Now that these handcuffs are in place, I see no possible advantage in casting them aside. Only Iran would gain from abandoning the restrictions on its nuclear program.Far better to police the deal with the greatest rigor — and the I.A.E.A. has certified Iran’s compliance so far — while working together to counter Tehran’s belligerent behavior in the region.What has been gained from the nuclear deal? Imagine all the mutually contaminating civil wars and internecine conflicts that rage across the Middle East today. Then turn the dial and add the possibility of a regional nuclear arms race triggered by Iran dashing for a bomb. That is the scenario which the agreement has helped to prevent.In a statement on Jan. 12, President Trump rightly identified Iran’s dangerous actions as a central cause of instability across the Middle East. Britain shares his concerns about Iran’s support for terrorist groups, its behavior in cyberspace and its long-range missile program. We also, of course, agree that Iran must never get a nuclear weapon; indeed Tehran’s obligation not to “seek, develop or acquire” such an arsenal appears (without any time limit) at the top of the deal’s preamble.On all this, Britain and America are at one. Since the president’s speech, United States and United Kingdom diplomats have been working alongside their French and German counterparts to reach a joint approach toward Iran, focused on countering Tehran’s regional meddling, reducing its missile threat and ensuring that it can never build a nuclear weapon.We all played our part in helping the Trump administration maximize the pressure on North Korea, a strategy that now appears to be bearing fruit. We share the same concerns about Iran. I believe we are very close to a position that would address President Trump’s concerns and strengthen trans-Atlantic unity.At this delicate juncture, it would be a mistake to walk away from the nuclear agreement and remove the restraints that it places on Iran. Mr. Netanyahu recently described how Iran conducted a secret project between 1999 and 2003 to research the technology for a nuclear weapon. But that project actually underscores the importance of maintaining the restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, including the I.A.E.A.’s ability to inspect key facilities.I believe that keeping the deal’s constraints on Iran’s nuclear program will also help counter Tehran’s aggressive regional behavior. I am sure of one thing: every available alternative is worse. The wisest course would be to improve the handcuffs rather than break them.

A traffic police officer in Hong Kong shot an unarmed 21-year-old pro-democracy protester at point-blank range on Monday. Hours later, a man was set on fire after defending Beijing in an argument. Both individuals were listed in critical condition.Over the weekend, wide-scale disturbances scarred the territory, a semi-autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China. There is essentially a rebellion in Hong Kong. Riot police in green uniforms are doing battle with youthful demonstrators dressed in black. Protests began in April after Chief Executive Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s top official, proposed legislation authorizing the extradition of fugitives to various jurisdictions, including Mainland China. Starting June 9, when an estimated one million Hong Kongers marched in the streets, demonstrations have been almost continuous. Lam has since permanently withdrawn the extradition bill from consideration, but the protests have not abated. Especially this week. Hong Kong braced for a weekend of disturbances after Chow Tsz-lok, a 22-year-old student at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, died on Friday after falling from a car park the preceding Sunday while running away from police tear gas. Many have accused the police of delaying medical assistance to the mortally injured Chow.Chow has been called “the first fatality linked to police action during a protest,” but many believe the police have killed others. Demonstrators believe three of their number were beaten to death on August 31 in the Prince Edward Mass Transit Railway station in Mong Kok. “Even a single death creates a cycle of revenge and retaliation that is almost impossible to control.”Since then, the above-ground entrance to the station has become a shrine, protestors have repeatedly rallied in front of the adjacent Mong Kok police station, and youth have continually trashed MTR trains and stations because they believe management of the rail system has withheld surveillance-camera footage.Even a single death creates a cycle of revenge and retaliation that is almost impossible to control. Chow’s passing sparked a weekend of rage.Moreover, Chief Executive Lam added to the tensions. In her most recent press conference, held Monday after the shooting and burning incidents, she called protesters the “enemy of the people.” Her provocative Cultural Revolution-speak comment came on the heels of her November 4 meeting with Chinese ruler Xi Jinping. China is apparently controlling events, and either out of obliviousness or maliciousness, it is making the situation worse. Beijing has been doing that by forcing Lam to take a hard line. Apart from the withdrawal of the extradition bill—doomed because the normally pro-Beijing business community came out against it early on—she has been intransigent. “Has Beijing given the green light to police officers to act as brutally as they want?”That intransigence was evident from her Monday remarks. She said she would not yield to violence, but she had previously left Hong Kong people no choice. She had, with her stubbornness, earlier foreclosed the possibility of peaceful change.Hong Kong people may not be able to change her mind, but she cannot change theirs either. The army in black—as well as many other people in the territory—have continued to protest.Analysts say Beijing will eventually lose patience and use force. “This kind of extreme, violent, and destructive activity would not be tolerated or accepted in any country or society in the world nowadays,” said Chinese Vice-Premier Han Zheng as he met with Lam early this month in Beijing.Han’s words were taken as a threat to formally deploy units of the People’s Liberation Army or the People’s Armed Police to the streets of Hong Kong to “crush” the protests and reestablish order. Beijing could move in troops, but the move is unlikely to work. Hong Kong, after all, is ideal territory for defenders, like guerilla fighters supported by an overwhelming portion of the public. Every apartment building there is a fort where hostiles can rain down explosives or petrol bombs on Chinese troops and then disappear into their homes or back alleys. Xi Jinping surely does not want his first war to take tens of thousands of soldiers, last years if not decades, and end in a loss for China.In the meantime, there is credible evidence suggesting Mainland Chinese personnel—troops or police—are now operating on Hong Kong streets in police uniforms. This sly tactic is not working, however. Why not? The Hong Kong police department, once considered the most professional force of its kind in Asia, has lost discipline, something evident from the shooting of the protester Monday and countless other incidents. The breakdown in discipline roughly coincides with early evidence that Chinese forces were mixed in with the Hong Kong police, and the resulting rough tactics have resulted in a loss of support of ordinary residents tired of being tear gassed, clubbed, and manhandled. All this raises the question whether Beijing has given the green light to police officers to act as brutally as they want. Yet whether China did so or not, harsh action by the police is sustaining support for the protesters. Demonstrators this past weekend were chanting “Revenge.” Hong Kong is now at war with itself. There is no end in sight to the fighting.

Washington is celebrating the United Kingdom’s reversal on allowing Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei into its 5G network, claiming victory after months of pressure on the British government.In Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden’s announcement that buying Huawei equipment will be banned at the end of the year and that all existing gear must be ripped out by the end of 2027, he cited the U.S. Commerce Department’s sanctions against the company in May as a turning point for the U.K.“This was a significant, material change — and one that we have to take into consideration,” Dowden told the House of Commons. “Given the uncertainty this creates around Huawei’s supply chain, the U.K. can no longer be confident it will be able to guarantee the security of future Huawei 5G equipment affected by the change in the U.S. foreign direct product rules.”The Commerce sanctions are just one component of a U.S. pressure campaign to dissuade allies from developing their fifth-generation wireless technologies using Huawei’s hardware. American intelligence agencies and regulators have long maintained that Huawei poses a national security threat because of the Chinese Communist Party’s power over companies based in China.Immediately after the U.K. announced in January that it would allow Huawei technology in its 5G networks, the Trump administration and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle sprang into action, urging their British counterparts to reconsider and even suggesting that following through with the decision could endanger intelligence sharing between the two longtime allies.Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, one of the loudest critics of Chinese technology in the Trump administration, said in a statement Tuesday that the British reversal was “welcome news.”“With this decision, the UK joins a growing list of countries from around the world that are standing up for their national security by prohibiting the use of untrusted, high-risk vendors,” he said referring to other countries — Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Latvia and Estonia — that have signed joint statements on 5G security with the U.S.“We will continue to work with our British friends on fostering a secure and vibrant 5G ecosystem, which is critical to Transatlantic security and prosperity,” he added.White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien said the U.K. decision “reflects a growing international consensus” of the threat that vendors like Huawei pose because “they remain beholden to the Chinese Communist Party.”The U.K.’s shift to that position extends beyond January — Britain in 2005 was the first country to allow Huawei into Europe — and underscores the diplomatic strength the U.S. still retains to push allies toward economically unfavorable positions.Dowden warned Tuesday that the move away from Huawei would add significant costs and delays of up to two years in deploying 5G.Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), who testified before the House of Commons Defence Select Committee in June about the threats that Huawei could pose to U.S.-U.K. intelligence sharing, said in a statement Tuesday that Britain’s decision “alleviates the US’s critical concern that any information shared with the UK would inadvertently be shared with the Chinese Communist Party through Huawei’s inclusion in its 5G network.”During last month’s hearing, committee Chairman Tobias Ellwood said “there is no doubt that we feel the pressure from the United States.”Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), the No. 3 Republican in the House and a co-sponsor of legislation to freeze Huawei out of the U.S. financial system, called the U.K.’s decision “very important,” while Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said Margaret Thatcher “would be proud.”Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) praised the U.K., adding that “U.S. communications infrastructure can only be fully secure if our allies have similar safety standards.”Democrats have been vocal on this issue as well — Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerGraham dismisses criticism from Fox Business's Lou Dobbs Lewandowski: Trump 'wants to see every Republican reelected regardless of ... if they break with the president' Democratic Senate emerges as possible hurdle for progressives MORE (N.Y.) organized a letter to the House of Commons in March to exclude Huawei from its 5G networks and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) urged Europe to avoid the company during a visit to the continent in February.Sen. Mark WarnerMark Robert WarnerSenate Intel leadership urges American vigilance amid foreign election interference Intel officials say Iran, Russia seeking to influence election Senate Intel leaders warn of election systems threats MORE (D-Va.) said in a statement that he “welcomed the developments” and hopes “that the Trump Administration will begin to engage multilaterally with like-minded allies on promoting secure and competitively-priced alternatives to Huawei equipment.”On Tuesday, Trump claimed credit for the U.K.’s reversal.“We convinced many countries — many countries, and I did this myself for the most part — not to use Huawei, because we think it’s an unsafe security risk. It’s a big security risk. I talked many countries out of using it. They want to do business with us, they can’t use it,” he said.The U.K.’s decision is by no means the end of the U.S. campaign against Huawei. O’Brien was in Paris earlier this week for talks with his counterparts from France, Germany, Italy and Britain to discuss issues including China.The U.K.’s move will likely add to mounting pressure on German Chancellor Angela Merkel to keep Huawei out of her country’s 5G plans.French officials, meanwhile, have said they will not ban Huawei outright but have encouraged telecom operators not to depend on it.

Appearing alongside his top ministers, all wearing face masks, the president acknowledged the "gravity" of the pandemic, but added: "I want to calm the Brazilian people... we can't let ourselves go into hysteria."

Enlarge this image Democratic presidential candidate and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker speaks at the Teamsters Vote 2020 Presidential Candidate Forum Dec. 7 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Win McNamee/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Win McNamee/Getty Images Democratic presidential candidate and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker speaks at the Teamsters Vote 2020 Presidential Candidate Forum Dec. 7 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Win McNamee/Getty Images Cory Booker is a politician who sounds like a preacher."We may be down in a valley right now," he said during an Iowa campaign stop this week, "but I promise you, if you stand with me, if you caucus with me, if we stand for that spirit, I promise you, we will get to the mountaintop and we'll do it, because together as Americans, we know we will rise."Voters who listen to Booker often praise his charisma and authenticity. But the New Jersey senator has struggled to gain traction in state and national Democratic presidential primary polls, and he almost certainly won't be on the party's debate stage in Iowa next week. That disconnect between many voters' reactions to Booker at his events and his overall support often surprises onlookers.Sue Dvorsky, a former chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, is unaligned with any candidate but has heard Booker speak several times. "I still get a little teary," she said. "I still get goosebumps on my arms."But Dvorsky, who was an early supporter of candidate Barack Obama in 2007, says there's a different calculus this year. A lot of voters don't want to pick a candidate with their heart; they're picking with their head, trying to find the Democrat they think has the best odds of defeating President Trump. Elections With A Month To Go Before Iowa And New Hampshire, Anything Can Happen Still, Dvorsky said: "It is undeniable that people like him."And so Booker's fans are confused: Why isn't that goodwill translating into concrete support?Some say maybe it's because he's black and many Democrats want to go with a safe, white male option this election. Others say maybe Booker's message of love and unity isn't what voters want this year; they want a fighter. Regardless, when Booker speaks he captures the attention of a crowd better than most of his rivals. "He has a really charismatic personality," Thomas Lecaque, who was sporting a Julián Castro campaign button on his jacket, said at a Booker house party. The former housing secretary, who last week dropped out of the race, had been Lecaque's first choice. But after hearing Booker in person, he was impressed."I trust him as a human being," Lecaque said. "He is someone who strikes me as being honest and idealistic in trying to do the right thing."Booker has a massive extended family in Iowa, and the other day one of his cousins hosted a black women's luncheon for him in Des Moines.One attendee, Lauren Patrick, said she wants Booker's voice in the race. "I probably would [caucus for him]," she said. "Whether that's like a loyalty within the black community or just feeling like he's a solid candidate and he should have an opportunity to be on the platform, and then how people decide to vote from there is another thing. But I just want to make sure he has a fair shot."Booker himself is pleading with Iowans in these final few weeks of campaigning ahead of the caucuses, asking them to ignore news headlines and polls."I am asking you to make a decision when you leave here to caucus for me," he told those gathered for a recent event. "I love Iowa 'cause you don't care about national polls, you really don't. You belie them all the time."Jason Oelmann was in the crowd, eagerly listening. And after he went up to take a picture with the senator. Booker recorded a video message for Oelmann's partner, who didn't make this event."We're sending you lots of love and lots of gratitude," Booker said in the video. "I hope I get to meet you. Come to one of my future events. Please."This is the Booker way: messages of love sent via modern technology. Oelmann walked away thrilled."He's very charismatic and he's very, very positive," Oelmann said of Booker. "I feel like positive energy really radiates, it speaks to me."But still, Oelmann's not sure he's going to caucus for Booker. Booker's in his top three. But that's the predicament for the New Jersey senator. He's in a lot of people's top three. He's just not necessarily their No. 1.

On Wednesday’s the world’s most powerful tech CEOs – Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple and Sundar Pichai of Google – were summoned to Washington. There, they were called to testify at the US House of Representatives’ antitrust subcommittee. It was a historic hearing that marks a significant milestone in the battle to rein in Silicon Valley.The overarching purpose of the hearings was to determine whether the companies had too much market power. Unlike their counterparts at past congressional hearings with tech executives, the subcommittee members arrived well prepared. They presented evidence. Some of the evidence revealed apparent violations of antitrust law, as with internal emails among executives at Facebook and Amazon related to each company’s acquisition of startups.The subcommittee chair, David Cicilline, and his colleagues demonstrated a nuanced understanding of the business models of internet platforms and the novel forms of anticompetitive behavior they employ. One did not need a detailed understanding of the topic to appreciate the subcommittee’s upper hand, but it helped.The format of congressional hearings does not lend itself to thoughtful inquiry. The five-minute rule for inquiry prevents a smooth flow, aggravated in this case by the inclusion of four companies, each with different issues. Even so, the hearing shed light on the subcommittee’s investigation. They appear to have enough evidence to justify formal antitrust cases against some of the companies. The subcommittee members’ questions suggest they may be prepared to push for other forms of regulation. Neither of these things was known before the hearing.American antitrust laws emerged as a response to concentrated economic power throughout the industrial economy more than a century ago. The Sherman (1890), Clayton (1914) and Federal Trade Commission (1914) Acts reflected a belief that monopoly is antidemocratic and should be eliminated even when it creates value in other ways. That framework endured until the Reagan administration, which encouraged concentration of economic power so long as it did not lead to higher consumer prices. The new model, known as the Chicago School, unleashed economic growth and a sustained bull market in stocks, with benefits that were initially widespread, but narrowed to an ever smaller percentage of the population. For the past 20 years, the top 10% enjoyed most of the benefits, especially the top 1%. The country tolerated income inequality while the economy expanded.Anticompetitive behavior has been the norm in American business for at least a decade. A laser focus on maximizing shareholder value – something which came in with the Chicago School – justified disregard for the interests of employees, the communities where employees live, suppliers and customers. It justified ever greater tax cuts and reductions in government services.The Covid-19 pandemic triggered an economic contraction, leaving nearly half the population without a job. Supply chains optimized for shareholder value have not been able to produce enough personal protective equipment, cotton swabs or testing infrastructure. A healthcare industry built for elective surgery has struggled to adapt to a public health mission. Internet platforms designed to connect us have undermined the nation’s pandemic response by amplifying disinformation, while also empowering white supremacists.Questioning the values that left world’s richest economy unable to address a pandemic is no longer the exception. Economic power in nearly every US industry is more concentrated than it has been in a century, but tech has performed best and has more impact on our democracy, public health, privacy and economy. Too much of that impact has been negative. No one doubts the good that comes from internet platforms or smartphones. The doubt comes with respect to the business practices and culture that benefit the few at the expense of the many. People are discovering that it is possible to love the services of Facebook and Google and question whether the benefits justify the harm. They wonder why they cannot have the good without the bad. The antitrust subcommittee hearing reflected all of these issues.It is possible that the four CEOs anticipated a different kind of hearing. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Alphabet’s Sundar Pichai shared their own rags-to-riches stories. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg tried to position his company’s size as a benefit. Apple’s Tim Cook made a case that his company is different from the others, which is true, though Apple exhibits anticompetitive behavior in its App Store. The CEOs appeared not to understand that the country’s values are changing, that their “users” are less willing to accept all-or-nothing terms, apologies and promises to do better. Business practices that are acceptable in a startup may not be not so for a market-dominant company.The House antitrust subcommittee must find a way to restore traditional antitrust regulation, while also addressing the new challenges posed by tech giants. When a company operates an ecosystem, what should be the limits on behavior? What rules should govern corporations that build a business around personal data? What responsibility should tech companies and their executives bear for the harms they cause? The answers remain to be determined, but the House antitrust subcommittee has submitted them for the consideration of the nation. That is progress. Roger McNamee is Managing Director at Elevation Partners and an early stage investor in Google and Facebook

The prune capital of America. That was the future Silicon Valley’s greatest claim to fame in the 1920s, when it was a sleepy landscape of fruit orchards and farms far removed from the nation’s industrial might. Seattle was a city of fishing and timber, where a young entrepreneur named Bill Boeing had so few customers for his airplanes that he briefly pivoted to making furniture. The most innovative companies in the world clustered in the ferociously inventive cities of the East and Midwest — cars in Detroit; cash registers in Dayton, Ohio; light bulbs in Cleveland.The high-tech geography began to flip in the 1950s, as electronics and aerospace boomed. Before the Eisenhower era was over, cities across the country and across the globe had started racing to capture some of the West Coast’s high-tech magic. Silicon Valley and Seattle are now a long way from biplanes and prunes.No surprise, then, that when Amazon’s founder and C.E.O., Jeff Bezos, announced last fall that his company would build “a full equal to our Seattle headquarters,” 238 places bid to become HQ, including Detroit, Dayton and Cleveland. The 50,000 tech jobs promised by Amazon are well worth a city’s spending millions in tax breaks and infrastructure. Amazon is now reportedly close to announcing a decision to divide the next headquarters between Long Island City, Queens, and Northern Virginia.So what can the new HQ2 city or cities learn from high-tech history?First and foremost: Yes, tech companies are a prize worth chasing. They offer jobs that are well-paying and productive, and attract a highly educated work force. Under the right conditions — the presence of strong research universities, access to capital and a quality of life that draws people in and keeps them there — a well-rooted tech community can seed several successive generations of companies, with the entrepreneurs of one era becoming mentors and investors and civic philanthropists in the next.

In another political age, Andrew Yang’s bid for the White House would have been a fairytale that captivated pundits and Hollywood scriptwriters.But after 2016, the idea of a man with no political or military experience running for US president is no longer novel. If anything, outsider status is almost an advantage.Even so, Yang, 45, who has never held public office, pulled off something remarkable, outlasting numerous Democratic senators, representatives and governors, featuring on all six of the first debate stages and gaining a cult following from the so-called “Yang gang”.The son of Taiwanese immigrants, his departure on Tuesday night makes him the latest candidate of colour to withdraw from what had begun as the most racially diverse field in major party history.Yang’s long-shot campaign, launched in November 2017, is likely to be remembered for a signature promise – giving every adult a monthly check for $1,000 – and self-description: “The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math.”Such quips prompted criticism that he was leaning into Asian American stereotypes, and were probably a factor in him winning the endorsement of comedian Dave Chappelle, a critic of perceived “woke” culture and political correctness.“I’m not running for president because I dreamt about being president of the United States,” Yang told a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa, earlier this month. “Trust me, those were not the conversations in the Yang household. My parents were not telling me, ‘You’re going to be president some day.’“They were more like, ‘You’re terrible, clean your room.’ But I’m a parent and a patriot who has seen the future that lies ahead for our kids and it is not something we should accept for them. They deserve better, we must give them better.”That dark future rested on a diagnosis of America’s ills that acknowledged Donald Trump had been on to something in 2016 with his simple slogan, “Make America great again”, and held that Hillary Clinton was wrong to protest America is already great.Yang had an answer for the ultimate question of life, the universe and why Trump won the election: the country automated away 4m manufacturing jobs that were concentrated in the rust belt states that switched from Democrat to Republican.“I have been to those towns where the manufacturing jobs dried up,” Yang said in Iowa. “After the plant closed, the shopping district closed and then people left, the schools shrank and that town has never recovered.”He warned that the worst is yet to come, as robots take over truck driving and much else. Amazon hovers “like a spaceship” over shopping malls which can go “from cheery to spooky awfully quick”. Trump, he contended, was a symptom of this disease, and the 2020 election can be the cure.Yang explained that he decided to run for president after visiting Washington and asking politicians for answers only to find none forthcoming.Yang’s most radical solution was a universal basic income in the form of a $1,000-a-month “freedom dividend” for US citizens. He argued that Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King, Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman all backed similar ideas, while oil-rich Alaska pays an annual dividend to citizens.He proposed that Amazon and Google would pay a value added tax to generating hundreds of billions of dollars for the scheme. He argued that universal basic income would pump money back into the economy.“This is the trickle-up economy from people, families and communities,” he told the Guardian last year during an interview conducted in the public area of a low-key Washington hotel. “It would actually work, unlike the trickle-down economy which was sold to us.”Along with the bleakness, and a lack of sure-footedness on foreign policy, there was eccentricity and quirkiness that many found a breath of fresh air. He challenged celebrities to pickup basketball games and crowd-surfed at a candidates event.Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who has endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders, tweeted on Tuesday night: “You ran a great race, Andrew Yang. Your campaign focused on the future, and looked like you were having a lot of fun doing it. Thank you for bringing up ideas like UBI and opening a discourse on how we better value undervalued work like caregiving.”The author and social activist Naomi Klein wrote: “Andrew Yang forced a national debate on UBI and GDP as a measure of economic health. Those are big ideas we need to keep discussing and it was a major contribution.”The fact he was difficult to pigeonhole ideologically attracted interest from dark corners of the internet but also worked to his advantage. At his final Iowa rally, he asked for a show of hands from 2016 Trump voters who would now support him.Among them was Grayson Feist, 22, a student in Kansas wearing a “Math” hat. “I voted for him because he was against the party, not with the system, but through and through Trump hasn’t united America. He hasn’t made America better. He’s really divided America, especially with our allies abroad. What I like about Yang is he’s so transparent.“He talks to anyone and everyone. He’s a businessman and he’s smart. The first time I went to his website he has over a hundred issues and it tells you exactly what he stands for and believes in. The way he can get anyone and everyone interested in politics, especially people who hated Trump or hated the Democratic party, people are flipping faster than people can actually count.”Meanwhile, at the same event, Frankie Chyi, 26, a dental student, said: “I was actually a Bernie supporter but I just went on to YouTube and started watching his videos. The more I listened to him talk, the more I was like, this guy sounds very genuine. He’s thinking about our future.“His ideas about automation: it’s true. A lot of our jobs have disappeared and nobody’s really doing anything to help us with it. Also, everyone’s going to love $1,000 more each month, and it’s going to help a lot of families, people who are in poverty. I really like his messages.” Topics US elections 2020 Democrats US politics features

HONG KONG (AP) — Protesters in Hong Kong battled police on multiple fronts Tuesday, from major disruptions during the morning rush hour to a late-night standoff at a prominent university, as the 5-month-old anti-government movement takes an increasingly violent turn.Gasoline bombs and fires lit up the night at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, while police massed for a possible clearing action with a water cannon truck.It was the second straight day of weekday protests and followed an especially violent day Monday in which police shot one protester and a man was set on fire.As on Monday morning, the day began with protesters shutting down parts of the commuter rail system and blocking roads. Some people took more than two hours to get to work, while others stayed home.Bus tires were punctured and debris thrown on railway tracks. Police fired tear gas at protesters who littered roadways with bricks and anything else they could get their hands on — even merchandise still wrapped in plastic and tossed out from boxes.Commuters got off one stopped train and were escorted on foot along the tracks.Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam, speaking to news media after a weekly meeting with advisers, called the blocking of the morning commute “a very selfish act.”“People from different sectors in society are holding fast to their positions and refusing to concede to violence or other radical actions,” she said. “I hereby express my gratitude to those who are still going to work and school today.”Many office workers turned out in support of the protesters, who rallied for a second day on Pedder Street in Central, a business and high-end shopping district.A few thousand people took over several blocks, chanting “Five demands, not one less” while holding up one hand with five outstretched fingers. Their demands include democratic changes and an independent investigation of police treatment of protesters.Traffic was blocked on two major roads, with buses and half a dozen of Hong Kong’s famous trams lined up unable to move. The words “Join Us” were spray painted on the front window of a halted double-decker bus abandoned by the driver and passengers. The driver-side window was shattered, with a message reading “Sorry” added later.Office workers filled the sidewalks and overhead walkways, some joining the protesters in chanting.One 24-year-old man, who would not give his name, said he was there to support the protesters and accused the police of using excessive force, a common complaint among the city’s 7.4 million people.Police fired tear gas to disperse protesters and onlookers who were hurling abuse at the officers. At least one person was injured when he was struck on the head by a tear gas canister. But protesters returned by evening and were again blocking roads with bricks and commandeered buses.Protests ebbed and flowed all day at several universities. Classes were canceled, and clashes were particularly intense at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.Scores of officers charged onto the campus after firing tear gas, arresting student protesters who tried to block their way with makeshift barricades, including a burning car.That didn’t end the standoff, which was continuing Tuesday night.Recent weeks have been marked by escalating vandalism of shops linked to mainland China and train stations, and assaults by both protesters and pro-Beijing supporters.On Monday, a police officer drew his gun during a struggle with protesters, shooting one in the abdomen. In another neighborhood, a 57-year-old man was set on fire after an apparent argument.Both remained hospitalized Tuesday, the shot protester in serious condition and the man who was burned in critical condition, the Hospital Authority said.ADVERTISEMENTVideo also showed a policeman on a motorcycle weaving at high speed through a group of protesters walking up a street.Police say those incidents are being investigated but defend the officers’ actions as necessary for their own safety.Police spokesman Kong Wing-cheung said the burning had been registered as a case of attempted murder and called on the public to provide information about the assailant.“Hong Kong’s rule of law has been pushed to the brink of total collapse,” Kong said, calling those who defend or maintain ties with violent protesters “accomplices.”In Beijing, foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang lambasted the U.S. and Britain over statements of concern about the spike in violence.“The United States and Britain pretend to be fair on this incident, but it only reveals how they confuse right and wrong and how hypocritical they are. And their verbal justice once again exposes their double standards and ulterior motives,” Geng said at a daily briefing.China accuses the U.S. and other foreign powers of fomenting and encouraging the protests.In Washington, the U.S. government said Monday that it is watching the situation with “grave concern.”″?We condemn violence on all sides, extend our sympathies to victims of violence regardless of their political inclinations, and call for all parties — police and protesters — to exercise restraint,” State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said in a statement.She urged the government to address the underlying concerns behind the protests and the protesters to respond to efforts at dialogue.Police said they had arrested 287 people on Monday, raising to the number of arrests since the movement began in June to more than 3,500. The latest arrests ranged in age from 12 to 82 years old and 190 were students.The Hospital Authority said 128 people were taken to hospitals Monday, and one remained in critical condition and five others in serious condition on Tuesday.The protests began over a proposed law that would have allowed criminal suspects to be extradited to mainland China, where they could face opaque and politically sensitive trials.Activists saw the bill as another sign of an erosion in Hong Kong’s autonomy and civic freedoms, which China promised would be maintained for 50 years under a “one nation, two systems” principle when the former British colony returned to Chinese control in 1997.Lam eventually withdrew the extradition bill but has insisted the violence stop before any further political dialogue can take place.District council elections on Nov. 24 are seen as a measure of public sentiment toward Hong Kong’s government. Pro-democracy lawmakers have accused the government of trying to provoke violence to justify canceling or postponing the vote.___Associated Press news assistant Phoebe Lai contributed to this story.

China accused the United Kingdom on Wednesday of cooperating with the U.S. in order to harm Huawei after the U.K. banned the Chinese company from participating in its 5G wireless network.A foreign ministry spokeswoman said China will protect its companies but did not indicate any potential retaliation, The Associated Press reported. “Without any concrete evidence, the United Kingdom took unfounded risks as an excuse and cooperated with the United States to discriminate, suppress and exclude Chinese companies,” Hua Chunying said, according to the AP.President Trump on Tuesday claimed to have had a big role in the U.K.’s decision, telling reporters in the Rose Garden “I did this myself, for the most part” while citing concerns Huawei is a security risk.“I talked many countries out of using it: if they want to do business with us, they can’t use it,” the president said.Hua said on Wednesday the president’s comments showed the bans were “completely unrelated to national security,” adding “this is highly politicized manipulation.” She also said ultimately the ban hurts the U.K. and China’s relationship.“This once again allows everyone to see clearly the one who is issuing threats here, there and everywhere is perhaps not China but the U.S.,” the foreign ministry spokeswoman said, according to ReutersThe U.K. announced Tuesday that Huawei would not be allowed to participate in the development of its high-speed wireless network, although the company is the top producer for switching gear for phone and internet companies. All existing Huawei gear needs to be removed by 2027.British officials said U.S. sanctions made it impossible to ensure the security of Huawei's supplies. They have claimed the president was not the sole deciding factor in the decision.China’s ambassador to Britain, Liu Xiaoming, has blasted the U.K.’s decision, calling it “disappointing and wrong.” The ambassador also questioned whether the U.K. is a safe country for international investors due to the ban.“It has become questionable whether the U.K. can provide an open, fair and non-discriminatory business environment for companies from other countries,” Liu tweeted, according to the AP.The U.S. has warned that the Chinese government could require Huawei to give it access to the networks it assists in constructing, although Huawei denies this. American officials praised the U.K.’s ban on Huawei following the country’s Tuesday announcement.

Enlarge this image Senator Cory Booker, D-N.J., listens during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington on June 2. Booker says the new legislation would "create a far greater level of accountability" for police misconduct. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Bloomberg via Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Bloomberg via Getty Images Senator Cory Booker, D-N.J., listens during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington on June 2. Booker says the new legislation would "create a far greater level of accountability" for police misconduct. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Bloomberg via Getty Images As protests against police violence continue throughout the country, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate are working on sweeping new federal legislation to combat police misconduct.The bill, called the Justice in Policing Act of 2020, includes an array of measures intended to increase police accountability, data collection and training. Co-sponsored by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., the bill would ban the use of chokeholds, "no knock" warrants and religious and racial profiling."These are common sense changes that, frankly, will create a far greater level of accountability for those police officers who violate the law, who violate our rights and who violate our common community standards," Booker told NPR's Sarah McCammon on All Things Considered Sunday.If enacted, it would also change the way police are held accountable in courts by eliminating qualified immunity, which shields public officials like police officers from being sued for actions that don't violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. In 2014, the Supreme Court heard two cases on qualified immunity and handed down two unanimous decisions upholding the legal doctrine."Qualified immunity is something that has evolved over time. It's not written into any law," Booker said. "But our highest courts in the land have decided that police officers are immune from civil cases, unless there's been specifically in the past a case of generally the exact circumstances that has led towards a successful action. ... It creates this bar towards civil action against a police officer for violating your civil rights."Opponents to eliminating qualified immunity argue that police need protection from unnecessary lawsuits. But Booker says he thinks there should still be an option to allow citizens to open civil action against officers."I'm a big believer that police officers and towns and communities that employ them should protect them from frivolous lawsuits," Booker said. "But when it's so clear that an officer has violated community standards, department standards and the civil rights of Americans, that they should be open to civil action."The measure comes just days after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., asked the Congressional Black Caucus to draft legislation in response to the weeks-long protests that have erupted across the nation following the death of George Floyd."It is time for us to address the concerns that were being expressed by the protesters," Pelosi said Tuesday. "This is not a single incident. We know this is a pattern of behavior and we also know the history that brings us to this sad place."Robert Baldwin III and Tinbete Ermyas produced and edited this story for radio.

In Courtroom 2, the government lawyer, Dan Hua, told the judge that a request for an asylum seeker and her son to undergo a psychological evaluation in the United States — important evidence for her claim, according to their lawyer — had been denied because “we don’t have enough personnel available to escort and monitor them.”“What if it were done in the courtroom?” asked the judge, Scott Simpson, with a puzzled look.“It would hold up others from returning to Mexico,” Mr. Hua responded.The problem was not resolved; the judge scheduled another hearing.“If I can’t get a lawyer, is there still a possibility of asylum?” a man in Courtroom 4 asked Judge Philip S. Law, who had already given him an extension.“You must appear with or without representation,” the judge replied.Most of the migrants had been provided a list of pro bono legal services by United States authorities. But that had not helped, they said.In Courtroom 2, a Honduran migrant named Silvia said, “I called them all. No one wants to help me because I’m in Tijuana.”Carlos, the Baptist preacher from El Salvador, said he had fled to the United States after his 14-year-old daughter began receiving death threats. They waited a month in Tijuana for their number, 2036, to be called for processing at the San Ysidro port of entry.

In that context, E.gg is fun to look at, but it also scans as a rhetorical exercise to prove a point. When I reached out to Facebook to hear more about why E.gg was created, I was directed to a recent report—commissioned by Facebook—showing that “about one-third of [the] top 100 most downloaded apps are new entrants each year.” In other words, that there is no monopoly on human attention, and there is plenty of room for creative upstarts. Ime Archibong, the head of the New Product Experimentation team, reiterated this point in an emailed statement, saying, “Last year, the average person had 93 apps installed on their phone and used 41 per month … All of this choice and competition fuels innovation.”At the hearing, Representative Joe Neguse of Colorado hounded Zuckerberg over the consolidation of the social-media market, listing Myspace, Friendster, Orkut, and Cyworld as examples of Facebook competitors that existed in 2004—when the company launched—but either don’t exist or don’t matter now. Zuckerberg disagreed with the implication, responding, “Congressman, those were some of the competitors, and it’s only gotten more competitive since.”Some of Facebook’s toughest questioning yesterday came from Representative Jerry Nadler of New York, who pressed Zuckerberg on the company’s 2012 acquisition of Instagram. He quoted from emails obtained by the subcommittee in which Zuckerberg appears to identify Instagram as a competitive threat, and to consider this threat as a primary reason for acquiring the platform—on its face, an obvious violation of antitrust law. Nadler was the only member of the committee to openly suggest that Instagram should be spun off from Facebook as a separate company.In his defense, Zuckerberg argued that “almost no one” thought of Instagram as a “general social network” in 2012. It was just a photo-sharing app, but Facebook made it into a juggernaut. A logical follow-up question went unsaid: Might Instagram have become something more interesting than a Facebook property with more than 1 billion users and all of the same large-scale moderation problems as its parent company? Nor was there much discussion of the many methods by which Facebook has mutated Instagram to function more like Facebook itself, alienated its co-founders, and knit the apps together in obnoxious ways.

Although Trump and his team most likely already had a copy of the dossier, or at the very least were cognizant of its salacious and unverified contents, we agreed with Comey that it would be best to ensure that at least the president-elect was aware of it. Comey told Trump that he had some information to share with him privately, but allowed that he could have someone from his team join him. Trump opted not to have anyone else participate. Given the nature of the allegations, they were understandably best handled one-on-one.As soon as I left the conference room, I immediately went to the elevators and descended Trump Tower accompanied only by my security detail. While the briefing was uneventful and the president-elect was relatively well behaved, I had become even more convinced that my long-held assessment of Trump’s narcissism, lack of principles, and unfitness for the country’s highest office was accurate. He showed no intellectual curiosity about what Russia had done and how it had carried out its campaign to interfere in the election, which suggested to me that he wasn’t interested in learning the truth or in taking action to prevent a recurrence. More ominously, I left with a dark feeling that our country was entering what would be a very painful and dangerous chapter of its history.It was a relief to leave Trump Tower and to have the day’s briefings finally over. I just wanted to get to New Jersey, so I could be with my family to grieve for my father and console my mother.A few minutes after I arrived at the Higgins and Bonner Echo Lake Funeral Home in Westfield, New Jersey, Kathy and our children, Kyle, Kelly, and Jaclyn, pulled into the parking lot after their four-hour drive from Herndon. Steadily, other family members, friends, and former neighbors poured into the funeral home to say goodbye to Owen Brennan and tell his children and grandchildren how lucky we were to have had such a good and decent man as a father, grandfather, and role model. That evening, Kathleen, Tommy, and I, accompanied by our spouses and children, went to see my mother, Dottie, who, in her 96th year, was too feeble to venture out to the funeral home to be with her life’s partner one last time. “How is Daddy?” she asked us, as we gathered round her.“He’s fine, Mom,” we said. “He’s now with God.” She then blessed herself, as tears rolled down her face.The ground was already covered in a blanket of snow when our family gathered at the funeral home early on Saturday morning to pay final tribute to my father’s legacy. As Kathleen, Tommy, and I once again greeted family and friends as they arrived at the funeral home, I was taken aback when I saw two familiar faces arriving within minutes of each other. Jim Clapper and Denis McDonough, President Obama’s chief of staff, were two of my closest colleagues and friends in the Obama administration. Unbeknownst to me or to each other, they had traveled separately early that morning from their homes outside Washington, D.C., to pay their respects to my father. Over the years that we worked together, Jim, Denis, and I frequently shared stories about our families, and I had always taken great delight in bragging about my New Jersey roots and my wonderful parents. As my father’s medical condition had steadily deteriorated in December, Jim and Denis regularly asked about him, and they extended their heartfelt personal condolences when he passed.

We need to get off fossil fuels, for environmental reasons yes but also for political & economic reasons (we can't keep fraking, we're destroying our groundwater and that stuff is getting scarce). What do you propose as an alternative? I liked Yang because he did the math and saw that without hydroelectric and nuclear power we will not get off of fossil fuels. We have people like Bernie and Warren that want to close all the nuclear power plants and tear down all the dams. If you want to see an economic and environmental disaster then getting rid of nuclear and hydro power would do that.I did see Warren concede that we should keep existing nuclear power plants open and this simply destroys her argument against nuclear power. If nuclear power is not safe then we should be closing them all down as soon as possible. If there is a problem with the disposal of the radioactive waste then the longer they run the more waste gets produced. If this is a matter of solar and wind being cheaper than nuclear power then we should close them down for cost reasons alone.Yang didn't buy into this bullshit on the "Green New Deal" which called for abandoning nuclear and hydro power, and that's one big reason I liked him in the race. With him gone who is left to bring sense to this debate on national energy policy? It looks like "Mayor Pete" might be supportive.I'm seeing a lot of Democrats running that still think gun control is a good idea, it is not. Voters aren't screaming for gun control as most are simply neutral on it, the rest is either a very small (if perhaps quite vocal) minority or pro-RKBA. This is just a losing policy. Also a loser is abortion, and this was demonstrated in a recent rally Mayor Pete held where he was asked about where pro-life Democrats fit in the party.The Democrats would be doing far better right now if they backed off on the loser issues and actually did what they said we should do, that is "listen to the science". Science tells us how to get off fossil fuels but they are not listening to the ecologists, economists, physicists, meteorologists, geologists, and so on. All they seem to listen to are the "climate scientists" which is just a bunch of people that self selected into thinking on one problem with one solution. That's not listening to the science if the outcome is predetermined and then going out to look for evidence to support it.This is even assuming that things are as bad as they are claimed. Right now the environment is very clean, and the USA has been lowering it's CO2 output for years. This will not continue with the policies from many of the Democrats running for POTUS now.I saw polling that Yang could win against Trump in the general election, with far better chances than all the others running right now. The Democrat party though is increasingly being run by socialists, and that doesn't sell well with the general public.

At least one million people have entered Colombia from Venezuela since President Nicolás Maduro’s government descended into crisis last year, a senior Red Cross official told AFP on Wednesday.The health director at the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Emanuele Capobianco, said that not all have stayed in Colombia as displaced people, with some moving on to other countries in the region.“To date we know that approximately one million people have entered Colombia through official migration points, and we don’t know how many have entered Colombia through unofficial migration points,” he said in a phone interview in Geneva, specifying that this movement had occurred “since mid-2017”.With the economic crisis in Venezuela intensifying, an estimated 37,000 people were now crossing the Colombian border each day, he added. On a recent trip to the region, Capobianco said he witnessed “a constant stream of people”, leaving Venezuela, some with their belongings strapped to their backs. While the group is diverse, with some only looking to work in Colombia for a short period before returning home, most are on the move because they cannot meet their basic needs in Venezuela, Capobianco explained. He described the situation as a “humanitarian crisis that needs to be better assessed”, including from a public health standpoint amid rising cases of malaria, diphtheria and other serious ailments affecting those migrating. Maduro’s alleged crackdown on opposition and attempt to consolidate control of the country has triggered a tough global response, notably from the United States which has levied tough sanctions. The South American country is in partial default on its debt and suffers severe shortages of food and medicines despite sitting atop the planet’s biggest proven oil reserves. Caracas has been printing money as foreign reserves dwindle, and the national currency, the bolivar, has become nearly worthless. Topics Venezuela Colombia Refugees Americas news

The wisdom of each of those measures will be sorely tested now, as the coronavirus threatens to morph into a full-blown pandemic. More than 100,000 people across more than 80 countries have been infected with the new virus — and more than 3,400 of them have died, including at least 14 in the United States.Proponents of closed borders and small social safety nets have a tendency to highlight the tension between citizen and noncitizen, to imply or explicitly state that the only way to help one group is to deprive the other. But the truth is, people on both sides are hanging by a thread.Among noncitizens, the effects of the public charge rule and other fear-based immigration policies have long been apparent. New mothers are turning away free baby formula. Hungry families are turning away food assistance. The chronically and even fatally ill are avoiding hospitals and rejecting medical care. In 2019, The Atlantic reported that at least 200 eligible families in a Virginia county had stopped accepting WIC and that many were also turning down reduced-price lunches. Both of those programs are exempted from the public charge rule — using them will not count against a person’s visa or green card application — but those families were too afraid to chance it.It’s easy to see how all this fear might feed on itself in the months ahead and also where that might lead. If citizens struggling to cover their own health care nurture resentments against any group perceived to be getting help to which they themselves are not entitled — or worse, if they grow xenophobic and subscribe to the notion that immigrants carry diseases — they might be compelled to endorse policies even more draconian than those already in play. That would create more anxiety among noncitizen communities, which would lead to fewer people seeking medical care when they need it. From there, the epidemic would only get worse.

Five years ago, when demonstrators occupied roads in the heart of Hong Kong to demand (ultimately in vain) democratic reforms, the urgency of the moment was already coming into greater focus. After the movement failed to win any concessions, new political parties emerged, calling for more radical measures such as self-determination or even Hong Kong’s full independence from China, and faith in the city’s political system fell precipitously.One young protester I spoke to, who asked not to be identified because she feared retribution, told me how those 2014 protests, the Umbrella Movement, awakened her to the political complexities at play. Born in the year of the handover, she spoke of how the 2047 deadline had determined the way she saw her own future. “In very few situations do you have to plan for the next 50 years when you’re 20,” she told me. “It’s not because of some career advancement; it’s because you literally don’t know whether your home is going to exist in 2047.”She is not alone in that view: When members of the public were invited to put questions to Hong Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, at an event in September, a young man pointed out that she would be 90 years old in 2047, but he would be only 55. The expiration date might not matter to her at that age, he said, but it would still matter to him. “After 2047, do we have a future?” he asked.Au himself has spent a great deal of time and energy considering what the future might look like for the city’s residents. Dialect, a short film that he directed, was one of five works by different directors featured in Ten Years, a 2015 movie that depicted Hong Kongers’ worst fears as the clock ticks toward the end of the guarantee on the territory’s semiautonomous status. In Dialect, a taxi driver struggles to make a living because of new rules that stipulate he must speak Mandarin, the official language of mainland China, rather than Hong Kong’s dominant language, Cantonese.Set in 2025, Ten Years resonated with Hong Kongers; at the showing I attended when it was first released, a young primary-school teacher sitting next to me was in tears. Envisioning events such as the imprisoning of activists and the quashing of an independence movement, the film has already proved prescient. Somewhat unsurprisingly, it was banned on the mainland, where it was declared a “thought virus” by the state-controlled Global Times newspaper and struggled to get a proper run in Hong Kong cinemas, despite sold-out shows. Au still sees the film as relevant now. “The taxi driver is the Hong Kong people if we lose this battle,” he said.Fears for Hong Kong’s future were not always so prevalent. The origins of the 2047 deadline date back to the 19th-century Opium Wars, when China ceded parts of Hong Kong to Britain in perpetuity and leased one area, the northern New Territories, for 99 years, a period that ended in 1997. As that date drew near, the two nations opened talks to decide Hong Kong’s fate, eventually signing the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984. That treaty laid out the terms of the handover, stipulating that Hong Kong would fall under the direct authority of Beijing, but also awarding it a high degree of autonomy, a “one country, two systems” formula. Its capitalist system and liberties unseen on the mainland, including an independent judiciary and freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, would be protected for a half century.

1. A republic is a form of democracy. Look it up.2. What you really support is a system where one group of people have a vote that is more powerful than others. What's the justification for that? "Majority rule" may not be ideal, but it is certainly better than "Minority rule" which is what you support. Taken to extremes, what you support is an oligarchy.1) Perhaps you should look it up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] A republic (Latin: res publica, meaning “public affair”) is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are attained, through democracy, oligarchy, autocracy, or a mix thereof, rather than being unalterably occupied. As such it has become the opposing form of government to a monarchy and has therefore no monarch as head of state.[1][2][3]2) I enjoy how you broadcast you're going to skew my position, then you accuse me of said alternation of position. You realize you only broadcast your own uncertainty when you pull such a fallacy, right?One of the many reasons majority rule is a horrible idea is that it tends to squash dissenting, or minority, opinions. Often times literally. Another reason is that it's susceptible to the immediate passions of the people. Rarely are good decisions made when people are angry/fearful or otherwise experiencing strong emotions; a republic acts as a break to these behaviors...or should ( as I said, not perfect ). The second iraq war is a great example of a failure in that regard, but alternatively it's a great example of why a democracy would be a horrible idea.Our founding fathers knew what would happen if everyone had a vote; you'd get the mess we have today. Sure, their means of identifying the "voting class" was questionable, but for the time period it made sense. Today's "voting class" should draw from several disciplines of life; anyone and everyone who demonstrates an understanding of economics and government.In your world, the druggy pooping on the street in SF would have just as much voting rights as you or I. We can wax philosophical about freedom, but admit it; that's terrifying. Or should be, if you truly respected the power of the vote.

Did you have similar experiences at Second City?STRONG I understudied for their stages, but I really just did their touring company and then we did the cruise. I’m sure what you did was much higher-brow and funnier than an hour of sketch comedy on a cruise ship.O’HARA Wow, I didn’t know you did cruise ships.STRONG Well, I just did one. Not to brag.O’HARA What was it like? Was it fun?STRONG It was my first paying comedy job, so that was the most exciting part. But it was a four-month contract. It was like being on a vacation. Then the third month started. Then I was like, is this more of a prison? I just really wanted to spend a night on land at some point again.O’HARA When I got into the Second City touring company — John Candy, God bless him, cast me in the touring company — I had just come out of high school. We went to do a show, we’d show up at the theater and we’d be locked out. There might be five people waiting to be in the audience. Once we had to scale a wall and break into a window upstairs to be able to do a show.One quality that your best-known characters have in common is that they’re supremely ignorant about how they are coming across to other people. What do you find interesting about these kinds of characters?STRONG I’m painfully self-aware and am always embarrassed, even if I don’t have a reason to be. So I’m always fascinated by those people — people who yell in public, people who get upset at a clerk at a store. You’re just like, oh my God, this is humiliating to watch, but I love it.