jili casino games
2025-01-08   

jili casino games 。

Princess Kate’s brother James praises his sister in sweet tribute as she leads Christmas carol concertIn a passionate speech delivered at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin strongly endorsed women serving in the military. This speech appeared to be a response to the stance of President-elect Donald Trump's Pentagon nominee, Pete Hegseth, who opposes women in combat roles. Recalling his experiences during the 2003 Iraq invasion, Austin praised the women he has seen fighting courageously alongside men. He declared the military weaker if it rejects capable service members based on gender. Despite Hegseth's controversial stance and personal challenges, he continues to pursue the Pentagon leadership position. Austin's remarks underscore the ongoing debate about the role of women in combat. (With inputs from agencies.)

At the forefront of Vivo's technological advancements is the development of 6G, the next generation of wireless communication technology. With speeds up to 100 times faster than 5G, 6G promises to revolutionize the way we connect and communicate in the digital age. Vivo's investment in 6G research and development demonstrates its dedication to staying ahead of the curve and pushing the boundaries of what is possible in the realm of telecommunications.

The game's stunning visuals, immersive storytelling, and engaging gameplay have captivated audiences since its initial release. Now, with the latest update, players can expect even more excitement and thrills as they delve deeper into the world of "Black Myth: Wu Kong."

GoPro Inc. stock underperforms Wednesday when compared to competitors

Looking ahead, China Life Insurance remains optimistic about its growth prospects and is committed to further strengthening its market position, enhancing its operational efficiency, and delivering long-term value to its customers and shareholders. By staying agile, innovative, and customer-centric, China Life Insurance is well-positioned to navigate the challenges and opportunities in the insurance market landscape and drive sustainable growth in the future.

It is an ambitious social experiment of our moment in history — one that experts say could accomplish something that parents, schools and other governments have attempted with varying degrees of success: keeping kids off social media until they turn 16 . Australia's new law, approved by its Parliament last week, is an attempt to swim against many tides of modern life — formidable forces like technology, marketing, globalization and, of course, the iron will of a teenager. And like efforts of the past to protect kids from things that parents believe they're not ready for, the nation's move is both ambitious and not exactly simple, particularly in a world where young people are often shaped, defined and judged by the online company they keep. The ban won't go into effect for another year. But how will Australia be able to enforce it? That's not clear, nor will it be easy. TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram have become so ingrained in young people's lives that going cold turkey will be difficult. Other questions loom. Does the ban limit kids' free expression and — especially for those in vulnerable groups — isolate them and curtail their opportunity to connect with members of their community? And how will social sites verify people's ages, anyway? Can't kids just get around such technicalities, as they so often do? This is, after all, the 21st century — an era when social media is the primary communications tool for most of those born in the past 25 years who, in a fragmented world, seek the common cultures of trends, music and memes. What happens when big swaths of that fall away? Is Australia's initiative a good, long-time-coming development that will protect the vulnerable, or could it become a well-meaning experiment with unintended consequences? The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts. “It’s clear that social media companies have to be held accountable, which is what Australia is trying to do,” said Jim Steyer, president and CEO of the nonprofit Common Sense Media. Leaders and parents in countries around the world are watching Australia’s policy closely as many seek to protect young kids from the internet's dangerous corners — and, not incidentally, from each other. Most nations have taken different routes, from parental consent requirements to minimum age limits. Many child safety experts, parents and even teens who have waited to get on social media consider Australia's move a positive step. They say there’s ample reason to ensure that children wait. “What’s most important for kids, just like adults, is real human connection. Less time alone on the screen means more time to connect, not less," said Julie Scelfo, the founder of Mothers Against Media Addiction, or MAMA, a grassroots group of parents aimed at combatting the harms of social media to children. “I’m confident we can support our kids in interacting in any number of ways aside from sharing the latest meme.” The harms to children from social media have been well documented in the two decades since Facebook’s launch ushered in a new era in how the world communicates. Kids who spend more time on social media, especially as tweens or young teenagers, are more likely to experience depression and anxiety, according to multiple studies — though it is not yet clear if there is a causal relationship. What's more, many are exposed to content that is not appropriate for their age, including pornography and violence, as well as social pressures about body image and makeup . They also face bullying, sexual harassment and unwanted advances from their peers as well as adult strangers. Because their brains are not fully developed, teenagers, especially younger ones the law is focused on, are also more affected by social comparisons than adults, so even happy posts from friends can send them into a negative spiral. Many major initiatives, particularly those aimed at social engineering, can produce side effects — often unintended. Could that happen here? What, if anything, do kids stand to lose by separating kids and the networks in which they participate? Paul Taske, associate director of litigation at the tech lobbying group NetChoice, says he considers the ban “one of the most extreme violations of free speech on the world stage today" even as he expressed relief that the First Amendment prevents such law in the United States "These restrictions would create a massive cultural shift,” Taske said. “Not only is the Australian government preventing young people from engaging with issues they’re passionate about, but they’re also doing so even if their parents are ok with them using digital services," he said. "Parents know their children and their needs the best, and they should be making these decisions for their families — not big government. That kind of forcible control over families inevitably will have downstream cultural impacts.” David Inserra, a fellow for Free Expression and Technology, Cato Institute, called the bill “about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike” in a recent blog post . While Australia's law doesn't require “hard verification” such as an uploaded ID, he said, it calls for effective “age assurance.” He said no verification system can ensure accuracy while also protecting privacy and not impacting adults in the process. Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about the law's effect on online anonymity, a cornerstone of online communications — and something that can protect teens on social platforms. “Whether it be religious minorities and dissidents, LGBTQ youth, those in abusive situations, whistleblowers, or countless other speakers in tricky situations, anonymous speech is a critical tool to safely challenge authority and express controversial opinions,” Inserra said. A spot check of kids at one mall in the Australian city of Brisbane on Wednesday didn't turn up a great deal of worry, though. “Social media is still important because you get to talk to people, but I think it’s still good that they’re like limiting it,” said Swan Son, a 13-year-old student at Brisbane State High School. She said she has had limited exposure to social media and wouldn’t really miss it for a couple of years. Her parents already enforce a daily one-hour limit. And as for her friends? “I see them at school every day, so I think I’ll be fine.” Conor Negric, 16, said he felt he’d dodged a bullet because of his age. Still, he considers the law reasonable. “I think 16 is fine. Some kids, I know some kids like 10 who’re on Instagram, Snapchat. I only got Instagram when I was 14." His mom, Sive Negric, who has two teenage sons, said she was happy for her boys to avoid exposure to social media too early: “That aspect of the internet, it’s a bit `meanland.'" Parents in Britain and across Europe earlier this year organized on platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram to promise not to buy smartphones for children younger than 12 or 13. This approach costs almost no money and requires no government enforcement. In the United States, some parents are keeping kids off social media either informally or as part of an organized campaign such as Wait Until 8th, a group that helps parents delay kids' access to social media and phones. This fall, Norway announced plans to ban kids under 15 from using social media, while France is testing a smartphone ban for kids under 15 in a limited number of schools — a policy that could be rolled out nationwide if successful. U.S. lawmakers have held multiple congressional hearings — most recently in January — on child online safety. Still, the last federal law aimed at protecting children online was enacted in 1998, six years before Facebook’s founding. In July, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation designed to protect children from dangerous online content , pushing forward with what would be the first major effort by Congress in decades to hold tech companies more accountable. But the Kids Online Safety Act has since stalled in the House. While several states have passed laws requiring age verification, those are stuck in court. Utah became the first state to pass laws regulating children’s social media use in 2023. In September, a judge issued the preliminary injunction against the law, which would have required social media companies to verify the ages of users, apply privacy settings and limit some features. NetChoice has also obtained injunctions temporarily halting similar laws in several other states. And last May, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said there is insufficient evidence to show social media is safe for kids. He urged policymakers to treat social media like car seats, baby formula, medication and other products children use. “Why should social media products be any different? Scelfo said. “Parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children safe online, because the problems are baked into the design of the products.” Associated Press Writers John Pye in Brisbane, Australia and Laurie Kellman in London contributed to this story.

Stay tuned for more updates on the PS 2025 game lineup and get ready to embark on a gaming journey like no other. The future of gaming is here, and it's looking brighter than ever before. Get ready to lose yourself in worlds beyond imagination, forge unforgettable memories, and experience the magic of interactive storytelling like never before. The countdown to 2025 has begun – are you ready to game on?Monster Hunter: Wild Lands Official Showcase: The Rathian - The Top Monster of the Crimson Forest!Top CEOs and their companies are pledging to donate millions of dollars to President-elect Donald Trump ’s inaugural committee, as they seek to get on his good side and make inroads before he takes office. Some of the planned donations reportedly include $1 million each from Jeff Bezos ’ Amazon , OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Facebook parent company Meta , led by Mark Zuckerberg . Others include $2 million from Robinhood Markets and $1 million each from both Uber and its CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi . Ford is reportedly coupling its own $1 million donation with a fleet of vehicles. Hedge fund manager Ken Griffin also said he plans to give $1 million to the tax-exempt inaugural committee, Bloomberg reported . Other donations from finance leaders are reportedly in the works . Empowered by a decisive electoral victory, Trump has vowed to revamp U.S. economic policy in a way that could have outsized benefits for a few favored industries, like fossil fuels. At the same time, he has telegraphed the value, both personal and political, that he places on face-to-face meetings and public praise from chief executives of the world’s largest companies. “EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE MY FRIEND!!!” Trump wrote Thursday in a post on Truth Social , the social media app run by his own tech company . Many of those CEOs have already made, or are planning to make, trips to Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Palm Beach, Florida, resort and de facto transition headquarters, as they seek to gain influence with and access to the incoming administration. To that end, Trump’s inaugural committee presents a “unique opportunity,” said Brendan Glavin, director of research for the money-in-politics nonprofit OpenSecrets, in an interview. Inaugural committees, which are appointed by presidents-elect, plan and fund most of the pomp and circumstance that traditionally surrounds the transition of power from one administration to the next. While the money is ultimately benefiting a recent political candidate, it doesn’t carry the same connotation as a donation to, say, a super PAC, which can fund partisan political activities that risk stoking controversy. And unlike a direct contribution to a candidate’s campaign, there are no limits on how much an individual — or a corporation or labor group — can give to an inaugural committee. Moreover, since Trump already won the election, an inaugural contribution carries no risk for a high-profile executive of backing a losing candidate. “It really is a great opportunity for them to curry favor with the incoming administration,” Glavin said. While it’s nothing new for corporations and power brokers to shower big money on inaugural committees, experts told CNBC the Trump factor changes the calculus. “It’s all heightened now,” Glavin said. “None of these people, they don’t want to be Trump’s punching bag for four years.” Trump’s inaugural committee and his transition team did not respond to requests for comment. Record hauls Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee raked in about $107 million, by far the most of any in U.S. history. The previous record had been set in 2009 during the first inauguration of Barack Obama , whose committee raised $53 million . Trump’s second inauguration is on pace to shatter that record, with pledged contributions already surpassing a $150 million fundraising goal, ABC News reported . President Joe Biden ’s inaugural committee, by comparison, raised nearly $62 million . “One of the oldest adages in Washington is that if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu, and the price of admission to have a seat at the table keeps going up,” said Michael Beckel, research director of Issue One, a political reform advocacy group. The boost in funding for Trump’s second inaugural committee comes in part from tech giants, many of whom largely steered clear of supporting his first inauguration. Other than GoDaddy.com founder Robert Parsons, who gave $1 million, few other leaders in Big Tech donated to Trump’s 2017 committee . Trump once openly clashed with some of them, including Zuckerberg and Bezos , who also owns The Washington Post, a frequent target of the president-elect’s ire. Not so this time around. As Trump vows to tear up reams of federal regulations, but also continues to accuse Big Tech of stifling competition, industry leaders could have more riding on their relationship with the White House than ever before. “I’m actually very optimistic,” Bezos said of a second Trump presidency in a Dec. 4 interview at The New York Times’ DealBook conference. “I’m very hopeful. He seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation. And my point of view, if I can help him do that, I’m going to help him. Because we do have too much regulation in this country.” The comments came in the wake of a scandal at The Washington Post in October, when the paper reported that Bezos decided not to publish its editorial board’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump. Bezos in an op-ed defended the paper’s decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, but the reversal spurred an exodus of subscribers and prompted numerous staffers to resign in protest. Nowhere is Trump’s newfound friendliness with the tech world more pronounced than in his blossoming relationship with Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk , who spent more than $250 million helping elect Trump. Musk, the world’s richest person, has frequently appeared by Trump’s side before and after his election victory, and has reportedly been involved in all aspects of Trump’s transition planning. He and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy have been tapped to lead an advisory group tasked with cutting government costs. This could put OpenAI’s Altman, who is currently embroiled in a breach-of-contract lawsuit brought by Musk, in an awkward position. Along with his million-dollar inaugural donation, Altman heaped praise on Trump earlier this month. “President Trump will lead our country into the age of AI, and I am eager to support his efforts to ensure America stays ahead,” he said. Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for the progressive nonprofit Public Citizen, told CNBC that these figures “very much fear that Donald Trump may take retribution against them.” “So they’re throwing money” at his feet “in order to curry favor,” Holman said.' 'Cesspool' Four days after the presidential election, Trump announced the formation of the “Trump Vance Inaugural Committee, Inc.,” a 501(c)(4) nonprofit. It is co-chaired by real estate investor Steve Witkoff and former Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, who is also Trump’s pick to lead the Small Business Administration. Reince Priebus, who was one of Trump’s White House chiefs of staff during his first term, said in an X post that he has been tapped to serve as the committee’s finance chair. Priebus also shared a screenshot of an invitation that listed the names of other finance chairs. They include Miriam Adelson, the GOP megadonor who spent $100 million this year on a pro-Trump super PAC, and billionaire Trump donor Diane Hendricks . Inaugural committees are required to publicly disclose the names of donors who give $200 or more, but those filings aren’t due until 90 days after the inaugural ceremony. If the committee has a surplus after all the festivities, finding out just how much is left can be a challenge. Trump’s 2017 inauguration was a smaller affair than Obama’s in 2009, although Trump raised more than twice as much money for his as Obama had. As a result, Trump’s committee was widely expected to have tens of millions of dollars left over after it paid for balls and hotels. But years after the fact, it was unclear what happened to much of that money. Federal filings show that roughly a quarter of all the funds raised, $26 million, were paid to a newly created firm that was run by an advisor to first lady Melania Trump. “We take a look through the history of the financing of inaugurations, and clearly it comes from very large donors, wealthy special interests and corporations, almost all of whom have business pending before the federal government,” said Holman, of Public Citizen. He added, “This is a real cesspool of buying favors.”

Ali Riaz, a distinguished Bangladeshi-American political scientist and acclaimed author heading the constitution reform commission, sat down with Star to inform on the commission's progress and some of the key consensuses obtained. DS: What is the progress of the commission? AR: We have been entrusted with two main tasks: one is to review the existing constitution and the other is to propose recommendations. The foundation of the recommendations is to make the constitution more democratic, ensure the participation of the people and reform it in a way that prevents the possibility of autocratic rule in the future. In my opinion, it has essentially been rewritten twice: once through the Fourth Amendment and again through the Fifteenth Amendment. I emphasise the notion of "rewriting" the constitution because, with the Fourth Amendment, the character of the state, the rights of its citizens and the structure of power were fundamentally altered. The same fundamental changes were made through the Fifteenth Amendment. The core character of the constitution was altered and the rights of the people were not adequately protected. Essentially, this means the constitution was rewritten. In reviewing Bangladesh's constitution, we also studied the constitutions of 121 countries to compare and analyse the unique provisions of our constitution and identify similarities or differences with other countries. For example, Bangladesh's constitution includes provisions like displaying Bangabandhu's portrait in government offices and incorporating the Declaration of Independence. Our researchers analysed these aspects thoroughly. This analysis involved two approaches. First, we examined how the constitution evolved into its current form. Second, we are focused on what the commission will propose. I believe the commission's recommendations will not be the final word as the constitution is a political document that reflects the people's aspirations and provides guidelines for the state. To develop these recommendations, we engaged with the largest stakeholders: the people. This also involves discussions with political parties, civil society groups, professional bodies and eminent individuals. DS: What are the key points of consensus among stakeholders, or what proposals is the commission planning to recommend? AR: I won't say what we will propose but I can share the areas where I have observed significant consensus. The most prominent consensus I have seen is that people want a participatory government system that ensures voting rights. They want these rights to be constitutionally protected so no one can undermine or take them away. There is also a strong desire to prevent excessive concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. As for solutions, there are various opinions. Some emphasise the importance of balancing power, while others point out that the prime minister has become overly powerful due to the constitution. To address this, it has been suggested to empower and strengthen parliamentary standing committees to prevent the misuse of power. Additionally, some stakeholders believe the prime minister should not hold multiple positions to avoid accumulating excessive authority. DS: Many people have discussed the idea of a bicameral parliamentary system. Is the commission planning to propose it? AR: A significant number of stakeholders have proposed a bicameral parliamentary system. Their reasoning is rooted in a desire to decentralise power, believing that such a system could help prevent the misuse of authority. The proposals for a bicameral system and limiting the prime minister's tenure to a maximum of two terms reflect the people's aspirations to curb the concentration of power, establish constitutional safeguards against autocracy and create institutions that protect their rights. Ultimately, we will make recommendations based on the political and cultural context, the aspirations of the Bangladeshi people and the political behaviour of the country. DS: Have you received proposals for amending or rewriting the constitution? What is the commission planning to recommend: amend or rewrite? AR: I would suggest not framing it that way. First of all, we are not drafting the constitution. Our role is to present what our stakeholders and analyses have indicated needs change. How these changes will be implemented is a political process and is to be carried out by the political parties that govern the country. They will draft the constitution, consulting stakeholders in their ways. We are not specifically proposing amendments or a complete rewriting of the constitution. What we are saying is that, for a democratic Bangladesh, certain principles and provisions need to be incorporated into the constitution. Whether this is done through political consensus or an electoral process is up to the political parties. DS: The president's role has largely been symbolic. Did the stakeholders propose increasing the president's powers? Will the commission recommend balancing the powers of the president and the prime minister? AR: This issue was raised significantly. It came up in discussions about reducing the absolute power of the prime minister. One suggested approach is to grant more powers to the president. However, there are both positive and negative aspects to this. As a political science teacher, I see two potential approaches. One is vertical power distribution: granting some power to the president (at the top) and empowering the people (at the bottom) by ensuring their voting rights. The focus should be on distributing power in a way that ensures the prime minister is accountable not only to the people but also to the system itself. To achieve this, we need robust institutions. Strengthening parliamentary standing committees is essential, as they can monitor not just the prime minister but the entire government. Additionally, we need constitutional institutions such as a stronger National Human Rights Commission to protect human rights and a more effective Anti-Corruption Commission to combat corruption. We are considering the broader picture. Distributing power alone will not solve everything; institutional reforms are critical for balancing power. DS: Some have proposed the idea of a second republic, inspired by the spirit of the July Uprising, similar to how the constitution reflects the spirit of the Liberation War. Is the commission planning to recommend including this in the constitution? AR: Some stakeholders have proposed the inclusion of a second republic. However, as a commission, it is not our responsibility to decide on this matter. This is a political decision. DS: Will the commission propose changes to the preamble of the constitution? AR: The most important aspect of the preamble is its foundation. We believe the foundation lies in the Declaration of Independence during the Liberation War, which emphasised equality, human dignity and social justice. These ideals are the foundation of our state. This foundation was not created in a single day or suddenly on April 10, 1971. It emerged from the long struggles of the Bangladeshi people: the anti-British movement, the struggle against Pakistan and the movements of peasants and labourers. These aspirations must be included in the preamble. Unfortunately, these ideals were not fully reflected in the constitution of 1972, even though they were part of the pledges made during our independence. The state is essentially [based on] a social agreement. We created this agreement to build a state that ensures equality, human dignity and social justice. It won't happen overnight, but these foundational principles are what we aim to propose for inclusion in the preamble of the Constitution. DS: Will the commission recommend the caretaker government system? AR: We did not encounter any dissenting views regarding the caretaker government. Most stakeholders expressed their support for reinstating the caretaker government system. DS : Is the commission hopeful that its proposals will be reflected in the constitution? AR: We are hopeful because this stage has been reached through an unprecedented mass uprising. History will not chart our path, but can we ignore the bloodshed, the sacrifices of lives and the pain of those who are still suffering? These sacrifices must have meant something and they give us hope. DS : Compiling these extensive proposals, analysing them and preparing recommendations is a long and rigorous process. Do you think you will be able to complete it within the stipulated timeframe of January 7? AR: We are hopeful for two reasons. First, we have received significant support from the people, institutions, political parties and researchers. This support gives us confidence that we will be able to submit our draft proposals within the stipulated timeframe. Ali Riaz, a distinguished Bangladeshi-American political scientist and acclaimed author heading the constitution reform commission, sat down with Star to inform on the commission's progress and some of the key consensuses obtained. DS: What is the progress of the commission? AR: We have been entrusted with two main tasks: one is to review the existing constitution and the other is to propose recommendations. The foundation of the recommendations is to make the constitution more democratic, ensure the participation of the people and reform it in a way that prevents the possibility of autocratic rule in the future. In my opinion, it has essentially been rewritten twice: once through the Fourth Amendment and again through the Fifteenth Amendment. I emphasise the notion of "rewriting" the constitution because, with the Fourth Amendment, the character of the state, the rights of its citizens and the structure of power were fundamentally altered. The same fundamental changes were made through the Fifteenth Amendment. The core character of the constitution was altered and the rights of the people were not adequately protected. Essentially, this means the constitution was rewritten. In reviewing Bangladesh's constitution, we also studied the constitutions of 121 countries to compare and analyse the unique provisions of our constitution and identify similarities or differences with other countries. For example, Bangladesh's constitution includes provisions like displaying Bangabandhu's portrait in government offices and incorporating the Declaration of Independence. Our researchers analysed these aspects thoroughly. This analysis involved two approaches. First, we examined how the constitution evolved into its current form. Second, we are focused on what the commission will propose. I believe the commission's recommendations will not be the final word as the constitution is a political document that reflects the people's aspirations and provides guidelines for the state. To develop these recommendations, we engaged with the largest stakeholders: the people. This also involves discussions with political parties, civil society groups, professional bodies and eminent individuals. DS: What are the key points of consensus among stakeholders, or what proposals is the commission planning to recommend? AR: I won't say what we will propose but I can share the areas where I have observed significant consensus. The most prominent consensus I have seen is that people want a participatory government system that ensures voting rights. They want these rights to be constitutionally protected so no one can undermine or take them away. There is also a strong desire to prevent excessive concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. As for solutions, there are various opinions. Some emphasise the importance of balancing power, while others point out that the prime minister has become overly powerful due to the constitution. To address this, it has been suggested to empower and strengthen parliamentary standing committees to prevent the misuse of power. Additionally, some stakeholders believe the prime minister should not hold multiple positions to avoid accumulating excessive authority. DS: Many people have discussed the idea of a bicameral parliamentary system. Is the commission planning to propose it? AR: A significant number of stakeholders have proposed a bicameral parliamentary system. Their reasoning is rooted in a desire to decentralise power, believing that such a system could help prevent the misuse of authority. The proposals for a bicameral system and limiting the prime minister's tenure to a maximum of two terms reflect the people's aspirations to curb the concentration of power, establish constitutional safeguards against autocracy and create institutions that protect their rights. Ultimately, we will make recommendations based on the political and cultural context, the aspirations of the Bangladeshi people and the political behaviour of the country. DS: Have you received proposals for amending or rewriting the constitution? What is the commission planning to recommend: amend or rewrite? AR: I would suggest not framing it that way. First of all, we are not drafting the constitution. Our role is to present what our stakeholders and analyses have indicated needs change. How these changes will be implemented is a political process and is to be carried out by the political parties that govern the country. They will draft the constitution, consulting stakeholders in their ways. We are not specifically proposing amendments or a complete rewriting of the constitution. What we are saying is that, for a democratic Bangladesh, certain principles and provisions need to be incorporated into the constitution. Whether this is done through political consensus or an electoral process is up to the political parties. DS: The president's role has largely been symbolic. Did the stakeholders propose increasing the president's powers? Will the commission recommend balancing the powers of the president and the prime minister? AR: This issue was raised significantly. It came up in discussions about reducing the absolute power of the prime minister. One suggested approach is to grant more powers to the president. However, there are both positive and negative aspects to this. As a political science teacher, I see two potential approaches. One is vertical power distribution: granting some power to the president (at the top) and empowering the people (at the bottom) by ensuring their voting rights. The focus should be on distributing power in a way that ensures the prime minister is accountable not only to the people but also to the system itself. To achieve this, we need robust institutions. Strengthening parliamentary standing committees is essential, as they can monitor not just the prime minister but the entire government. Additionally, we need constitutional institutions such as a stronger National Human Rights Commission to protect human rights and a more effective Anti-Corruption Commission to combat corruption. We are considering the broader picture. Distributing power alone will not solve everything; institutional reforms are critical for balancing power. DS: Some have proposed the idea of a second republic, inspired by the spirit of the July Uprising, similar to how the constitution reflects the spirit of the Liberation War. Is the commission planning to recommend including this in the constitution? AR: Some stakeholders have proposed the inclusion of a second republic. However, as a commission, it is not our responsibility to decide on this matter. This is a political decision. DS: Will the commission propose changes to the preamble of the constitution? AR: The most important aspect of the preamble is its foundation. We believe the foundation lies in the Declaration of Independence during the Liberation War, which emphasised equality, human dignity and social justice. These ideals are the foundation of our state. This foundation was not created in a single day or suddenly on April 10, 1971. It emerged from the long struggles of the Bangladeshi people: the anti-British movement, the struggle against Pakistan and the movements of peasants and labourers. These aspirations must be included in the preamble. Unfortunately, these ideals were not fully reflected in the constitution of 1972, even though they were part of the pledges made during our independence. The state is essentially [based on] a social agreement. We created this agreement to build a state that ensures equality, human dignity and social justice. It won't happen overnight, but these foundational principles are what we aim to propose for inclusion in the preamble of the Constitution. DS: Will the commission recommend the caretaker government system? AR: We did not encounter any dissenting views regarding the caretaker government. Most stakeholders expressed their support for reinstating the caretaker government system. DS : Is the commission hopeful that its proposals will be reflected in the constitution? AR: We are hopeful because this stage has been reached through an unprecedented mass uprising. History will not chart our path, but can we ignore the bloodshed, the sacrifices of lives and the pain of those who are still suffering? These sacrifices must have meant something and they give us hope. DS : Compiling these extensive proposals, analysing them and preparing recommendations is a long and rigorous process. Do you think you will be able to complete it within the stipulated timeframe of January 7? AR: We are hopeful for two reasons. First, we have received significant support from the people, institutions, political parties and researchers. This support gives us confidence that we will be able to submit our draft proposals within the stipulated timeframe.Javier Palomarez, President & CEO of the USHBC, Supports Andrew Ferguson for Chair of the Federal Trade Commission

Tom Brady, known for his clutch performances and unmatched success in American football, emphasized the importance of teamwork, preparation, and perseverance in achieving greatness. He discussed the challenges he had faced throughout his career and the lessons he had learned from each experience. Brady's ability to excel under pressure and lead his team to victory on multiple occasions solidified his status as one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time.

French lawmakers have passed a no-confidence vote against the government, throwing the European Union's second-biggest economic power deeper into a crisis that threatens its capacity to legislate and tame a massive budget deficit. or signup to continue reading Far-right and left-wing lawmakers joined forces on Wednesday to back a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Michel Barnier, with a majority 331 votes in support of the motion. Barnier has to tender his resignation and that of his government to President Emmanuel Macron, making his minority government's three-month tenure the shortest lived in France's Fifth Republic beginning in 1958. He is expected to do so on Thursday morning, French media reported. The hard left and far right punished Barnier for using special constitutional powers to adopt part of an unpopular budget without a final vote in parliament, where it lacked majority support. The draft budget had sought 60 billion euros ($A97.98 billion) in savings in a drive to shrink a gaping deficit. "This (deficit) reality will not disappear by the magic of a motion of censure," Barnier told lawmakers ahead of the vote, adding the budget deficit would come back to haunt whichever government comes next. No French government had lost a confidence vote since Georges Pompidou's in 1962. Macron ushered in the crisis by calling a snap election in June that delivered a polarised parliament. With its president diminished, France risks ending the year without a stable government or a 2025 budget, although the constitution allows special measures that would avert a US-style government shutdown. France's political turmoil will further weaken a European Union already reeling from the implosion of Germany's coalition government, and weeks before US President-elect Donald Trump returns to the White House. The country's outgoing defence minister Sebastien Lecornu warned the turmoil could impact French support for Ukraine. The hard left France Unbowed (LFI) party demanded Macron's resignation. Barnier's political demise was cheered by far-right chief Marine Le Pen, who has sought for years to portray her National Rally party as a government in waiting. "I'm not pushing for Macron's resignation," she said. "The pressure on the president will get greater and greater. Only he will make that decision." France faces a period of deep political uncertainty that is already unnerving investors in French sovereign bonds and stocks. Earlier this week, France's borrowing costs briefly exceeded those of Greece, generally considered far more risky. Macron must now make a choice. The Elysee Palace said the president would address the nation on Thursday evening. Three sources told Reuters that Macron aimed to install a new prime minister swiftly, with one saying he wanted to name a premier before a ceremony to reopen the Notre-Dame Cathedral on Saturday, which Trump is due to attend. Any new prime minister would face the same challenges as Barnier in getting bills, including the 2025 budget, adopted by a divided parliament. There can be no new parliamentary election before July. Macron could alternatively ask Barnier and his ministers to stay on in a caretaker capacity while he takes time to identify a prime minister able to attract sufficient cross-party support to pass legislation. A caretaker government could either propose emergency legislation to roll the tax-and-spend provisions in the 2024 budget into next year, or invoke special powers to pass the draft 2025 budget by decree - though jurists say this is a legal grey area and the political cost would be huge. Macron's opponents also could vote down one prime minister after the next. Advertisement Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date. We care about the protection of your data. Read our . AdvertisementAustralia is banning social media for people under 16. Could this work elsewhere — or even there?If You’re Reading This, It’s A Sign You Deserve A Little Treat — Here Are 28 Of The Best Ones You Can Buy Yourself Right Now

The TOI Entertainment Desk is a dynamic and dedicated team of journalists, working tirelessly to bring the pulse of the entertainment world straight to the readers of The Times of India. No red carpet goes unrolled, no stage goes dark - our team spans the globe, bringing you the latest scoops and insider insights from Bollywood to Hollywood, and every entertainment hotspot in between. We don't just report; we tell tales of stardom and stories untold. Whether it's the rise of a new sensation or the seasoned journey of an industry veteran, the TOI Entertainment Desk is your front-row seat to the fascinating narratives that shape the entertainment landscape. Beyond the breaking news, we present a celebration of culture. We explore the intersections of entertainment with society, politics, and everyday life. Read More From Deepika Padukone to Kareena Kapoor: Christmas-worthy red outfits worn by Bollywood divas Ranthambore's 10 safari zones: A guide to guaranteed tiger sightings Karisma Kapoor's saree fusion redefines the ultimate fashion statement 9 reasons to include moringa leaves in your diet on a daily basis Janhvi Kapoor gears up for a glamorous Christmas celebration 10 signs your employees are losing interest in their jobs Baby names based on adorable names of Jesus Christ ​10 classics that resonate the true spirit of Christmas​ Christmas 2024: How to make Coffee Walnut Cake for the special feast

Developments In Discreet Bluetooth Mono Headsets: Key Trend Transformation in the Mono Bluetooth Headsets Market 2024North Carolina GOP lawmakers enact a law eroding the incoming Democratic governor’s powers

Related hot word search:

Previous: draftkings casino games
Next: lodi 291 online casino games gameplay