Latest news with #POOL
Toronto Sun
a day ago
- Politics
- Toronto Sun
PARKER: America must support Israel to thwart Iran's nuclear goals
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the Soroka Hospital in the southern city of Beersheba, after it was hit by a missile fired from Iran on June 19, 2025. Photo by MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/POOL / AFP via Getty Images Per the U.S. State Department, in a statement issued in April 2025, 'Iran remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world and has financed and directed numerous terrorist attacks and activities globally, through its IRGC-Qods Force and proxies such as Hizballah and Hamas.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account On June 15, Fox host Bret Baier interviewed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and asked him why Israel attacked Iran. Netanyahu explained the 'existential threat' to his country, as well as to the whole world, from Iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons. Further, Netanyahu explained Israel's concerns about Iran producing larger quantities of ballistic missiles, which would be used to attack his country. 'We can't have the world's most dangerous regime have the world's most dangerous weapons,' he summed up. It seems black and white. However, despite the awesome precision and success with which Israel has carried out its operations, it still needs U.S. help. One key uranium enrichment site, Fordow, is buried half a mile under a mountain. It can't be destroyed without the 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs that only the U.S. has. With this facility left intact, Iran likely will retain the capability to make a nuclear bomb. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. U.S. support here should be straightforward, as in the past. But one stream of the MAGA crowd, whose most prominent voice is podcaster Tucker Carlson, doesn't see it. According to Carlson, the U.S. should 'drop Israel' and U.S. involvement to prevent Iran's nuclear capability betrays Trump's 'America First' campaign promise. The real issue, per Carlson, is between 'warmongers and peacemakers,' and those who support Israel's effort to prevent 'the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world' from going nuclear are warmongers. He calls out commentator Mark Levin among these. To think that acquisition of nuclear weapons by a maniacal regime — one that calls America the 'great Satan' and Israel the 'little Satan,' where the American flag is burned, where demonstrations are calling for 'Death to America' — is not a problem is logic that can be at best called deeply twisted. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Fortunately, many understand there is indeed a special and vital relationship between the U.S. and Israel. Different explanations are given. Many say it is because Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. But I see more. As a Christian, I love Israel because I love God. And I read about the special relationship between the Jewish people and the Creator every morning when I read Psalms and Proverbs. Regarding America First, I would explain it by turning to the words of a Jewish rabbi named Hillel who lived 2,000 years ago. He said, 'If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?' The internal crisis America is experiencing is about meaning. It flows directly from the extent to which Americans have pushed faith in the God of the Bible out of their lives and substituted various secular ideologies. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Polling shows that lower support for Israel correlates with the weakening of religion in the country. But the good news is that it's turning around. In a new Gallup poll asking the question, 'Do you think religion … is increasing its influence on American life or losing its influence?' 34% said increasing, compared to 20% one year ago and 59% said losing, compared to 75% one year ago. Our country is a free nation under God. The first order of business is to live up to our responsibilities at home. But we are rooted in universal truths with corresponding universal responsibilities. Anyone with any connection to Scripture knows that Israel is a special and unique country. It is vital to understand we have a special relationship and must work together to make a better world. For now, the U.S. must work with Israel to ensure that Iran does not achieve nuclear capability. Star Parker is founder of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education Read More MMA NHL Canada Toronto & GTA World
The Citizen
a day ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
Russia warns US against ‘military intervention' in Iran-Israel war
With Trump considering US military action in Iran, Russia and China step in to urge de-escalation and reject force as a conflict solution. In this pool photograph distributed by the Russian state agency Sputnik, Russia's President Vladimir Putin (C) attends a meeting with heads of international news agencies, on the sidelines of the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) at the Rimsky-Korsakov Saint Petersburg State Conservatory, in Saint Petersburg, on June 18, 2025. The 28th edition of Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) takes place from 18th to 21st of June, 2025, at the ExpoForum Convention and Exhibition Centre in Saint Petersburg, on June 18, 2025. (Photo by Vyacheslav Prokofiev / POOL / AFP) Russia's foreign ministry on Thursday warned the United States not to take military action against Iran, amid speculation over whether Washington will enter the war alongside Israel. Moscow issued its warning after Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in a phone call condemned Israeli attacks on Iran and urged a diplomatic solution to the conflict. Israel launched an unprecedented wave of strikes at Iran last week, to which Tehran responded with missile and drone attacks. US President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday he was considering whether to join Israel's strikes. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' he said. Russian foreign ministry's spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters: 'We would like to particularly warn Washington against military intervention in the situation.' Any US military action 'would be an extremely dangerous step with truly unpredictable negative consequences', she added. ALSO READ: Western media bias: how imperial narratives shape global perceptions Earlier on Thursday, following the leaders' call, the Kremlin said Putin and Xi 'strongly condemn Israel's actions'. Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters that Moscow and Beijing believed the end to the hostilities 'should be achieved exclusively by political and diplomatic means'. 'Mediate your own' Xi told Putin that a ceasefire was the 'top priority' and urged Israel to halt its attacks, Chinese state media reported. 'Promoting a ceasefire and cessation of hostilities is the top priority. Armed force is not the correct way to resolve international disputes,' Xi said, according to China's state news agency Xinhua. 'Parties to the conflict, especially Israel, should cease hostilities as soon as possible to prevent a cyclical escalation and resolutely avoid the spillover of the war,' he added. Putin is pitching himself as a mediator between the warring sides. ALSO READ: Ukraine war 'existential,' Kremlin says, launching revenge strikes Russia is close to Iran, having boosted military ties amid its offensive on Ukraine, but also strives for good relations with Israel. Last week, Putin held phone calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, offering himself as a peacemaker. The Kremlin said that Xi had spoken 'in favour of such mediation, since he believes that it could serve to de-escalate the current situation', Ushakov said. But Western leaders, including US President Donald Trump and France's Emmanuel Macron have pushed back against the idea of Putin trying to mediate the conflict amid his own Ukraine offensive. 'He actually offered to help mediate, I said: 'do me a favour, mediate your own',' Trump told reporters on Wednesday about Putin's efforts. 'Let's mediate Russia first, okay? I said, Vladimir, let's mediate Russia first, you can worry about this later.' NOW READ: Russia signals severe retaliation after Ukraine's strikes – By: © Agence France-Presse
The Star
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Star
Indonesia calls for restraint, offers support for global peace efforts
Indonesia's Foreign Minister Sugiono speaks flanked by Russia's Foreign Minister as they deliver a joint press conference following their meeting in Moscow on June 17, 2025. (Photo by YURI KOCHETKOV/ POOL/ AFP) JAKARTA: Indonesia's Foreign Minister Sugiono (pic) has called for restraint amid escalating global tensions and reaffirmed Jakarta's readiness to support international peace efforts. Speaking alongside Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at a joint press conference in Moscow on Tuesday (June 17), Sugiono stressed the importance of diplomacy in resolving disputes. "We agreed that any escalation must be stopped and that disputes should be brought to the negotiation table,' he said, in remarks released by Indonesia's Foreign Affairs Ministry. His comments followed Lavrov's remarks on tensions in the Middle East and came as part of broader talks on regional and global issues, including cooperation under Brics and Asean frameworks. Sugiono said Indonesia was prepared to contribute to peacebuilding efforts and mediate where needed. "I also offer Indonesia's assistance in bridging communication gaps and differences, and in helping to reduce tensions both regionally and globally, so that we can contribute to a peaceful environment in various parts of the world,' he added. The two ministers pledged to deepen cooperation across key sectors, including politics and security, trade and investment, and food and energy security. They also agreed to upgrade ties to a Strategic Partnership. They welcomed closer official contacts between the two countries, saying these had led to new cooperation initiatives, including in education and library programmes. Sugiono's visit precedes President Prabowo Subianto's June 19 to 20 trip to meet President Vladimir Putin and attend the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). The visit also marks the 75th anniversary of diplomatic ties between Indonesia and Russia, established in February 1950. _ Bernama
Vox
2 days ago
- Politics
- Vox
This veteran health official watched Americans lose trust in science. How do we get it back?
is the host and senior producer of Unexplainable , Vox's science podcast about everything we don't know. He co-created the show and also composes the music. 'We often had to change recommendations because we learned more about the virus, and people began to wonder, do these guys know what they're talking about?' Former NIH director Francis Collins on people losing trust in science. Sarah Silbiger/POOL/AFP via Getty Images Francis Collins has overseen some of the most revolutionary science of the last few decades. He led the Human Genome Project that sequenced the entire human genome by 2003, and then in 2009, he became director of the National Institutes of Health, where he served under three presidents and led the agency's research on a Covid-19 vaccine. But nothing in his years leading biomedical research for the US government could have prepared him for the disruption at NIH over the past few months. Over 1,000 employees at the NIH were suddenly fired at the beginning of April. (Those firings are still being challenged in the courts, but as of now, the employees remain out of work.) Trump administration officials have barred researchers from studying certain topics like vaccine hesitancy or the health effects of wildfires. 'I had experienced transitions before, and those were bumpy sometimes,' Collins told me in a recent interview. 'But I didn't expect science to be under this kind of full-bore attack, which is really what happened almost immediately after inauguration day.' In the past few months, Collins saw scientists placed under communications gag orders, restrained from speaking freely even when no media were present. 'You were effectively muzzled,' he says. Collins, who had stepped down as NIH director in 2021 and had taken over a lab studying diabetes, soon felt he could no longer do his job as a scientist should. He started to worry he might be pushed out. 'So I pulled my folks together in a conference room. They didn't know what was coming. And I told them, 'By tomorrow night, I'm no longer gonna be here.' And we all cried. I never thought it would end this way. My wife came to pick me up on that last Friday, and I just walked out of the building and got in the car and said, 'I guess this is it. That's how it ends?'' Just four years ago, Collins was President Donald Trump's NIH director. Now, in Trump's second term, he's resigning under pressure. How did we get from a world where the NIH was universally recognized as a jewel of scientific research to a world where the government is essentially tearing it down from the inside? I spoke to Collins on Vox's Unexplainable podcast about how so many Americans lost trust in science and how we might be able to get it back. Our interview has been edited for clarity and length. I'm constantly hearing that Americans have lost trust in science. Is that fair to say? I think it's totally fair. You can look at all the surveys about trust. Americans have lost trust in almost every institution. But I think it was more than that. I think Covid did a lot of harm to people's trust in science because, first of all, it was a huge, disastrous experience for the world. There were days where thousands of Americans were dying. As one of those people who was communicating with the public about what we knew about the virus and what they might do to protect themselves, we were doing the best we could with the information we had, but the information was incomplete. So we often had to change recommendations over time because we learned more about the virus and about the pandemic, and people began to wonder, do these guys know what they're talking about? So suddenly this has become such a target for an attack: whether science is something that's good for our country or not. Your most recent book, The Road to Wisdom, is all about trust. If you were telling the story of the loss of trust and everything going on in the science agencies today, how far back would you start? It depends on the particular demographic you're talking about. I'm a person of faith, and certainly people of faith have tended to be among the most skeptical of science, and that goes back 150 years or more — the sense that maybe science is trying to do damage to our Christian faith. That was there certainly well before Covid. But what group was most resistant to accepting the vaccines? It was white evangelical Christians. I'm a white evangelical Christian, so those are my people, but it broke my heart to see how that happened. And I think Covid did something, took what had been a tendency for science to be political and turned it into a really big deal. If you were a Democrat, you're much more likely to get vaccinated than if you were a Republican. Does that make sense? Not in the slightest, but that's how it was. When it's becoming clear that more than 50 million Americans aren't getting the vaccine, one of the most remarkable scientific achievements in human history, did that tell you anything about the pursuit of science and how it works? It certainly woke me up to the fact that we apparently had not done a very good job in explaining to people that when science is tackling some really hard problems and occasionally gets the wrong answer, it's going to get self-corrected because science is about truth. Science is not just a bunch of people who are coming up with answers that they like. These are answers that aren't gonna be sustainable unless they're actually true. And maybe here's also where I began to realize That's another problem that society has that I was unaware of in terms of its severity: the importance of truth, the fact that there is such a thing as objective truth. Not everybody shared that: 'That might be true for you, but it's not true for me.' I would hear people say that about things that were established facts, and that's a road to destruction of a society if it becomes widespread. Unfortunately, it seems to be doing so right now. It seems like you believed that all you had to do was develop the vaccine, get to the thing that worked, and then people would take it? Then there's this whole other piece of convincing people that you and the scientific community at large didn't do. Yep. I was naive about science communication and how it works. And I was, without knowing to call it this, an adherent to the knowledge deficit model. What does that mean? That means that if you're trying to communicate science to get somebody to make a decision, it's because they're missing knowledge, and you're gonna provide that. You're gonna fill their deficit, and then everything will be fine. You just tell them: Here's a fact. And now they believe the fact? I'm an expert, here's the fact, and then they'll make the right decision. But no, it doesn't work that way, especially when there's already skepticism and distrust. You're seen as an elitist who maybe has an ax to grind or something you're trying to put over on them, and you may even do more harm than good by going after somebody's misunderstandings head-on. They're just gonna dig their heels in more thoroughly. I guess what I've learned is we need to do a lot more listening and really understand where people are coming from, and also be prepared to tell stories instead of going down the road with statistics. But that's challenging: For a scientist, that sounds like an anecdote and I would never get away with that in the seminar room. But this is not the seminar room, people. We need to actually find better ways to help people understand what we do. You were in charge of the NIH during Covid. You were often the one communicating to the public. Are there things that you would do differently if you could do it over again? I wish every time that myself or anybody who was putting forward a public health message would have started off saying, 'Look, this is an evolving situation. We still don't know answers to a lot of things we need to know about this pandemic. So what I'm gonna tell you today is the data we've got, but we might have to change that later when we get more information.' We almost never said that. The other thing is our one-size-fits-all approach just didn't feel like it made any sense to the public. People in rural communities, who were far away from the carnage that was happening in New York City or Washington, DC, as the virus was running wild, were left wondering: 'Why do I have to close my business? I haven't even seen any cases here yet.' I think we lost a lot of people in states that didn't necessarily have heavy academic research centers, who couldn't quite imagine how they should believe us because we didn't seem like we understood what life was like on a small farm in Nebraska. During Covid, my number one goal was to save lives. I'm a physician. I took the Hippocratic Oath. I assumed there were other people worrying about the economic effects of this and the effects on children's learning when they were kept out of school. It didn't feel like that was my thing. My thing was to try to keep people from dying. But it became clear to me that that may have been something I was a little bit wearing blinders about. Maybe those other factors about economic harms and harms to children's learning should have been a bit more front and center to the conversations that I was part of. So I understand looking back on it and saying, 'Okay, it would've been more accurate to communicate the level of uncertainty.' To say to people, 'This is evolving. We don't know.' Do you think that would've led to a different outcome? I don't know. I wish we could do the experiment, and maybe we could figure out a way to do it in some controlled space. But I would say 20 percent of the problem was the less-than-perfect communication of the science, and 80 percent of it was the deluge of misinformation and disinformation that contaminated the conversation to the point where a lot of people stopped listening to the actual facts. There didn't seem to be any penalty for stating something that's absolutely false, though, and I haven't heard anybody apologize for that. When I think about your willingness to have difficult conversations, to accept responsibility for mistakes, it seems like this is something that most people are not doing. I've heard you mention maybe we could have something like a truth and reconciliation commission. Or a pandemic amnesty on a larger level, where people could really be open about their mistakes. Do you think that could have any effect? You know, I proposed the idea of amnesty at an event and the audience blew up. They were not there. People are too angry. On both sides? On both sides. They're feeling too hurt, too much harm has been done to them. So amnesty, I don't think we're there. Truth and reconciliation, people were okay with that. Because they can imagine that other people are gonna have to ask for forgiveness for what they did. But right now, we're so dug in. I hope that this truth and reconciliation option is out there right now. It doesn't quite feel like people are ready to go there. It seems to me like what we need is more people embracing uncertainty, more people talking about their mistakes. Whether it's people with their friends who they disagree with, or whether it's the highest scientists in our scientific agencies. How do we get there? We're a long way from there. When you're in this circumstance where there seems to be a real pitch battle between the various tribes, it makes it hard for anybody to say, 'I might be wrong.' The fact that I've been willing to say that has resulted in a lot of attacks, even from people who I thought were my friends. They said, 'Oh no, you can't show weakness like that.' Well, yeah, we really do need to do that, but we need to all do it and not just expect a few people who are then gonna get whacked for it. It's hard right now, and you don't see a lot of that in our country. If I were a young scientist and I wasn't sure whether I should stay in the field, what would you say to me? I would say you're at a really paradoxical time because this is the most incredibly exciting moment for biomedical research. So many things are becoming possible that I would not have dreamed would happen in my lifetime. We're on this exponential curve of gathering insights. So if that's your dream to be part of, don't give it up. Now, the paradox is right at the moment, there's a lot of negative things happening in the United States that seem to be threats. But the case here is so compelling that I don't believe those facts can be suppressed for very long. You can already look at polls in which the American public says, 'I don't think they should be harming medical research.' That's right there. Seventy-seven percent of Americans raise that point in one poll.
Toronto Sun
3 days ago
- Business
- Toronto Sun
EDITORIAL: A good trade deal isn't just any deal
Prime Minister Mark Carney greets U.S. President Donald Trump during an arrival ceremony at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alta., on June 16, 2025. Photo by STEFAN ROUSSEAU/POOL / AFP via Getty Images The purpose of negotiating with U.S. President Donald Trump isn't to get any deal on trade and security. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account It's to get a deal Canadians can live with. Thus it's best to withhold judgment on Prime Minister Mark Carney's statement that Trump has agreed to negotiate a new economic and security deal with Canada within 30 days, meaning by mid-July. That announcement by the Prime Minister's Office at the G7 meeting on Monday, hours after a morning meeting between Trump and Carney, was peculiar. While Trump said at the end of it that a deal between Canada and the U.S. was achievable, that's not the same as Trump saying he's committed to doing it within 30 days or what it will contain. Trump's advisers often get it wrong in predicting what Trump will do on an issue, so for the PMO to speak for Trump on an economic and security deal with Canada should be viewed in that context. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Carney appears to have a better relationship with Trump than former prime minister Justin Trudeau — which couldn't have been worse — so that, at least, is a positive. During the election, Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer, who has multiple ties to Carney through Gerald Butts, Evan Solomon and Diana Fox Carney — they all work or worked for him — predicted what appears to have been Carney's strategy. As Bremmer wrote in a March 26 column titled The end of the transatlantic relationship as we know it : 'Canadian leaders have a political incentive to put up a bigger fight (than Mexico) because Trump's threats toward Canada's economy and sovereignty have sharply inflamed nationalist sentiment north of the border in the run-up to the April 28 elections. However, I expect Ottawa will quietly fold shortly after the vote to ensure that ongoing relations with the U.S. remain functional.' Bremmer said, after the fact, he was talking about Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, but what he said was 'Canadian leaders' and the strategy he outlined appears to apply to what Carney did. As for Carney praising Trump at the G7 compared to his 'elbows up' election rhetoric, if it gets a better deal for Canada we can live with him being two-faced. But first, Canadians need to see the deal. Read More Toronto Maple Leafs NHL Toronto Maple Leafs Toronto & GTA Canada
