Latest news with #PrivacyNotice
Daily Record
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Record
UKIP leader blasted for filming unresponsive man on Glasgow street
Nick Tenconi shared a clip of the man - who was on the ground and appeared to be unresponsive - near to St Enoch Square in Glasgow city centre. UKIP's leader has been blasted on social media after posting footage of a vulnerable man he found passed out on a Glasgow street. Nick Tenconi shared a clip of the man - who was on the ground and appeared to be unresponsive - near to St Enoch Square in the city centre on Sunday (July 27). As Glasgow Live reports, the UKIP leader was in the city for a "mass deportation" rally, which was met by counter-protesters. Tenconi claims in the post that he stopped after spotting the man 'lying unconscious in the street', and he continued to film the man while he waited for an ambulance to arrive. In the video, he says: "I just don't understand people just walking by. I've been trying to assist this man for 10 minutes - on the phone to 999. I don't get it. People just walking by, they don't care. "It's unacceptable. You've got to help people, guys." The clip, which has been viewed over half a million times, was slammed by supporters and critics alike, with some branding the move a 'new low'. One person wrote: "Wow filming him for clicks and engagement. You earned top stars in the virtue signalling league today mate. All praise your virtue and compassion." Another added: "New low - filming an unconscious guy for engagement." A third said: "You really have to question both the ethics and political instincts of somebody who would film and upload this. What the hell are you doing?" A fourth wrote: "I actually did the same thing a couple of weeks ago - didn't film it (with my 2nd phone,) didn't publish my do goodery on the internet. Just spent a few minutes of my time to help. That's all. If hope if I was in that position, someone would help me, not post my predicament on X." Tenconi hit back at people who accused him of "taking advantage of a vulnerable person," in a statement defending his actions. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. He said he checked if the man was breathing before following the instructions given by 999 operators who advised against placing him in the recovery position and asked someone to 'get a defibrillator' while he stayed with him. The UKIP leader added: "People like me don't care about being liked", and says he decided to film to highlight that no one else stopped to help the man. Tenconi added: "Maybe those who disapprove of the video should question why I made it rather than be so quick to judge and slander. "As for my justifications for filming., I've explained this very clearly in the caption of the video on X. I am disgusted that many people walked past and didn't stop to help. The video highlights how desensitised and accepting many people in Glasgow are of violence, crime, and not loving thy neighbour. "I knew how many people would see that video and when the paramedic was asking me to wait with the man, I took 20 seconds to highlight this. "I do not regret showing the man's face, I hope that someone who knows the man sees the video and does something to help him. Maybe this is the wake up call — his friends and family need to do the right thing."
Vox
11 hours ago
- Business
- Vox
The Trump administration attack dog you should pay attention to
is a senior politics correspondent at Vox, covering the White House, elections, and political scandals and investigations. He's worked at Vox since the site's launch in 2014, and before that, he worked as a research assistant at the New Yorker's Washington, DC, bureau. Bill Pulte is the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, tasked with overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty The Trump administration's loudest attack dog of late holds an unlikely position: director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The FHFA's 37-year old director, Bill Pulte, has been pounding the drums to get Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell fired. He's publicly pressured Powell on social media, he gave Trump a draft letter that would have ordered Powell's firing, and he's tried to establish a pretext Trump could use to fire Powell. But Pulte has also played a broader role in Trump's retribution campaign. He's used his position to try and get two of Trump's Democratic enemies — Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and New York Attorney General Letitia James — prosecuted for mortgage fraud. Some of his allies hope this is just the start, and that even bigger things lie in Pulte's future. 'Bill Pulte would be an exceptional pick to run the Federal Reserve,' venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya posted on X last week. 'Attack dog' is an unusual role for the director of the FHFA, who is charged with overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the government-backed companies crucial to the functioning of US mortgage markets. (Vox requested comment from Pulte through the FHFA for this story, but received no response.) The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. But it's a good fit for Pulte. The grandson of the founder of a major home-building company, Pulte has demonstrated a remarkable knack for getting attention and building his public profile. He has 3 million followers on X, and his posts there have started to move markets, according to Bloomberg. Pulte has his enemies in the administration; the Wall Street Journal recently reported his anti-Powell campaign has 'irritated' some senior officials. One person is quite happy with him, though. After that Journal story was published, Trump posted that Pulte was doing an 'outstanding job,' and added: 'KEEP MOVING FORWARD, WILLIAM, DON'T LET THE RADICAL LEFT WEAKLINGS STOP YOU!' Who is Bill Pulte, and how did he get millions of social media followers? Housing is the Pulte family business. Pulte's grandfather, also named Bill, founded what eventually became one of the largest home-building companies in the US, PulteGroup. The younger Bill was barely done with college when, in 2011, he founded a Michigan-based private equity fund focused on the housing industry. The board included such local luminaries such as Rick DeVos (son of future Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos) and Scott Romney (brother of Mitt Romney). Grandpa Pulte died in 2018. The following year, then-31-year-old Bill got his first taste of national fame by going viral for giving people money. Pulte gave or offered to give sometimes hundreds of dollars, sometimes thousands or even tens of thousands, and he posted on Twitter about it. He called this 'Twitter Philanthropy.' (He insisted he was not giving away his inheritance money, but rather money he'd independently made.) Some of the giveaways were for people posting stories about why they needed help, others were purely random — but the common thread was that, if you wanted a shot at the cash, you needed to follow or retweet him on Twitter. (Following him was necessary so he could send you a direct message if you won, he explained.) In July 2019, Pulte said he'd give $30,000 to 'a veteran on Twitter' if President Trump retweeted him, and the president did so. All this proved highly successful at increasing Pulte's Twitter following, which rose from the low tens of thousands to 2 million in early 2020. But his relationship with the company his grandfather founded deteriorated. He lost his seat on PulteGroup's board of directors, after the board unanimously voted not to renominate him. The meme stock saga and online feuding With the novelty of Twitter Philanthropy worn off, Pulte found a new focus for his self-promotion: the meme stock craze. Pulte particularly cultivated the beleaguered Bed Bath & Beyond investors, many of whom hoped this wealthy and successful philanthropist would somehow find a way to get them back the money they'd lost. In January 2024, Pulte released a statement saying the 'Pulte family' would purchase Bed Bath & Beyond bonds so they could 'demand answers' for wiped-out retail shareholders. The Pulte Family Charitable Foundation, which he is not involved with, wanted to be excluded from this narrative, and released a statement distancing themselves from him. Pulte fired back with an X post calling his aunt, Nancy Pulte Rickard, who heads the foundation, 'a fake representative of the Pulte Family.' He added that his aunt 'is angry she wasn't in my grandpa's will when I, the namesake, was in the will.' As it became clear that there would be no miraculous recovery for $BBBY shareholders, Pulte amassed his share of dedicated online haters, who mocked him as 'Ploot' and chronicled what they saw as his strange behavior on subreddits like /r/GME_meltdown. These haters would soon watch agog as Pulte, who they viewed as a 'fraud and weirdo,' suddenly scored a powerful position in the federal government. This, one Redditor wrote, was 'an absolutely wild plot twist.' Pulte and the Federal Housing Finance Agency Through all this time, Pulte's public persona hadn't been particularly political. But he figured out a good way to gain entry into Trumpworld — by, again, giving people money. He gave $500,000 to a pro-Trump Super PAC in 2022. He'd also donated to Turning Point USA, the young conservatives' group co-founded by Charlie Kirk. (Kirk is a close ally of Donald Trump Jr.) After Trump won in November 2024, the New York Post floated Pulte as a potential Housing and Urban Development secretary, quoting a 'source' calling him 'probably overqualified' and stressing those past donations to vouch for his loyalty to Trumpworld. Trump nominated him for FHFA director instead, and before his confirmation hearings, he deleted tens of thousands of his old tweets, to Senate Democrats' annoyance. Shortly after he was confirmed in March, Pulte posted on X: 'You didn't really think I'd stop tweeting did you'. The FHFA job is a consequential one. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed under government conservatorship during the 2008 financial crisis, but the Trump team is now planning to reprivatize them. It is unclear how involved Pulte is in these discussions (one report claimed he'd been 'largely cut out'). Pulte has, however, been quite quick to use his position to go after Trump's enemies — specifically, James, the New York attorney general, and Sen. Schiff, who have for years been leading figures in Democrat-led investigations of Trump. Pulte took public credit for the Schiff investigation, posting on X: 'Fannie Mae's Financial Crimes Division concluded that Mr. Schiff has engaged in a sustained pattern of possible Mortgage Fraud.' A confidential Fannie Mae memo alleging misconduct by Schiff — a memo addressed to Pulte — was provided to the Washington Post earlier this month. Both Schiff and James have denied any wrongdoing and said they are being targeted politically, and it remains to be seen whether DOJ will charge them. Federal prosecutors pursuing complex corruption cases against public officials have long found the mortgage fraud statute to be a useful tool — it's relatively easy to prove, and it carries a steep, 30-year maximum sentence. (According to David Simon, federal prosecutors in Baltimore called it the 'Head Shot.') But it's not yet clear whether they have enough to make and sustain either case. With Powell having earned Trump's ire for his reluctance to lower interest rates, Pulte started going after him, too. For the past two months, he's been publicly criticizing the Fed chair and urging him to resign. Since the law only permits Trump to fire Powell 'for cause' — meaning 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office' — Pulte has been laying the groundwork for that. He's been arguing that the expensive renovation of the Fed's headquarters is a 'scandal' that merits Powell's firing for misconduct. 'I remain optimistic Jerome Powell will do the right thing, and as early as next week,' Pulte posted Friday on X. Could Trump be considering replacing Powell with Pulte himself? So far, National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett is said to be the frontrunner. And a Pulte nomination may not be received kindly by the Senate or the markets. But maybe Pulte can post his way into the job. After all, social media has gotten him this far.
Vox
a day ago
- General
- Vox
Am I actually 'too sensitive'?
Everything could be going fine until one inconsequential comment, one offhand remark ruins your day. Your mother casually criticizes you. A coworker offers unsolicited feedback on a presentation. A friend asks for everyone's opinion on where to host their birthday dinner, except yours. The infraction rolls over and over in your mind: What did they mean by that? I'm an idiot, right? Why would they do that? Hours, days, even weeks can pass and, still, you can't seem to shake what is arguably a minor slight. You ask yourself, Am I being too sensitive? Well, are you? Mark Leary, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, says sometimes, seemingly insignificant snubs are effective at getting under our skin because they send a signal that we don't matter. 'It conveys that I don't have a whole lot of relational value to you,' he says. 'You don't value your connection with me, because if you did, you'd treat me better than this.' Certain people are more sensitive to these upsets than others, Leary says, while others can easily brush them off. Vox Culture Culture reflects society. Get our best explainers on everything from money to entertainment to what everyone is talking about online. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The eternally-sensitive among us are equipped with, essentially, more emotional information-tracking sensors, according to Kelly Guynes, a licensed clinical social worker and the clinical director at the DBT Center of Houston. 'The more 'sensors' you have,' she says, 'the more data you're getting, meaning you feel the world more deeply, more intensely.' As a result, you may be more emotionally reactive. A movie that a friend thinks is merely sad could leave you in tears. You can ruminate for hours about an eyeroll from an acquaintance at a party. 'The world keeps going and I'm getting hit and hit and hit, so I never have the time, or even have learned any skills, to bring myself back to a baseline.' Without effective coping strategies, a lifetime of mini-hurts can compound. 'Maybe one friend hasn't texted me back yet, and I'm ruminating about it, and then my coworker gives me some constructive criticism, and then the vet bill was way more expensive than I thought it was going to be,' Guynes says. 'The world keeps going and I'm getting hit and hit and hit, so I never have the time, or even have learned any skills, to bring myself back to a baseline.' Being more attuned to our emotions isn't necessarily a bad thing. But if you're constantly offended or walking around with hurt feelings, it may disrupt the ability to connect with others. Your triggers may be totally perplexing to those who aren't inside your head. So, why do some people have heightened emotional awareness? What can they do about it? The role of nature and nurture The degree to which someone is emotionally sensitive can be completely out of their control. Some people are genetically predisposed to bigger feelings and have an extremely sensitive temperament, Guynes says. As a baby, they may have been harder to soothe and more affected by light, sound, and people. They may grow up into highly sensitive people — a personality trait associated with greater emotional and environmental reactivity. They're more attuned to noises, smells, and temperature, as well as social cues. (There is an online self-assessment, developed by the psychologist who first began studying highly sensitive people, to determine where on the sensitivity scale you fall.) They probably have been told at one point or another to grow thicker skin or that they're overreacting, says Audrey Kao, a therapist and registered social worker. But life experiences also impact the way you interact with and perceive others. A history of neglect or trauma as a child and past experiences of rejection may cause someone to develop rejection sensitivity — the expectation and anxiety around being burned again in the future. When a friend makes a joke at your expense, these fears are activated, 'and any behavior that remotely resembles rejection is going to be perceived as rejection,' says Ozlem Ayduk, a psychology professor at University of California, Berkeley. The desire to matter Because value and acceptance are at the root of a sensitive person's hurt feelings, they may be overly motivated to make a good impression on everyone they encounter. Some people crave the approval of many, from strangers online to their closest confidants. Others are perfectly satisfied knowing they can't please everyone and only care about the opinions of a smaller group of treasured connections. The more someone yearns for acceptance from another person, 'the more you're going to have your antennas up for any indication that other people may not care,' Leary says. Therefore, your ego might be more easily bruised when the barista doesn't remember your name because it's important to your self-worth that you're significant to them. The reality is, we can't be adored by everyone. Instead, Leary says, it can be helpful to be more discerning about whose opinions really matter. How valued and accepted you believe you are influences your reactions to perceived social slights. When people feel valued and cared for, they're better able to brush off, for instance, snide remarks from their in-laws. 'But if you perceive that your relationships and connections in your life are tenuous,' Leary says, 'you're going to be a little bit more worried about indications that you're running out of connections with other people.' Those with low self-esteem might already feel undervalued and these comments only confirm their insecurities. 'We're going to take that comment more to heart,' Kao says, 'because it feels more personal.' How to be a little less sensitive If you suspect that your sensitivity is preventing you from having healthy relationships — because others are always upsetting you or you're afraid they might reject you — you may want to learn some strategies to blunt the pain. Because those sensitive to rejection are primed to see slights everywhere, they may jump to worst-case scenarios and, for lack of a better term, overreact, Ayduk says. But every social cue can't possibly be a sign of someone's negative feelings about you. If you believe every interaction is potentially threatening, you're way more likely to read it the wrong way, Ayduk says. Emotional and rejection sensitivity are sometimes self-fulfilling prophecies, Ayduk says. If your feelings are constantly hurt by benign comments, people might stop hanging out with you, only reinforcing your fears. Ayduk is currently studying whether it's possible to break this cycle with a little self-awareness. If you know that your sensitivity can actually push people away, can you change? 'I don't know the answer yet,' Ayduk says, 'but I think just knowing is probably not enough. But knowing and then learning some skills,' like not assuming the worst, may potentially help. Reality may not be as calamitous as the story you've drafted in your head. According to Ayduk and Leary, it's helpful to remind yourself that you have a tendency to jump to the worst possible conclusion: that your friend hates you, that your neighbor thinks you're rude, that acquaintance would rather do anything else than talk to you at a party. Reality may not be as calamitous as the story you've drafted in your head. 'Maybe my mom's just having a bad day, and she doesn't feel good,' Leary says. 'But when she snaps at me, I assume it has something to do with our relationship, and it may have nothing to do with that at all.' Then, ask yourself if the perceived wrongdoing is significant in the long run, Leary says. Is your mom's short temper fleeting or is it an indication of a larger issue in the relationship? Sure, she shouldn't have snapped, but maybe this is a rare occurrence. In which case, you may decide it's not worth bringing up your hurt feelings with her. 'This is not an effort to eliminate entirely your concerns,' Leary says. 'It's just a way to try to make sure that you're not over-blowing it [out of proportion] before you think about how you should respond.' Thinking through the significance of the rebuff allows you to slow down and take a considered approach if you do decide to say something. Airing your concerns like an adult features a few gold standards you've likely heard about by now: Use 'I' statements, calmly explain why you're hurt, invite the other person to weigh in. All that applies here, too. It's much better to say, 'I've noticed you snapped at me a few times over the past few days. Is there something I'm doing wrong?' rather than, 'Are you really going to lash out at me again? I'm done.' How the other person responds is on them. They might not have realized they hurt your feelings. They may also accuse you of overreacting. If they're a more distant relation — like an acquaintance or coworker — you might need to be more guarded around them in the future and try to move on, Kao says. For closer ties, the dismissal of your feelings can be incredibly deflating, she continues. 'It's fair game to say to them,' Kao says, ''That's really invalidating and it makes me feel like my feelings are unimportant and I need to feel like my feelings are important to you.''
Eater
4 days ago
- Business
- Eater
Two Hit Somerville Restaurants Team Up for New Ramen Spot
is the deputy editor of Eater's Northeast region, covering Boston, Philly, D.C. and New York. Based in Boston, she has spent years covering the local restaurant industry. There are dining changes afoot in Union Square. Jose Garcia and Estefania Ladner, the co-owners behind beloved neighborhood sushi spot Ebi Sushi, are relocating the restaurant to a larger space inside 10 Prospect, the shiny new real estate development at the corner of Prospect Street and Somerville Avenue. In addition to the relocation, they are also planning to open an entirely new restaurant inside the development: Dashizen, a ramen spot launched in a collaboration with ramen chef Tsuyoshi Onishi, owner of the highly regarded Tsurumen in Davis Square. Both of the restaurants will debut sometime this winter, according to a press release announcing the changes. In the meantime, Ebi Sushi will stay open at its original address (290 Somerville Avenue) until the new restaurants are up and running.] Fenway Park concession workers prepare to strike Fenway Park's unionized food and drink workers are preparing to go on a three-day strike starting midday today, on Friday, July 25, if a contract agreement isn't reached between the workers and their employer, the food service behemoth Aramark. The Boston Globe reports that the workers authorized a strike over a number of issues, including wanting more limits on automation (like self-checkout kiosks) and better pay. Fenway workers earn an average of $18 per hour, according to the Globe, as compared to $20 to $26 per hour that Aramark pays workers at nearby Boston University. If the strike goes forward, Fenway's union workers are advocating for fans to still come to the games this weekend, but not to buy food and drink inside the stadium in solidarity with the striking workers. (You can bring sealed water bottles into the park, and while there's no definitive ban on bringing in outside food, play it safe and eat before the game. There's plenty of great options right around the park.) Shake Shack has finally come for Cape Cod Yup, there's now a Shake Shack on Cape Cod. The outdoor shopping center the Landing at Hyannis will be home to the first Shake Shack on the Cape starting on Wednesday, July 30, according to a press release on the opening. Swing by, pick up the chain's cult-favorite burgers, shakes, and crinkle-cut fries — and then make plans for more essential dining stops while you're out there. Eater Boston All your essential food and restaurant intel delivered to you Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Vox
5 days ago
- Politics
- Vox
3 Supreme Court justices just said they're fine with race discrimination in elections
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. Justice Neil Gorsuch during his confirmation hearing. On Thursday, he voted to leave in place a lower court decision that effectively nullified one of the most consequential civil rights laws in US history. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images Last month, two Republican federal appeals court judges effectively abolished the law banning race discrimination in elections in seven states. On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued a brief order blocking this decision. The upshot is that, at least for now, it is still illegal for a state to disenfranchise someone because of the color of their skin. That said, the most striking thing about the Court's decision in Turtle Mountain Band v. Howe is that three justices dissented. Although none of them explained why they voted the way they did, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch all voted to leave in place a lower court decision that effectively nullified one of the most consequential civil rights laws in American history. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Although the 15th Amendment — which was enacted shortly after the Civil War — was supposed to prohibit race discrimination in US elections, anyone familiar with the history of the Jim Crow South knows that this amendment was ineffective for most of its existence. It wasn't until 1965, when Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act, that this ban gained teeth. One of the Voting Rights Act's two most important provisions required states with a history of racist election practices to 'preclear' any new election laws with federal officials before they took effect. The other provision permitted both private individuals and the United States to sue state and local governments that target voters based on their race. Together, these two provisions proved to be one of the most potent laws in American history. In the first two years after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, for example, Black voter registration rates in the Jim Crow stronghold of Mississippi rose from 6.7 percent to around 60 percent. In recent years, however, the Court's Republican majority has been extraordinarily hostile to this law. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Republican justices voted to deactivate the preclearance provision. And other decisions imposed arbitrary and atextual limits on the Voting Rights Act. In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), for example, the Republican justices claimed that voting restrictions that were commonplace in 1982 remain presumptively lawful. In Turtle Mountain, two Republicans on the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed down a decision that would have rendered what remains of the Voting Rights Act a virtual nonentity. They claimed that private citizens are not allowed to bring lawsuits enforcing the law, which would mean that Voting Rights Act suits could only be brought by the US Justice Department — which is currently controlled by President Donald Trump. Related A new Supreme Court case is an existential threat to the Voting Rights Act The Eighth Circuit oversees federal lawsuits out of Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. So, while the Eighth Circuit's decision was in effect, the Voting Rights Act effectively did not exist in those seven states. I summarized the Eighth Circuit's reasoning, and explained why it is erroneous, here. Had the Eighth Circuit's position prevailed, some private citizens might have been able to bring suits under the 15th Amendment itself. But that amendment uses very similar language to the Voting Rights Act. So the Eighth Circuit's attack on the 1965 law would have likely applied with equal force to the Constitution. In any event, it now appears that this threat to liberal democracy has been averted. Only half of the Supreme Court's six Republicans publicly dissented from the Court's order reinstating the law, and all three of the Court's Democrats appear to have voted to save the law.
