These are the best places to visit in the world, ranked by U.S. News - USA TODAY
These are the best places to visit in the world, ranked by U.S. News - USA TODAY |
- These are the best places to visit in the world, ranked by U.S. News - USA TODAY
- 'She's not my type': Trump again denies E. Jean Carroll's sexual misconduct allegation - USA TODAY
- President Trump imposes new sanctions on Iran as regime accuses US of 'economic' terrorism - USA TODAY
- NCAA says California schools could be banned from championships if bill isn't dropped - USA TODAY
- Supreme Court limits access to government records in loss for Argus Leader, part of the USA TODAY Network - USA TODAY
| These are the best places to visit in the world, ranked by U.S. News - USA TODAY Posted: 24 Jun 2019 09:07 PM PDT CLOSE  Sometimes it's nice to set off alone for a once in a lifetime adventure all your own. Buzz60's Tony Spitz has the details. Buzz60, Buzz60 Paris reigns as the greatest vacation destination for the second year in a row, according to an annual ranking of the best places to travel. Determined by a mix of expert analysis, editor opinion and user votes, U.S. News & World Report's list of the world's best places to visit puts the City of Light at No. 1, followed by New Zealand's South Island, Rome, Tahiti and then London. The report also includes regional rankings, including the best places to visit in the U.S., where national parks dominated, with the Grand Canyon first, followed by Yosemite and then Yellowstone. Despite varying in region and price tag, these dream destinations, according to U.S. News travel editor Christine Smith, all have one thing in common: plenty to do outside. "This year we saw an unmistakable travel trend: More people are interested in spending their hard-earned vacation days outdoors," she said in a press release. From exploring urban jungles to camping under the stars, the places in this year's rankings offer something for everyone, Smith said. "Although travel trends and the appeal of various vacation destinations are always changing, the U.S. News Best Vacations lists feature a mix of destinations so travelers can find the right vacation for them, regardless of interests and budget," she said in the release. Scroll through U.S. News & World Report's top 30 places to visit in the gallery below: More: Explore the world's 33 megacities, from Paris to Tokyo Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2019/06/25/best-spot-vacation-30-top-destinations-world-per-u-s-news/1550502001/  |
| Posted: 24 Jun 2019 07:27 PM PDT CLOSE These are 4 things you need to know about E. Jean Carroll. The advice columnist is the latest to accuse President Donald Trump of sexual assault. USA TODAY WASHINGTON – Saying that "she's not my type," President Donald Trump on again denied Monday that he forced himself onto longtime advice columnist E. Jean Carroll. "I'll say it with great respect: Number one, she's not my type," he said during an interview with The Hill. "Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?" Since Carroll came forward Friday with an accusation that Trump sexually assaulted her over 20 years ago, the president has repeatedly denied it, calling her a liar and saying the two have never even met. Shortly after the president's latest comments, Carroll responded. "I love that I'm not his type," she said during an interview on CNN. She noted she only mentioned Trump by name once in her forthcoming book, "What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal," which details the allegation, and that the book is not about him. More: These are the women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual assault or unwanted advances Previously, Trump had a similar response when another woman accused him of sexual misconduct. In October 2016, Jessica Leeds accused Trump of putting his hand up her skirt on an airplane in the early 1980s. Days after she came forward, Trump said during a rally that Leeds was not physically attractive enough for him. "Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you," he said. Carroll wrote in her book that Trump forced himself on her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s. New York Magazine published an excerpt from the book, which included a photo of Carroll wearing the coat dress she said she wore the day of the alleged attack more than two decades ago. Carroll wrote in the excerpt that she ran into Trump while shopping at the elegant New York City department store. She said that he stopped her and greeted her as "that advice lady," and she responded by greeting him as "that real-estate tycoon." He asked for her help to buy a present for a "girl," Carroll wrote. She pointed out handbags and hats, but Trump pointed out lingerie and asked Carroll to try on a piece, she said. Near the dressing room, Carroll claimed, Trump forced himself on her. "The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips," Carroll wrote. "He holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights." Carroll claimed Trump "opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway – or completely, I'm not certain – inside me." The episode lasted no longer than three minutes, Carroll said. It was the last time she had sex, she wrote. Analysis: Writer E. Jean Carroll accuses Trump of rape. Why are we so reluctant to talk about it? A timeline: Misconduct allegations against President Trump The incident was not reported to the police, and Carroll said she told only two close friends, whose names were not made public in the story. One told her to go to the police. The other told her to forget about it, she wrote. At least 15 other women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct. The president has denied all allegations. On Friday, the president said in a statement released by the White House that the advice columnist was trying to just sell books. Monday, Trump also said that Carroll was "totally lying" about her allegation. "Totally lying. I don't know anything about her," he said Monday. "I know nothing about this woman. I know nothing about her. She is — it's just a terrible thing that people can make statements like that." Contributing: Christal Hayes Like what you're reading?: Download the USA TODAY app for more CLOSE President Trump has been accused by at least 15 women of sexual misconduct. The most recent accusation is his first as president. Wochit Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/24/trump-e-jean-carroll-shes-not-my-type/1554116001/  |
| Posted: 24 Jun 2019 09:05 AM PDT CLOSE President Donald Trump signs an executive order targeting Iran's supreme leader and his associates with financial sanctions, the latest action the U.S. has taken to pressure Tehran from developing nuclear weapons and supporting militant groups. (June 24) AP, AP WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump announced new sanctions against Iran on Monday that he said would deny the regime's leaders access to financial instruments. "Today's action follows a series of aggressive behaviors by the Iranian regime in recent weeks, including shooting down of U.S. drones," Trump said at the White House before signing an executive order to implement the penalties. Trump said the order would deny Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and "those closely affiliated with him" access to certain financial resources. The measures will block transactions involving any property or other assets Iran's leaders hold in the USA, the White House said. It's not clear how much of an impact the sanctions will have. "The practical implications seem to be fairly limited," said Ariane Tabatabai, an associate political scientist at the RAND Corp. and expert on the Middle East. "I'm seeing this as more of a political statement by the administration, a move that is very symbolic and that is designed to show that the United States is not willing to sit back and watch Iran as it escalates in the region." Many of the Iranian individuals and entities named in Monday's announcement are on other Trump administration sanctions lists, Tabatabai said. "Not to mention, many of them are cut off from the U.S. financial system" and don't travel to the USA or even outside Iran, she said. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he could not divulge the value of assets Iran has in the USA. Mnuchin said the new measures would "lock up literally billions of dollars" in assets. He rejected the suggestion that the latest sanctions were symbolic, saying they would be "highly effective." In a statement, the Treasury Department said the United States could penalize "any foreign financial institution" that knowingly facilitates a monetary transaction with the newly designated individuals and entities. They risk being "cut off from the U.S. financial system," the Treasury statement said. The United States has already crippled Iran's economy with a slew of other sanctions. Mnuchin said that in addition to Iran's supreme leader, the sanctions will target several top officials in Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, an elite branch of the country's military, and five members of Iran's navy. This week, he said, the United States will sanction Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Before Trump's announcement, Zarif blasted the United States for waging economic "terrorism" against Iran. Zarif is a Western-educated diplomat who offers one of the few public diplomatic channels between Iran and the West. Last fall, the Trump administration reimposed sanctions seeking to drive Iran's oil exports to zero; they penalize any country that purchases Iranian oil, which is the primary source of the regime's revenue. The Treasury Department has targeted Iranian banks, Iran's shipping sectors and an airline and more than 65 of its aircraft. CLOSE Following Iran's shootdown of an American drone, tensions are high. But this is nothing new for the U.S. and Iran. We have the FAQs. Just the FAQs, USA TODAY Trump said the new sanctions were in the works before Iran shot down a U.S. drone last week. But he suggested they were partially a response to the drone incident and other "hostile conduct" by the regime. "The supreme leader of Iran is one who ultimately is responsible for the hostile conduct of the regime," Trump said. "His office oversees the regime's most brutal instruments." Asked whether the sanctions were in response to last week's drone strike or earlier attacks on oil tankers that the United States blamed on Iran, Mnuchin said, "Some of these were in the works. Some of these are in addition. All of the above." The Trump administration said the unmanned drone was flying over international waters; Iran said the drone was flying over its territory. Trump initially ordered a military response against Iran on Thursday – only to cancel the operation at the last minute. "I think a lot of restraint has been shown by us – a lot of restraint – and that doesn't mean we're going to show it in the future," Trump said Monday. Trump unveiled the sanctions as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo traveled to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, two allies in the Trump administration's efforts to isolate Iran economically and diplomatically. Pompeo's visit was focused in part on responding to a series of attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf. Iran has denied involvement. "These attacks threaten the international waterways that we all rely on for shipping," the United States said in a joint statement released Monday along with the Saudis, the UAE and the United Kingdom. "Ships and their crews must be allowed to pass through international waters safely." Trump tweeted Monday that other countries need to shoulder the burden of protecting the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for much of the world's oil shipments. "China gets 91% of its Oil from the Straight, Japan 62%, & many other countries likewise," Trump tweeted. "So why are we protecting the shipping lanes for other countries (many years) for zero compensation. All of these countries should be protecting their own ships on what has always been ... a dangerous journey. We don't even need to be there." Zarif seized on Trump's tweet. Trump "is 100% right that the US military has no business in the Persian Gulf. Removal of its forces is fully in line with interests of US and the world," the foreign minister tweeted Monday. Tabatabai said Trump's suggestion that China should police the Strait of Hormuz is perplexing, given the strategic threat that China poses to the United States. She said the escalating U.S. sanctions risk alienating the Iranian people, who suffer as Iran's economy reels from the financial squeeze. That could have long-term implications for how the United States is viewed inside Iran, she said. "People are having an increasingly hard time buying food, buying medication," Tabatabai said. "Cancer patients, for example, are having a hard time getting treatment." Contributing: Kim Hjelmgaard Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/06/24/iran-trump-administration-slaps-new-economic-sanctions-over-drone/1545557001/  |
| Posted: 24 Jun 2019 05:03 AM PDT The NCAA is ratcheting up its opposition to a California bill that would allow college athletes in the state to earn compensation for the use of their own name, image or likeness, beginning in 2023. In a letter to the chairs of two State Assembly committees last week, NCAA President Mark Emmert implied that if the bill becomes law as it is written, California schools could face the prospect of being prohibited from participating in NCAA championships. That includes 23 NCAA Division I schools, four of which are in the Pac-12 Conference. The bill overwhelmingly passed the state Senate last month. On Tuesday, it is scheduled to be the subject of a hearing and a vote by the Assembly's Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media Committee. COLLEGE WORLD SERIES: The reunion nobody saw coming XFL IS BACK: And players want to take advantage If the bill advances, it would go to the Higher Education Committee, which would have to approve it by July 11 for it to remain alive this year. In his letter, Emmert asks the committees to postpone consideration of the bill while the NCAA reviews its rules concerning athletes' ability to make money from their names, images and likenesses. On May 14 – about a week before the Senate approved the bill by a 31-4 vote – the NCAA announced the creation of a "working group" of school presidents and athletics administrators to "examine issues highlighted in recently proposed federal and state legislation related to student-athlete name, image and likeness." Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.) introduced a bill in Congress in in March that has an intent similar to the California bill. The NCAA panel is scheduled to update the association's board of governors in August and make a final report in October. The California legislative session ends in September. "We recognize all of the efforts that have been undertaken to develop this bill in the context of complex issues related to the current collegiate model that have been the subject of litigation and much national debate," Emmert wrote in his letter to the committee chairs. "Nonetheless, when contrasted with current NCAA rules, as drafted the bill threatens to alter materially the principles of intercollegiate athletics and create local differences that would make it impossible to host fair national championships. As a result, it likely would have a negative impact on the exact student-athletes it intends to assist." A spokeswoman for Assembly member Kansen Chu (D-San Jose), who will chair Tuesday's hearing, said Emmert's letter prompted Chu to seek an amendment from the bill's author, Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley). Late last week, wording was added that says "it is the intent of the Legislature to monitor" the NCAA working group and "revisit this issue to implement significant findings and recommendations of the NCAA working group in furtherance of the statutory changes proposed by this act." And the statutory changes proposed by the bill remain intact. "We wanted to say that we know that a process is going on now, but we do want to see something substantial come out of that stakeholder group," said Chu's spokeswoman, Annie Pham. Name, image and likeness has been a nearly non-stop issue for the NCAA since 2009, when lawyers representing former football player Sam Keller and former basketball player Ed O'Bannon filed separate antitrust suits against the association that centered on video games. The idea of California legislators seeking to impose a remedy is not sitting well with the association. Emmert wrote that even though the bill would not take effect until 2023, "passage of the bill now will create confusion among prospective and current student-athletes and our membership. The impact of a prematurely passed bill would be difficult to untangle." During debate in the state senate prior its final vote on the bill, those opposing the bill directly articulated the potential threat to California schools. The bill would place schools "in direct conflict with NCAA policies on compensation. … This bill could result in our students and campuses being unable to participate in intercollegiate sports," said Jeff Stone (R-Temecula). "It seems like it's a bill that would be more appropriate to entertain at the federal level." Bill Dodd (D-Napa) said he initially had reservations about the bill, he now believes it appropriately positions California to be a leader in pressing for national change. "What we're doing," he said, "is setting a marker. … Having this date set forward in 2023 allows the NCAA to do the job that they should be doing not just for California, but for all other 49 states in our great union." As with other national matters, including auto-emission standards, California lawmakers have ventured into college athletics on their own before. In 2012, the legislature passed – and then-Gov. Jerry Brown signed – a law that termed the Student Athlete Bill of Rights. Taking effect with the start of the 2012-13 school year, it requires the state's four Pac-12 schools, among other things, to provide academic or other scholarships for athletes who lose an athletic scholarship due to injury. In addition, if, while playing for a team, an athlete suffers an injury that requires ongoing medical treatment, the school must continue providing that treatment for at least two years after the athlete's graduation or departure from the school. In October 2014, the Pac-12 passed a rule that increased post-college medical coverage from its schools to four years. And in 2018, the other four Power Five conferences agreed to provide this coverage for at least two years.  |
| Posted: 24 Jun 2019 07:16 AM PDT CLOSE Argus Leader will be heard in the U.S. Supreme Court April 22. Here's why. Mason Callejas, Wochit WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court limited public and media access to government records Monday by expanding a federal law's definition of what can be deemed confidential. At issue was whether confidentiality, as used in a section of the Freedom of Information Act, means anything intended to be kept secret or only information likely to cause harm if publicized. The high court adopted the broader definition. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the 6-3 decision, with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. A retailers trade group, the Food Marketing Institute, and the federal government had argued for a broad definition that would leave ample room to keep data from the public. Media organizations and public interest groups favored a more narrow definition requiring harm, which would make confidentiality apply to fewer FOIA requests. In 2011, the case began with a request that the Argus Leader newspaper made under the Freedom of Information Act. The Sioux Falls, S.D., newsroom is part of the USA TODAY Network. More: Conservative gains at Supreme Court leading to anger, frustration and 'peeks behind the curtain' The Argus Leader asked the Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to release the annual amounts taxpayers paid to more than 320,000 retailers participating in the program. Data was requested as part of the newsroom's ongoing projects into food access deserts and fraud in the food stamp program. More: Top cases of 2019 The court's six-member majority rejected the request, overruling a lower court decision in the process. It said the requirement that releasing the information must cause harm stemmed from a faulty 1974 federal appeals court ruling. "At least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is 'confidential' under the meaning of (FOIA)," Gorsuch wrote. Breyer differed by noting that "the whole point of FOIA is to give the public access to information it cannot otherwise obtain." "Given the temptation, common across the private and public sectors, to regard as secret all information that need not be disclosed, I fear the majority's reading will deprive the public of information for reasons no better than convenience, skittishness, or bureaucratic inertia," Breyer said. The decision drew criticism from the Argus Leader, which fought for eight years to get the information, as well as from Gannett Co., which owns the paper. "We're disappointed in today's outcome, obviously," Argus Leader news director Cory Myers said. "This is a massive blow to the public's right to know how its tax dollars are being spent, and who is benefiting. Regardless, we will continue to fight for government openness and transparency, as always." After the Agriculture Department refused to release the data, the Argus Leader sued. The case wound its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and back to federal district court in South Dakota, where a judge ruled the information should be released. The government did not appeal that ruling, but the Food Marketing Institute intervened and appealed again to the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court ruled against the Institute in 2018, prompting its request to the Supreme Court to hear the case. More: Ginsburg traveled, Gorsuch wrote, Kavanaugh coached: Supreme Court justices had a lucrative 2018 A key issue in the case, which was argued April 22, was whether a 1974 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had twisted FOIA beyond Congress' original intent. Enacted eight years earlier in 1966, FOIA included an exemption allowing the government to withhold information it obtained from businesses that include trade secrets or financial data considered confidential. But the 1974 ruling narrowed what was considered confidential to records that, if released, would cause substantial competitive harm. More: Supreme Court refuses to consider whether Second Amendment protects gun silencers The Food Marketing Institute argued the ruling overstepped congressional intent and asked the Supreme Court to allow businesses to decide the need for confidentiality. The group was supported by other industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Argus Leader argued that records of government spending, including taxpayer payments to food stamp retailers, were at the heart of why Congress created FOIA. It also argued that Congress had acquiesced to the 1974 ruling's standard by failing to change it during numerous reviews of FOIA since 1974. Gannett Co., which owns the South Dakota newspaper, expressed disappointment with the ruling and warned it is likely to result in greater government secrecy and less accountability to taxpayers. The company urged Congress to restore the interpretation that stood for 40 years. "The court's decision effectively gives businesses relying on taxpayer dollars the ability to decide for themselves what data the public will see about how that money is spent," said Maribel Perez Wadsworth, president of the USA TODAY Network and publisher of USA TODAY. "This is a step backward for openness and a misreading of the very purpose of the Freedom of Information Act." Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/24/freedom-information-act-supreme-court-rules-south-dakota-case/1475089001/  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from "usa news today" - Google News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
Comments
Post a Comment