y888

The chair of NATO’s military committee warned business leaders to prepare for a “wartime scenario” and bring their production lines back home, rather than relying on China or Russia, to avoid blackmail or sabotage — as former and future US President Donald Trump has vowed to restore his “America First” agenda. Speaking at an event Monday for the European Policy Centre think tank, Dutch Adm. Rob Bauer said instability in global politics could leave businesses at the mercy of foreign governments, especially if war were to break out . “Businesses need to be prepared for a wartime scenario and adjust their production and distribution lines accordingly,” Bauer said. “Because while it may be the military who wins battles, it’s the economies that win wars.” The NATO military chair said Europe has already gotten a taste of this over the tumultuous Gazprom fuel deal , the terms of which Russian President Vladimir Putin stepped in to change following the European Union’s backing of Ukraine in 2022. “We thought we had a deal with Gazprom, but we actually had a deal with Mr. Putin,” Bauer said. “And the same goes for Chinese-owned infrastructure and goods. We actually have a deal with [Chinese President] Xi [Jinping].” The NATO military chief noted that 60% of all earth materials are produced in China, with 90% of the products also processed there. The bulk of ingredients for critical health care items, including sedatives, antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and low blood pressure medicines, all come from China as well, Bauer said. He warned that it would be naive for business leaders to believe that the Chinese Communist Party would not stoop to targeting foreign business in its country to disrupt the economies of potential adversaries. The dire warning comes as Trump has vowed to prioritize an “America First” agenda, which could include setting 60% tariffs on most goods imported from China in an effort to protect domestic industries. Economists expect the policy to start early next year with 40% tariffs on imports, which would be a significant blow to China. The incoming president also claimed his first call from the Oval Office would be to his Chinese counterpart to demand he follow through on a $50 billion farming deal. The deal, made during Trump’s tariff negotiations in his first term, called on China to purchase $50 billion worth of American agricultural goods, on which he claimed Xi has failed to follow through. Experts say Trump’s plan would hinder China’s economic plan for 2025 by a whole percentage point, and it remains unclear how Beijing might respond. During the event Monday, Bauer also called on Trump and European leaders not to end the conflict in Ukraine with a victory for Russia, warning it would set a dangerous precedent for Moscow and Beijing to do as they please against the West. While on the campaign trail, Trump suggested a diplomatic end to the war that includes Russia being allowed to keep the territory it has invaded, which would be a significant win for Putin. Moscow currently controls about one-fifth of Ukraine after launching its invasion in February 2022, including Crimea and the vast majority of the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions. With Post wires

While going through the photo collection at the Niagara History Center, I noticed an image that I had not seen before. From the car in the photo, it appears the picture was taken in the 1950s. The sign on the building says “Towpath Inn.” There is nothing in the Lockport City Directories for the Towpath Inn during that time period yet there are newspaper ads from 1954 announcing that the restaurant is “Under New Management.” The address in the ads is 5 Mill St. so that is where my search began. In 1870, Michael Enright moved to Lockport and was granted a license to sell liquor “on Mill street and on Lake avenue, saloons.” Enright was born in Ireland in about 1836. He is listed in the 1871 Lockport City Directory as “Enright Michael, saloon, res. Canal near Mill st. bridge.” In other sources he is listed as a “grocer” which very often went hand-in-hand with a saloon, especially along the Erie Canal where boatmen were looking for a drink and provisions. In 1888, Enright and his son John purchased Joseph G. Norman’s Niagara Brewery on Van Buren Street near Lake Avenue, with the younger man overseeing the operations there. A fire in April 1890 badly damaged the brewery but within a month Enright had the business up and running again. Eight years later, father and son had another problem to deal with when “some person or persons to them unknown” accused them of selling “scab ale and porter” made by non-union workers and asked people not to patronize them. The Enrights defended themselves by assuring the public that “all men in the employ [of their breweries]...are members of the Federation of Labor and are Union men...” A reward of $100 ($3,800 in 2024) was offered for information on who “circulated said reports and posted said notices.” Another, more serious incident occurred on Aug. 14, 1901, when 37-year-old John Enright was found unconscious on the towpath under the Cady Street bridge across from the Thompson mill. He died later that day. Thus began a public debate as to whether his death was accidental, from falling off the bridge, or if he was robbed and murdered by “hoboes” or some canal boatmen. The coroner finally ruled the death accidental. Less than a year later, on March 7, 1902, Michael Enright died at age 66. He is buried in St. Patrick’s Cemetery. In about 1893, a few years after Michael Enright had acquired the Norman Brewery, James Eagan was the proprietor of a saloon at 5 Mill St. although the actual property transfer did not take place until 1895. Eagan was born in Newfane in 1861 but lived most of his life in Lockport. His obituary stated that he operated a tavern on Mill Street for 30 years, retiring in 1920, which coincides with about the time he started as proprietor of Enright’s saloon. Like Enright, Eagan also ran a grocery out of the building at 5 Mill St. In 1894, a brief mention in the Lockport Daily Journal stated that he “has about closed out his grocery stock, but may replenish it, should canal business improve so as to warrant it.” Most newspaper reports of Eagan’s saloon concern his repeated violation of the Sunday excise law prohibiting the sale of liquor on that day. Several other saloons were also cited. In 1905, the Rev. Jay Johnson of the Second Methodist Episcopal Church on Clinton Street took out warrants for the arrest of four saloon keepers, including Eagan, for violating the excise law and selling liquor to a minor. On at least one occasion, Eagan claimed that he was exempt from the excise law because he was operating a hotel, not a saloon; other times he just paid the fine. Like the owner of the Upson Coal Building featured last week in Niagara Discoveries, in 1910, Eagan was faced with the prospect of moving his saloon “at least a dozen feet” to the north to accommodate the expanded Erie Barge Canal. How that feat was accomplished is not mentioned but considering how many structures lined the canal at that time, it must have been an arduous task. Eagan retired from the saloon business in 1920 and lived at 471 East Avenue until his death in 1945. He is buried in St. Patrick’s Cemetery. The next longtime owner of 5 Mill St. was Leo Marcinek. He was born in Poland in 1896 and came to Lockport in 1913. During his 30-year ownership, starting in 1923, the most noteworthy event occurred in April of 1924. This was during the era of Prohibition and Marcinek was described as a “soft drink proprietor.” The business was raided by the police and Marcinek was arrested, not for any liquor violations, but for hosting an illegal poker game in the back room of his establishment in which two of the players were wanted for swindling and counterfeiting. Marcinek was later released with a warning “not to allow card playing in his place in the future.” Once Prohibition ended in 1933, and through the early 1950s, Marcinek’s Restaurant was regularly advertised in the newspaper for its food and dancing. Leo Marcinek died in 1955 and is also buried in St. Patrick’s Cemetery. In 1954, it was announced that the “Towpath Inn” was open under the new management of Archie and Mary Chateauneuf. Archie Chateauneuf was born in 1915 in Massachusetts and died in Los Angeles in 1963 although he had lived in Niagara County for about 40 years. Mary is not mentioned in his obituary although two children are listed. Not much could be found about Mary. How long the Chateauneufs managed the Towpath Inn is uncertain. In 1954, Archie portrayed a canal boatman in a short documentary film about the Erie Canal. Maybe he’d been bitten by the acting bug because he left for California in 1957. After this brief revival of a restaurant/dance hall at 5 Mill St., the following years saw the decline of the building. In 1960, there were ads in the classifieds for pianos and other musical instruments being sold out of the “Barge Hotel” at that address. There were also ads for rooms to rent there. At an Urban Renewal meeting in 1968, 5 Mill St. was used as an example of the deplorable housing conditions in Lowertown. The building at 5 Mill St. came to a tragic end exactly 100 years after Michael Enright first established a saloon and grocery there in 1870. On the night of April 4, 1970, a fire started next door at 7 Mill St. which then spread to the old Towpath Inn building which was still being used as a sometime bar and restaurant. Seven children were sleeping at 7 Mill St. while some of their parents were next door at 5 Mill St. The fire spread so quickly that efforts to save the children were thwarted by heavy smoke and flames. Of the seven, only one child was rescued; the other six, ranging in age from 20 months to six years, all perished in the fire. The children were all cousins. Despite reports of a firebomb being thrown into the home, it was determined that the cause was electrical in nature. The fire once again brought to light the substandard housing conditions in Lowertown and local activists called for a “rent strike” in Lockport. A few years later, urban renewal destroyed most of that housing but it was not replaced with new units. Both of the Mill Street buildings were demolished after the fire. It is now a grassy lot with nothing to indicate the tragedy that took place 54 years ago.How Trump Could Solve One of AI’s Biggest Problems – And How to Profit...No evidence New Jersey drone sightings pose threat: FBI

Jennison Associates LLC Purchases New Stake in Sunrun Inc. (NASDAQ:RUN)

Court orders toddler to be placed with biological parents in landmark IVF mix-up caseThe Competition Commission of India’s (CCI’s) recent decision regarding WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy has far-reaching implications for data privacy and competition in the digital economy. The CCI found that WhatsApp abused its dominant position by mandating data-sharing with its parent company, Meta, and imposed a penalty of ₹213.14 crore. Perhaps, more significantly, the CCI has directed WhatsApp to cease and desist from sharing user data for advertising purposes for five years and to provide users with an opt-out option for data-sharing for any other purpose. WhatsApp has already indicated that it intends to challenge the CCI’s decision and there will undoubtedly be considerable debate on the appreciation of facts and law in this case. However, what stands out is the CCI’s careful balancing act between reviewing the competition issues arising out of WhatsApp’s conduct, while acknowledging that data protection and privacy issues are the domain of other legislation. The CCI quite correctly identifies its responsibility to ensure that data does not become a tool for perpetuating anti-competitive behaviour while acknowledging the role of India’s fledgling Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), Information Technology Act and Privacy rules. What the CCI does not do, is reconcile the potential conflict between its decision on data-sharing obligations and those contained in the DPDP. This conflict becomes evident in the behavioural remedies that the CCI imposes, which embargo WhatsApp from sharing user data that is collected on its platform with other Meta companies for advertising purposes, for a period of five years, regardless of user consent. The CCI’s embargo appears to be an effort to level the playing field, and allow Meta’s online advertising competitors an opportunity to catch up. Even assuming that a five-year embargo on sharing data for advertising is an adequate or proportionate competition law remedy, it is evident that it is contrary to the DPDPA which permits users to consent to data-sharing. It is unclear whether the CCI’s decision will preclude such users from providing their consent for data-sharing once the DPDPA has been operationalised. It’s also questionable whether the CCI’s remedy will protect Meta’s competitors, even if at the cost of its customers. The CCI’s decision does not answer this question. In fact, it neither assesses the adverse effect that such data-sharing would have on Meta’s competitors, nor does it empirically establish that such data-sharing will adversely affect either users or advertisers who rely on such data. Significantly, the CCI does not explain how a five year data sharing embargo will level the playing field, when Meta continues to face competition from a number of significant competitors. The CCI decision does however, and perhaps rather paradoxically, acknowledge the primacy of user consent to data-sharing. It requires WhatsApp to inform its users that their data might be shared with other Meta companies along with the purpose for sharing. The CCI also requires WhatsApp to provide its users with a clear opt out from such data-sharing. This blanket requirement to obtain user consent to any data-sharing, contradicts the DPDPA which permits data-sharing without consent in certain specific circumstances — example, for legitimate use in public interest, such as to protect user safety and security. This potential contradiction between the CCI decision and the DPDPA will create legal uncertainty and make it difficult for entities to comply. It remains to be seen whether the DPDPA, once operationalised, will allow for derogations from responsibilities under that law, on account of a CCI order. The CCI’s decision on WhatsApp’s privacy policy is significant for several reasons and the CCI should be complimented for having made its view on the intersection between data sharing and competition law known. However its behavioural remedies run the risk of creating legal uncertainty for all technology companies which depend on data-sharing. It also runs the risk of becoming part of a regulatory turf war between the CCI and the Data Protection Board of India once it is operationalised. Perhaps it might have been prudent for the CCI to have waited for the DPDPA’s operationalisation before tailoring its remedies. Gandhi is Co-founder and Partner; Gangal is Senior Associate, Axiom5 Law Comments