The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

The Program in Visual Arts presents an exhibition of recent work created by students in the fall course, "Painting I," taught by Pam Lins and Colleen Asper. Gallery Hours: Weekdays, 7 AM-8:30 PM; Weekends, 9 AM-8:30 PM.

It is undeniable that TV has a huge impact on us. It also has a huge impact on how we live! For a long time, TV shows have started interior design movements or made them popular. These TV shows are the reason these interior designs were so famous! Downton Abbey- British Edwardian There is something ... Read more

The post Interior Design Trends – And The Shows That Inspired Them appeared first on Star Two.

In Heretic, Hugh Grant plays the villain. He tells Morning Edition that actors are drawn to the bad guys "rather than the dreary, goody-two-shoes lead."

Their movies feature lush cinematography (whether in color or black-and-white), passionate romances that are all the more affecting because the characters are so very British.

Now that Donald Trump has won the election, he is going to have to deal with Vladimir Putin and Russia, and that isn’t going to be easy.  The Russians have no incentive to end the conflict because they are steadily gobbling up territory in eastern Ukraine.  As long as the Russians are making progress toward …

(Oct. 28)  The roots of this nation’s Progressive Movement were racist, repressive, dismissive of the First Amendment and other civil liberties, and hostile to women’s rights to vote or to petition elected officials. Those […]

The post New biography shows an evil Woodrow Wilson appeared first on Quin Hillyer.

The UFC announces it will host a Fight Night event in London on 22 March.

Steph Curry scores 37 points to guide the Golden State Warriors to victory - and spoil Klay Thompson's return with the Dallas Mavericks.

The Northern Taurids are at their peak on 11-12 November - but will the clouds part to let us see them?

Photographer Jim Grover heads to a village hall where tradition is alive - and deer have eaten the roses.

Satellite images and on-the-ground photos show the scale of destruction caused by the floods.

Molly McGregor, 29, was fined £450 for not showing her railcard during a rail journey in May.

Police bodycam footage of Trump 2020 campaign Advisor Brad Parscale’s arrest was released on Monday showing officers bodyslamming Parscale once he emerged outside his home shirtless with a beer in his hand during a tense scene after his wife told the police that he was suicidal. “Listen, I’m not trying to kill myself. She’s lying, I didn’t […]

The post Police Bodycam Footage Released Shows Trump 2020 Adviser Brad Parscale Bodyslammed During Arrest appeared first on Hispolitica.

Where is the next generation of elite English coaches coming from?

1. Coldplay announces fourth show in Ahmedabad on 25 January. Tickets available from… | Today News  Mint
2. Coldplay announces new show in Ahmedabad: Check date, how to book tickets and more  India Today
3. Coldplay Announces Fourth Concert In India. Check Out Date, Venue And Ticket Prices  NDTV Movies
4. Coldplay announces new show in Ahmedabad, check details here  CNBCTV18
5. entertainment News Live Today November 13, 2024: Coldplay announced 4th India show in Ahmedabad: Check out ticket sale details  Hindustan Times

It was inevitable that a big streamer like Showmax would use the story of the Station Strangler for a 99-minute standalone documentary.

Update: Surveillance footage of the shooting shown in court

Letcher County Sheriff Shawn "Mickey" Stines shot dead District Judge Kevin Mullins in his chambers, was charged with first-degree murder, and has pleaded not guilty. It soon became apparent that Stines had no intention of resigning, despite the inconvenience of his incarceration, leaving authorities to deal with the long and difficult process of removing him from office. — Read the rest

The post Kentucky Sheriff who killed judge plans to retire; footage of shooting shown in court appeared first on Boing Boing.

Surveillance footage of Sheriff Shawn "Mickey" Stines shooting and killing District Judge Kevin Mullins in his own chambers was played in a Kentucky court yesterday, shocking onlookers. Judge Rupert Wilhoit found probable cause to refer Stines' first-degree murder charge to a grand jury. — Read the rest

The post Surveillance footage of Kentucky Sheriff killing judge shown in court appeared first on Boing Boing.

If you have ever thought, "I wish I could play as an 8-bit version of Janet Weiss or Brad Majors," you are in luck. You can "Jump to the left and dodge to the right" in the upcoming video game adaptation of everyone's favorite midnight movie. — Read the rest

The post The Rocky Horror Picture Show is now a video game appeared first on Boing Boing.

Last week I went up to San Francisco for the Winter Fancy Food Show. This annual trade show draws more than 1,400 food companies from 30 countries who come to SF to show off their newest food products to the retail and hospitality vendors and food media. Last year, I spent a lot of time at the […]

The article Favorite Finds from the Winter Fancy Food Show 2017 originated at EverInTransit.com

Shortly after President-elect Donald Trump appointed Tom Homan as “border czar,” the immigration hardliner’s hilarious 2019 smackdown of Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York went viral on social media. […]

The post Flashback: Video of Tom Homan Taking Down AOC Resurfaces, Showing Why Trump Picked Him appeared first on The Western Journal.

President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly considering lawyer Alina Habba to be the White House press secretary. Habba often spoke to the media while she was on the legal team representing […]

The post Report Shows New Front-Runner for Trump's Press Secretary Spot: The Media Should Be Terrified appeared first on The Western Journal.

Proteas all-rounder Marco Jansen, while acknowledging that spin has been a challenge for them in the ongoing T20 series against India, reckons things could be a bit different for Wednesday's third T20 in Centurion.

Late injection Johan Grobbelaar may find himself more than simply an “extra” on the Bok tour, writes Rob Houwing.

Xi Jinping shows the world he is taking a tougher line Expert comment NCapeling 16 October 2022

Xi opens the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party with a political report which demonstrates both change and continuity in the approach of his leadership.

The 20th Party Congress report is significantly shorter than the 19th, which is a clear indication of Xi’s success in centralizing power. The report acts as a summary of the party’s achievements and its plans – expressed as the lowest common denominator of consensus between competing factions. A shorter political report would seem to represent fewer factions now seeking consensus.

In the 20th Party Congress report, the language on Taiwan has been revised, reflecting the changes in tone and the policies of the CCP senior leadership. In addition to the conventional ‘peaceful reunification’ term, there is also an addition of more hawkish language on Taiwan to ‘not exclude the use of force as a last resort’.

Xi also suggested that ‘resolving Taiwan Question should be in hands of the Chinese’, sending a further warning to the US and other Western allies which are perceived as interfering in Taiwan affairs.

In his remarks, Xi suggested the ‘zero-COVID’ strategy has worked for China although he gave no clear timeline on when the policy will end. He also proposed building a healthcare system able to cope with future pandemics. This implies that China is still in short supply of sufficient healthcare resources to cope with a disease like COVID.

Economic policy reveals anxiety

On economic policy, much of the emphasis is given to the extent to which security and economic growth should go hand in hand, which illustrates Beijing’s deep anxieties on supply chains and the high-tech sector. These supply chains need to become more ‘self-determined, self-controlled’, voicing frustration that the highest value-added elements of the Chinese tech sector remain reliant on overseas suppliers and vulnerable to geopolitical tensions.

Also, he expected the Common Prosperity Initiative will further adjust uneven income distribution to increase the amount of middle-income population. He gave little favours for financial services and fin-tech companies but insisted that China should remain as a manufacturing-led economy with qualitative growth. That implies Beijing will tolerate much slower growth so long as the income gap between the rich and poor is closing.

On foreign affairs, Xi has completely abandoned the ‘new types of great power relations’ – instead he has stressed that China should further develop its ties with the Global South through the Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative.

America’s vote shows a desire for stability and calm Expert comment NCapeling 11 November 2022

Joe Biden has presided over the best midterm election results by a party in power in two decades, but the future for the Republican Party leadership is now uncertain.

For a president continually struggling with low approval ratings, the midterms provided a stunning result as the widely anticipated Republican red wave failed to materialize.

Although Democrats look set to lose their majority in the House, it is by a much smaller margin than either history or today’s pollsters anticipated. Democrats have maintained their majority in the Senate, a result that was confirmed four days after election day when Senator Catherine Cortez Masto won reelection. The final Senate seat will be decided by a 6 December run-off in the state of Georgia. 

The midterm elections were not good for the Republican party but were especially bad for Donald Trump who has until now managed to defy expectations and maintain his grip on the party even after his 2020 defeat at the polls.

Trump managed to win the presidency once but he lost the popular vote twice and at no stage during his time in office did his approval ratings go above 40 per cent. Now, after six years of the most divisive and disruptive leadership the US has ever seen, he has presided over the worst midterm results a party out of power has suffered in two decades.

Trump’s influence is on the wane

Many of the candidates endorsed by the former president – including in battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Arizona – lost. In Georgia, the Republican governor and Trump GOP rival won, despite Trump’s opposition, and the candidate he endorsed for the US Senate has come up short of the 50 per cent needed to get over the line in the first round.

Trump’s nemesis, Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, won a second four-year term in a landslide. Trump is suffering attacks from his own party and many loyal media supporters, such as Fox News, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal. None of this bodes well for the prospect of Trump leading the party through the 2024 presidential election.

After six years of chaos, this upset has been delivered with remarkably little chaos and, so far, no violence in a win for democracy and stability in the US which will reverberate beyond the US shores.

The system has worked, with multiple elections held across all 50 states. Hotly contested seats were decided peacefully even when the margins were thin. The midterm elections were also a win for democracy. In every battleground state, election deniers that were nominated to run for offices that would control state election systems, including in the 2024 presidential elections, have been defeated.

For a country with a polarized electorate and a radical Republican leader who has continued to spread disinformation and sought to rile his base, this election has been surprisingly normal.

This means the debate about the future of America’s international leadership is postponed. Biden is still in the saddle and, instead of a battle for control inside the Democratic party, it is the Republicans who look set to descend into internal conflict and recrimination.

The unofficial contest to win the Republican nomination for president has already begun. Donald Trump has signalled loudly that he plans to run. If he does, it could impact Republican prospects in the 6 December runoff for the final seat in the Senate. DeSantis may also run and could be followed by several aspiring Republican candidates. A disrupted party facing a period of significant change seems likely. 

Inflation and the economy proved key factors

As always, foreign policy barely featured in the elections but the result promises a period of continuity. Instead of facing dangerous sniping on Ukraine from an emboldened Republican House leadership, the Biden administration looks set to hold to its Ukraine policy.

Biden’s increasingly hard-line policy on China will continue to be qualified by a clear-headed determination – however hard – to cooperate on climate. Trade policy will remain stuck, as will US policy in the developing world.

Exit polls show Democrats were motivated to vote by the reversal of Roe vs Wade and the restrictions on abortion rights that followed, while Republicans voted against inflation.

But Democrats at the national level continually failed to effectively communicate the positive impacts of Biden’s legislative agenda for ordinary Americans, or to deliver a clear economic message.

The national leadership veered from abortion rights to the Inflation Reduction Act, to the future of democracy in the US – all of which proved too complicated to cut through.

The state level shows a more complex picture because inflation and the economy – which could have swept Republicans to victory – were blunted by dogged local campaigning from Democrats who knew their voters and spoke to the cost-of-living concerns which were top of their minds.

Divided US support shows time is not on Ukraine’s side Expert comment LJefferson 17 February 2023

Growing public opinion evidence and uncertainty about the future of the war suggests that continued American support for aiding Ukraine should not be assumed.

One year into Russia’s war on Ukraine, fears that American support for Kyiv would rapidly wane have proven demonstrably wrong. Western financial and military backing has been robust thanks to allied unity and an unexpectedly mild winter. But, as financial analysts constantly remind us, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

People like to back winners. If the anticipated Russian spring offensive looks successful or the counterpart Ukrainian offensive is uninspiring, expect louder US voices calling for a negotiated settlement. The warning signs are already here.

American officials privately express growing apprehension that there will be an early resolution of the conflict. As one White House official recently observed to me, by the end of the year the war could well be about where it is today. And a plurality of Americans intuitively grasp this: 46 per cent believe neither Russia nor Ukraine currently has the advantage in the conflict.

Momentum matters  

In public opinion, perception of momentum matters. Americans’ support for the Vietnam War waned as the conflict persisted, falling from six-in-ten Americans in 1965 to four-in-ten in 1973.

Similarly, backing for the Iraq war fell from more than seven-in-ten in 2003 to barely four-in-ten in 2008. And with Afghanistan, as the war dragged on, support for US involvement fell from more than nine-in-ten in 2002 to less than five-in-ten in 2021. Notably, once the American public turned on these wars, support never returned.

Of course, Americans were fighting and dying in those wars, which is not the case in the Ukraine conflict. But initially the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan war support was buoyed by the belief that continued US engagement was justified, otherwise American sons and daughters had died in vain. With no American lives at stake in Ukraine, only financial and military resources, there is a growing wariness of throwing good money after bad.

In the last year, the share of Americans who say the United States is doing too much for Ukraine has nearly quadrupled, from seven to 26 per cent. And the portion that believe Washington has not done enough has halved, from 49 per cent to 17 per cent.

Sentiment about Ukraine support has become increasingly partisan. In March 2022, nine per cent of Republicans and five per cent of Democrats said the US was doing too much for Ukraine. By January 2023, 40 per cent of Republicans but just 15 per cent of Democrats complained Washington was doing too much.

This erosion of Americans’ support for Ukraine does not bode well for the future. Less than half (48 per cent) of the public in November, compared to 58 per cent in July, believed Washington should support Ukraine for as long as it takes, even if it means American households have to pay higher gas and food prices as a consequence.

A similar share, 47 per cent – up from 38 per cent in July – said the United States should urge Ukraine to settle for peace as soon as possible so the costs aren’t so great for American households, even if that means Ukraine will lose some territory.

A partisan divide

The partisan divide over Ukraine is largely driven by Republican political rhetoric during and after the 2022 midterm elections. Current Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy observed last October: ‘I think people are going to be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank cheque to Ukraine.’

More recently, in the wake of Ukrainian president Zelenskyy’s December speech to Congress, Florida Republican Representative Matt Gaetz, whose vote was pivotal in making McCarthy Speaker, tweeted: ‘Hemorrhaging billions in taxpayer dollars for Ukraine while our country is in crisis is the definition of America last.’

In January, newly-elected Ohio Republican Senator J.D. Vance told a Cleveland radio station that it was ‘ultimately not in our national security interest’ to send M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, despite the fact that they will be built by his constituents in Ohio.

In addition, ten Republican members of the House of Representatives have introduced legislation asserting ‘that the United States must end its military and financial aid to Ukraine, and urges all combatants to reach a peace agreement.’ 

And this month former President Donald Trump said: ‘That war has to stop, and it has to stop now, and it’s easy to do’ and it ‘can be negotiated within 24 hours’. Why worry about continued support for the war if it’s about to be over?

The road to 2024

With the 2024 US presidential election already revving up, Americans’ appetite for continued backing for Ukraine may hinge on how voters judge the Biden administration’s handling of the conflict.

Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans (61 per cent versus 27 per cent) to approve of the Biden administration’s response to the Russia invasion, suggesting Ukraine will be yet another partisan talking point as the campaign heats up. Notably, men are much more likely than women to approve of Biden’s efforts, as are older Americans compared with younger Americans.

SVB collapse shows interest rate financial stability threat Expert comment LJefferson 15 March 2023

Governments must resist pressure to relax post-financial crisis regulation, while central banks should moderate their attack on inflation if financial stability is at risk.

The collapse of California’s Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) on 10 March has triggered a wave of volatility in global bank equity prices, raised questions about whether US bank regulation and its tech industry funding model are fit for purpose, and forced a rethink on the extent and pace of monetary policy tightening appropriate for the US and other advanced economies.

SVB was the US’s 16th largest bank with total assets of $212bn at the end of 2022 and a presence in eight countries around the world, including the UK. Since it was founded 40 years ago, it has maintained a strong focus on the technology sector, claiming recently that nearly half of all US venture-backed technology and life science companies banked with it. Partly as a consequence, some 95 per cent of its deposits came from corporates and hedge funds, far higher than the one-third typical of similarly sized banks.

What led to SVB’s collapse?

Ironically, SVB’s failure did not result from its core business model of serving a relatively high-risk and fast-growing sector, but rather from a dramatic failure in liquidity management. During the pandemic, SVB saw a very large inflow of corporate deposits. But rather than disincentivizing depositors or investing the funds attracted in assets of matching maturity, it chose to invest them in low credit risk, but long maturity bonds attracted by a small pick-up in return over shorter-term assets. 

When US interest rates began to rise rapidly in 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the value of SVB’s long-term bond portfolio declined sharply. It was left facing a large capital loss of some $15bn, roughly equivalent to its total shareholder funds. The management attempted to repair SVB’s balance sheet last week by crystalizing some of the loss and raising new capital.

But when this failed, the US supervisory authorities had no choice but to step in and close the institution.  This action was quickly followed by emergency action from other regulators vis-a-vis SVB subsidiaries and offices around the world.

The US entity has formally been taken over by the FDIC and a bridge bank established. All depositors have had their funds guaranteed, going beyond the normal federal deposit insurance limit of $250,000 per customer. However, bond holders and equity holders have been wiped out. The authorities have said that any loss will be covered by the industry as a whole via the FDIC.

In the UK, the Bank of England was able to sell the ring-fenced UK subsidiary of SVB to HSBC for £1 over the weekend, so that all its depositors and other liability holders have effectively had their funds guaranteed. In contrast to previous Bank of England rescues (such as Johnson Matthey Bank in 1984, the ‘small banks’ crisis in 1991 and the global financial crisis in 2008-9) no public money has been put at risk.

Four key questions

SVB’s rapid collapse raises four central questions:

First, how was it that the bank was able to take on such a risky interest rate maturity mismatch in its US operations? Maturity transformation is standard banking industry practice, but it is usually closely monitored by regulators who place limits on the extent of interest rate maturity mismatch and require liquidity buffers to offset the risk of deposit flight and forced asset sales.

SVB’s very high concentration of corporate deposits as compared to ‘sticky’ retail deposits, means that the risk of deposit flight was unusually high and so the bank should have been more, not less, cautious in its liquidity policy. SVB was classed as a regional bank in the US which means that it did not have to meet international regulatory standards under Basle III. And in 2018, the Trump administration approved legislation removing the post-financial crisis requirement that banks with assets under $250bn submit to stress testing and relaxing liquidity buffer requirements.

But it is still hard to understand why regulators allowed SVB to commit such a classic banking error. On Monday, the Federal Reserve ordered an inquiry into what it has correctly described as a regulatory failure. This should look at the role played by all the elements of the oversight system including the auditors, KPMG.

Second, does SVB’s failure reflect a much bigger underlying risk in the US banking sector, and potentially other banking systems around the world, built up over the prolonged period of ultra-low interest rates? SVB’s collapse was followed by the failure of the $110bn Signature Bank in New York, as well as sharp falls in US regional bank stock prices – by close of play on 14 March, the S&P Regional Bank Index was down 22 per cent on a week before, with some individual bank stocks seeing much sharper falls.  

To the extent that banks have been covered by international bank regulatory requirements, the risk of a much broader problem should be limited because stress testing and other regulatory tests would have looked at precisely the scenario that has happened. Even where large market losses have been incurred, capital buffers should be sufficient to cover them. But as SVB has shown, there are some large banks that are seemingly not required to follow international rules, while the latest developments at Credit Suisse indicate that market concerns may still arise when other factors are in play.

Third, how far, in the light of the potential vulnerability in banking systems, should central banks in advanced countries moderate their efforts to squeeze out inflationary pressures? While inflation already appears to have peaked in many economies and the pace of interest rate rises was expected to slow, inflation is far from vanquished, as recent data in the US has demonstrated.

Fourth, does the failure of SVB tell us something new about the financial risks facing the high technology sector?  It was remarkable that a single (and not particularly large, by international standards) financial institution could have played such a central role in the tech sector in both the US and UK. 

Why was this the case and does it reflect special features of the tech/start-up sector (e.g. the need for substantial cash deposits to cover relatively large negative cash flows in the early years of operation, or the need for highly specialized lending expertise). If so, should governments take steps to mitigate such risks, given the outsized importance of this sector in many national economic strategies? 

The election shows that Trumpism is here to stay Expert comment rgold.drupal 7 November 2024

World leaders must engage with the new president’s view of America’s priorities and accept that the US has changed.

In a landslide victory, former President Donald Trump has been elected to be the 47th president of the United States. This election was laden with the expectation that a dead heat would lead to delay, legal challenge, extremism, and possible violence. It has instead passed quickly, decisively, and peacefully.  More than 67 million Americans who voted for Kamala Harris have demonstrated restraint and accepted the result. By this measure, democracy in the United States has prevailed. 

Across Asia and Latin America, leaders have been preparing for a second Trump term. They are pragmatic and resolute in their belief that they can work with the once and 

also future US president. In Europe, leaders have been less certain. They have oscillated between two approaches. The first, of ‘Trump-proofing’ – an instinct if not a strategy  that builds on the quest for strategic autonomy, championed by the President of France, Emmanuel Macron. The second, a calculation by some, not least the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, that they can present themselves as top-tier partners to the US in a new approach to transatlantic security. 

Trumpism is not an aberration

For eight years, world leaders and foreign policy experts have been debating whether President Trump was the cause of a radical change in the US, or merely a symptom of powerful trends in the American body politic: rising inequality, a loss of manufacturing jobs – a demographic defined by white male non-college-educated voters who feel left behind – a deeply engrained anti-elitism, and a society in desperate need of a new kind of political leadership. 

In Trump’s first term, many leaders acted on the basis that he was an aberration, not a symptom. That meant that foreign leaders assumed his policies might disappear with his future electoral defeat, and short-term strategies designed to ‘work around’ Trump were a good bet. 

The next US president would return to a familiar agenda (free trade, market access, strong alliances, a commitment to climate action, extended nuclear deterrence and deepening transatlantic ties) and so America’s friends could wait this out. Indeed, civil servants frequently pointed to the strength of bilateral working relations, despite an often disruptive high-level political style. 

President Joe Biden’s commitment to multilateralism, the transatlantic partnership and Ukraine seemed to confirm the view that Trump’s policies were an anomaly and that America had reverted to normal. Gradually, though, Biden’s policies began to chip away at this assumption. He continued Trump’s tariffs, executed a reckless and unilateral exit from Afghanistan with little consultation, and pushed through a transformative but also protectionist climate investment bill in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Fast forward to this election result. A stunning – many would say shocking – victory must put to rest any assumption that Trump is an aberration. It may have started that way, but today it appears there is no going back. The world is now confronted with a president that has had time to sharpen and hone his instincts, to prioritise loyalty in appointing a close circle of advisers, and to lay the foundation for his Vice President JD Vance to carry forward his vision once his second term ends. 

First moves

What will Trump do first? Several things are in store: A sharp immigration policy including deportations is likely to be top of Team Trump’s agenda in its first 100 days. This may prove to be inflationary – deporting millions of undocumented migrants would shrink the labour supply – but that is unlikely to restrain Trump in the short-term. A 2.0 version of his so-called ‘Muslim ban’ could also feature. And immigrants will continue to take a hit rhetorically, labelled as outsiders and as criminals. 

The punishment for noncompliance could also be harsh. If Mexico does not demonstrate its willingness to cooperate, retaliation might take the form of tariffs, or a tough review or even renegotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in 2026. 

The return to tariffs as the front line of trade policy  is virtually certain. Trump has telegraphed this for months. China can expect far harsher tariffs. What is more difficult to discern is whether these will be a bargaining tool with conditions attached, or a ratcheting up towards a new level of protectionism. 

For Asia, there is grave uncertainty. No one can be sure what Trump’s strategy will be towards Taiwan. Investment in the latticework of mutually-reinforcing partnerships across the region may take a back seat. But how Trump will manage North Korea’s nuclear threat is unclear. So too is the question of whether under his watch, US nuclear deterrence will continue to provide enough assurance to prevent South Korea and Japan from developing their own nuclear weapons. 

Still, it is Europe that is likely to face the sharpest edge of Trump’s second term. Tariffs in search of reciprocal market access and reducing America’s trade deficit with Europe are more likely than not. But it will be the existential and enduring shift in America’s commitment to Europe and its security that will hit hardest. 

RNA-protein interfaces control key replication events during the HIV-1 life cycle. The viral trans-activator of transcription (Tat) protein uses an archetypal arginine-rich motif (ARM) to recruit the host positive transcription elongation factor b (pTEFb) complex onto the viral trans-activation response (TAR) RNA, leading to activation of HIV transcription. Efforts to block this interaction have stimulated production of biologics designed to disrupt this essential RNA-protein interface. Here, we present four co-crystal structures of lab-evolved TAR-binding proteins (TBPs) in complex with HIV-1 TAR. Our results reveal that high-affinity binding requires a distinct sequence and spacing of arginines within a specific β2-β3 hairpin loop that arose during selection. Although loops with as many as five arginines were analyzed, only three arginines could bind simultaneously with major-groove guanines. Amino acids that promote backbone interactions within the β2-β3 loop were also observed to be important for high-affinity interactions. Based on structural and affinity analyses, we designed two cyclic peptide mimics of the TAR-binding β2-β3 loop sequences present in two high-affinity TBPs (KD values of 4.2 ± 0.3 and 3.0 ± 0.3 nm). Our efforts yielded low-molecular weight compounds that bind TAR with low micromolar affinity (KD values ranging from 3.6 to 22 μm). Significantly, one cyclic compound within this series blocked binding of the Tat-ARM peptide to TAR in solution assays, whereas its linear counterpart did not. Overall, this work provides insight into protein-mediated TAR recognition and lays the ground for the development of cyclic peptide inhibitors of a vital HIV-1 RNA-protein interaction.