Latest news with #RichardNixon
Forbes
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Forbes
This Historic D.C. Hotel Combines Political Scandal With World-Class Luxury
The Watergate Hotel officially opened in 1965. Washington, D.C. has amassed a staggering array of high-end hotels over the years, but when it comes to worldwide recognition, few properties can match The Watergate Hotel. Located on the banks of the Potomac River, this storied institution made international headlines back in 1972 with the eruption of the Watergate scandal, a political controversy that ultimately drove Richard Nixon to resign from the office of President—and in the modern era, the hotel offers the perfect blend of tradition and modernity, with a wealth of luxurious, high-end amenities to enjoy during a stay. While the Watergate Complex has been a fixture of Foggy Bottom since the 1960s, the Watergate Hotel brings a touch of contemporary elegance to the site thanks to a lengthy 2016 renovation, with polished brass accents and vibrant red furniture found across the lobby. There are 336 rooms and suites found across the building, with options spanning from the spacious Deluxe River View rooms to the Rose Suite, a lavish two-room space that's adorned with a chandelier and vibrant pops of pink—but for a truly unique experience in the national capital, be sure to book a stay in the Scandal Suite. Located in the very same room where the Watergate scandal took place, these historic quarters are perfect for history buffs, boasting playful design elements like a manual typewriter, tape recorder and plenty of framed newspaper headlines. The Watergate Complex was designed by Italian architect Luigi Moretti. In addition to lavish accommodations and an elegant design, the Watergate Hotel has also mastered the art of both mixology and gastronomy, with three high-end drinking and dining venues found across the property. For marvelous Potomac views paired with high-end cocktails, guests can make their way to Top of the Gate, while The Next Whisky Bar offers a wealth of top-quality spirits in a '60s-inspired space—and for gastronomes, no visit is complete without dining at Kingbird. While the restaurant itself is particularly picturesque—its hanging decorative eggs are meant to evoke the nest of the eastern kingbird, a native Washington species—it also comes equipped with a wealth of upscale Italian dishes, with options like saffron cioppino, grilled whole branzino and braised rabbit and truffle-infused ricotta cavatelli all gracing the menu. After a few days spent exploring Washington's top attractions, you'll certainly need some time to unwind—and fortunately, the Watergate Hotel offers an oasis of tranquility in the form of the Argentta Spa. Upon arrival, visitors are welcome to soak in the heated indoor pool or spend some time basking in the sauna, whirlpool tub and hammam-style steam room, but no visit is complete without enjoying one of the spa's lavish treatments. While options span from specialized facials to hot stone aromatherapy massages, those in search of a truly relaxing experience should be sure to book the Argentta Signature Massage, a complex combination of treatments that highlights specific acupressure points to ensure release. In addition to the Watergate Complex, the Foggy Bottom neighborhood is also home to the headquarters ... More of the U.S. State Department. Whether you're a hardcore history buff or a typical tourist, the Watergate Hotel delivers an unparalleled experience in one of Washington's most charming neighborhoods, with plenty of fine food and drink to enjoy all throughout your stay. With its modern amenities and fascinating political intrigue, the property promises a truly memorable stay that's equal parts luxurious and educational. As you plan your next visit to the national capital, be sure to pay a visit to this renowned hotel, a storied structure that's both an oasis of luxury and a crucial piece of American history in physical form.
Bloomberg
18 hours ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Trump's ‘Sheriffs' Can't Keep the Peace With China
President Donald Trump has always had his Nixonian characteristics, from a power-hungry (sometimes illegal) mode of operations at home to a desire to rebalance the burdens and benefits of US leadership abroad. Israel's remarkable victory over Iran has made it possible to imagine a revival of President Richard Nixon's global strategy, in which America lightens its excessive load by delegating greater responsibility to friendly powers in crucial regions. Reviving a decades-old Nixon Doctrine isn't the worst idea for an overtaxed superpower. But it won't work, ironically, without continued US engagement. And it may not work at all in Asia, where the original Nixon Doctrine arose.
Axios
3 days ago
- Business
- Axios
Trump's proposed public broadcasting cuts build on decades of GOP threats
Republican lawmakers this week could approve deep cuts to the the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) — but the threat is far from fresh, building on decades of attempts to strip support from public broadcasting. The big picture: The Senate is expected to vote on a rescissions package ahead of a Friday deadline that would yank $1.1 billion in funds allocated to CPB, putting a years-long conservative push on the brink of reality. While the package already passed the House, some GOP senators are wary of the impact the cuts will have on local stations, which are expected to feel the sharpest pain. According to the CPB, more than 70% of its federal funding goes directly to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. But Trump earlier this month said it's "very important" for Republicans to adhere to his bill, writing on social media, "[a]ny Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement." Context: To many prominent Republicans, it's been a "very important" initiative to strip NPR and PBS stations of taxpayer funding for decades, though Congress has historically stood in the way. Trump acknowledged the GOP was on the cusp of changing that trend, writing on Truth Social last month, "For decades, Republicans have promised to cut NPR, but have never done it, until now." Former presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush sought cuts. In 1969, with Nixon in the White House, "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" host Fred Rogers famously advocated for funding on Capitol Hill. During his first term, Trump also repeatedly suggested slashing funds for public broadcasting — but this time, he may have more fuel to succeed in pushing the DOGE-driven cuts through Capitol Hill. Yes, but: Despite decades of attacks, the rescission proposal "is the most serious threat ever faced by public broadcasting," NPR CEO Katherine Maher said in a statement, emphasizing the clawback could result in the cancellation of local and national programming and a reduction in local news service. PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger said the proposed rescissions would have a "devastating impact" on PBS member stations, without which "Americans will lose unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis." The other side: Proponents of slashing public broadcasting funds also see a tipping point in the decades-old debate since former President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act into law. Heritage Foundation senior fellow Mike Gonzalez wrote that after decades of Republican presidents falling short of their efforts to strip the CPB of funding, "[t]hings are different now for many reasons," such as the massive cuts to the federal bureaucracy and the fallout from a former NPR editor who accused the network of liberal bias. Michael Chapman, a senior editor at the libertarian CATO Institute, wrote earlier this year that "[w]ith enough political momentum behind them, perhaps Congress can get it done this time."
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Health
- Newsweek
Health, Not Handcuffs, Are the Path to Ending Opioid Crisis
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. There's reason to be optimistic about America's drug overdose crisis. Recent CDC data show that drug overdose deaths declined by 27 percent last year. This dramatic drop in overdose deaths offers hope, but it must be a catalyst, not a conclusion. To keep making progress, we must expand what is working: increasing access to harm reduction tools and investing in proper treatment. We cannot afford to fall back on punitive policies that have consistently failed to address the underlying causes of addiction. While it's impossible to say exactly what caused the significant decrease in drug overdose deaths in 2024, we do know that punitive methods are demonstrably ineffective at combating drug use. The criminal justice system has been the federal government's main avenue for tackling drug addiction since President Richard Nixon effectively launched the "War on Drugs" in 1971. But drug overdose deaths have rapidly increased since the 1970s—precisely because we have been punishing drug use instead of treating it. Drug addiction does not exist in a vacuum. It stems from underlying trauma and mental health issues, which require proper treatment to manage. Unfortunately, while the majority of people in jail and prison have a substance use disorder, few receive clinical treatment. In fact, incarceration tends to make substance use disorders worse. It is often traumatic and can isolate people from health and social support systems, along with resources like naloxone and medication-assisted treatment. Drug overdose is the third leading cause of death in American jails, and the leading cause of death among those recently released from prison. A recent study from Minnesota found that the rate of overdose deaths for people released from prison was more than 28 times that of the state's general population. These results mirror those of studies from Washington state and North Carolina. On the other hand, data show that health-centered programming and harm reduction tools, such as naloxone and fentanyl testing strips, are effective at saving lives. A person holds a foil in an alleyway while smoking following the decriminalization of all drugs including fentanyl and meth in downtown Portland, Oregon, on January 25, 2024. A person holds a foil in an alleyway while smoking following the decriminalization of all drugs including fentanyl and meth in downtown Portland, Oregon, on January 25, 2024. Patrick T. Fallon / AFP/Getty Images Despite concerns that access to naloxone would contribute to riskier drug use, no recent studies have found that expanding naloxone access has actually increased overdose deaths. Multiple studies have shown, on the contrary, that naloxone reduces overdose mortality. A 2025 meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of community-based naloxone distribution programs in Chicago, Massachusetts, San Francisco, North Carolina, and Scotland found reductions in overdose mortality—sometimes as high as 46 percent. Another recent study found that distributing naloxone among the general community and people leaving jail could reduce opioid-related deaths by 11 to 25 percent. Fentanyl testing strips are newer to the market, but early evidence also suggests that legalizing fentanyl test strips decreases overdose mortality and can lead to positive behavior changes. One recent analysis found that fentanyl test strip legalization corresponded with a 7 percent decrease in overdose deaths. Community-based, health-focused treatment centers have long been considered much more effective for managing drug addiction than incarceration, and they have been growing in recent years. Community treatment centers should continue to act as major distributors of naloxone and fentanyl test strips, so more people can access them without fear of punishment or financial barriers. Alternative crisis response programs, which send mental health specialists to people suffering from mental health distress and substance use disorders instead of law enforcement, are also offering promising results. These types of interventions should become the national norm for fighting substance use disorders. Every overdose death is preventable. It's time to end the war on drugs and begin a new chapter grounded in the unwavering belief that recovery is possible when people are met with help instead of handcuffs. Christina Dent is the author of Curious, the founder of End It For Good, and is passionate about health-centered solutions to drugs and addiction. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Health
- Scoop
Who Benefits From Outsourcing Planned Surgery: Follow The Funding
I still remember metaphorically sitting at the knee of legendary union leader Bill Andersen while listening to him opine pearls of wisdom. The most important question, when assessing a particular proposal or initiative, was 'who benefits?' This was the opening paragraph of my column published in Newsroom on 13 June: Who benefits? Follow the money. Levering off the expression 'follow the money' popularised by the film 'All the President's Men' about the Watergate scandal which brought down United States President Richard Nixon in 1974, and in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand's health system, I argued that: It is becoming increasingly clear that Government funding decisions are strongly oriented towards the for-profit private health sector rather than addressing the critical needs of our health system. I discussed this with specific reference to outsourcing (privatising) elective or planned (non-acute) surgery, public private partnerships, and funding urgent care facilities. My conclusion was: Following the funding will confirm whether or not the Government changes direction for the good of the public and their health system. The answer lies with who benefits. Benefitting private health insurers and telehealth providers Since my column was published further reporting has reinforced my conclusion that the Government's health focus is on benefiting the for-profit private health sector and enhancing privatisation. On 19 June Radio New Zealand health reporter Ruth Hill revealed on Morning Report that from 1 July taxpayers would foot the bill for cancer drugs administered in private facilities for private patients: Private health insurers benefit from publicly funding cancer drugs for private patients. This amounts to a 12-month subsidy to private health insurers while at the same time leaving the vast majority of New Zealanders who don't have private health insurance missing out. The decision is a conscious government action to benefit the for-profit private health sector instead of investing in the public hospital oncology workforce (specialists and nurses) with the objective of enabling people can get free care there. Meanwhile, NZ Doctor journalist Steve Forbes in a paywalled article (3 July) reported concerns over how 'extravagant' funding gives telehealth providers a huge advantage over general practices in the Government's new Online GP Care service. This service provides telehealth for casual patients who are not enrolled in a general practice. The rate paid to telehealth providers for casual unenrolled patients is similar to the funding rate paid to general practices for their enrolled patients through capitation. The General Practice Owners Association (GenPro) convincingly argues that telehealth providers should be paid the same (much lower) casual rate that is paid to general practices for casual unenrolled patients. GenPro Chair Dr Angus Chambers succinctly explains the differential this way: A [telehealth] provider offering the new online medical service would receive $65 for a consultation with a 14-year-old casual non-enrolled patient whose caregiver holds a Community Services Card. In contrast, a general practice would only receive $20.45. The Government's favouritism towards private telehealth providers has reinforced the view among many general practices that instead of seeing telehealth as an aid or enabler for GPs, it is seen as an alternative. Privatising planned (non-acute) surgery Back on 13 May Radio New Zealand investigative reporter Anusha Bradley had covered on Morning Report Health New Zealand's (Te Whatu Ora) intention to privatise planned surgery waitlists by outsourcing them to private hospitals on two to three-year contracts, along with extending the working hours of doctors in public hospitals: Privatising planned (non-acute) surgery. Expecting public hospital specialists (and nurses) to work longer hours in evenings and on weekends and public holidays on more complex planned cases enables private hospitals to 'cherry pick' the less complex high volume (ie, revenue generating) cases. Bradley reported Nelson Hospital based surgeon Ros Pochin, Chair of the New Zealand Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons questioning what surgeons might be able to do this extended hours' work. In her words: Most surgeons already work long hours, including evenings and weekends. There are some surgeons who work purely privately, but most work privately and publicly so there isn't a cache of private surgeons sitting there twiddling their thumbs in the evenings and weekends who can suddenly call in. She added that most surgeons were already working long hours, including after-hours: There's only 800 of us in the country. We already work out-of-hours, as we all do on call. I'm about to start a week of continuous on-call myself, which I'll do 81 hours straight day and night. And so we get very little time off as it is. Outsourcing is essentially an admission that we have not got an adequately funded and resourced health system. Interestingly Health Minister Simeon Brown chose to ignore Health New Zealand advice that outsourcing to private hospitals was more expensive than expanding public hospital. Health New Zealand also advised the health minister that outsourced operations could only be delivered if there were senior clinical staff available, 'whilst ensuring Health NZ remains able to safely manage the clinical workload of our public hospitals'. Further, he was warned of the risk that private hospital capacity would be 'insufficient' due to workforce availability. Particularly important is the advice Brown received from the Chair of his Health Workforce and System Efficiencies Committee, Middlemore Hospital general surgeon Andrew Connolly: It is vital those establishing contracts recognise there are clinical obligations and responsibilities in the public sector that must not be weakened by outsourcing. Health New Zealand must consider such risks in the contracting process. Connolly is now the deputy chair of the newly appointed board of Health New Zealand. This will be interesting. His advice to the health minister became even more imperative following Brown's subsequent decision discussed below. Privatising planned surgery morphs into public-private partnerships The above-mentioned outsourcing reported by Anusha Bradley, including the warnings ignored by Simeon Brown, was trumped by the Minister's subsequent decision that private hospital contracts would be almost permanent – 10 year contracts which are longer than the terms for public service chief executive appointments. These 10-year contracts for cherry-picked surgery has rightly been called Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) by economist Brian Easton in a column published by Pundit on 4 July: PPPs based in private hospitals. PPPs enable in varying ways for private partners to maximise profit opportunities in the design, construction and operation of health facilities. These PPP opportunities have been quickly recognised by private investors as reported by Hamish McNeilly in The Post (5 July): PPPs encourage private investors change plans. The investors undisclosed company had resource consent granted to build private student accommodation in Dunedin. Now they have changed their plans by seeking to build a new private hospital instead. The only way these PPPs by another name can maximise private profits will be for the crisis-ridden rundown public hospitals to be even further rundown. This includes growing the private hospital specialist workforce at the expense of the public hospital specialist workforce. Non-evidence based decision-making On 17 June Treasury received the following request under the Official Information Act: I would appreciate any Treasury papers on the proposal that HNZ should outsource treatment to private hospitals on ten year contracts. I am especially interested in how they will impact on the government's fiscal position. On 9 July Treasury responded: I am refusing your request under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act as the information requested does not exist or, despite reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found. Given that the information requested would have been recent, not historical, it is obvious that Treasury's advice was neither sought nor provided. The only information received by the health minister from his official advisers (Health New Zealand and his expert committee) was apprehensive at best. Responsibility for this poor and risky decision-making rests solely and squarely on Health Minister Simeon Brown and his government colleagues. Ideology, not evidence based, has prevailed – again! Ian Powell Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand. Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
