Latest news with #Pe
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
US Steel Deal Seen Closing by Merger Deadline on Trump Pivot
(Bloomberg) -- Nippon Steel Corp. and United States Steel Corp. are on pace to finalize their $14.1 billion combination with President Donald Trump's administration before a deal deadline later this month, capping an 18-month saga to combine the steelmakers into the world's second-largest producer. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars Talks on the agreement between the companies and the US government are ongoing and expected to reach a conclusion before a June 18 merger agreement deadline, according to people familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity given that talks are confidential. US Steel and Nippon Steel declined to comment. A Treasury Department spokesperson declined to comment. The companies, their investors and advisers to the deal are still awaiting final terms marking the end of Nippon Steel's takeover of the US steelmaker, but talks with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States are progressing and poised to be finalized before the deal deadline, said the people. However, final details have not been fully ironed out and talks are ongoing, the people said. Failure to reach a deal could mean reopening the merger agreement at least partly and potentially spur new fronts of negotiation. US Steel shares jumped as high as $54.24 after the Bloomberg report — the highest since Nippon Steel's $55-a-share offer was announced in mid-December 2023 — before paring gains. A court case stemming from President Joe Biden's block of the transaction is ongoing, and included a June 5 deadline for an update. In a court filing Thursday, the US government sought an extension of eight days, until June 13. The companies and government continue 'to work to reach a resolution that would obviate the need' for the case, the filing said. The extension is warranted given the 'ongoing efforts to reach a resolution,' according to the filing, submitted by Justice Department lawyers. Earlier: Trump Signs Order Doubling US Steel, Aluminum Tariffs to 50% A final deal would clear the way for the Japan-based steelmaker to finally own the once-iconic American producer — albeit with some measures of American control, such as over board seats. Trump's self-proclaimed 'big deal' that extracted further concessions from Nippon Steel would also add decades of life to existing US Steel mills that have long beleaguered the company's bottom line due to their urgent need for significant, and unavailable, capital investments. The agreement includes a requirement that US Steel, as a subsidiary, will retain its headquarters in Pittsburgh. The deal also includes provisions for a US management team, a majority of US nationals on the board and US government approval of 'key' board positions, Senator David McCormick, a Pennsylvania Republican, told Fox News Sunday earlier this week. It's also poised to require an American chief executive officer, some of the people said. Trump said Friday that US Steel workers would receive a $5,000 bonus and that $2.2 billion of a $14 billion proposed investment would be earmarked to increase steel production at the Mon Valley Works facility. Another $7 billion would be spent to modernize steel mills, expand ore mining and build facilities across Indiana, Minnesota, Alabama and Arkansas. And, he added, US Steel wouldn't announce layoffs or outsourcing, and its blast furnaces must remain at 'full capacity' for at least 10 years. While some investors have worried about Cfius finalizing terms by a certain date, people familiar with the matter said the security panel's decision wasn't bound to a due date given its investigation wasn't done through a typical process. US Steel's recent stock performance suggests investors are optimistic the deal will succeed. Shares of the American steelmaker have been trading above $53 a share since May 27 — close to Nippon Steel's all-cash offer. --With assistance from Zoe Tillman. (Updates with court case, starting in sixth paragraph.) Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 days ago
- Business
- First Post
Trump 2.0 and India-US relations: Mistakes, blunders, more mistakes, more blunders
Trump's dramatic shift on Pakistan—from his first term and PM Modi's February 2025 visit to now—may plausibly stem from some business deals by his son and partners involving cryptocurrency and rare earth minerals. If that is so, it's a serious worry for India read more Relations between India and the United States have witnessed many ups and downs since India's independence in 1947. In the initial more than 50 years, the relations were largely marred by suspicion and mistrust, principally because the US considered India's stance of non-alignment as 'immoral' and due to India's perceived closeness to the Soviet Union. The US' supply of sophisticated weaponry to Pakistan and its steadfast support for Pakistan on the Kashmir issue also did not help matters. The biggest question that loomed large over the bilateral ties was, 'Can India trust the United States?' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD All this underwent a subtle but decisive change with the visit of President Bill Clinton to India in March 2000. In the following years, bilateral relations transformed into a dynamic and vigorous partnership. Other US Presidents after Clinton, including George W Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, also worked assiduously to make the partnership resilient and strong. In India too, all prime ministers, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh and the current prime minister, Narendra Modi, have contributed sedulously to the expansion of bilateral ties. Much of the credit for the exceptional rise in bilateral ties over the last decade would go to PM Modi because of the vision and steadfast leadership he has displayed in registering a quantum jump in bilateral relations. Bipartisan support exists in both countries among the political leadership, parliamentarians, the business community and citizens for ever stronger relations between the two countries. This has made the bilateral relationship the most consequential for India in these volatile and uncertain times. Today relations between the two countries have evolved into a comprehensive global strategic partnership covering almost all areas of human endeavour, driven by shared democratic values, convergence of interests on a range of issues, and vibrant people-to-people contacts. High-level exchanges and regular dialogue between the leaders have emerged as an important element of the expanding bilateral ties. Evolution of Relations in Recent Years Addressing the Joint Session of the US Congress in June 2016, Prime Minister Modi declared that India had overcome the 'hesitations of history' as far as bilateral relations are concerned. And there had been serious and long-standing ''hesitations'' and doubts ranging from the support by the US to Pakistan in the UN Security Council on the Kashmir issue, threats and intimidation in the Bay of Bengal resorted to by the US in 1971 during the India-Pakistan war leading to the independence of Bangladesh, stoppage of supply of nuclear fuel after India's 1974 Peaceful Nuclear Explosion, wide-ranging sanctions against India in the aftermath of India's nuclear tests in May, 1998, etc. Evincing confidence about the upward trajectory of bilateral ties, PM Modi in his address in 2016 declared that 'a new symphony is at play in the India-US bilateral relations'. The Pahalgam Escalation and Operation Sindoor Reprisal This symphony received a rude jolt from the comments of US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the conflict that erupted between India and Pakistan in the wake of the Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, killing 26 innocent civilians, 25 of them Hindus, because of the religion they professed. As retribution for this heinous act by Pakistan in Pahalgam, India, in the early morning of May 7, 2025, under Operation Sindoor, destroyed 9 of its terrorist strongholds and hideouts, 5 in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) and 4 in the heart of Pakistan in Punjab, including Bahwalpur, the headquarters of Masood Azhar's Jaish-e-Mohammad, and Muridke, the stronghold of Hafez Sayeed's Lashkar-e-Tayyeba. This was followed by the demolition of 13 airfields of Pakistan in the early morning of 10th May in retaliation for the attacks on civilians, military establishments and places of worship by Pakistan. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Trump Intrusion At about 5:30 PM on May 10, 2025, a message surfaced on Trump's Truth Social platform claiming that 'After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE.' Trump praised the two countries for 'using common sense and great intelligence'. Marco Rubio followed the lead of his president by writing on X a little later the same day, 'Over the past 48 hours, @VP Vance and I have engaged with senior Indian and Pakistani officials, including Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Shehbaz Sharif, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Chief of Army Staff Asim Munir, and National Security Advisors Ajit Doval and Asim Malik. I am pleased to announce the governments of India and Pakistan have agreed to an immediate ceasefire and to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.' He gratuitously commended 'Prime Ministers Modi and Sharif on their wisdom, prudence, and statesmanship in choosing the path of peace.'' ' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump didn't stop at this. He compounded his earlier error the next day by appreciating the ''strong and unwaveringly powerful leadership of India and Pakistan for having the strength, wisdom and fortitude to fully know and understand that it was time to stop the current aggression that could have led to the death and destruction of so many, and so much." Trump further said, 'Millions of good and innocent people could have died! Your legacy is greatly enhanced by your brave actions. I am proud that the USA was able to help you arrive at this historic and heroic decision. While not even discussed, I am going to increase trade substantially with both of these great nations. Additionally, I will work with both of you to see if, after a thousand years, a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir. God bless the leadership of India and Pakistan on a job well done.'' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD On his first visit after assuming office to Saudi Arabia with the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in the audience, Trump stated that he had 'successfully brokered a historic ceasefire to stop the escalating violence between India and Pakistan', and he used trade to a large extent to do it. He added, 'And they both have very powerful leaders, very strong leaders, good leaders, smart leaders. And it all stopped. Hopefully, it'll remain that way, but it all stopped.' Trump singled out Marco Rubio for leading US efforts in the India-Pakistan situation. Here is what the US president said: 'Millions of people could have died from that conflict that started off small and was getting bigger and bigger and bigger by the day. And I used trade to a large extent to do it. And I [Trump] said, 'Fellows, come on. Let's make a deal. Let's do some trading. Let's not trade nuclear missiles. Let's trade the things that you make so beautifully'.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD And he said it again on May 14, in an interview with Fox News, that he brokered the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Trump, by his uncalled-for and unsubstantiated remarks done a great disservice to the cause of India-US partnership. The first grave error he made was to jump the gun and announce the ceasefire agreement without waiting for India to announce it. This obviously stemmed from his desire to win global applause and acclaim and appear influential for the cause of peace on the international arena. Possibly he has illusions of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which his predecessor Barack Obama had received in his first year in office. It made the matters more objectionable because there was little factual accuracy in his claims. The US contribution to the ceasefire was minimal, if any. Trump's claim went counter to the long-stated policy of India that it would not countenance any third-party mediation between India and Pakistan. In the current case also, India asserted shortly after Trump's announcement on May 10 that the ceasefire had been reached directly between India and Pakistan when the Pakistan Director General Military Operations (DGMO) called his Indian counterpart and pleaded for a ceasefire, which request was acceded to by India. In his press conference on May 13, the official spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs categorically stated that the ceasefire was agreed to in direct talks between the senior military officers of India and Pakistan and that no third country was involved. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This became absolutely clear when PM Modi, while addressing the nation on May 12, did not make any reference to America as far as the ceasefire was concerned. In his address he laid out a new normal for dealing with terrorism from Pakistan. He said that any act of terror will be treated as an act of war and will be responded to as such. Moreover, terror and trade and terror and talks will not go together. Also, blood and water will not flow together. In a pointed rebuttal to Rubio's assertion that ''talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site'' will take place, PM Modi made it very clear that the only conversation with Pakistan will be on stopping terrorism from Pakistan and on the return of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) to India. It has also been categorically stated that there will be no rethink on the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty till Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for terrorism against India. This position was reiterated by EAM S Jaishankar on May 15. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump committed several more blunders in his assertions. He equated India and Pakistan, while it is clear that Pakistan is the perpetrator of terrorism and India the victim. After the Pahalgam attack, the whole world stood with India that the victims of the barbarous massacre should be given justice and the perpetrators be punished for this outrageous crime. Trump's messages on the Truth Social platform and other statements sound all the more jarring, as during PM Modi's visit to the White House on February 13, 2025, the two leaders agreed that in addition to the extradition of Tahawwur Rana, a Pakistani-origin Canadian citizen and mastermind of the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack, they will push back against cross-border terrorism that India faces from Pakistan and act against activities of JeM, LeT, ISIS, and Al Qaeda to prevent heinous acts like the attacks in Mumbai on 26/11 and the Abbey Gate bombing in Afghanistan on 26 August 2021. In addition, during his first term, in his first tweet of 2018, on January 1, 2018, Trump had written, 'The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!' It is internationally known that Pakistan is the epicentre of terror. Most terror acts around the world have a link to Pakistan, including the 9/11 attacks, the London tube bombings, including innumerable attacks in India. Neither Trump nor Rubio, in their wisdom, have referred to Pakistan's long history of support for global terrorism and cross-border terrorism against India. This will further encourage the jihadi elements in Pakistan's army and its spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, to launch more acts of terrorism against India as well as globally. One of the most serious blunders committed by Trump is to suggest that he will try to negotiate the Kashmir issue between the two countries. He made this faux pas during his first term also. While speaking with the then PM Imran Khan, he wrongly claimed that PM Modi had asked him to negotiate on the issue of Kashmir between the two countries. The US State Department had quickly sprung into action then to clarify that Kashmir is a bilateral issue to be resolved through negotiations between India and Pakistan. It would be prudent for the US State Department to once again dissuade Trump from following this disastrous path. In any case India has made it amply clear that the only remaining issue on the Kashmir question is the return of illegally occupied POK by Pakistan to India. No other talks on Kashmir are necessary or will be held. Trump's offer to negotiate can only further encourage the Pakistan army, ISI and terrorist groups supported, funded, financed and trained by them to launch more terrorist attacks against India, which will invite a crippling and debilitating action against these terror groups, as well as the Pakistani military establishment. Trump has also made his ignorance about the Kashmir issue quite evident by stating that it is a '1000-year-old conflict'. He needs to be given some history lessons by the State Department to inform him that the issue emerged only in 1947 when the Pakistani army, in the guise of tribesmen, attacked the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. His tone while referring to PM Modi (and Pakistan PM Sharif) in his statements and messages was patronising, as if he was disciplining two wayward children. He also committed the mistake of equating PM Modi, the undisputed leader of the largest democracy in the world, India, with Shehbaz Sharif, an effete leader who lacks both power and authority in a country where the army has always ruled the roost. Trump also stated that he used the instrument of trade to pressurise India and Pakistan to accede to the ceasefire. This is patently untrue. In his own first message he stated that trade was not discussed, and then, in his subsequent statements and comments, he came up with the idea of increasing trade with both countries. India does not wish to be placed in a situation where it is pressurised to change its sovereign decisions related to its national interest, nor has it been the case this time. If Trump can 'use trade', he could also use the instrument of the supply of defence technology, defence equipment or critical and emerging technologies in the future. Certainly, national interests for India reign supreme, and Delhi will not get intimidated. Trump's dramatic shift on Pakistan—from his first term and PM Modi's February 2025 visit to now—may plausibly stem from some business deals by his son and partners involving cryptocurrency and rare earth such be the case, it casts a dark shadow over Trump's reliability as a geopolitical and strategic partner to India. Conclusion By making statements like this, Trump has significantly eroded the trust quotient between India and the US. He has dealt a severe blow to the high level of confidence achieved between the two countries over the last 25 years. He has done huge harm and damage to the rapidly expanding and evolving bilateral relationship which PM Modi had termed as ''Indispensable Partnership'' and a ''Partnership of Trust''. The US will need to work hard to remove the cobwebs of doubt and misgivings to restore the relations to the earlier status of trust and confidence. In the meantime, India will have to work relentlessly and vigorously to implement the agreements on trade, promoting the application of critical and emerging technologies in areas like defence, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum, biotechnology, energy and space; counter-terrorism; Indo-Pacific and the Quad, etc, that were reached during PM Modi's visit to Washington DC in February, 2025. In view of the recent trade deal with China in which China stood firm while Trump blinked, it is possible that Trump's interest in energising and invigorating the Quad might also slacken. Under such a scenario, India will have to strengthen its bilateral and multilateral partnerships in strategic, security and economic spheres with emerging and significant powers like Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Russia, West Asia, Australia and others. To realise its full potential, India will need to maintain peace, unity and harmony at home and undertake appropriate economic reforms and invest in R&D to grow at rates of 7-9 per cent and above. This will catapult India to a $10 trillion economy by 2032 or so and provide it with the requisite economic and military heft to fully safeguard its sovereignty against possible incursions from the North. It will also provide a much better standard of living than at present to its citizens. A strong and multi-faceted India-US partnership is a win-win proposition for both the countries. Both of them need to put in the necessary effort to restore the earlier trust that existed between them. The writer is executive council member, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, president, Institute of Global Studies, Distinguished Fellow, Ananta Aspen Centre, and former Ambassador of India to Kazakhstan, Sweden and Latvia. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
San Francisco Chronicle
5 days ago
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
China says Hegseth is touting a Cold War mentality in calling it a threat
BEIJING (AP) — China on Sunday denounced U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for calling the Asian country a threat, accusing him of touting a Cold War mentality as tensions between Washington and Beijing further escalate. The foreign ministry said Hegseth had vilified Beijing with defamatory allegations the previous day before at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a global security conference. The statement also accused the United States of inciting conflict and confrontation in the region. 'Hegseth deliberately ignored the call for peace and development by countries in the region, and instead touted the Cold War mentality for bloc confrontation,' it said, referring to the post-World War II rivalry between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. 'No country in the world deserves to be called a hegemonic power other than the U.S. itself,' it said, alleging that Washington is also undermining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific. Hegseth said in Singapore on Saturday that Washington will bolster its defenses overseas to counter what the Pentagon sees as rapidly developing threats by Beijing, particularly in its aggressive stance toward Taiwan. China's army 'is rehearsing for the real deal,' Hegseth said. 'We are not going to sugarcoat it — the threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent.' The Chinese statement stressed that the Taiwan question is entirely China's internal affair, saying the U.S. must 'never play with fire' with it. It also alleged Washington had deployed offensive weaponry in the South China Sea, was 'stoking flames and creating tensions in the Asia-Pacific' and "turning the region into a powder keg.' In a Facebook post on Saturday, China's Embassy in Singapore said Hegseth's speech was 'steeped in provocations and instigation.' The U.S. and China had reached a deal last month to cut U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs from 145% to 30% for 90 days, creating time for negotiators from both sides to reach a more substantive agreement. China also reduced its taxes on U.S. goods from 125% to 10%. But it's uncertain if a trade war truce will last. Trump in a social media post on Friday said he would no longer be 'nice' with China when it comes to trade and accused Beijing of breaking an unspecified agreement with the U.S. Tensions escalated anew after the U.S. said on Wednesday it would start revoking visas for Chinese students studying there. Separately, the Chinese Embassy in Singapore criticized attempts to link the issue of Taiwan with that of the war in Ukraine after French President Emmanuel Macron warned of a dangerous double standard in focusing on a potential conflict with China at the cost of abandoning Ukraine. 'If one tries to denounce 'double standards' through the lens of a double standard, the only result we can get is still double standard,' it said. China, which usually sends its defense minister to the Shangri-La forum, this time sent a lower-level delegation led by Maj. Gen. Hu Gangfeng, the vice president of the People's Liberation Army National Defense University.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Yahoo
An Eerily Familiar 20th-Century Hoax
When the influencer Katie Sorensen posted on Instagram about the less than 'clean cut' Latino couple who she said tried to kidnap her children outside a Bay Area Michaels in 2020, she credited her kids' safety to 'the absolute grace of God.' The video, viewed more than 4 million times, was eventually found to be a hoax: The accused couple had not interacted with Sorensen's children at all. The Sorensen scandal seems, on the surface, to be a uniquely contemporary event—involving social media, child-trafficking panic, and even essential oils (Sorensen was an 'independent wellness advocate' who sold products through the multi-level marketing company doTERRA)—but a similar incident occurred almost 100 years earlier. In May 1926, the world-famous evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson vanished; she was last seen ducking into the ocean near Santa Monica for a swim. Weeks later, she turned up in Mexico with a sordid tale of abduction. Like Sorensen, McPherson was a white woman living in California who'd built a career on her openness and accessibility. She also blamed the kidnapping on a Latino couple, in this case invented characters named Felipe and Mexicali Rose, who, along with a white man named Steve, she said kept her locked in a shack in Mexico for more than a month. After her return, McPherson claimed that the devil had arranged her kidnapping to thwart her good works, but God had intervened. Sorensen's story ended tidily: She was given a short jail sentence for making a false report of a crime. But obscurity wasn't an option for McPherson. She was too famous—and too good at being famous—to fade. Claire Hoffman begins Sister, Sinner, her new biography of McPherson, with a play-by-play description of the day the evangelist went missing. The hoax was probably the most significant event in McPherson's action-packed life, and the intricacies of the ensuing legal proceedings (a grand jury investigated the incident, and McPherson faced three charges, including conspiracy to 'pervert or obstruct justice') make up the bulk of Hoffman's fascinating, frustrating book. More than the eerie parallels of their hoaxes kept me thinking about Sorensen as I read Sister, Sinner. In some ways, McPherson's whole life seemed to me like the tale of a proto-influencer: As a multihyphenate (mega-church founder, writer, radio star), she was keenly ambitious, technologically adventurous, aware of her brand but studiously authentic. She showed enough vulnerability to make her followers feel connected to her, to feel that with her guidance they might be able to shed illness, sinful habits, and psychic malaise. A better world was possible for those who liked and subscribed. [Read: Beware the weepy influencers] McPherson was born Aimee Elizabeth Kennedy in rural Ontario, Canada, in 1890 to a mother who was deeply involved in the fledgling Salvation Army, the temperance-focused British missionary movement that had recently arrived in North America. When she was 17, she married a Pentecostal missionary from Ireland named Robert Semple and traveled with him to evangelize in China, where they both contracted malaria. McPherson, who was at that point eight months pregnant, survived, but Semple died, leaving her a widow and new mother stranded halfway around the world from anyone she knew. McPherson raised money preaching and used it to travel to New York, where her mother, by then separated from McPherson's father and working full-time for the Salvation Army, lived. While her mother stayed home with baby Roberta, McPherson rang the organization's brass bell in the lobbies of Broadway theaters, asking members of the crowds 'Are you saved?' One day, a man named Harold McPherson stopped to answer her, and not long after, the two married. As Hoffman writes, Harold believed that once they had a child together, McPherson would put the energy that once went to sidewalk preaching into domestic life. Their son, Rolf, was born in 1913. And Harold was wrong. Experiencing what might today be diagnosed as postpartum depression, McPherson was hospitalized and given a hysterectomy. As she fought to regain strength, Hoffman writes that McPherson heard a divine voice telling her 'GO! Do the work of an evangelist: Preach the Word.' McPherson waited until Harold was out of the house one night, grabbed her children, and left. For the next five years, she toured the country as a tent revivalist, sharing the good news. In McPherson's age, preaching—not unlike the work of an influencer today—was a way for people, especially women, to gain social power and financial success without working a conventional job. McPherson also had the smarts to control the means of production. For instance, while canvassing the American South in her 'Gospel Car,' she published and sold her sermons in her proprietary magazine rather than letting other companies print them. As Hoffman writes of the rise of the steam-powered printing press: 'The creation of a mass media opened up the public sphere—suddenly anyone could be famous.' But just because anyone could be famous didn't mean anyone would be. McPherson distinguished herself by creating her own feminine, even romantic, brand of proselytizing. 'Her tone was often girlish and innocent,' Hoffman writes about McPherson's magazine, The Bridal Call. 'Her prose was amorous, adjective-laden, and woozily swooning.' McPherson 'emphasized her fallibility, always—she was prideful and prone to make foolish mistakes, but all of this made her more adorable and magnetic.' As a mother, she was relatable to many women, and her habitual white nurse's costume conveyed both a purity and a medical training that she did not possess. Over the top yet self-aware, giddy, and relatable, McPherson was what today's TikTok user might call a 'Gospel Girly.' As McPherson's fame grew, she eventually decided to settle down in a city that she could tell was on the rise: Los Angeles. Although McPherson often encouraged a return to a simpler, more traditional way of life—she spoke in her sermons about her wholesome upbringing on a farm—she wanted to be in the middle of the cultural and technological revolution sweeping Southern California. In L.A., McPherson became one of the first women to hold a radio license in the United States. Using giant radio towers perched above the Angelus Temple, the megachurch she founded, she gave sermons, administered faith healing over the air, and invited powerful political figures to join her in bemoaning the degeneracy of modern life. Broadcasting content about how good things used to be on a thoroughly modern communication platform represents a paradox readers might find familiar—consider the rise of the social-media tradwife. [Read: MomTok is the apotheosis of 21st-century womanhood] The centerpiece of Hoffman's book is the kidnapping scandal itself, and the frenzied grand-jury hearing that resulted. As holes appeared in McPherson's story, the prosecution discovered her close relationship with her married audio engineer, and found witnesses who reported seeing them in a secluded beachside cabin. Hoffman's recounting of the hearing is meticulous, but the deeper the book delved into the proceedings, the more I noticed something surprising about her approach—a notable reluctance to offer an opinion of McPherson's conduct or character. Despite the plethora of detail, the book has a curious and, to me, unnerving lack of perspective. A certain amount of empathy for one's subject might be of value in a biographer, and Hoffman conveys a sense of the difficulties that McPherson faced leading up to her disappearance. Her revival services were attended by enormous crowds, all hungry for her personal touch. She would stay onstage for hours, exhausting herself to minister to all. At times, Hoffman blames the pressures McPherson experienced on the uniquely difficult position of being a woman in the public eye—the book has, with good reason, a certain 'Leave Aimee Alone' energy—but it refuses to pass any judgment on her actions. McPherson's stunt, whatever its motives, had real human costs. During the search for her body in the Pacific, a diver died of hypothermia; another woman, a disciple of McPherson's, drowned in the ocean, hoping to meet her spiritual leader in death. McPherson also weaponized anti-Latino racism, calling to mind the actions of Katie Sorensen and Sherri Papini, another Californian who claimed in 2016 to have been kidnapped by two Latina women while actually visiting an ex-boyfriend. (Papini pleaded guilty to mail fraud and making false statements, and was sentenced to 18 months in prison.) After she returned to Los Angeles, McPherson gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times, in which she described the way she had been treated by the press with regard to the hoax: 'Either I am a good woman, or I am the most terrible, unspeakable person in the whole world. There is no half-way ground in a situation like that.' The idea that famous women tend to be either lionized or vilified certainly hasn't grown less accurate over the past century. But because Hoffman refuses to condemn McPherson, her book sometimes implies, whether intentionally or not, that she is too fragile to withstand scrutiny. There is indeed a halfway ground in a situation like this, and I wish Hoffman had pushed harder to find it. The charges against McPherson were ultimately dropped. In the years following the scandal, McPherson continued to preach, while also building a career as a celebrity who appeared at events and on the radio. She tried to work in the movie business but had to settle for something closer to being a reality star. In an interview with Mockingbird magazine, Hoffman said that she 'thought a lot about grace' while writing her book. Grace, in contemporary internet parlance, often means forgiveness. Influencers ask to be 'given grace' when they screw up in the ways that are perhaps inevitable when you are sharing your emotions around the clock for money. But in Christian theology, grace isn't something you receive as a result of your contrition or your sincerity. It is free and undeserved, impossible to earn. Grace can't be given by people online, or by authors to the people they write about. It is God's job alone. The rest of us can stand to be more opinionated. Article originally published at The Atlantic
CBS News
23-04-2025
- Sport
- CBS News
2025 Penn Relays: What to know about parking, Franklin Field bag policy, event schedules and more
South Jersey athletes prepare for Penn Relays after successful indoor track and field season South Jersey athletes prepare for Penn Relays after successful indoor track and field season South Jersey athletes prepare for Penn Relays after successful indoor track and field season The top runners and track athletes from around the country are heading to Philadelphia for three days of competition at the 129th Penn Relays. If you're heading to the University of Pennsylvania's campus as a spectator, here's what you need to know. What are the Penn Relays? Thousands of track and field athletes will descend on Franklin Field at the University of Pennsylvania's campus to compete in a series of track and field events. According to event organizers, the event is the longest, uninterrupted collegiate track meet in the country and has had more athletes run than at any single meet in the world. High school, college and professional runners and track and field athletes all compete at the Penn Relays. When are the Penn Relays? The 129th annual Penn Relays will take place from Thursday, April 24 until Saturday, April 26, 2025. Franklin Field at the University of Pennsylvania, home of the Penn Relays CBS Philadelphia What is the 2025 Penn Relays schedule? On Thursday and Friday, events begin at 9 a.m. On Saturday, events begin at 7 a.m. The first running events of the Penn Relays will be high school boys 4x800 heats; high school girls 4x800 heats start Friday morning. The first field events of 2025 are a series of high school boys championships, including discus throw, shot put, long jump, high jump and javelin throw. Saturday's schedule starts a series of 5K racewalks and college track and field championships. A full schedule of events for all three days is posted on the Penn Relays website. 2025 Penn Relays results Results from the 2025 Penn Relays will be updated online. How to get tickets for the 2025 Penn Relays Tickets can be purchased online or in-person at the following sales offices: Athletics Box Office: Off 33rd Street, near the Northwest entrance of Franklin Field South Street and Convention Avenue: Just off South Street near the Southeast entrance of Franklin Field Hecht Tennis Center: Penn Park Throwing Field Entrance: Outside of Rhodes Field on River Fields Drive Will call is located at the Weightman Hall Driveway, located off 33rd Street near the northwest entrance of Franklin Field. Parking at the Penn Relays The University of Pennsylvania says parking will not be available at the Penn Lot for spectators or athletes, and limited space is available at the following garages near Franklin Field: Chestnut 34: 34th & Chestnut Streets Walnut 38: 38th & Walnut Streets Walnut 40: 40th and Walnut Streets Museum Garage: Convention Ave. and South Street Parking costs $25 per day and is available on a first-come, first-served basis. SEPTA transportation to Franklin Field SEPTA bus, train and trolley service can get you close to Franklin Field for the annual Penn Relays. Regional Rail riders should get off at 30th Street Station or Penn Medicine Station. Subway riders can take the L (also known as the Market-Frankford Line) to Drexel Station at 30th Street or 34th Street Station. Trolley service is available to 33rd Street Station. Bus routes 21, 30, 42 or 49 will also get you close to the stadium.
