news.freeptomaineradio.com

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

The Swedish government is considering a law change that would ban marriages between cousins, a move primarily aimed at curbing issues such as honor oppression prevalent in migrant communities.

The proposal, which was introduced by government investigators and aligns with policies laid out in the Tidö Agreement, which facilitated the formation of the current government, would also extend to marriages between other close relatives, such as uncles and nieces.

If approved, the ban could come into effect as early as 2026.

Currently, Swedish law prohibits marriages between parents and children or full siblings, though half-siblings can marry with an exemption. Marriages between cousins are still legal, but this may soon change.

A government-appointed inquiry, which began in September last year, now recommends that cousin marriages be banned under the Marriage Code, citing both social and health concerns.

The proposed ban has significant implications for Sweden’s migrant communities, where cousin marriages are far more common. While this is defended as a cultural practice that prioritizes familial ties, government officials argue that such arranged marriages increase the risk of honor oppression, particularly for young women and girls.

By outlawing cousin marriages, they believe they can reduce the likelihood of coercion and other forms of control within family structures.

Preempting a loophole, a key element of the proposal is that cousin marriages performed abroad will also not be recognized in Sweden, regardless of the spouses’ connection to the country. This is intended to prevent couples from bypassing Swedish law by marrying abroad and then returning to Sweden.

“The recognition ban will be general and cover all cousin marriages,” the inquiry’s findings stated, as cited by the SVT broadcaster, reinforcing the aim to counteract honor-based oppression across all backgrounds.

In Norway, a similar law was enacted this past summer, with officials highlighting the increased risk of genetic disorders and health complications caused by inbreeding.

These risks include higher rates of stillbirth and infant mortality.

In addition to the ban on cousin marriages, the inquiry also suggests eliminating the current exemption that allows half-siblings to marry in certain circumstances, thus better protecting vulnerable individuals from coercion.

A final decision on the reforms is expected in the coming months which, if passed, is expected to enter into force in 2026.

Read more here…

Authored by Alan Tonelson via RealityChek,

So much outrage (including from Vice President and Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris) about the claim in Bob Woodward’s upcoming book that Donald Trump during his presidency sent some test kits to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin at the height of the Covid pandemic when they were scarce in the United States. And about the famed journalist’s report that the former president called Putin seven times since the former left the Oval Office in January, 2021. (See, e.g., here.)

And so little about by far the biggest outrage described in War (if true, of course – as with the above revelations): that President Biden may have pushed the United States, and the world, to within a coin flip of nuclear war in Ukraine.

Think I’m kidding? Here’s the description by CNN – which broke the news about Woodward’s book – his account of a crucial moment in U.S. policy toward Russia’s invasion. It’s worth quoting in full:

By September 2022, US intelligence reports deemed “exquisite” revealed a “deeply unnerving assessment” of Putin — that he was so desperate about battlefield losses that he might use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

“Based on the alarming new intelligence reports, the White House believed there was a 50% chance Russia would use a tactical nuclear weapon — a striking assessment that had skyrocketed up from 5% and then 10%, Woodward reports.

“’On all channels, get on the line with the Russians,’ Biden instructed his national security adviser, Jake Sullivan. ‘Tell them what we will do in response,’ he said, according to Woodward.”

That’s the key phrase: “Tell them what we will do in response.”

It doesn’t necessarily mean that Mr. Biden had decided to use a nuclear weapon against Russia itself, or even against Russian forces inside Ukraine, or was considering such actions. Nor does it necessarily mean that the president had decided to deploy U.S. military forces in Ukraine in response.

But it’s difficult to imagine what else President Biden might have been thinking of that would deter the Russians from a step like tactical nuclear weapons use, or that would have convinced them to abandon this policy after firing one nuclear shot.

And the real outrage here – again, if Woodward has the story right – is that Mr. Biden actually was prepared to run such a catastrophic risk on behalf of a country whose fate Washington had never officially considered to be a remotely vital American security interest even at the height of the Cold War — and still hasn’t.

It’s one thing to threaten nuclear weapons use to protect a country or region that has been deemed a vital interest by U.S. leaders – like Western Europe or Japan. Or to do so when adversaries try to place nuclear weapons close to the American homeland (as was the case with the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962).

But even to contemplate Armageddon in a situation meeting absolutely none of these characteristics? How can that be viewed as anything but needlessly reckless and even suicidal?

Bob Woodward reports that at one point Biden believed there was a 50% chance of Russia using nukes over Ukraine

He chose to escalate the war anyways and lied to the American people about the risk pic.twitter.com/Ce8IMAST9w

— Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) October 8, 2024

Keep that in mind the next time you hear that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is too dangerously off his rocker to be fit for the presidency (in particular that his warnings about the current administration bringing World War III closer are nothing more than fear-mongering). And that the aforementioned Kamala Harris, when asked what she would have done differently from Mr. Biden, responded, “Not a thing that comes to mind.”

By Bernadette Giacomazzo of RetailWire

Macy’s has announced that it is closing a total of 55 stores by the end of 2024, in the faltering brand’s ongoing effort to revamp its business.

According to The Daily Mail, the company originally intended to close 50 underperforming stores by the end of the year, part of the 150 total locations it will close within three years. However, it now plans to close 55 before 2025.

The locations of the shuttering stores have not yet been announced, but speculation is abounding that the stores will include a location in Newington, New Hampshire, one in Traverse City, Michigan, and one in WestShore Plaza mall in Tampa, Florida. These stores are reportedly set to close after the winter holidays.

“The biggest things that have gone wrong at Macy’s are the quality of the stores and the product assortment,” GlobalData Retail analyst Neil Saunders said to the outlet.

“And so over the years customers have deserted it, sales have tumbled and store productivity has gone down. All the metrics have gone in the wrong direction.”

News of these closures comes shortly after Macy’s announced that it was diverting funds to its in-house brands in yet another effort to turn the proverbial ship around.

According to TheStreet, the shop has resurrected or introduced a number of other brands, including On 34th and State of Day, as part of its rehabilitation drive. It plans to launch a men’s collection before the end of the year, and a new kids’ brand will follow next.

But Macy’s significant rebrand goes beyond simply bringing back well-known brands. The mall mainstay is purportedly concentrating more on its well-known high-margin luxury products in an attempt to attract customers with a little more disposable income.

The company has said that it will focus its efforts on designer fragrances, which are more affordable than high-end handbags, for example, yet feature coveted brands like Chanel and Dior.

Some Macy’s stores already carry high-end fragrances from brands like Tom Ford, Creed, and Cartier. The company did, however, declare that it will have 42 outlets by the end of 2024 that would sell its high-end cosmetic products, with a focus on scent, as part of its aim to expand the availability of designer fragrances.

Additionally, Macy’s will soon offer store-in-store concepts that will mimic Target’s Ulta strategy and Kohl’s well-known and successful Sephora endeavor.