db777

New Delhi: A shell-shocked Congress said Saturday that the party’s drubbing in Maharashtra was an outcome of “targeted ground-level manipulation”, expressing surprise over the turnaround made by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the state after having performed poorly in the Lok Sabha elections barely five months ago. Addressing a press conference at the All India Congress Committee (AICC) headquarters in New Delhi, party general secretary in charge of communications Jairam Ramesh alleged that the stakes were so high for the BJP in Maharashtra that it misused the administrative machinery to ensure favourable results. “There is no doubt that the level playing field, a term that the Election Commission often uses, was attacked in a targeted manner. The results are unexpected and extremely surprising,” Ramesh said, avoiding a pointed attack on the electronic voting machines (EVMs). The Congress had made such an attack after its loss in the Haryana assembly polls in October. On Saturday, the Congress leadership questioned the fairness of the elections in a more roundabout way. Ramesh said the credit that is often reserved for the BJP’s micromanagement in elections is essentially a “euphemism” for “ground-level manipulation”. “Each one of our leaders has been targeted. These are leaders who have won election after election. Never have any questions been raised against them...[they] are models of integrity,” Ramesh said. “They include senior ministers, former chief ministers. It’s targeted manipulation. After all, the administrative machinery is also controlled by them, the BJP. There is no state where the stakes are as much for the BJP as in Maharashtra,” the Congress leader added. Following the Haryana results on 8 October, the Congress, which failed to reclaim the state from the BJP, had rejected the verdict in an unprecedented manner, saying it was “a victory of manipulation, the victory of subverting the will of the people and a defeat of transparent democratic processes”. Subsequently, it approached the poll body, flagging instances of EVMs found with 99 percent battery capacity during and after counting. These registered BJP wins, the party said, while those at 60-70 percent charge registered Congress victories, it claimed. The Election Commission responded on 29 October, dismissing the allegations. The Election Commission had also retorted that “such frivolous and unfounded doubts have the potential of creating turbulence when crucial steps like polling and counting are in live play, a time when both public and political parties’ anxiousness is peaking”. It accused the Congress of raising the “smoke of a generic doubt about the credibility of an entire electoral outcome in exactly a similar manner as it had done in the recent past”. While hailing the JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha)-Congress alliance’s victory in Jharkhand, Congress spokesperson Pawan Khera said this would not deter the party from raising questions over the results in Maharashtra. Ramesh also said the electoral reverses would not cause the Congress to deviate from its agenda of highlighting economic inequality, the demand for a nationwide caste census, its campaign against social polarisation and the alleged nexus between the BJP and the Adani Group. “There will not be any change in the Congress party’s agenda,” he asserted. (Edited by Radifah Kabir) Also Read: Devendra Fadnavis wins for fourth time from Nagpur South West with lead of almost 40k votes Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Δ document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() );Northwestern hopes hot streak continues vs. NortheasternThe next clash in a contentious zoning battle in Middlebury will hinge on how a state judge reads a state law tailored to the block the development of a proposed 670,000-square-foot warehouse and distribution complex on the former Timex headquarters property. The Middlebury Small Town Alliance and two neighboring property owners are claiming in court filings that wetlands and zoning approvals for the controversial project violated that 2023 state law that was stealthily enacted at the request of state Rep. William Pizzuto, R-Middlebury, a nearby homeowner and an open opponent of the proposed development. The law limits the size and location of warehouse and distribution operations in Middlebury. Pizzuto leveraged his vote for a bipartisan two-year, $51.1 billion state budget to get local zoning restriction on the statute books. He lives within 500 feet of the Christian Road entrance to the Timex property in the private Avalon Farms neighborhood and publicly opposed the Southford Park project. The Middlebury Planning and Zoning Commission, the Middlebury Conservation Commission, and developer David Drubner and business partners in Southford Park LLC are counter claiming in court filings that the 2023 law does not apply to the proposed development project. Southford Park received approvals to build a 539,500-square-foot building and a smaller 130,000-square-foot building. Hundreds of town residents opposed the project, and some opponents formed the Middlebury Small Town Alliance to fight it. The Middlebury Small Town Alliance and the two sets of neighboring property owners are also contesting a lot line revision that critically reconfigured the project site, disputing the proposed development is a permitted use under zoning regulations, and alleging a violation of the state’s minority representation law involving the political makeup of the Middlebury PZC. Arguments are scheduled for 3 p.m. today in Waterbury Superior Court in three consolidated cases that Middlebury Small Town Alliance and the neighboring property owners have brought against the two land-use commissions and Southford Park. THE CONSOLIDATED APPEALS present the first opportunity for a state court to interpret and apply the 2023 law that Pizzuto got quietly inserted into the bipartisan budget package that Gov. Ned Lamont and General Assembly leaders negotiated. No legislation proposing the zoning restriction was ever introduced or given a hearing. Pizzuto and House Republican leaders capitalized on Lamont’s desire for a bipartisan budget vote to get the provision inserted in the 832-page budget bill at the last minute. He has denied exchanging his budget vote for the zoning restriction. He was re-elected to another two-year term in November as an unopposed candidate_ The law imposes a size limit of 100,000 square feet for “warehousing or distributing facilities” on one or more parcels that are less than 150 acres in towns with a population between 6,000 and 8,000 that also contain more than 5 acres of wetlands and are situated within two miles of an elementary school. If all criteria apply, it bars the siting, construction, permitting, operation or use of a larger warehouse or distribution center in the town. The Middlebury PZC and Conservation Commission each determined that the 2023 law is inapplicable based on two legal opinions that concluded that the wetlands condition does not apply following a lot line revision to the project site. The Middlebury Small Town Alliance disputes those interpretations of the law. The trial court will decide which side is legally in the right. TIMEX GROUP USA and Southford Park completed a $7.5 million sale in August 2023 for much of the nearly 93-acre Christian Road property that had been the site of the Timex world headquarters since 2001. In addition, the development group acquired a neighboring 18-acre property on Southford Road belonging to another Drubner family partnership. A lot revision filed at the same time combined the two properties. The revised lot lines resulted in a 77-acre parcel and a 35-acre parcel subject to a conversation easement. The larger parcel contained 3.8 acres of wetlands and the smaller one contained 3.9 acres. In separate legal opinions, attorneys Mark Branse of the Hartford law firm of Halloran & Sage and Gail E. Taggart of the Waterbury law firm of Secor Cassidy & McPartland concluded the 100,000-square-foot size limit is not applicable to either parcel because each contains less than 5 acres of wetlands. Each opinion also concluded the revised lot line map depicts separate parcels that are owned by two separate property owners, so they must be considered as separate The Middlebury Small Town Alliance and the neighboring property owners are challenging both conclusions in court filings, saying the interpretations of the 2023 law are erroneous, and calling the lot line revision an impermissible end run to ensure neither parcel had more than 5 acres of wetlands to trigger the statute and the resulting two parcels inextricably linked as one project site. SOUTHFORD PARK ARGUES in its court filings that the Middlebury PZC properly found the 2023 law did not apply based on a plain reading of the statute and its proper reliance on two legal opinions that concluded the law was inapplicable. The developers also dispute the court has jurisdiction to hear the associated lot line claims. The Middlebury PZC denies in its court filings that its approvals for the Southford Park project violated the 2023 law, the commission improperly interpreted its zoning regulations and approved the lot line revision, and the commission’s political makeup violated the minority representation statute. Southford Park also disputed the latter two claims in its court filings. The Middlebury Small Town Alliance and the neighboring property owners are claiming the Middlebury PZC was illegally constituted at its Jan. 4 meeting when members approved a site plan for the Southford Park project, a zone text change concerning building height, and an excavation permit the development group needed to proceed with its plan because an alternate Republican member was seated violating minority representation requirements. The Middlebury PZC not only disputes this claim, but also argues in court filings that the challenged Republican alternate chosen was the only alternate member of the commission who attended all of the hearings and meetings on the zoning applications. The death of a Democratic commissioner before the Jan. 4 meeting necessitated the appointment of an alternate.

SIR Keir Starmer faces fury after backing a war crimes arrest warrant for the Israeli PM. Benjamin Netanyahu is alleged to have broken international laws in the war against Hamas. He faces arrest if he travels to any country party to the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction, including the UK. Following the issue the warrant yesterday, Downing Street said PM Sir Keir “respects the independence of the ICC”. No10 said it will now be up to domestic courts to make a final determination on whether Britain endorses the decision. A spokesman also refused to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be welcome in Britain and would not clarify whether he would be arrested if he travelled here tomorrow. READ MORE ON ISRAEL HAMAS WAR But Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: “The UK shouldn’t enforce this farcical warrant from a politicised court . Starmer is a disgrace.” Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel added: “Labour must condemn and challenge the ICC’s decision.” And ex-Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: “The ICC has lost credibility. They’ve made a mockery of the law and undermined the international rules-based system.” The UK is a signatory of the ICC, based in the Netherlands , and Attorney General Richard Hermer has repeatedly vowed to respect its rulings. Most read in The Sun The court also issued arrest warrants against former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant and presumed-dead Hamas chief Mohammed Deif . Its judges said there were “reasonable grounds” the men bore criminal responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel and Hamas reject the allegations. Mr Netanyahu’s office called it anti-Semitic. US President Joe Biden’s administration also “fundamentally rejected” the ruling.

Pundit urges end to big-ticket measuresThe Nebraska Huskers offense may still be a work in progress but there does appear to be progress. A strong effort from the Big Red on both sides of the ball has Nebraska up 14-10 on the Wisconsin Badgers at halftime. Follow us on Facebook Related: Nebraska vs. Wisconsin: Keys to watch, predictions for Big Ten matchup Offensively, another week under new offensive coordinator Dana Holgorsen seems to have led to some improvement. Nebraska had just one three-and-out on six possessions in the first half, although there was also a turnover that gave Wisconsin the ball in the red zone. Overall, the unit moved the ball efficiently. The Huskers went 55 yards over six plays for an opening drive touchdown — Nebraska's first since Week 3 against Northern Iowa. In the second quarter, Dante Dowdell's 12-yard run capped an eight-play, 80-yard drive for a 14-7 Huskers lead. Finally, senior Jahmal Banks got his foot down in the back of the end zone with 17 seconds left in the half to make it 21-10 Huskers. A thing of beauty. 📺 @BigTenNetwork pic.twitter.com/Lm7WjsKERe Then, the Huskers capitalized on a big Wisconsin fumble right before halftime, with John Hohl cashing in from 37 yards out to push Nebraska's lead to 14. The Big Red offense racked up 237 yards of total offense in the first 30 minutes, averaging 6.8 yards per play, including 6 yards per carry and 9.4 yards per completion. Defensively, the Huskers benefitted from two missed field goals by the Badgers but the unit was still solid after allowing Wisconsin to march down the field for a touchdown on its first possession. After that, Nebraska allowed just 4.7 yards per play the rest of the half. The Badgers totaled 201 yards of offense but just 50 on the ground, with the Huskers forcing Braedyn Locke to beat them. If the Blackshirts can generate pressure on Locke a little more consistently and stay stout against the run, Nebraska could have a bowl berth secured at the end of the day. Dylan Widger-Imagn Images

None

The uncomfortable question about ‘Latino’ voters

10-man Barcelona concedes two late goals in draw at Celta Vigo

Democratic senator says party’s next presidential nominee must ‘talk like a normal person’Recently, aespa went viral on a Korean online community for allegedly using body makeup. It is no secret that South Korean beauty standards put a lot of emphasis on pale skin. K-Pop idols with lighter skin tones are often praised for their complexion, which includes the aespa members. But recently, a video went viral on social media platforms for pointing out that all aespa members appear to be wearing body makeup to make their complexion appear lighter. A Korean netizen posted a compilation of a few such videos from TikTok on Nate Pann , attracting over 170,000 viewers as of writing. The viral post has since sparked some debate. While some argued that it could be the effect of lighting, others pointed out that using body makeup is a standard practice in K-Pop, and targeting aespa alone was done in bad taste. However, some netizens also agreed that upholding such beauty standards did not agree with the perspective of a global audience. “But isn’t it also because of the lighting? In the past, when SNSD’s Tiffany looked so brown under the podium, but once she went up on the stage and the flashes went off, her skin looked white.” “But it’s not just aespa that does this. All the idols do it as well. So why are aespa the only ones getting posts like this written about them? Honestly, Karina and Winter were always fair-skinned.” “aespa’s real skin is already on the pale side, so this kind of a doesn’t affect them at all, haha. If you look at their candid early debut photos, even the ones where they are unstyled, their legs are really white. Why would anyone post something about body makeup for aespa? Of course, as celebrities, they need to pay attention to every visible part of their body, so they probably use some tone-up cream, but their skin is already naturally fair. Photos like those just have differences in lighting and shadows, which create more contrast, that’s all. aespa’s skin has always been naturally fair...” “Do you think the idol you like doesn’t use body makeup? Pretty much every celebrity does it, so why act like only aespa does? In fact, aespa’s were already fair to begin with.” “But is it a bad thing to use body makeup? It’s true that aespa’s skin is fair, and it’s also true that they use body makeup. So why are people insisting they don’t use whitening cream? These days, body makeup is a basic thing for celebrities.” “Since they are going global, idols and actresses’ obsession with being fair is heavily mocked overseas.” “Your natural skin tone isn’t the same all over your body, so it just seems like people are overreacting.” aespa NCT’s Taeyong Sparks Heated Debate After Publicly Liking Female Idol’s Post On Instagram Aespa’s Karina Undergoes Hair Transformation Aespa’s Karina Completely Upgrades Her Visuals After One Change Aespa’s Karina Spotted Looking Stressed-AF Listening To (G)I-DLE Soyeon’s “2024 MMAs” Speech See more aespa