Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media

Anyone following this story? A Hawaii woman went missing in Los Angeles on November 8. She was traveling alone on a “bucket list” trip to NYC but missed her connecting flight at LAX.

Shortly after that her family started receiving strange text messages from her, saying she was afraid and thought someone had stolen all her money and was trying to steal her identity. Her family isn’t sure if she was the one sending the messages or if someone else had gotten ahold of her phone. All attempts to call her went straight to voicemail and they haven’t heard from her since.

Her father flew to Los Angeles to look for her but now he has turned up dead. His body was found in a parking lot near LAX. He apparently jumped from a parking structure.

Today at my house!
Looking forward to playing around with my “Golf Stick” and grooving my already flawless golf swing for my Az trip in February!

25 to 65 years? I get the FAFO and I certainly get the “don’t physically attack your sentencing judge” but that’s just silly.

Murderers and rapists get less time.

So Nevada taxpayers have to keep him in for essentially life?

How about 15 years and call it good?

Login to view embedded media

A real BEAST of a ball player back in the late59’s and 60’s. Power hitter, tremendous arm and a brilliant all round ballplayer. There was always one of the Southenders that insisted he be “Rocky Colovito!” whenever there was game game of “work-up” to be played at the Swimming Pool Park in the summertime.

Login to view embedded media
The physical assaults will continue until men are allowed in the women's bathrooms (then the sexual assaults will begin)

Login to view embedded media
Thankfully that's one less nut job on the streets for the time being. Dont give the crazies a single inch.

Like a man playing with boys.

Iose HUDL hilights

Millions of Americans who smoke could soon see an increase in their prices, as Democrats target tobacco and nicotine to help finance their $3.5 trillion economic package.
The new proposal put forward in the House this week would raise or impose taxes on a wide array of products: It would hike existing federal levies on cigarettes and cigars while introducing new taxes on vaping. Democrats say the changes could help them raise $100 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

Health experts and activists have heralded Democrats’ efforts, arguing that higher taxes on tobacco could help crack down on a dangerous, deadly habit among a nation of roughly 34 million cigarette smokers. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids this week estimated the increases could reduce the total number of smokers by 1.1 million in the first year after the law is adopted, while deterring over half-a-million kids from becoming addicted.



But the ideas still have brought fresh criticism, particularly from Republicans, who also oppose the broader thrust of President Biden’s economic agenda. Tobacco excise taxes are assessed on companies, which generally pass the expenses to consumers in the form of price increases. To GOP lawmakers, the higher taxes put Democrats at risk of violating Biden’s promise during the 2020 campaign not to raise rates on Americans who make less than $400,000 each year.
Democrats sorting through painful sacrifices as social bill enters final stretch
The heaviest users of cigarettes and other tobacco products tend to be middle-income or lower-income Americans, federal data shows. As many as 80 percent of smokers have incomes less than $200,000 annually, according to data presented to the House Ways and Means Committee, the tax-focused panel that debated the idea on Tuesday. Other federal data shows that the greatest number of smokers are those who make at or below poverty-level wages.
But Democrats have argued their efforts do not violate Biden’s pledge. A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe the administration’s thinking, said smoking is not a required cost for working families and the introduction of higher taxes would not directly affect their incomes. The aide also highlighted the public health imperative behind the idea, given the well-known dangers of a practice they are trying to discourage.



Asked if the new proposal runs afoul of the president's past promise, Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, responded: “Absolutely, no question.”
But, he cautioned, it does not mean it is bad policy. “It clearly is a tax increase, and it clearly has benefits,” Gleckman said.
For now, the mere proposal itself reflects the all-out scramble on Capitol Hill as Democrats scrounge for any money they can find to cover the costs of their new spending ambitions. At no point this year had Biden or his congressional allies publicly embraced higher tobacco taxes, even as they pursued new spending to rethink federal health care, education and safety-net programs.

Democrats hope to raise most of the required revenue from a slew of additional tax increases, including higher rates on wealthy Americans, profitable corporations and investors. The party’s House lawmakers have debated the ideas in recent days as they race to complete work on their sprawling $3.5 trillion package by Wednesday.


The little-noticed tobacco taxes aroused discussion a day before that deadline, as the House Ways and Means Committee continued its marathon stretch of legislative sessions to write the fuller bill. The proposal put forward by the panel’s chairman, Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), aims to increase rates using a complicated set of calculations based on the type of tobacco product, its sale weight or total nicotine content.
For cigarettes in particular, the tax increases could ultimately result in smokers paying about $1 more per pack, according to Ulrik Boesen, a senior policy analyst tracking excise taxes for the Tax Foundation. He said it is harder to track the exact effect on vaping since it may vary considerably based on a company’s products, their potency and how it chooses to pass any added expense onto purchasers.

For some Americans, though, the added expenses could total hundreds of dollars annually. Boesen said that could fall hardest on Americans at the lower end of the economic spectrum, pointing to data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that indicates that 1 in 5 adults making less than $35,000 a year are smokers.






The U.S. government last raised federal excise rates on tobacco in 2009, though state legislators in the meantime have layered on their own additional taxes targeting these products. Matthew Myers, the president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the increases historically have served their intended purposes, deterring people from smoking while reducing health care costs.
The group said this week that Democrats’ plan also could make a marked difference at a time when e-cigarettes, which are untaxed at the federal level, are increasingly on the rise among millions of younger Americans — so the new taxes could further deter their use as well. The Food and Drug Administration recently cracked down on the industry as it continues to review whether one company, Juul Labs, can sell its products in the United States.

The tobacco tax hike belongs to an even wider array of potential increases in Democrats’ broader $3.5 trillion plan that seek to incentivize or discourage behavior. The still-forming spending bill uses a mix of tax credits and payments to try to reduce carbon emissions, for example, and to keep companies from offshoring jobs and profits. And it similarly dangles tax breaks in front of Americans who purchase new or used vehicles and bicycles that are energy-efficient and environmentally friendly.


But the tobacco tax still seemed to conflict with the president’s pledge, even as its foremost supporters said it should not matter given its long-term benefits. That prompted Republicans to tee off on the idea Tuesday. Rep. Drew Ferguson (R-Ga.), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, at one point faulted Democrats for striking the wrong balance — seeking tax increases on tobacco that could hurt lower-income Americans, while supporting tax breaks for wealthier families who can buy electric cars.
“We’ve got folks making less [and] paying more taxes, and folks making a lot are getting a tax break,” he said.

This time, when Bashar al-Assad started to fall, Russia was not there to catch him.
Russia largely watched from the sidelines as Syrian rebels swept through the country in less than 10 days, overtaking Aleppo, Hama and Homs before entering Damascus, the capital, on Sunday. Mr. al-Assad is now gone, his departure celebrated by crowds of ecstatic Syrians. In Russia, where Mr. al-Assad has fled, the fall of his government amounts to a devastating loss. Decades of Russian military and political investment to carve out a foothold in the Mediterranean are now at risk. Vladimir Putin may yet manage to retain some stakes in a post-Assad Syria, but there’s no way around it: He just suffered a significant defeat.
Russia’s ties with the Assad family go back to the 1970s, when Hafez al-Assad — Bashar’s father — solidified Syria’s place in the Soviet orbit. When the younger Mr. al-Assad met a peaceful uprising with a violent crackdown that escalated into a bloody conflict, Russia responded, in early 2012, by vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on him to resign. The year before, Mr. Putin, then prime minister, had lambasted a separate U.N. resolution authorizing airstrikes against the Libyan dictator Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi as a “medieval call for a crusade” and was said to be livid when Colonel Qaddafi was killed. He was determined that Mr. al-Assad not suffer the same fate.
Mr. Putin has given the younger Mr. al-Assad substantial military assistance in the years since. By 2015 Mr. al-Assad’s forces controlled barely 20 percent of Syria’s territory and Russia launched a military operation to save him. In 2017 Russia helped negotiate temporary cease-fires in parts of Syria, then enabled regime forces to gobble up many of those places. Its military presence eventually morphed into a smaller force suitable to managing low-level conflict, but Russia never withdrew from Syria even after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine eclipsed all other foreign policy priorities. By that point, maintaining a presence there, including the Hmeimim air base and the Tartus naval base, was also critical to Russia’s military operations in Libya, the Central African Republic and the Sahel — a new frontier for Russian power projection.
Russia’s military support was complemented by patient political backing. Mr. Putin and Mr. al-Assad remained as thick as thieves throughout several rounds of arduous peace conferences that attempted to negotiate a settlement to the conflict. In 2013, Mr. Putin had emerged as Mr. al-Assad’s knight in shining armor — and incidentally exposed the weakness of President Barack Obama’s “red line” in Syria — by vouching for the destruction of Mr. al-Assad’s chemical weapons within a year and heading off the prospect of American airstrikes. (A few years later, more than 80 Syrian civilians would be killed in a sarin attack that the United States attributed to the regime’s forces.)
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


In early 2018, Russia hosted a Syrian congress in the resort town of Sochi that was mostly attended by pro-Assad delegates and diluted ambitious visions of a political transition to questions of constitutional reform. Once the war in Syria cooled, Moscow’s diplomats pivoted to lobbying for the three Rs: reconstruction support, refugee return and the rehabilitation of Mr. al-Assad.
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Throughout, Russia was often frustrated with the Assad regime’s refusals to make even the smallest concessions — as evidenced by Mr. Putin’s own occasional shows of contempt for Mr. al-Assad.
But Russia never threw in the towel — until Syria’s war suddenly reheated last month. If Mr. al-Assad’s persistent obstinacy had stretched Russia’s patience, the dynamics of the past weeks did the rest. Many of Mr. al-Assad’s own forces simply got out of the rebels’ way, and it quickly became clear that the Iranians, who had also backed him for years, weren’t coming either. Russia telegraphed its growing concern and intensified bombardments in the rebel-held northwest province of Idlib, but it did nothing to reinforce its presence in Syria. As the rebels advanced, it became obvious that Russia would not intervene in any major way. With Russia’s military capacity consumed in Ukraine, its calculus had changed: Mr. Putin probably realized that it was time to cut Mr. al-Assad loose and to prioritize retaining Russia’s military bases in a new Syria.
But Mr. al-Assad’s fall is still a loss. The Sunni Arab states had loathed Mr. Putin’s coming to the rescue of Mr. al-Assad, an Alawite, in a conflict they viewed as part of a wider struggle with Shiite Iran. But Mr. Putin had earned respect across the region and beyond, especially among autocratic leaders, by standing with his ally and showing it to the Americans. That respect is now in jeopardy, and Mr. Putin’s decision to grant Mr. al-Assad asylum may be a last-ditch effort to signal that he does not abandon his own.
Russia could always justify setbacks in Ukraine by claiming that it is fighting the “collective West.” It could explain its abandonment of its ally Armenia during Azerbaijan’s offensive on Nagorno-Karabakh last year on the basis of shifting regional realities, while hoping that few would take note. But Syria is different. No amount of rhetorical gymnastics by Russia’s spin doctors can distract from the fact that the abandonment of Mr. al-Assad is the clearest sign, since Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine, that there are new limits on Russian power projection.

​

Besides seeing its partner Iran weakened, Russia will lose leverage to other regional heavyweights, especially Israel and Turkey. Russia’s partnership with Mr. al-Assad and Hezbollah made it an Israeli “neighbor to the north,” which meant that Israel had to inform Russia when it was conducting strikes against Iranian proxies in Syria. Israel also had to navigate with caution on Ukraine, even as Russia moved closer to Iran and adopted a pro-Palestinian position on the Gaza war. With Mr. al-Assad gone and the Iranians sidelined in Syria, Israel has more room to maneuver.
With Turkey, with which Russia has a longstanding rivalry, the loss is arguably greater. Having already accumulated leverage over Russia since the invasion of Ukraine, Turkey could have formidable bargaining power in any negotiations over Russia’s future influence in Syria thanks to its patronage of Syria’s armed opposition.
Mr. al-Assad’s ouster could also lead to the more tangible loss of the bases, Hmeimim and Tartus. Russia will do all it can to retain the bases, of course. The shift in its language when talking about its new Syrian interlocutors — from “terrorists” to “armed opposition” — suggests diplomatic efforts are already underway.
In that, Russia may succeed. But its influence in Syria — and the regional clout that came with it — will never be quite the same.

Zabel, a fifth-year senior, told ESPN he had multiple offers in the "high six figures" to go play at power conference schools. Gronowski told ESPN his offers, which were heavy on Big Ten and Big 12 schools, topped out at $1.2 million.

Despite eye-popping offers, they both stuck around, reminders of an era of college football before the transfer portal when continuity offered a distinct competitive advantage.

It is great to be an Iowa Wrestling fan.

Go Hawks!

More encouraged from this performance than any win this entire season.

A high-speed, multicounty car chase ended abruptly with a head-on collision that killed two people on Highway 218 in Washington County Sunday afternoon.



According to a crash report from the Iowa State Patrol, Brittany Miles, 35, of Cedar Rapids, was fleeing police as she drove north in the southbound lane of Highway 218. Her vehicle ran head-on into the car driven by Olivia Alvarez, 27, of Cedar Rapids, who was driving south just before 4 p.m.


Miles died on impact, according to the report, while Alvarez died after emergency medical responders arrived on the scene.




The chase began in Muscatine after police there received reports of a woman driving around shooting at people at 3:15 p.m. According to a news release from the police department, the suspected driver refused to stop for police. Instead, she left town along 231st Street and traveled through Louisa County before entering Washington County.


The crash happened close to mile marker 78, just south of Riverside near 135th Street. Emergency response vehicles could be seen lining the median in the area, where traffic was backed up in both directions.


The Muscatine Police Department reported no one was hurt by the gunfire, but it is “continuing to investigate those reports.” The chase did wreck a Muscatine squad car and injure an officer.


“A Muscatine Police Officer, involved in the pursuit, lost control of his car and crashed near the Cedar River,” the news release states. “The Officer sustained non-life threatening injuries and was transported to the hospital for treatment.”





Assistant Police Chief Steve Snider said the crash totaled the police vehicle. The officer driving it was released from the hospital Monday morning.


Miles had previously been charged with eluding officers at least twice in Iowa. One of those charges was in June, and followed another high-speed chase in Cedar Rapids, which reached 100 mph, according to court records, which report her license was barred at the time. She was convicted of eluding officers in 2021, and was convicted of theft and numerous traffic violations in recent years.

Just spent 10 minutes on line and did all the wife's Christmas shopping, I may not like a lot of things about the era we're currently in but not having to go out to stores to shop anymore is wonderful! csb/

They’re laying the groundwork now. As stupid as this claim is.

Login to view embedded media

Does anyone have $29 trillion laying around?

Login to view embedded media

Just saw in NYT

From possible US AG to this

I caught myself doing this today in ChatGPT.

Going through some investment strategies and ending with a “Thanks”.

After this I thought to myself… why the F did I just do that..does anyone else do that??

Some details from our national team on a 2025 three-star center who plans to take an official visit to Iowa.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.