Connect with us

News

Modi to Face No-Trust Vote in Parliament Over Manipur Violence

(CTN News) – Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to undergo a rare floor test in India’s parliament following a no-confidence motion tabled by the opposition. The motion is in response to the deadly violence in Manipur, which has resulted in the loss of over 150 lives and the displacement of 50,000 people since May.

Although the government enjoys an overwhelming majority in the lower house of parliament, the debate over the motion could compel Modi to make a formal statement before lawmakers.

Despite the opposition’s attempts to challenge Modi’s government, the no-confidence vote is not expected to threaten its stability. The ruling party’s strong majority in the lower house of parliament ensures that the motion is unlikely to succeed in toppling the government.

Modi’s First Public Comment on Manipur Violence

While the no-confidence vote may not threaten the government, it offers an opportunity for the opposition to scrutinize and criticize the government’s handling of sensitive issues, particularly concerning women’s safety. With crucial elections on the horizon, the opposition aims to highlight perceived shortcomings in the government’s response to the Manipur violence.

The motion, moved by an opposition lawmaker, has been accepted by the Speaker of the lower house of parliament, Om Birla. The date for the debate on the motion is yet to be decided, but the acceptance paves the way for a formal discussion on the government’s actions in response to the Manipur crisis.

The opposition’s primary objective in tabling the no-confidence motion is to compel Prime Minister Modi to speak on the escalating violence in Manipur. A shocking incident on May 4, where two women were paraded naked, triggered public outrage and forced Modi to make his first public comment on the matter on July 20.

The escalating violence in Manipur prompted the Prime Minister to address the issue publicly on July 20. The situation garnered significant attention and demanded a response from the government, leading to the no-confidence motion.

This is not the first time Narendra Modi’s government has faced a no-confidence motion. 2018 during his first term in office, the opposition criticized his performance on economic, defense, and foreign policies. However, Modi emerged victorious, thwarting the opposition-led motion.

The no-confidence vote comes at a crucial time for the Congress party, which seeks to build on its recent victory in the southern state of Karnataka in May. Additionally, the soaring prices of tomatoes and other vegetables are creating pressure on Modi’s government to address inflation and its impact on everyday essentials.

ORIGINAL STORY: Disturbing Video Emerges In Manipur: Women Forced To Walk Naked Amid Sectarian Conflict

A shocking video has emerged on social media, showing a distressing incident in the northeastern Indian state of Manipur.

The graphic video depicts a baying mob forcing two women to walk naked, sparking widespread outrage. The incident is related to a months-long sectarian conflict tearing the state apart.

The video, confirmed by the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF) to have occurred on May 4, gained viral attention after it was shared online this week. It was only then that the authorities took action and made arrests.

In response to the public outcry and growing concern over the situation, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi finally addressed the issue, breaking his silence on the matter.

Manipur Police, in their official statement on Twitter, described the incident as “a case of abduction, gang rape, and murder,” highlighting the gravity of the situation.

This appalling incident has sparked a national conversation about the need to address the ongoing conflict in Manipur and ensure the safety and security of all its citizens.

Disturbing Incident in Manipur: Arrests Made as Shocking Video Sparks Outrage

On Thursday, officials reported that four individuals have been arrested, and police raids are still underway in connection with the disturbing incident.

More than three dozen men are being interrogated regarding the apparent sexual assault, as per Reuters.

The video, viewed by CNN, portrays a horrifying scene where two frightened women are forced to walk naked through a crowd of clothed men.

In the video, the women are groped and sexually assaulted while surrounded by a mob of men, some of whom brandish long canes or sticks as weapons.

This shocking footage emerged amidst the ongoing ethnic violence in the northeastern Indian state.

For the first time, Prime Minister Modi addressed the situation in the state on Thursday, expressing deep grief and anger. He referred to the incident in Manipur as a shameful act for any civilized society.

Modi stated, “What happened with the daughters of Manipur can never be forgiven,” emphasizing that the full force of the law will be brought to bear on the perpetrators.

India’s Supreme Court Issues Directive After Outrage Over Attack in Manipur

Amidst the mounting outrage and disgust over the attack, India’s Supreme Court issued a directive on Thursday to both the federal and Manipur state governments.

Urging them to take immediate action in holding the perpetrators accountable and ensuring that such horrific incidents are not repeated.

The court emphasized that using women as instruments for perpetrating violence is entirely unacceptable in a constitutional democracy.

Manipur’s Chief Minister, N. Biren Singh, also condemned the incident on Thursday, denouncing it as a “crime against humanity.”

Speaking to reporters in the state capital Imphal, Singh asserted that the Manipur state government, which is led by Prime Minister Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), would not tolerate crimes against women and sisters.

He vowed that the culprits would face the most severe punishment.

While acknowledging that the court holds the authority to determine the type of punishment, Singh stated that both the government and its agencies, together with the people of Manipur, would strive to ensure that the perpetrators face the highest punishment available today: capital punishment.

Singh, a member of the BJP, has faced criticism for his handling of the ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur. Read More

News

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

Google

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

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.

google

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

Continue Reading

News

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

Supreme Court

(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

SEE ALSO:

Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.

Scientists Awarded MicroRNA The Nobel Prize in Medicine.

US Inflation will Comfort a Fed Focused on Labor Markets.

Continue Reading

News

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

shkreli

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.

shkreli

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.

shkreli

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

Continue Reading

Trending