Multiple reports are indicating that power has been cut off to the entire region of Crimea after two large transmission towers were destroyed.
It is not yet clear who destroyed the towers, although RT reports that supporters of the local group, Right Sector had been rioting in the area earlier in the day.
More to come. Stay with Rise News.
— Conflict News (@Conflicts) November 21, 2015
Cover Photo Credit: Artem Svetlov/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
About the AuthorRich Robinson is the CEO and publisher of Rise News. He is also a journalist and a native of Miami. Robinson graduated from the University of Alabama and can be followed on Twitter @RichRobMiami.
You Might also like
By Staff Report
In a speech to the nation, Vice President Joe Biden announced that he is not running for President in 2016.
Saying that he has “run out of time” to successfully mount a campaign for the Democratic nomination, Biden proceeded to give something akin to a stump speech.
Flanked in the White House Rose Garden by President Barack Obama, Biden said that he believed that the United States needed a “moonshot” type effort to cure cancer and fight against human suffering.
“If I could be anything, I would have wanted to be the president who ended cancer, because it’s possible,” Biden said.
The Vice President’s son Beau died in May of brain cancer at the age of 46.
Biden has been in national political life since he was elected to the Senate at 29 years of age.
Cover Photo Credit: Marc Nozell/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 379
What Do You Think?
By Geoff Blades
A top headline said, “Trump plans to insult his way to victory over Clinton.” While it is true that Donald Trump is a skilled insulter, in believing that he crushed sixteen of his GOP rivals by slapping a few labels on them, many observers fail to see the true source of his winning.
In the debate in Nevada last December, Jeb Bush said to Trump, “You’re never going to be president of the United States by insulting your way to the presidency.”
Trump replied, “Well, let’s see, I’m at 42 (percent) and you’re at 3 (percent), so so far I’m doing better.” In thinking that Trump was insulting his way to the presidency, Bush failed to see how Trump was thumping him, and those who make the same mistake will keep missing Trump’s real threat to Hillary.
It is of course true that Trump is already insulting with his favorite phrase, “Crooked Hillary,” but that’s only a small part of Trump’s winning playbook, and the way that he plans to beat Hillary.
And, the truth is, like tuning into a chess match that is already half way through, most of the game has already been played, and Trumps has already made most of his winning moves. Here’s five of his most crucial ones:
1. Trump’s insults are the rifle shot:
Trump insults his rivals as a way to easily disarm their attacks on him, as well as to destroy their campaigns. Consider that by labeling Ted Cruz, “Lyin’ Ted,” no matter what Cruz would throw at Trump, including legitimate accusations, Trump simply redirected to his form of character assassination. An example being lines like, “No, no. You’re the liar. You’re the lying guy up here.”
It’s a savvy move that Trump uses exceptionally well, but his insults are merely the smoking gun in his winning campaign.
2. His campaign isn’t about his rivals:
Every time a politician focuses on attacking their rival, they fail to keep driving their own messaging.
A reason that Donald upstaged all of his rivals in the debates was that, prompted or unprompted, they kept focusing attention on him. This handed Trump what he most desperately sought: More airtime and the most potent weapon of his campaign: the mic.
Of course, with mic in hand, Donald cleverly insulted a number of his rivals out of the race, but they’ve never been the target of his winning campaign.
3. Trump targets voters:
In a boxing match, the winner is the fighter who successfully beats down their opponent, but in an election, the winner is chosen by the voters.
While one way Trump beat Jeb Bush was having voters associate him as “Low Energy,” Trump’s hasn’t built his campaign on beating down his rivals, but by offering voters a more compelling vision and message.
Trump, by far, developed the best messaging of any candidate, and won the nomination by bringing millions of voters along with his campaign.
4. It’s about America:
Whereas Jeb Bush was running based on his name, exclamation point included, and Hillary is running as a woman, Barack Obama took over the country running on a platform of “Hope,” “Change,” and “Yes we can.”
Trump has done the same. Despite having a powerful brand and personality, perhaps ironically, Trump’s campaign has never been about him, but about his rally cry to “Make America great again.”
While a number of his rivals have stood for themselves or “not Trump,” Donald stands for America, and, of course…
5. How we can be great again:
Of the many lessons to be gleaned from Barack Obama’s masterful 2008 campaign, perhaps the greatest lesson is the way in which he moved voters with his optimistic vision for the country.
Optimism sells. And beyond Trump’s attention-grabbing insults and controversial comments that he has used to masterfully hog the spotlight, Trump has built his movement the same way.
I’m told that Jeb Bush still believes that Donald thrashed him with his school yard taunting, and by failing to see that he lost because he entered the race without an optimistic vision and powerful messaging, we all fail to learn the lesson.
If Trump wins, it won’t be through insults, but because he has offered American’s something they desperately want more: A leader who can make us great again.
Geoff Blades is the author of the new book, “The Trump Presidential Playbook”. A former investment banker at Goldman Sachs and investor at the Carlyle Group, Geoff Blades is an advisor to CEOs and other leaders on all topics related to winning and getting what they want. For more information, www.geoffblades.com.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Patrik Nygren/Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 257
What Do You Think?
University administrators are often criticized for not speaking up about issues that their students care about. But that is certainly not the case at the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB).
There, university president Jay A. Perman has taken a forceful stance against President Donald Trump’s anti-science agenda.
In an email to the entire university community, Perman launched into the Trump administration’s “assault on science”.
UMB is a collection of graduate degree offering institutions including a world renowned School of Medicine.
Perman wrote the email in anticipation of the March for Science that will be taking place this weekend on April 22.
“The assault on science comes not only in the form of draconian budget cuts, but in ways meant to politicize science or intimidate those who undertake it,” Perman wrote. “The administration has issued gag orders on science agencies engaging in unsanctioned speech and sent letters to agency heads ordering that they identify scientists working on climate research. As a presidential candidate, Mr. Trump endorsed theories that have no basis in science — for instance, that vaccines are linked to autism or that climate change is a hoax.”
Maggie Davis, a law and policy analyst for the Center for Health and Homeland Security at UMB is supportive of Perman’s aggressive stance.
“I think it is an appropriate critique of budget priorities of the new administration, especially considering the hostility we have seen to researchers and scientists that work for agencies like NOAA and the EPA,” Davis said. “President Perman’s statement was clearly aimed at the policies promoted by the new administration and not President Trump as an individual, which I think is the best approach to have to build stronger support for robust funding of scientific research.”
You really should read Perman’s entire letter. It is something else.
“To the UMB Community:
I know many of you are planning to join the hundreds of thousands of people expected to march this Saturday in Washington, D.C., to celebrate — and defend — science. I thank you for lending your voice and your advocacy to this movement because, without a doubt, science needs defending these days.
President Trump’s budget proposal cuts 31 percent from the Environmental Protection Agency, slashes the Department of Energy’s basic science research program, and zeros out a program that supports early-stage research into technologies that could reduce our national dependence on fossil fuels. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), which spends $32 billion a year on biomedical research — most of which goes to universities and medical schools across this country — would see a nearly 20 percent cut, bringing the agency’s budget to its lowest level in 15 years. By no means is it only science under attack: The president’s proposed budget eliminates the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
The assault on science comes not only in the form of draconian budget cuts, but in ways meant to politicize science or intimidate those who undertake it. The administration has issued gag orders on science agencies engaging in unsanctioned speech and sent letters to agency heads ordering that they identify scientists working on climate research. As a presidential candidate, Mr. Trump endorsed theories that have no basis in science — for instance, that vaccines are linked to autism or that climate change is a hoax.
And so I stand with those who will march this weekend to defend science and the scientific method. It is the scientific method that teaches us how to ask questions, form hypotheses, and then — critically — test those hypotheses with rigorous and replicable experiments. It is this method that protects us against specious theories and unproved (and unprovable) “facts.”
As a physician, I know that it is because of science that diseases that were once widespread and incurable are now — within my own lifetime — eradicated or treatable. This is the science that some in Congress and in the White House want to cut, attempting to persuade the American people that the basic research undertaken in labs across this country doesn’t affect them. But it does, and powerfully. Every modern medical advancement that has saved patients in a physician’s care and relieved their loved ones of grief had its origins in the research lab.
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, himself a physician, defended President Trump’s proposed $6 billion cut to the NIH budget by suggesting that these cuts would be carved out of the overhead costs that universities like ours incur in doing research — costs such as operating and maintaining the facilities in which the research is conducted. However, as any businessperson knows, this overhead isn’t frivolous. It’s exactly what enables our people to keep doing the research that builds the science that ultimately saves and enriches lives. And I propose that it is precisely these kinds of efforts that many Americans want their tax dollars to support.
UMB is educating the next generation of health care practitioners, scientists, researchers, and policy experts, the people who will one day solve the greatest challenges of human health and well-being. I take this responsibility to train tomorrow’s problem-solvers seriously, and I support all of you in your fight to preserve smart and humane science policy and investment.
The budget priorities of this administration do not reflect the America I know, an America strengthened by its science and scientists, by investments made in research that protects its people, advances its interests, and enlarges global cooperation. The shortsightedness we’ve seen over the last three months undoubtedly threatens science, but science will prevail. It always does.
Jay A. Perman, MD
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: University of Maryland, Baltimore/ FacebookPost Views: 405
What Do You Think?