Grenada başbakanı
Launch of SafetyNet Critical Communications
Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery Mark Mitchell has today welcomed a major milestone in New Zealand’s public safety sector with the launch of SafetyNet Critical Communications (SafetyNet). SafetyNet, a new independent Crown company, replaces Next Generation Critical Communications (NGCC). With an expanded mandate, SafetyNet will help strengthen New Zealand’s emergency preparedness and response capability and ultimately, deliver better support to communities across the country. “SafetyNet has a solid platform to build from. It will continue to lead and facilitate the ongoing development of a shared, secure, modern emergency grade communications ecosystem for the public safety sector,” says Mr Mitchell. “Responders need reliable and resilient communications for everyday safety and during emergencies. SafetyNet will help ensure the people and organisations involved in protecting New Zealanders have access to the information and communications they need.” SafetyNet will offer organisations active in everyday safety and emergency management access to its Public Safety Network Cellular Services (PSN) on a commercial basis. “The aggregated provision of shared emergency infrastructure and services - to be used by potentially hundreds of public safety sector organisations - is something that will benefit all New Zealanders,” says Mr Mitchell. “SafetyNet will use its wide network of relationships to develop, deliver, and maintain investment in communication infrastructure and services. The approach of ‘build it once and use it many times’ is a good model for the government and the public safety sector.” Appointed to the Board of SafetyNet are Rob Fyfe (Chair), Deborah Battel, Glen Sowry, Greg Lowe, and TJ Kennedy. They will be advised by a panel of experts comprised of the chief executives of Hato Hone St John, New Zealand Police, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and Wellington Free Ambulance. Steve Ferguson has been appointed to the role of SafetyNet CEO.
Bill passed to tackle antisocial road users
The Government has delivered on its commitment to crack down on boy racers, fleeing drivers, and other antisocial road users, with Parliament passing the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, Transport Minister Chris Bishop and Police Minister Mark Mitchell say. “At present, the consequences for antisocial driving behaviour have not been strong enough to deter this appalling behaviour. Communities across New Zealand have been forced to put up with illegal street racing, burnouts, fleeing drivers, intimidating convoys, disorderly dirt bike gatherings and siren battles for far too long,” Mr Bishop says. “New Zealanders have had enough. These activities put participants, bystanders and Police at risk, disrupt neighbourhoods, and create fear and frustration for law-abiding Kiwis. This law sends a very clear message: if you use our roads to intimidate or endanger communities, there will be serious consequences.” The new offences and penalties include: “These changes mean convicted fleeing drivers, street racers, and people participating in intimidating convoys can expect to lose their vehicles through destruction or forfeiture, unless limited exceptions apply,” Mr Bishop says. “The legislation also ensures penalties for excessive vehicle noise better reflect the impact this behaviour has on communities.” Minister Mitchell says the new law gives Police stronger tools to respond to antisocial road use and protect communities. “For too long, the consequences haven’t matched the harm being caused. This law backs Police with the powers they need to manage antisocial vehicle gatherings and ensure repeat offenders face meaningful consequences,” Mr Mitchell says. “People have had enough of this dangerous, obnoxious behaviour. Excessive noise, siren battles, illegal street racing and fleeing Police is not harmless fun. It is intimidating, disruptive, and places people at risk. “Antisocial road use has no place in New Zealand. Our message is clear: if you choose to engage in this behaviour, expect serious and lasting consequences.” The Bill was recommended for passage by the Justice Committee following public submissions from councils, community groups, businesses and individuals. Importantly, the legislation includes safeguards to ensure penalties remain fair and proportionate, and does not target lawful car enthusiasts or legal motorsport events. “This law is tightly focused on illegal behaviour,” Mr Bishop says. “Our message is simple: if you want to drive dangerously and intimidate communities, face the consequences.” Notes to editor: Most changes will come into effect in six-months’ time. This transition period allows for changes to be circulated with frontline staff and for judiciary and legal stakeholders to be able to the operationalise changes.
New York'ta bir milyon dairenin kirası donduruldu
Sosyalist çizgideki Zohran Mamdani'nin yönetiminde olan New York'ta Kira Düzenleme Kurulu, yaklaşık bir milyon kira kontrollü konutun kiralarını iki yıla kadar dondurma kararı aldı. ABD'nin New York kentinde emlak sektörüyle ilgili karar alan Kira Düzenleme Kurulu, bu hafta yaptığı oylamada yaklaşık bir milyon kira kontrollü dairenin kirasını iki yıla kadar dondurma kararı aldı. Alınan bu karar, demokratik sosyalist Belediye Başkanı Zohran Mamdani'nin göreve başlamasından sadece birkaç ay sonra, en önemli seçim vaatlerinden birini yerine getirmesini sağladı. Kurulda yapılan 7-1'lik oylama sonucunda, ekim ayından itibaren geçerli olmak üzere hem bir yıllık hem de iki yıllık kira sözleşmelerinde artış oranı yüzde sıfır olarak belirlendi. Manhattan'daki bir müze salonunu dolduran yüzlerce kiracı, oylama sonucunu sevinç çığlıkları ve ıslıklarla karşıladı. Belediye Başkanı Zohran Mamdani yaptığı açıklamada, "Bu, New York City kiracıları için tarihi bir zaferdir" ifadesini kullandı. Mamdani, "Bu, şehrimizdeki çalışan insanların hak ettiği bir rahatlamadır" dedi. Yapılan oylama, New York sakinlerinin yaklaşık dörtte birinin yaşadığı kira kontrollü konutların sahipleri tarafından talep edilebilecek artış oranını belirleyen ve haftalardır devam eden sürecin zirve noktası oldu. Kurul, bu değerlendirmeyi yaparken ücretler, enflasyon, bakım maliyetleri, vergiler ve ev sahiplerinin gelirleri gibi unsurları dikkate alıyor. Kurulun 2025 yılı çalışmasına göre, kira kontrollü bir konutun ortalama aylık kirası 1599 dolar seviyesindeydi. StreetEasy adlı emlak ilan acentesinin verilerine göre ise şehirde yeni kiralanan bir dairenin medyan kirası 3 bin 950 dolar olarak kaydedildi. Şehri daha uygun fiyatlı hale getirme sözü veren demokratik sosyalist Mamdani, ocak ayında göreve başlamasından bu yana dokuz üyeli kurulun altı üyesini bizzat atadı. Mamdani'nin bu üyeleri kiracılara sempati duyduğuna inandığı kişiler arasından seçtiği belirtildi. Kurulun bu planı, mayıs ayında yapılan bir ön oylamayla da desteklenmişti. KURULUN EN SAHİPLERİNİ TEMSİL EDEN ÜYESİ İSTİFA ETTİ Ancak perşembe günkü oylamadan saatler önce, ev sahiplerini temsil eden bir kurul üyesi, bu durumun kurul kadrolarını kendi lehine doldurmak anlamına geldiğini belirterek istifa etti. Üye, kurulu tarafsız olma yönündeki yasal yükümlülüklerine uymamakla suçladı. Mamdani'nin selefi tarafından atanan ve kuruldaki iki ev sahibi temsilcisinden biri olan Christina Smyth, istifa açıklamasında sonucun belediye başkanı tarafından önceden belirlendiğini ifade etti. Christina Smyth, "Yeniden yapılandırılan kurulun bir kira dondurma kararı sunması gerekiyordu. O zamandan beri yaşanan her şey bir tiyatroydu" dedi. Smyth ayrıca kurulun "veri toplayan bir organ olmaktan çıktığını" ve ne pahasına olursa olsun bir kira dondurma kararı vermeyi hedeflediğini dile getirdi. Mamdani tarafından atanan Kurul Başkanı Chantella Mitchell ise kurul üyelerinin ve çalışanlarının bağımsızlık ve dürüstlük içinde görev yaptığını söyledi. Kuruldaki diğer ev sahibi temsilcisi ve yine Mamdani'nin atadığı bir isim olan Maksim Wynn, oylama öncesinde uzun bir bildiri okurken kiracılar tarafından yuhalandı. Ancak Wynn birkaç dakika sonra konuşmasını tamamlayıp kira dondurma lehinde oy kullandığında, kalabalığın öfkesi sevince dönüştü. Oylama öncesindeki süreçte düzenlenen halka açık oturumlarda kiracılar kiraların dondurulmasını, hatta düşürülmesini talep etmişti. Kiracılar, gelirlerinin enflasyona ve hızla artan faturalara yetişemediğini belirtti. Benzer bir kira dondurma kararı, eski Belediye Başkanı Bill de Blasio döneminde 2015 ile 2021 yılları arasında sadece bir yıllık sözleşmeler için olmak üzere üç kez uygulanmıştı. Ev sahiplerini temsil eden gruplar ise kira dondurma kararının mülk sahiplerinin binalarının bakımını yapmasını zorlaştıracağını savundu. Gruplar, bazı ev sahiplerinin konut kredilerini dahi ödeyemez duruma geldiğini aktardı. Tek bir binaya sahip olan küçük işletmelerden, zengin yatırımcılara kadar bazı ev sahipleri, kira kontrollü birimlerdeki kayıplarını telafi etmek için kontrol dışı piyasa fiyatlı dairelerin kiralarını artırmak zorunda kaldıklarını ifade ediyor. Seçimi kazanmasının ardından Zohran Mamdani, Queens'te bulunan ve aylık kirası yaklaşık 2 bin 300 dolar olan kira kontrollü tek odalı dairesinden, belediye başkanının Manhattan'daki beş odalı resmi konutuna taşınmıştı. Son oylama, Mamdani'nin başarılı geçen haftasını daha da pekiştirdi. Mamdani, ABD Kongresi'ndeki New York koltukları için Demokrat Parti'den aday olmak üzere çekişmeli yarışlara giren üç sol eğilimli adayın tamamının zaferini de kutlamıştı. ABD'nin en yüksek kira bedellerine sahip şehirlerinden biri olan New York'ta, piyasa fiyatlı kiralar da dahil olmak üzere barınma maliyetleri yükselmeye devam ediyor. Nisan ayında Manhattan'daki bir dairenin ortalama kirası, boşluk oranının yüzde 1,55 ile son altı yılın en düşük seviyesine gerilemesiyle birlikte, ilk kez ayda 5 bin doları aşmıştı. Artan yaşam maliyetleri, New York ve diğer bölgelerde etkili bir siyasi mesele haline gelerek geçtiğimiz kasım ayında Mamdani'nin belediye başkanı seçilmesinde önemli bir rol oynamıştı.
Mamdani'nin Adayları New York Ön Seçimlerinde Üç Büyük Zafer KazandıAlan Greenspan, longtime US Federal Reserve chairman, dies aged 100
Alan Greenspan, hailed as the greatest Federal Reserve chairman when he retired in 2006 but derided for a severe financial crisis that followed barely two years later, died on Monday aged 100, NBC News reported. Greenspan, who exerted a powerful influence on the US economy during his tenure at the helm of the Fed from August 1987 to January 2006, died at his home from complications of Parkinson’s disease, NBC reported, citing his wife, Andrea Mitchell, who is the outlet’s chief Washington correspondent. Greenspan oversaw the second-longest economic expansion in US history, an uninterrupted decade of growth from March 1991 to March 2001. His decision to let the economy run — despite pressure to raise interest rates against an inflation threat that never materialised — helped foster years of US prosperity and earned him rock star status as an economic “maestro”. The era was marked by his prescient judgment that a productivity surge in the mid-1990s would keep inflation contained. His intuition in that moment is still a touchstone for policymakers, and has been referred to by former Fed chair Jerome Powell as an example of how judgment can sometimes outperform technical models of the economy. However, the one-time jazz musician’s monetary policy acumen later came into question as critics attacked his policies for fueling a series of asset price bubbles and laying the groundwork for the 2007-2009 financial crisis. “I think the deification that came just before the financial crisis was never really deserved, and I think the lambasting that he took after he left was never fully deserved either,” said Stephen Oliner, a former senior Fed official. Greenspan, who fell in love with math through an obsession with baseball statistics, won quick plaudits for a strong response to the Black Monday stock market crash of 1987, just two months after he took office. He also steered the US economy through the 1990-91 recession, the 1997-1998 Asian and Russian financial contagion, the collapse of the dot-com stocks bubble in 2000 and the turbulent economic aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks. Along the way, biographer Sebastian Mallaby detailed, he became a consummate Washington power player able to manoeuvre presidents and cabinet secretaries into making the decisions he felt were best, sometimes without them realising who pulled the strings. Bursting bubble At the Fed’s vaunted Jackson Hole gathering in 2005, two leading economists billed him as perhaps the greatest central banker of all time. But when the housing price bubble that had grown during his final four years in office finally burst, it savaged his once-stellar reputation — along with the global economy. Whatever Greenspan’s merits in the moment, his successors steadily pushed the Fed in a new direction, rolling out financial crisis response tools to address problems Greenspan had never confronted, such as zero interest rates, and shifting from opaque communications to more frequent speeches, a set inflation target and regular press conferences. In addition to critiques of his monetary policy, critics slammed Greenspan, a powerful advocate for the light regulation of financial markets, for a hands-off attitude that allowed banks to make disastrous housing market bets. Greenspan subsequently admitted to being “shocked” that he was wrong in his assumption that bankers’ self-interest would deter them from taking actions that imperilled the survival of their own institutions. “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in 2008. But as apologies go in Washington, it fell far short of what his most ardent critics sought. Some economists also felt the chairman, who never disguised he was a Republican, dented his political independence by backing tax cuts in 2001 proposed by President George W Bush, although he also worked closely with Democratic President Bill Clinton. The second-longest-serving Fed chair behind William McChesney Martin, Greenspan was first tapped by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and was later re-appointed by Presidents George HW Bush, Bill Clinton and George W Bush. He was 80 when he left the Fed in 2006 but moved smoothly into a new career as a consultant and adviser with his own firm, Greenspan Associates, offering insights on where he thought the economy was going for big fees. 90s boom At the Fed, Greenspan built on the successes of his predecessor, Paul Volcker, who stamped out the raging inflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Indeed, in his final few years at the central bank, Greenspan spent more time worrying about the risks of deflation taking hold than about high inflation re-emerging. The ten-year expansion in the 1990s was fueled in part by a huge stock rally that Greenspan suggested in 1996 might reflect an “irrational exuberance”. He later backed away from that comment, saying it was not his role to second-guess investors. Greenspan was often referred to as the second most powerful person in the country, after the president, because of the central bank’s ability to influence the economy through changes in short-term interest rates. Pensive, serious and quiet, he laid out his views in elliptical testimonies and speeches that were parsed endlessly by pundits. He once warned an economists’ group that he spent a lot of his time worrying about being too clear. “What I’ve learned at the Fed is a new language called ‘Fed speak’. We learn to mumble with great incoherence,” he said. He could speak in such a roundabout way that his wife, Andrea Mitchell, said she “just didn’t get it” the first few times he proposed marriage. The couple dated for 12 years before they married in April 1997. It was the second marriage for both. Greenspan said he did his best thinking in the bathtub, indulging in baths that sometimes lasted two hours as he read reports and wrote speeches and public testimony. Music came first Born in New York City on March 6, 1926, Greenspan was the only child of Rose and Herbert Greenspan. His parents divorced when he was young, and he was raised in a small apartment in the Washington Heights section of New York with his mother and grandparents. Greenspan’s first love was music, and he spent two years at New York’s Juilliard School studying the clarinet. He toured briefly with a swing band as a saxophone player before turning to economics studies at New York University. In his youth, Greenspan was a friend and associate of the novelist Ayn Rand, who espoused the supremacy of the free markets and the profit motive in books such as Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Before his Fed years, he chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President Gerald Ford in the 1970s. He also ran an economics consulting firm called Townsend-Greenspan and Co. for years. When Greenspan succeeded Volcker, some worried he might not live up to his tough-minded, cigar-chomping predecessor. But Greenspan soon proved his mettle by pumping liquidity into financial markets to calm the October 1987 stock crash. His quick action, which is now seen as a textbook example of how to handle such crises, was credited with staving off a recession.
Eski Fed Başkanı Alan Greenspan, Tartışmalı Mirasla Hayata Veda EttiWhy the plan to disarm Hamas is destined to fail
On October 13 of last year, shortly after signing a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, President Donald Trump addressed a room of world leaders congregated in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. “At long last we have peace in the Middle East,” Trump proclaimed, basking in the praise pouring in from across the globe. While this statement may have been an exaggeration, there was indeed reason for optimism at the time. The U.S. had just brokered an agreement between Israel and Hamas. Palestinian prisoners would be released, Israeli hostages would return home, and the mass slaughter of Gazans would come to a halt. Phase 1 of the plan also included the full entry of humanitarian aid and a withdrawal of Israeli forces to an agreed on “yellow line.” Tasked to oversee the process was the Board of Peace (BoP), a U.S.-led international panel. Israel never fully implemented its side of Phase 1, opting instead to continue striking the enclave and restricting the flow of aid into Gaza. Nonetheless, on January 16, the U.S. announced the beginning of Phase 2. This step was set to include Hamas’ disarmament and further Israeli withdrawal, coinciding with the arrival of the International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority. But more than four months in, none of this has happened. In March, the head of the BoP, Nikolay Mladenov, laid out a five-stage, eight-month vision for how Hamas should disarm. The group rejected the proposal, citing ongoing ceasefire violations and demanding full Israeli withdrawal. Israel, the U.S., and much of the international community have pointed to this rejection to frame Hamas as the sole obstacle to peace, blaming the militant group for the stalled second phase. While this narrative may be politically convenient, an analysis of past agreements shows that the current proposal lacks several elements that will be necessary if a durable peace is to be achieved. Biased Mediator Historically, one of the most important factors in peace settlements has been a neutral mediator. Thomas Leahy, senior Lecturer at Cardiff University, explains that such a presence is essential from the outset in creating conditions for fair negotiations. In Northern Ireland, even after the Irish Republican Army and the British government signed a ceasefire in 1994, a lack of proper mediation led to two years of stalling. Leahy notes that the Irish government "took the initiative to bring in a third party because talks were going nowhere." This third party was U.S. Sen. George Mitchell, who assumed the position of chairman throughout the negotiations and introduced the Mitchell Principles before formal all-party talks began in 1996. The principles, a set of six rules, bound all sides to use exclusively peaceful means to resolve political issues. While the Board of Peace fills this third party role in Gaza, it has so far proven itself to be far from neutral. Despite boasting representatives from around the world, the organization is U.S.-led, with Trump self-appointed as chairman, a role that he could potentially hold for life. In Northern Ireland, mediating bodies were composed of countries with no historical or current stake in the region. In Gaza, the mediator is dominated by the U.S. — not only Israel’s most important financial backer, but also its largest arms supplier. In Gaza, obliging both parties to uphold the ceasefire is where the Board of Peace has shown itself to be most biased. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, over 900 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces since the ceasefire began. Humanitarian groups say the delivery of aid, which is entirely controlled by Israel, has also been insufficient, leaving the population malnourished and exposed to a growing rodent infestation. Hamas has also been accused of ceasefire violations, having killed four Israeli soldiers. The Board of Peace has not treated these violations equally. The organization has issued firmer warnings to Hamas than towards the Israeli government, despite the lopsided number of breaches. In a leaked memo, Mladenov explicitly stated that he would not hold Israel to truce terms if Hamas refused the disarmament framework. By allowing Israel to continue killing with impunity and threatening to void the ceasefire's terms, Mladenov’s strategy runs directly counter to the successful one implemented by Mitchell. Improper Sequencing The order in which the demands are being made is equally problematic. This plan first requires Hamas to surrender all weaponry and destroy its tunnel network. After that, fighters would have to turn in both guns and rifles. Only then would the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) complete its withdrawal from the Strip, and reconstruction presumably begin. Notably, the 12-point plan makes no mention of Palestinian statehood. In Northern Ireland, by contrast, the IRA only decommissioned its weapons several years after the accord was signed, and once tangible political gains, including a power-sharing agreement, were put in place. The same could be said about the FARC in Colombia, which received limited amnesty and guaranteed congressional seats as it surrendered its weapons. Disarmament is “rarely the beginning of peace,” said Alpaslan Özerdem, dean of George Mason University’s Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution. Özerdem lists a slew of reciprocal steps usually required before disarmament such as “ceasefire consolidation, withdrawal arrangements, security guarantees, third-party monitoring, humanitarian access, and reconstruction.” While Hamas has previously stated, on numerous occasions, that it would lay down its weapons in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, Israel has repeatedly rejected such an offer. In fact, the IDF has pushed deeper into Gaza since the ceasefire was signed and now occupies 60% of the strip instead of the 53% that was originally agreed on. By refusing to consider Hamas’s core demand, a mutually respected long term peace deal becomes difficult to envision. According to Özerdem, “armed groups do not usually disarm simply because they are pressured to do so; they disarm when they believe there is a viable pathway to security, political inclusion, social reintegration, and dignity.” Given that the current plan offers none of this, the obligation to disarm feels more like a one-sided surrender. For Leahy, Israel is in no position to make such a demand. “This can only work if the group is defeated, and accepts that defeat,” says Leahy. “I think it’s quite clear that this is not something Hamas accepts.” Despite the improper sequencing, non-existent concessions and seemingly biased guarantor, Israel and its allies insist that Hamas is the one sabotaging the peace process. Ironically, rushing the issue could actually result in further chaos for all parties; botched decommissioning agreements have often led to the creation of splinter groups, or outright rearmament. In recent years, the most devastating example of such can be found in Iraq, where after the U.S. disposed of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi army was quickly disbanded with no reintegration plan. Hundreds of thousands of armed men were now without income, many later becoming a core contingent of ISIS fighters. For Özerdem, the biggest risk is that disarmament can be perceived as surrender rather than transition. “If an armed group gives up weapons before credible guarantees are in place, it may fear political marginalization, arrest, revenge attacks, or loss of bargaining power.” Perhaps deadlock is the goal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly argued that he is ready to return to war in Gaza “at any moment.” The deeply flawed disarmament process gives him one more way to justify such a step — and shields him from making concessions that his political opponents could hold against him. The Board of Peace has continued to pay lip service to the idea of a prosperous and even futuristic Gaza. But, with a peace process like this, the board’s most lasting legacy could well be as a validator for continued war.
Hamas'ı Silahsızlandırma Planı Neden Başarısızlığa Mahkum?Space Force needs to prepare for an ‘in-person’ moon conflict with China, new report argues
Guardians need a human spaceflight program for future lunar missions, Mitchell Institute says.