News

Landmark Clinton visit to Myanmar

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton waves as she arrives at the airport in Naypyidaw, the capital of Myanmar, which is also known as Burma

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived in Myanmar on Wednesday for a landmark three-day visit to the long-isolated nation focused on encouraging further political reforms, assessing recent progress and providing a road map for forging closer ties with the United States and Europe.

But the highest priority of a meeting with Myanmar’s foreign minister, according to a senior State Department official traveling with Clinton, will be to seek assurances that the Southeast Asian nation will halt purchases of missile technology from renegade North Korea.

The trip by Clinton, the first visit by a sitting secretary of State since 1955, signals that the United States is ready to engage with a leadership whose “flickers of progress,” in President Obama’s words, are promising, even as it remains unclear whether they are deeply rooted or sustainable.

One possible stumbling block could be what the White House believes were “surreptitious contacts” between Myanmar and North Korea, the senior American official said. “A continuation of these kinds of efforts will make it very difficult for the United States to take the steps to improve the relationship,” as Myanmar wants, the official said.

American analysts have examined closely whether Myanmar and North Korea have been secretly collaborating on a nuclear weapons program, but “we do not see signs of substantial effort at this time,” the senior official said.

Another key U.S. objective in Myanmar, and in Washington’s other recent Southeast Asian initiatives, has been to check China’s growing economic, political and military clout in the region. Closer links between Myanmar and the U.S. could also reduce border issues between Myanmar and both Thailand and India, affording greater security to these two strong U.S. allies.

The challenge for Washington, analysts said, will be to effectively employ the West’s available carrots and sticks — among them, economic sanctions, foreign aid and diplomatic recognition — in ways that keep Myanmar moving forward but don’t embolden hard-liners intent on reversing course.

In recent years, Myanmar, which is also known as Burma, has taken steps that might seem relatively modest by Western standards — including holding elections, writing a new constitution, releasing pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and easing restrictions on the media — but that are significant in a nation with a long history of strong-arm rule.

In appointments with President Thein Sein, Foreign Minister Wunna Maung Lwin and parliamentary leaders Thursday, Clinton plans to meet with the government’s new face, the first tendrils of a hoped-for democratic transition. Absent will be any obvious representatives of the active military (Thein Sein is a former general), yet there remains no clear picture of who might be directing policy behind the scenes.

“There are many opinions on the mandate of this president,” said Aung Khaing Min, an activist with the Assistance Assn. for Political Prisoners, a Thai-based advocacy group. “Our view is that the real power lies with the National Defense and Security Council,” which represents the interests of the armed services.

In September, the president, a former prime minister who took office this year, suspended work on the controversial $3.6-billion China-funded Myitsone hydroelectric dam project, which has been opposed by Suu Kyi and others concerned that it would displace 63 villages and submerge culturally important sites.

The rare concession to public opposition gave rise to a feeling that Myanmar’s leaders might be trying to hedge their bets with China. Yet even though the dam project was halted, a far larger joint natural gas project is going ahead. And before Clinton’s visit, Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping this week hosted Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, head of the Myanmar armed forces, in Beijing, where the pair discussed increased military cooperation.

U.S. companies, which have watched their Indian, Chinese and Southeast Asian counterparts cut deals and extract resources in Myanmar, are eager to enter the market themselves, though Congress is unlikely to drop long-standing economic sanctions quickly.

Indeed, Clinton’s trip drew wary comments from parties as diverse as Republican congressmen and Amnesty International advocates. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement that Clinton’s visit “represents a monumental overture to an outlaw regime whose DNA remains fundamentally brutal.”

China, Hong Kong and Thailand have invested about $25 billion in ports, pipelines, dams and other projects, according to government statistics, accounting for more than 70% of Myanmar’s total foreign investment. One of the few U.S. companies with a presence in Myanmar is San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron, which got a 28% stake in a Myanmar natural gas field when it acquired Unocal in 2005.

Clinton’s trip involved more complicated logistics than usual, because Myanmar lacks the facilities common in most countries she visits. The airport at the new capital, Naypyidaw, doesn’t have night landing strip lights or U.S.-style security, so Clinton’s plane had to drop off the American party during the day, and was then flown to Thailand for the night to guarantee its proper protection.

A highlight of Clinton’s trip will be her scheduled meeting with Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who spent 15 years in detention. Suu Kyi, who gave the Clinton trip her blessing, recently announced plans to run for a parliament seat after Myanmar’s president ruled that her previously banned political party could return to politics.

The West has listened carefully to Suu Kyi’s views in making its decision to reengage with the leadership in Naypyidaw. But some analysts said it’s important that Washington start moving away from a policy based on a single person, no matter how charismatic and high-profile.

“The world has seen Aung San Suu Kyi as the be-all,” said Udai Bhanu Singh, senior research associate with New Delhi’s Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses. “She’s a great lady, and hats off to her, but the policy should be more party-focused rather than individual-focused.”

This week’s diplomatic meetings may be the easy part for Myanmar’s leaders. More difficult in the months ahead will be living up to the expectations of Western governments, Burmese dissident groups and critics in Congress.

Myanmar has a long list of problems, including fighting and endemic human rights abuses in many of its ethnic border states. About 1,600 political prisoners remain incarcerated. Much of the economy is in the hands of relatively few cronies of the military junta, which first took power nearly 50 years ago. The country’s political system is riven with factions, and protracted instability has led to widespread human trafficking and drug cultivation.

“Clinton’s going there is very important,” said Bridget Welsh, a political scientist at Singapore Management University. “Now’s the moment we’ll see if the engagement process has substance or not.”

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP