemployment will be well above 6 percent. Business investment will have collapsed. There will be serious breakdowns somewhere in financial markets, and markets will fall at least 25 percent from where they are today. Sledgehammers and delicate machinery are a very bad combination. We will get the trade deficit down with the same basic economic force that Venezuela uses, by making ourselves very unattractive as a place to put capital. That will undo much of the relative progress of the economy over the past generation. Patterson: If we have tariffs anywhere like these at the end of President Trump's term, one thing I would be confident about is that our global alliances will be weaker, which will hurt us over time in material ways. Foreign direct investment creates millions of American jobs. And our economic statecraft, such as sanctions on Russia, is more effective if we work with overseas partners. We risk losing global trust. Furman: I agree, Rebecca. Four years from now we'll have a new president. But no matter who it is or what that person does, the world will not have forgotten how dramatically American international economic policies can change. In the meantime, China is aggressively marketing itself as the stable, predictable, reliable international partner. We will be remaking the global economy, but not to our liking. Rose: What about now? Are there costs from this rapid reversal of what was supposed to be a permanent change to the global order? Cass: I think it's a mistake to interpret the suspension of reciprocal tariffs as a reversal of something that was supposed to be permanent. My hope was they would be used as a backstop for negotiations rather than kicking in from the start, because I do believe in the broader project and want it to work. This is exactly what the president did. It's OK to acknowledge when he takes a positive step. Patterson: I'm not so sure. Near term, the continuing lack of clarity around the ultimate tariff rates could keep investors skittish and businesses cautious. Longer term, other countries are getting the message they need to rethink their reliance on the United States. I don't mean abandoning America — after all, it's the world's biggest consumer market. But we could see other alliances forming that chip away at its geoeconomic leverage. Furman: Reversal is not the word I would use. It was a partial reversal on about 70 countries, but a dramatic escalation on China. Of course, that China tariff could well fall in the future — we'll see. More important, as Rebecca mentioned, the biggest economic problem now is uncertainty. There is the possibility that tariffs rise again in 90 days — or really, whenever Mr. Trump posts on social media. It goes both ways, too. Jaguar suspended exports to the United States because it is betting that tariffs might actually fall in the future. It is hard to contain that. Summers: I agree with Jason. By any standard except 'Liberation Day,' the tariffs remaining are massive. The core idea of tariffs as a device to extort concessions remains. Even if none of the suspended tariffs are ever put in place, we are still above Smoot-Hawley levels, and that will meaningfully increase inflation and unemployment. What is especially troubling about this episode is that the boundaries of possible trade policy have been widened to include degrees of protectionism and policy variability that would have been unthinkable even during the first Trump administration. Rose: Let's talk about the market gyrations. In a crisis, investors typically would rush to put their money into Treasuries or the dollar, because they're considered safe. And before the tariffs were lifted, the opposite was happening. The dollar was getting weaker when it should be getting stronger, and interest rates on longer-term bonds were rising sharply when they should have been falling. Rebecca, you've written about the dangers to America's economic exceptionalism, especially its low borrowing costs. How worried should we be today? Patterson: The past few days, before the pause, felt like a dash for cash as much as anything. Investors were selling what they could to have liquidity. What concerns me more now is the increasing potential for U.S. Treasury yields to settle at a higher level, because of our fiscal picture even more than the trade war. Higher Treasury yields create higher borrowing costs, which are felt across financial markets and the economy. My mortgage and auto loan rates go up. It costs more to borrow to grow my business. Summers: I hope, Rebecca, you are right about what happened. Almost all the moments of dramatic stock price declines and Treasury market drama have had pretty disastrous sequels: the 1987 crash, the 2008 financial crisis, the pandemic. At least they were not caused by the U.S. government. I'd guess somehow things will get back to OK. But I think there is a real chance that Mr. Trump's trade policies will be to the dollar what the 1956 Suez crisis was to the British pound — a dramatic break that ultimately portends higher borrowing costs, less investment and more stagnation. Just on Wednesday the dollar fell dramatically. Rose: At the same time, you hear from parts of the administration that driving down the dollar's value is in fact a goal, because it makes American exports more competitive. Cass: That's because the dollar's status as an overvalued reserve currency has been a mixed blessing at best, and at this point has become more of a burden. That said, disruption has costs, especially with a transformation of this magnitude. It's important to act in a way that minimizes the costs where possible (clear communication, gradual phase-ins) and maximizes the potential benefits (certainty on long-term policy environment, trading relationships). Patterson: Oren, I agree with you that the dollar today is overvalued. But when I look at some of the proposals from Washington to make the currency more competitive, they have some pretty material potential costs. Further, the dollar has been strong because the United States has been exceptional — our growth has been much faster than most other countries, our companies more attractive. Foreigners buying our stocks have created household wealth and pushed down borrowing costs for Americans. Of course, not everyone has benefited from those wealth gains equally, and that is something the government can help address, but overall, it's still a good thing. Furman: I agree with Oren that the dollar's strong value is mixed — good for American consumers, but does result in fewer exports. On balance, I would take that deal — plus the lower borrowing costs we get from what was (at least until recently) our exorbitant privilege. Anyone who wants to change it needs to level with people that this adjustment would lower a living standard for the majority of Americans that is currently being enabled by the stronger dollar. Summers: It may be that the dollar is too strong, but actively trying to make it go down is very dangerous in an economy already having confidence issues. Policy can't control the dollar except in the very limited sense of being able to crash it by causing a confidence crisis, which no one sane would suggest. The dollar-down advocates would do well to study the antecedents of the 1987 crash, where sparring of this kind between the United States and West Germany in the week before Oct. 19 is often regarded as an important causal factor. Rose: Is one possible explanation — and it's early for sure — that investors simply have less faith in the long-term viability of the U.S. economy or the ability of the political system to steward it? And that the back and forth over tariffs underscores their concerns? Furman: Yes. There has been an across-the-board re-evaluation of President Trump. If he didn't care about markets on this, then he might not on other issues, such as the independence of the Federal Reserve. Dropping some tariffs has helped a little but won't fully solve the problem. In 2022, Prime Minister Liz Truss of Britain caused a market meltdown with her minibudget proposal. Even after she retracted it, markets were afraid of what she might do next. It was only her resignation that calmed things down. That won't (and shouldn't) happen here, but Congress or the courts could take the tariff toy away from the president, and that might have a similar effect in restoring at least some confidence. Summers: We have an extremely complex machine that is not functioning perfectly, as Oren reminds us. But once we have taken a sledgehammer to the machine, there will be long-term worry about its functioning. Does anyone doubt that we are seeing an unprecedented level of raw, blustering incompetence that is having catastrophic effects? Patterson: I think the reaction by the markets, business community and even Republican members of Congress in the days before the pause underscores that process matters. No one doubts that the government can and should do better for American companies and people. But how best to move forward? A process that decreases household wealth and corporate valuations and puts into question our alliances can't possibly be optimal. And yes, it could chip away at the trust in U.S. assets, including the dollar and Treasury bonds. Rose: I know it's unfair to ask you to speculate on how the Trump White House might act, but the impact is so stunning, it's worth discussing. What happens to the reciprocal tariffs in 90 days? And if they come back, what's the likely impact? Cass: A benefit of the 90-day suspension is that next steps are likely to be staggered. I would expect the administration to reach several deals with major partners. They could also begin signaling different expectations for smaller countries with immaterial imbalances, such as help with isolating China. There's a good chance we see a couple of cases of brinkmanship, or perhaps even a couple of 'failures' that allow the president to show his willingness to impose tariffs. We'd be able to do all that in a way that is not nearly as disruptive or costly as the Liberation Day blitz. Furman: The bigger question is what happens to China tariffs. They represent a massive and rapid change to the United States' third most important trade relationship. China is retaliating, and it is not clear what will calm this process down. As for the others, it is possible we get some good deals. More likely we get face-saving minor compromises. No matter how this shakes out, I would be surprised if we end up with an average tariff rate much below 12 percent. The two most economically successful countries with populations over one million with tariffs at that rate are Iran and Venezuela. Patterson: It's been fascinating in recent days to see how violently the markets are swinging — in both directions — on tariff news and speculation. I also assume some deals will be reached and perhaps some tariffs will be lowered. Investors may initially express relief. But as Jason notes, we'd still potentially be in a new world with higher base-line tariffs. Summers: I hope I am wrong, but I am pretty pessimistic. In the best case, we are still imposing a major supply shock on the economy. Given the administration's track record, it would be amazing if the 90 days go by without further policy announcements that add to uncertainty. The China situation may spiral out of control and lead China to take steps outside the trade realm, such as selling U.S. financial securities in destabilizing ways or taking measures directed at Taiwan and its export of semiconductors. Furman: It is notable that leading macroeconomic models, for example, the Budget Lab at Yale, predict that tariffs of this magnitude would lower growth by only about one percentage point this year. Taking everything into account, Goldman Sachs and other forecasters now expect about 0.5 percent G.D.P. growth this year, which is not a recession. But I suspect that tells us more about the problems with macro models than it does about the lack of severe problems in the world. Summers: The models never came close on the 2008 crisis, and also predict far less impact on companies than the stock and bond markets are now discounting. The Biden administration relied on exactly the models you cite to dismiss inflation fears. Cass: I'm pleased to be in a discussion of economists dismissing the models when they don't produce the answer they expect. Rose: Talking of economists needing to predict the future! What's the Federal Reserve supposed to do now? Typically, the central bank would be a moderating influence if inflation takes off again or growth slows or something breaks in financial markets. But, as they say, is this time different? Furman: Normally, you want the central bank to move quickly and decisively to prevent bad things from happening. But that's impossible now. The higher inflation we're going to get calls for a rate hike, the higher unemployment rate we're going to get calls for a rate cut, and myriad other factors could bounce any which way. So the Fed not only is powerless to stop this, it doesn't even know which direction it should go, and will have to delay deciding — just like businesses and consumers are doing. Patterson: Markets were assuming four quarter-point rate cuts before the end of this year before the pause. Even after, it's still three. There is a risk they will be disappointed as the Fed waits to have more clarity on what the growth and inflation trends are. Summers: The Fed's problem goes back to the fact that this is an iatrogenic financial crisis, our first one, even with the pause. Iatrogenic illness is when you get a serious infection from being in the hospital or from a doctor's treatments. We are now in standard emerging-market territory where a central bank is hamstrung by pressures to both raise and lower rates. There is no good answer. That is why the International Monetary Fund comes into emerging markets, and came into Britain in 1976. Nothing like that is imaginable for the United States. Cass: A somewhat novel challenge is that any higher prices passed on to consumers through tariffs is not inflation in the sense a macroeconomist would worry about, because they are only imposed at the border. If you proposed some other tax, say, to reduce the budget deficit, economists would not call that inflationary. But because they don't like tariffs, it's suddenly fashionable to throw around. Rose: And how about the Fed? Cass: I sympathize with the challenge for the Fed both in dealing with a new economic dynamic and in having so much uncertainty about both the long-run trade policy and the fiscal policy. Are the tariffs going to reduce the budget deficit, thus reducing government borrowing? Are they going to get plowed into bigger tax cuts? Are they going to get spent on industrial policy and work force investment? I'd think those are quite different trajectories and raise different concerns. Furman: I agree with Oren that in normal times the Fed could look through this supply shock because the inflation would be transitory. But context matters, and even before these tariffs started, core inflation was running at about 2.8 percent and inflation expectations were elevated. The risks of inflation getting more embedded is not something the Fed will or can ignore. Rose: Tariffs are front and center right now. But lurching around the corner is the tax bill, which is set to renew the 2017 individual tax cuts, potentially permanently. For now, the Senate version would add roughly $5.7 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, while the House plan would cost $2.8 trillion. Various smart people have been worrying about the size of the debt on and off for years. We spend more on interest payments than the military. Is now the time to really worry? Furman: The debt is not an urgent crisis, but we need to start to push it down as a share of the economy, not up, like the House and Senate are both doing. In fact, that congressional debate is closely related to the trade issues we're discussing. When a country runs a larger budget deficit, that leads to a larger trade deficit. So President Trump wants trade policies to bring trade deficits down while pushing budget policies that will go in the opposite direction. Cass: Jason is making an important point here about the relationship between the budget and trade deficits. I think the United States has very fair complaints about policies pursued by other countries that have driven large trade deficits, but we bear responsibility as well for running enormous fiscal deficits that we look to the world to fund. Patterson: I worry that tariff revenue is potentially being counted on as a secure source of funds for tax cuts. How can it be secure if there are deals being made and tariff rates changing, not to mention the revenue being subject to consumption, which is dynamic? I've already voiced my worries about structurally higher borrowing costs. There could be another market shoe to drop if the deficit outlook gets really dark and investors question the reliability of how we got the math to work. Rose: And then there's the money we need to spend to bail out the most politically sensitive tariff victims. Patterson: Right. In Mr. Trump's first term, retaliatory tariffs on American farm goods led the government to provide large subsidies to farmers, which eroded the tariff revenue. It also resulted in buyers, mainly China, moving their business to places such as Brazil. Even when tariffs were rolled back, that didn't change. Can we afford the same subsidies today? How will we protect market share for American businesses? I'd love to see the administration thinking more about this. Rose: With the time we have left, here's a rapid-fire round. First, what are the chances of a recession in the foreseeable future? Summers: Given that policy has adjusted, around two-thirds. Patterson: Assuming most tariffs eventually stay, it would be my base case. Cass: I don't do percentage chances. I think those types of forecasts are among economists' worst habits. Furman: If current tariff rates continue, then 45 percent. Rose: If this kind of policy turmoil continues, what's going to be the first big thing to break: a company, a bank, a merger, the G.O.P., something else? Summers: Who knows? If you drive drunk at 90 miles per hour, you will have an accident. It's hard to say what exactly it will be. Patterson: I am worried about the housing market with higher mortgage rates and potential job losses. And I agree with Larry — we'll probably be surprised. Cass: If I can have two, I think we could see some failures of companies dependent on Chinese inputs, and I worry geopolitically about the effect of what nearly amounts to a China embargo on their calculus on Taiwan. Furman: I hope it is the president's authority to unilaterally set tariffs, broken either by the courts or Congress. Rose: What are you worried you're getting wrong about the economy? Summers: There likely is some consequence of this lurching around that has not yet become salient. When you don't fully understand systems, it's best not to approach them with a sledgehammer, and we don't fully understand how the economy operates. Patterson: Will the tariffs that remain fuel inflation, or will the hit to consumption, oil prices and wages be enough to cap inflation and let the Fed lower rates? Cass: I worry about the time frame. I strongly believe reindustrialization is possible and necessary, but it is going to be hard, and if it takes too long the balance of costs and benefits will begin to feel wrong. Furman: Inflation and unemployment will both go up, but I'm worried about getting the ratio of these two wrong. It's critical right now to know which is the bigger problem.
Yahoo
05-04-2025
- Yahoo
Fire historians' new book recounts major Schuylkill County disasters
POTTSVILLE — At 2 a.m. on June 15, 1926, several cars stopped in front of the rectory at Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Mahanoy Plane. Exiting the cars, several men placed containers on the rectory porch. Then, someone hurled a burning ball of cotton onto the porch, triggering an explosion. 'The beautiful three-story Victorian rectory was a massive ball of fire,' Michael R. Glore and Michael J. Kitsock report in their new book, 'The Great Memorial Day Fire of 1945 and Other Schuylkill County Disasters.' The backstory of what led to the firebombing is why the authors chose the incident as the book's first chapter, 'Divinity and Justice.' At the height of the Prohibition era, Rev. Patrick J. Fleming railed from the pulpit against the Tilly Billy roadhouse, an infamous speakeasy and brothel. He led a protest in front of it the day before the bombing. Father Fleming escaped the rectory inferno in what appeared to be an assassination attempt, and the brothel owner and co-conspirators were eventually arrested due to what might be termed divine intervention. Their car stalled after the firebombing, and they escaped on foot. Clues in the car, including a revolver and business cards from Frank Fotte's Restaurant in Shenandoah, led to their eventual arrest and conviction. At a recent book signing in the Schuylkill County Historical Society, the authors recounted some of the devastating fires in the county over a century or so. * Fire originating in the Oppenheimer Building threatens the entire block on South Main Street in the Borough. Fire apparatus from Pottsville, including the Good Intent Fire Company Oren pumper and the West End Hose Company Seagrave aerial ladder truck, operate on scene that December day. Note the Bangor Ladder with the tell-tale tormentor poles raised to the exposure building in the photo. (GLORE COLLECTION) * The Liberty Fire Company of Schuylkill Haven operates the company's 1927 Hahn pumper at a fire hydrant on Berne Street during the fire. (SCHUYLKILL COUNTY HISTORICAL FIRE SOCIETY COLLECTION) Show Caption 1 of 2 Fire originating in the Oppenheimer Building threatens the entire block on South Main Street in the Borough. Fire apparatus from Pottsville, including the Good Intent Fire Company Oren pumper and the West End Hose Company Seagrave aerial ladder truck, operate on scene that December day. Note the Bangor Ladder with the tell-tale tormentor poles raised to the exposure building in the photo. (GLORE COLLECTION) Expand Aside from documenting the tragic loss of life and property, the book documents the danger faced by firefighters responding to fires, explosions and airline crashes. 'We need to be proud of the rich heritage of volunteer firefighters in the county,' insisted Kitsock, instructor emeritus of the Pennsylvania State Fire Academy and president of the Schuylkill Historic Fire Society. 'Many lives and much property have been saved due to their dedication.' Glore, a Pottsville resident who's Reading's first deputy fire chief, said Schuylkill County is no stranger to disaster. One of the most spectacular, an inferno that consumed 67 buildings in Mahanoy City on Memorial Day 1945, is reflected in the book's title. With many young men in the armed services, World War II was a challenging time for volunteer fire companies. When fire erupted on May 31, 1945, it couldn't have happened at a worse time. Quickly spreading in the downtown business district, the fire consumed homes and businesses, including the landmark Guinan Department Store. When the smoke cleared, 67 structures had burned, 38 families had lost their homes and 200 residents were left homeless. An arsonist confessed and was convicted, sentenced to Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, where he died in 1973. Firefighters faced a lack of water while battling a fire at the Lyric Theater in New Philadelphia on Dec. 15, 1949. Firemen desperately wait for water as flames roar from the Lyric Theater in New Philadelphia. Note the hose line stretched over the porch roof of the property to the right as well as the utility wires burning in front of the theater. (SCHUYLKILL COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY) 'With no water available, the fire quickly turned into a raging inferno,' the authors wrote. 'High-voltage power lines severed by the fire dropped onto the Reading Railroad tracks, electrifying them and raising peril.' When a Reading Railroad locomotive T-boned a truck carrying 4,000 gallons of highly volatile gasoline near her home in Port Carbon on Sept. 20, 1940, Mrs. G. Paul Starr nearby grabbed a telephone and shouted, 'My God, get me the fire department.' The truck driver died, the engineer and three trainmen were injured. Three persons in the train's mailcar got out alive. Aside from $300,000 of damage inflicted by the fire, it was feared that cash in a safe on the mailcar headed for banks in Girardville and Trevorton would be lost. When railroad officials opened the safe, they found the cash intact, though singed by the intense heat. June 2, 1959, was, the authors say, a 'Day of Infamy' in the annals of Schuylkill County firefighting. When a tractor-trailer skidded into a tanker loaded with 7,000 gallons of propane, 12 died and 11 were injured in the ensuing conflagration near Deer Lake. 'Known today as a BLEVE, or boiling liquid escaping vapor explosion, the blast tore the tank off its frame and launched it, like a rocket, off the stone wall near the Red Church,' the authors wrote. Windows were shattered a mile away in Orwigsburg, and utility poles were snapped like toothpicks. Dr. Wagner, an Orwigsburg physician, described the aftermath as a wartime battlefield. Previous books by Kitsock and Glore include 'Pottsville Firefighting,' 'Reading Firefighting' and 'Schuylkill County Firefighting.' Published by The History Press, 'The Great Memorial Day Fire of 1945 and Other Schuylkill County Disasters' is available for $24.99 at the Schuylkill County Historical Society and online at Book signings are scheduled for 5 to 7 p.m. April 28 in the Schuylkill Historical Fire Society Museum, 105 Jardin St., Shenandoah; and 1 to 4 p.m. May 31 in the Pottsville Free Public Library.
The Guardian
07-03-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Cocktail of the week: Oren's harissa bloody mary – recipe
This is a twist on the classic brunch drink. We serve it as part of our new 'Slow Sundays' offering, and instead of the usual Tabasco, we use a house-made burnt harissa to add a real kick and smokiness. Serves 1 For the burnt harissa 10-15 red chillies, to tasteA pinch of salt 1 small garlic clove, peeledOlive oil For the drink45ml vodka – we use East London Liquor Co.150ml good-quality tomato juice 2 dashes Worcestershire sauce 10ml fresh lemon juice A pinch of celery salt, plus extra to rim the glass, if you like 1 tsp burnt harissa (see above and method)1 guindilla chilli, 1 pickled cauliflower floret and 1 olive on a skewer, to garnish First make the harissa. Scorch the chillies over a gas flame until blackened and blistered all over. Once they've cooled down slightly, peel off and discard the skins and finely chop the chilli flesh. Put this in a blender and grate in the garlic – add a little more, if you like, but you really don't need much (at the restaurant, we use about a tablespoon in every two-litre batch). Add a pinch of salt and a dash of olive oil to loosen, then blitz to a smooth paste. The harissa will now keep in a clean sealed container in the fridge for about a week. To build the drink, measure everything into a mixing glass filled with ice and stir gently to combine. Strain into a highball glass (we use a 350ml one) filled with fresh ice (if you like, rim the glass with celery salt first). Garnish with a skewer of a guindilla chilli, a pickled cauliflower floret and an olive. Oded Oren, chef/patron, Oren, London E8
Miami Herald
28-02-2025
- Miami Herald
Four new lawsuits filed against Miami real estate brothers as more women come forward
In March 2010, Laura Buck tried to warn women about the brothers who she said had assaulted her. She reported it to police. She went to a local hospital. She sent messages to multiple women. She contacted the Alexander brothers' mother. Then she took a red lipstick to the hallway walls of their apartment building, scrawling in big bold letters 'Tal Alexander is a Rapist' and 'Oren Alexander is a Rapist.' This week, Buck filed a civil lawsuit against the two brothers – best known for selling high-end real estate in Miami and New York – for compensatory and punitive damages in the New York Supreme Court. Along with Oren's twin brother Alon Alexander, the men have been charged with a slew of state and federal assault, rape and sex-trafficking charges. Federal prosecutors say about 60 women have come forward. The four lawsuits filed this week – including Buck's – brings the number of civil lawsuits against one or more of the Alexander brothers to 21. Their attorneys have maintained the brothers' innocence. 'We haven't been able to read the newest lawsuits, but no need, we're assuming they claim they had non concensual[sic] sex a decade or two ago with the Brothers and decided to report it to a PI lawyer to sue before the new Statute of limitations expires,' said Joel Denaro and Edward O'Donnell IV, who represent the twins, in a statement to the Miami Herald. The first civil suits were filed in March 2024 by two women against twins, Oren and Alon. In December 2024, the FBI and Miami-Dade authorities arrested the three brothers. Allegations in the civil and criminal cases span Florida, New York, Colorado, Mexico, and Russia. The three brothers were arrested in their Miami Beach homes after being indicted by the FBI for sex trafficking charges. In Miami-Dade, Oren pled not guilty to three charges of sexual battery; Alon pled not guilty to one. The Alexander brothers are being held in a Brooklyn federal detention center without bond. The window for victims to bring charges under a New York statute is set to close on Friday, Feb. 28th. READ MORE: Do you know the Alexander brothers? We need your help In another lawsuit filed Thursday, plaintiff Ti Goodwin, claims a party with Oren 'spiraled into darkness' after he gave her a drink on Feb. 13, 2011. He later raped her, the lawsuit says. The other two women are identified only as 'Jane Doe.' One implicated all three brothers in a 2016 assault when she was 20-years-old, and said she experienced 'severe' disorientation after she was given a drink at their Manhattan apartment. The other said she was drugged and assaulted repeatedly by Tal about 10 years ago. 'I know the Alexander brothers will call this a cash grab,' said Evan Torgan, a partner at the firm representing Buck and Goodwin. 'But what else can they say in the face of over 60 women reporting they've been raped or sexually assaulted to the FBI alone?' The hospital, police, and FB messages in 2010 Buck was first introduced to Tal and Oren while she was a college student 'with limited experience living in New York City,' the lawsuit states. After a date with Tal on March 5, 2010, she agreed to go back to his and Oren's apartment. There, she found Oren and another man referred to as 'Perpetrator 1.' Tal suggested they go to his room for privacy, and prepared a bong, adding what he described as 'resin' on top of the marijuana. Resin is a potent form of cannabis. 'It was not long until she began losing control over her muscles,' the complaint reads. She had smoked marijuana on other occasions, but 'this experience felt completely different from anything she had encountered before.' Tal became 'more sexually aggressive' and Oren and 'Perpetrator 1' walked into the room naked 'seemingly ready to rape her,' the lawsuit states. The unnamed man pointed a camera at Buck. Tal held her down, and sexually assaulted her on the bed. 'She was in extreme fear for her life and safety,' the lawsuit reads. She broke from his grip, the lawsuit states, and repeatedly said she needed to leave. Tal followed her to the hallway where she called the assault 'sick and incestuous.' Disoriented, she struggled to walk, the lawsuit states. She made her way home, asking people on the street for directions. The next day, she went to a local hospital, where she reported the assault, asked police to file a report, and requested a drug test. The police refused – and 'blaming' her 'for voluntarily smoking marijuana' – the lawsuit claims, and the hospital did not run a drug screen. She confronted Tal, but when that 'proved unproductive,' she took her lipstick to the apartment hallway. Tal filed a police report for harassment, according to the lawsuit. She also sent messages to the brothers' 'friends and acquaintances.' In one Facebook message about Tal that Buck sent on March 22, 2010, she wrote, 'I'm just writing to let you know if you're a girl and you know this guy you need to be really, really careful.' Oren, she wrote, had 'a history of alleged rape,' reads the message, which was obtained by the Herald. She contacted their mother, Orly Alexander, to 'inform her that she had raised a bunch of rapists,' the lawsuit states. In response, Tal told Buck his mother had terminal cancer. He then threatened to sue her, according to the lawsuit. Later that year, on Nov. 8, 2010, Ti Goodwin met Oren when he approached her at a Gotham Magazine party at STK Steakhouse in the West Village, according to another lawsuit filed Thursday. They communicated in the following weeks, and she saw him again at a Super Bowl party at his apartment on Feb. 6, 2011. A week later, he invited her to a Gotham Magazine party in celebration of New York Fashion Week that same day. When she arrived at the party on Feb. 13, she was greeted by Oren, Alon and an unidentified woman. The group went to a bar, where Oren handed her a drink, according to the lawsuit, and she became 'significantly impaired.' 'Ti's final memory at the bar was falling to the ground and having to be helped to her feet,' the lawsuit reads. The next thing she remembers is being in a bed and Oren raping her, the lawsuit states. The next morning, 'partially clothed, confused, and disoriented,' she woke up, and 'fled the apartment' while Oren was sleeping. She confided in a friend that Oren had raped her, the lawsuit states, purchased a Plan-B, and considered reporting – but was 'concerned about Oren's wealth, power and influence.' Torgan, a partner at the firm representing Goodwin and Buck, said that many women are criticized for not reporting sexual assault, but 'the playbook was always to attack the victim. And it still is.' Instagram and a party at Catch New York Another woman, identified as 'Jane Doe,' was also 20 when she met one of the brothers in New York – this time, in 2016. She connected with Alon, who was 28, on Instagram through a friend looking to set them up, according to May 2016 messages included in the lawsuit filed Tuesday. He invited her to a dinner date in Manhattan, but when she showed up at the address, there was no restaurant. He suggested a bar, but she said she was underage. He then told her to meet him at her apartment. Alon 'immediately presented' her with a 'pre-prepared drink,' the lawsuit alleges, which left her with 'severe and unusual disorientation far beyond the effects of normal alcohol consumption.' Tal, the older of the three brothers, was laying on a bed watching TV with another woman. According to the lawsuit, she went to greet him with a kiss on the cheek, and Tal forcibly kissed her on the lips. While sitting on a couch, Alon Alexander began to kiss and touch her. She responded by physically removing his hands from her body. 'She also told Alon to stop,' the suit reads, 'making clear that she did not want to engage in sexual activity with Alon.' From that point on, her memory is hazy, according to the suit. But she remembers Alon and Oren Alexander simultaneously sexually assaulting and raping her on the bed. The twins left the room afterwards. 'In a state of shock and confusion,' the woman 'fled' the apartment, according to the suit. 'Our client has shown tremendous courage in coming forward to tell her story and seek justice for the egregious sexual violence she suffered,' Alexandra Walsh, a Philadelphia based law firm attorney, one of two representing both 'Jane Does' said in a statement. O'Donnell IV and Denaro said in a statement that the complaint had 'no evidence or witnesses.' 'Another Grift looking for a free fortune because she heard of, knew or slept with the Alexander brothers,' the attorneys' statement read. The fourth lawsuit, also filed Tuesday, accuses Tal of raping a woman multiple times about 10 years ago. 'Jane Doe' said she first met Tal at a birthday party at Catch New York, a restaurant in the Meatpacking District. A few weeks later, she met him for dinner at Lur Fish Bar, after which they went to a now-closed nightclub called Provocateur. At the club, she had one or two drinks and 'began experiencing extreme and unusual intoxication far beyond what her limited alcohol consumption could explain.' After that, she only remembers waking up in his bed, undressed and in pain, the lawsuit states. She had 'no doubt' that Tal Alexander had raped her while she was intoxicated the night before. When she said she was going home, Tal 'refused to let her leave' and raped her again, according to the lawsuit. He then had his driver take her home. 'She lived with the weight of fear and trauma while he hid behind power and privilege,' said Kristen Gibbons Feden, whose Philadelphia law firm represents both unnamed women. Deanna Paul, Tal's defense attorney, could not immediately respond to the Herald's request for comment, but has maintained in the past that her client is innocent.
