EDITOR'S NOTE: The original version of this piece was published in November 2019 as The Nassau Guardian observed its 175th anniversary. By Bahamian standards of longevity, The Nassau Guardian has been around since King Hammer was a hatchet, as the old saying goes. And that’s a mighty long time! Indeed the oldest continuously operating institutions in this country today are the legislature, the Anglican Church, the police force, the Baptist then Presbyterian then Methodist churches followed by (after a gap of about 50 years or so) The Nassau Guardian in 1844. From then to now, The Guardian has been an integral part of the life of The Bahamas, not only as a purveyor of pure news (if there is ever such a thing) and chronicler of our history but as a major shaper of public opinion over the past 180 years on a multitude of things, large and small. I offer some reflections on The Guardian ’s evolution over that timespan. Broadly speaking, The Guardian ’s history can be divided into: (1) the Moseley era (from the founding of the newspaper in 1844 until the mid-point of the 20th Century, give or take a few years, and (2) what might be described — unimaginatively, I admit — as the post-Moseley era (from 1955 to the present). The Moseley era (1844 –1955) The dominant figure in The Guardian ’s Moseley era was not its founder and first editor, Edwin Charles Moseley, but rather his granddaughter, Miss Mary Moseley (she died a spinster with neither chick nor child). About 20 years ago, in a piece I wrote on the July 1926 hurricanes, I described Mary Moseley (1878-1960) in these terms: No other woman, before or since, has exercised such influence on public opinion in The Bahamas. Moseley was a woman of many parts, not all of them in harmony with each other. She was (in no particular order) an exemplar of Victorian virtue; a true patriot and staunch supporter of the British Empire (she had received an MBE while in England for services to convalescing British soldiers in World War I); a racial bigot; a woman of great compassion for the poor and needy; doyenne of Bahamian journalists; walking encyclopedia of Bahamian history; publisher and editor of the very first Bahamas Handbook in 1926; pioneering advocate for environmental conservation and civic beautification; and among other social positions, a leading light of the Bahamas Chapter of the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire to which none but the cream of white society dared beg admittance. She was, for certain, an immensely gifted writer with a distinct leaning towards the use of lyrical prose even in her news stories. One striking example would be furnished in her description of the July 1926 hurricane as it was preparing to barrel into Nassau, observing how: “.... the mighty silk cotton trees which with almost uncanny insight promptly shed their leaves and stood gaunt and stripped for battle against the awful strokes of the gale.” Of greater consequence, Moseley was the local media’s voice for what Aaron Burr would have called in his time the “best blood of the country”. She was convinced that it coursed through the veins of the two dominant and closely-leagued political figures of the early 20th Century Bahamas: the speaker of the House of Assembly and the leading member of the legal profession, Harcourt Malcolm (with whom Moseley shared a close friendship and a consuming passion for Bahamian historical research), and Sir George Gamblin, the local head of the Royal Bank of Canada and, next to Malcolm, the most influential member of the House of Assembly. This pair constituted the twin-head of the local political aristocracy (soon to be joined by A.K. [Sir Kenneth] Solomon). Making no apologies for it, Mary Moseley was their most formidable promoter and ardent defender. The Guardian , however, was not all about local politics and international affairs. Thrice weekly, it also covered the births, christenings, betrothals, marriages, anniversaries, scholastic achievements, travels, soirees, amusements, sporting and recreational activities and the illnesses and deaths of the ruling class. Moseley’s Bahamas, as perceived through the lens of The Guardian , was strictly upper crust and, even more so, lily-white. Back then if you wanted to get caught up on what colored folk – 80-85 percent of the population – might be up to in their social lives, you would have to read The Tribune. Moseley had no time for such trifles. The Guardian in the Moseley era became increasingly conservative and uncompromisingly supportive of the racialist policies of the local oligarchy, especially from the 1930s. (By contrast, its nemesis, the Nassau Daily Tribune, under Etienne (later Sir Etienne) Dupuch, was the crusader-in-chief for social reform, racial equality and liberal causes generally, all while maintaining a steadfast loyalty to crown and empire). It was ironic that The Guardian should have cast itself in this rearguard role, considering its genesis. The founder of the newspaper, the first of the Moseleys in The Bahamas, had emigrated from England to work for The Argus, an unabashedly racist and inflammatory newspaper which, under its editor, George Biggs, had been the most outspoken and virulent of the local proponents for the retention of slavery in the run-up to Abolition in 1834. The story that has come down, and there is no reason to think it apocryphal, is that the original Edwin Moseley was so revolted by the racism of The Argus that he declined to take up his appointment, becoming a teacher instead at the recently established King’s College (under the auspices of King’s College, London). Located just off East Street and East Hill Street where the Royal Victoria Hotel would later be established, the school was an intriguing, if ultimately unsuccessful, social experiment for its time, with its consciously non-racial admissions policy and its racially balanced group of shareholders and board of directors. But that is a story for another time. Suffice it to say here that after a few years teaching, E.C. Moseley (as he was referred to) segued into the journalistic career that would occupy the rest of his working life, all of it at The Guardian. Despite the liberalism on race that was evident at the founding of The Guardian , it would not endure. Under Mary Moseley, The Guardian would become ever more dismissive of all the talk about (and later the outcry from certain quarters for) the curtailment of racial discrimination in the body politic and in the society at large. Moreover, it resolutely supported the maintenance of the status quo in relation to virtually all things political and social. To the end, Mary Moseley remained a creature of 19th Century arch-conservative thinking. (Note: Mary Moseley deserves a full-length biography. She was a remarkable lady, especially for her times and considering - ironically again - the systemic discrimination against women that was a mark of those times. In the meantime, those interested in learning more about her should refer to the short monographs written about her a while back by Ruth Bowe [now Madam Justice Ruth Bowe-Darville]; James Lawlor and the late Benson McDermott, himself a former editor of The Guardian) . The post-Moseley era (1955-present) The beginning of the post-Moseley era saw The Guardian falling into the hands of a group that made it no secret that its singular mission was to preserve and perpetuate the hegemony of the local oligarchy which was at that time coalescing into what would soon become the United Bahamian Party. That The Guardian was in this period essentially a propaganda tool for this group, the soon-to-be ancient regime, is not a matter for serious debate. Moreover, the racist policies of The Guardian became even more blatant than they had been in the Moseley Era. Indeed, Sir Etienne Dupuch, in his autobiography, "The Tribune Story” wrote: “Even as late as 1961, The Guardian emphasized in an advertisement in ‘Editor and Publisher’ that it ‘reaches practically 100% of the WHITE population of The Bahamas” (the word “White” really was in caps). Following the achievement of Majority Rule in 1967 under the Progressive Liberal Party (which both The Guardian and the Tribune had found common cause in vigorously opposing), a non-Bahamian/non-resident group headed by a wealthy American, John Perry, bought T he Guardian . They would continue to hold the majority stake for the ensuing 35 years or so until selling out to its present Bahamian owners about 22 years ago. In the post-Majority Rule part of the post-Moseley era to date (longhand for saying from 1967 to the present), it is, I think, fair to say that The Guardian has, for the most part, placed itself in the middle of the political road in its editorial policy notwithstanding that there have been extensive periods within that time swath when it was routinely dismissed by some as being joined-at-the-hip to the FNM or, if not that, biased towards the party in power. Speculation in the latter regard was no doubt fueled by a cynical perception that the Perry Group and later the present owners saw The Guardian as a business opportunity and/or as a support apparatus for their other, more consequential, business interests rather than a furnace to stoke any crusading zeal over the burning issues of the day that they might otherwise have had. Competing for government contracts for the printing of the official Gazette and the like was also seen by some, post 1967 until the '90s at least, as giving rise to a need to curry favor with the party in power by leveraging a neutral or perhaps only mildly critical editorial policy. Whether there is a kernel or two of truth in that is likely never to be known. It’s not something that lends itself to easy confession nor is it the kind of stuff that ends up in tactful memoirs. Be that as it may, looking at The Guardian today, it is fair, I think, to pronounce the following verdict: It is more balanced and objective in its editorial policy and news coverage than it has ever been before. It’s an equal opportunity exposer and slayer of the corrupt and the incompetent, the pompous and foolish alike, no matter which party is in power. Conversely, there is, in my estimation, no shortage of editorials praising the soundness of new ideas and the goodness of men and women when they do good, no matter which side of the political aisle (or wherever else) they might spring from. Some others may see it differently. I do not. Moreover, in terms of the width and breadth of its non-news subjects, The Guardian is today a far more interesting publication than ever before. Moreover, the social and racial snobbery that disfigured the newspaper in the Moseley Era and first decade of the Post-Moseley Era is long gone. If it is indeed correct that today's Guardian should be characterized in the way I have suggested in the last two paragraphs above, what better footing can there be for the nation’s oldest newspaper as it both celebrates its 180th anniversary and launches itself towards the ever-nearer milestone of its bicentenary in 2044. Congratulations and best wishes!(Azacitidine + cedazuridine) is under clinical development by Taiho Oncology and currently in Phase III for Refractory Anemia With Ringed Sideroblasts. According to GlobalData, Phase III drugs for Refractory Anemia With Ringed Sideroblasts have a 100% phase transition success rate (PTSR) indication benchmark for progressing into Pre-Registration. GlobalData tracks drug-specific phase transition and likelihood of approval scores, in addition to indication benchmarks based off 18 years of historical drug development data. Attributes of the drug, company and its clinical trials play a fundamental role in drug-specific PTSR and likelihood of approval. (Azacitidine + cedazuridine) overview ASTX-030, a fixed dose combination of azacitidine and cedazuridine is under development for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), chronic myelocytic leukemia (CML), refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). It is administered by oral route. It acts by targeting DNA (cytosine 5) methyltransferase 1 and cytosine deaminase (CDA). The drug candidate is being developed based on Pyramid technology. Taiho Oncology overview Taiho Oncology, a subsidiary of Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, is a provider of cancer treatments and solutions. The company manufactures and markets cancer anti-metabolites as well as targeted small molecule inhibitors. Its products portfolio includes oral drugs for the treatment of gastric cancer, colorectal cancer and a variety of solid tumours. Taiho Oncology’s pipeline products includes anti metabolic agents and selectively targeted agents. The company’s LONSURF is an anti-cancer drug for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Taiho Oncology is headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, the US. For a complete picture of (Azacitidine + cedazuridine)’s drug-specific PTSR and LoA scores, This content was updated on 12 April 2024 From Blending expert knowledge with cutting-edge technology, GlobalData’s unrivalled proprietary data will enable you to decode what’s happening in your market. You can make better informed decisions and gain a future-proof advantage over your competitors. , the leading provider of industry intelligence, provided the underlying data, research, and analysis used to produce this article. GlobalData’s Likelihood of Approval analytics tool dynamically assesses and predicts how likely a drug will move to the next stage in clinical development (PTSR), as well as how likely the drug will be approved (LoA). This is based on a combination of machine learning and a proprietary algorithm to process data points from various databases found on GlobalData’s .Gwamnati ta musanta bullar sabon nau’in cutar COVID-19 a Najeriya

WASHINGTON (AP) — As a former and potentially future president, Donald Trump hailed what would become Project 2025 as a road map for “exactly what our movement will do” with another crack at the White House. As the blueprint for a hard-right turn in America became a liability during the 2024 campaign, Trump pulled an about-face . He denied knowing anything about the “ridiculous and abysmal” plans written in part by his first-term aides and allies. Now, after being elected the 47th president on Nov. 5, Trump is stocking his second administration with key players in the detailed effort he temporarily shunned. Most notably, Trump has tapped Russell Vought for an encore as director of the Office of Management and Budget; Tom Homan, his former immigration chief, as “border czar;” and immigration hardliner Stephen Miller as deputy chief of policy . Those moves have accelerated criticisms from Democrats who warn that Trump's election hands government reins to movement conservatives who spent years envisioning how to concentrate power in the West Wing and impose a starkly rightward shift across the U.S. government and society. Trump and his aides maintain that he won a mandate to overhaul Washington. But they maintain the specifics are his alone. “President Trump never had anything to do with Project 2025,” said Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt in a statement. “All of President Trumps' Cabinet nominees and appointments are whole-heartedly committed to President Trump's agenda, not the agenda of outside groups.” Here is a look at what some of Trump's choices portend for his second presidency. The Office of Management and Budget director, a role Vought held under Trump previously and requires Senate confirmation, prepares a president's proposed budget and is generally responsible for implementing the administration's agenda across agencies. The job is influential but Vought made clear as author of a Project 2025 chapter on presidential authority that he wants the post to wield more direct power. “The Director must view his job as the best, most comprehensive approximation of the President’s mind,” Vought wrote. The OMB, he wrote, “is a President’s air-traffic control system” and should be “involved in all aspects of the White House policy process,” becoming “powerful enough to override implementing agencies’ bureaucracies.” Trump did not go into such details when naming Vought but implicitly endorsed aggressive action. Vought, the president-elect said, “knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State” — Trump’s catch-all for federal bureaucracy — and would help “restore fiscal sanity.” In June, speaking on former Trump aide Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, Vought relished the potential tension: “We’re not going to save our country without a little confrontation.” The strategy of further concentrating federal authority in the presidency permeates Project 2025's and Trump's campaign proposals. Vought's vision is especially striking when paired with Trump's proposals to dramatically expand the president's control over federal workers and government purse strings — ideas intertwined with the president-elect tapping mega-billionaire Elon Musk and venture capitalist Vivek Ramaswamy to lead a “Department of Government Efficiency.” Trump in his first term sought to remake the federal civil service by reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers — who have job protection through changes in administration — as political appointees, making them easier to fire and replace with loyalists. Currently, only about 4,000 of the federal government's roughly 2 million workers are political appointees. President Joe Biden rescinded Trump's changes. Trump can now reinstate them. Meanwhile, Musk's and Ramaswamy's sweeping “efficiency” mandates from Trump could turn on an old, defunct constitutional theory that the president — not Congress — is the real gatekeeper of federal spending. In his “Agenda 47,” Trump endorsed so-called “impoundment,” which holds that when lawmakers pass appropriations bills, they simply set a spending ceiling, but not a floor. The president, the theory holds, can simply decide not to spend money on anything he deems unnecessary. Vought did not venture into impoundment in his Project 2025 chapter. But, he wrote, “The President should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal discipline on the federal government. Anything short of that would constitute abject failure.” Trump's choice immediately sparked backlash. “Russ Vought is a far-right ideologue who has tried to break the law to give President Trump unilateral authority he does not possess to override the spending decisions of Congress (and) who has and will again fight to give Trump the ability to summarily fire tens of thousands of civil servants,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a Democrat and outgoing Senate Appropriations chairwoman. Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, leading Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, said Vought wants to “dismantle the expert federal workforce” to the detriment of Americans who depend on everything from veterans' health care to Social Security benefits. “Pain itself is the agenda,” they said. Trump’s protests about Project 2025 always glossed over overlaps in the two agendas . Both want to reimpose Trump-era immigration limits. Project 2025 includes a litany of detailed proposals for various U.S. immigration statutes, executive branch rules and agreements with other countries — reducing the number of refugees, work visa recipients and asylum seekers, for example. Miller is one of Trump's longest-serving advisers and architect of his immigration ideas, including his promise of the largest deportation force in U.S. history. As deputy policy chief, which is not subject to Senate confirmation, Miller would remain in Trump's West Wing inner circle. “America is for Americans and Americans only,” Miller said at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally on Oct. 27. “America First Legal,” Miller’s organization founded as an ideological counter to the American Civil Liberties Union, was listed as an advisory group to Project 2025 until Miller asked that the name be removed because of negative attention. Homan, a Project 2025 named contributor, was an acting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director during Trump’s first presidency, playing a key role in what became known as Trump's “family separation policy.” Previewing Trump 2.0 earlier this year, Homan said: “No one’s off the table. If you’re here illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder.” John Ratcliffe, Trump's pick to lead the CIA , was previously one of Trump's directors of national intelligence. He is a Project 2025 contributor. The document's chapter on U.S. intelligence was written by Dustin Carmack, Ratcliffe's chief of staff in the first Trump administration. Reflecting Ratcliffe's and Trump's approach, Carmack declared the intelligence establishment too cautious. Ratcliffe, like the chapter attributed to Carmack, is hawkish toward China. Throughout the Project 2025 document, Beijing is framed as a U.S. adversary that cannot be trusted. Brendan Carr, the senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission, wrote Project 2025's FCC chapter and is now Trump's pick to chair the panel. Carr wrote that the FCC chairman “is empowered with significant authority that is not shared” with other FCC members. He called for the FCC to address “threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market,” specifically “Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square.” He called for more stringent transparency rules for social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube and “empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any.” Carr and Ratcliffe would require Senate confirmation for their posts.

QUESTION: Is it true that all the planets will line up in January 2025? ANSWER: Yes, you heard that right. It is called the Celestial Symphony, a rare planetary alignment on Jan. 25. The orbits of the planets will bring them into a rough line as seen from the Sun. The planets will be lined up in one row like diamonds scattered across the sky. As you gaze towards the night sky, you will see the planets of Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, forming a mesmerizing line to view from the Earth. Venus and Jupiter will be the brightest, and Mars will display a reddish hue. Additionally, Saturn will add a touch of magic to the night sky. There will be six planets visible this time around, including Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus. The planets will be visible in the days leading up to Jan. 21, and for about four weeks afterward. Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn will be visible to the naked eye. You'll need a telescope to spot Uranus and Neptune. In general, the best time to view the planet parade will be after Jan. 21, and before Feb. 21. The very best nights will be the week of Jan. 29 during the New Moon. The optimum time is from sunset to around 8:30 p.m. People can view the spectacle by looking south and then scanning the sky from left to right (east to west) to spot each planet. The alignment around that Jan. 25 date is no mere coincidence of wandering stars. Such cosmic choreographies have been observed and marveled at since ancient times, often sparking myths and prophecies. This alignment brings together key planets and constellations in a way that can only be described as magical. One astronomer said, "While the event doesn't cause the planets themselves to physically move in one plane, it creates the perception of a straight line from Earth's vantage point, a once-in-a-lifetime vista that will feel as if the universe itself is holding its breath." Do not expect any dire consequences, just a nice celestial show. The Jupiter Effect was a 1974 book by John Gribbin and Stephen Plagemann, in which the authors predicted that a March 10, 1982, alignment of the planets of the solar system would create a number of catastrophes, including a great earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. The book became a bestseller. The predicted catastrophes did not occur. Remember the Y2K, Year 2000, problem. In the years leading up to the turn of the millennium, the public gradually became aware of the "Y2K scare", and individual companies predicted the global damage caused by computer anomalies would require anything between $400 million and $600 billion to rectify. Many computer programs represented four-digit years with only the final two digits, making the year 2000 indistinguishable from 1900.Computer systems' inability to distinguish dates correctly had the potential to bring down worldwide infrastructures for computer reliant industries. A lack of clarity regarding the potential dangers of the computer glitch led some people to stock up on food, water, and firearms, purchase backup generators, and withdraw large sums of money in anticipation of a computer-induced apocalypse. Companies and organizations in some countries had checked, fixed, and upgraded their computer systems to address the problem. Few errors occurred. The scare was for nothing. Sources: astronomy magazine, celestial dispatches.com Larry Scheckel taught science at Tomah High School for 38 years and was named Tomah Teacher of the Year three times. Send comments and questions to lscheckel@charter.net .

CHESHIRE Police has appealed for information following reports of a man 'being cruel to a swan' at Winsford Marina. The incident reportedly occurred at 12.34pm on Wednesday at the marina on Station Road in Winsford. Police confirmed in a statement on Facebook that they were "already aware of reports of a man being cruel to a swan, which have been circulating on social media". A spokesperson added: "We are actively looking into this and have also reported this to the RSPCA. "Enquiries are ongoing. Anyone with any information should contact Cheshire Police via the website or 101, quoting IML-1966858."Japan's famous sake joins UNESCO's cultural heritage list, a boost to brewers and enthusiastsREDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) — REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) — Box Inc. (BOX) on Tuesday reported fiscal third-quarter profit of $12.9 million. The Redwood City, California-based company said it had net income of 5 cents per share. Earnings, adjusted for stock option expense and non-recurring costs, came to 45 cents per share. The results topped Wall Street expectations. The average estimate of four analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research was for earnings of 42 cents per share. The online storage provider posted revenue of $275.9 million in the period, also beating Street forecasts. Four analysts surveyed by Zacks expected $275 million. For the current quarter ending in January, Box expects its per-share earnings to be 41 cents. The company said it expects revenue in the range of $279 million for the fiscal fourth quarter. Box expects full-year earnings to be $1.70 per share, with revenue expected to be $1.09 billion. Box shares have increased 34% since the beginning of the year. In the final minutes of trading on Tuesday, shares hit $34.44, a rise of 30% in the last 12 months. This story was generated by Automated Insights ( http://automatedinsights.com/ap ) using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on BOX at https://www.zacks.com/ap/BOX

Rain, particularly the harsh variety that causes widespread devastation, is a leveler. It affects everybody and interferes with their routine. But in the realm of politics in Tamil Nadu rain is used as a stick to beat the ruling party. So when it rains, amidst the pitter patter that it causes, there is a howl of anger from various quarters. It happened last week when it rained cats and dogs in some districts of the State. Though Chennai and its surroundings were also affected to some extent, it was in some districts where the skies opened up to bring in one spell a downpour that the place otherwise gets through the year. When such a situation makes people run helter skelter seeking succor, the habitual critics of the government converge at one point. They find a reason to run down the government or is it a bid to bring it down. Whatever it is, rains in Tamil Nadu have been playing a prominent role in politics as they serve as a weapon for politicking particularly after 2015 when Chennai went under water without prior warning. In the olden days, when floods strike, someone in government will take a helicopter ride over the affected places to make an assessment of the damage. Since the journey would be shot in camera and the black and white footage screened as ‘news reel’ before the start of a movie in a theatre, people will know about the disaster and sympathize with the victims. Whatever the person who took the helicopter ride would utter would be taken at face value. But now, at least in Tamil Nadu, if it rains and if it brings devastation, the government is squarely blamed by the opposition parties. Maybe because more people repose more faith now on weather forecasts, which were earlier considered as jokes when announced over Doordarshan or All India Radio. Since the government, too, issues warnings to people based on the weather forecasts that are keenly followed on television, some opposition party leaders think that if devastation happens, the blame should be placed at the government’s doorsteps. This trend of politicizing disasters had, in earlier years, seen some opposition leaders attempting photo shoots to send across the message that the government had failed to prevent inundation in places where people lived. A particular honcho from an opposition once rushed, despite the discomfort, to comfort the affected people by engaging a boat to reach those places that are otherwise connected by roads. It’s a different story that the boat had run aground in the extremely shallow water and the leader had stood exposed for staging the drama. Still, accusations are hurled at the government through political statements and social media messages on the official inefficiency in not facilitating the water to drain out in a jiffy and thus inconveniencing the people. Even if the government made arrangements to evacuate people from low lying areas and even housed them in camps, the shrill voice of the opposition would resonate in political circles, always pointing fingers at the government's inability to not disrupt the people’s lives. In the latest rain disaster, brought about by Cyclone Fengal, which threw life in a few districts of northern Tamil Nadu out of gear, the government was accused of opening the floodgates of Sathanur dam in Tiruvannamalai district without a warning. Of course the government was quick to deny it and clarify that five warnings were indeed issued by the authorities and that the dam was opened only when the reservoir was filled to the brim. Yet, the charges of procrastination flew from the opposition camp as the excess water that was let into the Thenpennai River caused a deluge displacing people from their homes. Interestingly, the ruling party went not only into the defensive but also offensive. In its defence it said that there was no loss of life due to the flooding though it happened in the night. It also hit out at the opposition party in whose time the sudden opening of the Chembarambakkam reservoir in Chennai plunged the State capital into a disaster in 2015. So, both the ruling party and the prime opposition party were involved in virtual mudslinging over the Sathanur dam opening, which actually averted a major catastrophe. A real mudslinging, too, happened with grim political motives during the rains. A minister who went to address the grievances of the people of a village in Villupuram district, was welcomed with a barrage of mud. The real politics behind the incident, which was immediately given due publicity through social media by an opposition political leader with the comment that it showed people’s frustration, came to light much later when the police identified a man and a woman who had hurled the mud. The woman was a member of the same leader’s party. Though some people warned that such humiliation of political leaders who visited people during times of calamities would only serve as a deterrent for politicians to address people’s grievances, floods of the past had only proved that many politicians would not miss an opportunity to make political hay when it rained. In fact, going by the latest trend, it looks that political leaders seek to score brownie points when it rained. The ruling party by showcasing their efficient handling of the disaster and the opposition by pointing fingers at the lapses.Indiana Gov.-elect Braun ripped by GOP colleagues for missing U.S. Senate votes

Far-right influencer Nick Fuentes accused of pepper spraying woman on his doorstep - ABC News