Trending News
What’s happening in Calgary for National Day for Truth and Reconciliation
Calgarians will see some service changes and opportunities to take part in reconciliation events as the city marks the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation on Wednesday, Sept. 30. What’s happening Orange Shirt Day ceremony The City is inviting residents to attend its annual Orange Shirt Day ceremony at The Confluence Historic Site & Parkland. […]
Senate passes sweeping college sports bill to regulate athlete pay and transfers
The Senate passed a sweeping bipartisan bill on Monday that would regulate college sports, an attempt to end "chaos" in an industry that has been upended by skyrocketing athlete payments and near-unrestricted transfers between schools.The overwhelming 77-22 vote to pass the legislation is the strongest effort yet by Congress to set national regulations governing payments to college athletes for their name, image and likeness and how often they can transfer. It would give the NCAA new authority over those rules and limited antitrust protections to enforce them.The bill is the product of years of Senate negotiations that intensified after a 2025 lawsuit settlement uprooted the college sports landscape by allowing colleges to pay their players. The legislation, which would still have to pass the House, would codify the settlement into law but also establish new guardrails around the system in an attempt to rein in the runaway costs for colleges."It would be nice if college sports could somehow magically fix itself, but this is a matter of law, federal law, and only Congress can fix it," said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who negotiated the bill with the top Democrat on the panel, Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell. President Donald Trump praised the bill in a social media post after the late night passage. "This is a really big deal," he said. "It will not only save college sports, it will save the colleges themselves."The bill’s backers — more than 70 senators from both parties — say it aims to curtail constant litigation and uncertainty across college sports for athletes, schools and fans. It would also give hundreds of thousands of athletes new health and labor protections. But critics say the bill doesn’t do enough to protect athletes or curtail the enormous sums of money flowing to coaches, colleges and conferences. "This is a bill that essentially ensconces a system of exploitation, and it doesn't fix the broader problems," said Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat who has worked with labor and civil rights groups to rally opposition to the bill. The bill's future is still unclear. It could face an uphill battle in the House, which failed repeatedly over the last year to get a different version to the floor and is in recess until after the November elections.Lawmakers will have to start over in the next Congress if the bill doesn’t pass both chambers by the end of the year. Bill addresses skyrocketing spending, unlimited transfers College sports have been reeling in the wake of the 2025 court settlement allowing colleges to directly pay players for their name, image and likeness. The fallout has reshaped the industry and led to football roster payrolls that can exceed $40 million.The bill would codify the court settlement, including a revenue cap that allows schools to share up to $21.5 million in revenue with their players. The legislation would more than double that amount for some schools, allowing up to an additional $27.5 million in payments through a retention fund — a change that helped win the support of the two largest conferences, the Big Ten and Southeastern Conference. To help schools raise more revenue, the bill would give schools and conferences the option of pooling their TV media rights. The legislation also aims to stabilize the NCAA transfer portal that has led to players constantly switching teams. It would restrict player transfers to one "free" move over five years without sitting out a year, with some exceptions, and also would restrict players to five years of total eligibility. NCAA Aug 20 Cash-hungry college sports programs are starting nonprofits to make money to stay competitive College Football Aug 20 States pour taxpayer dollars into college sports as athlete pay, soaring costs squeeze budgets The proposed eligibility limit comes amid backlash to schools that have increasingly pushed boundaries, including LSU’s now-canceled plans to place players on the roster who had participated in NFL training camps. "That was probably like a big lamp for some people who saw it and said, 'Oh my God, this is so out of control,'" Cantwell said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.The bill also would restrict coaches from leaving their schools during the season, force schools that want to switch conferences to spend three years as an independent and prevent conferences from growing larger than 20 programs — an effort to prevent so-called "superleagues" from taking over sports. A last-minute amendment proposed by Florida Sen. Ashley Moody raised that cap from 19 in the original legislation. The vote was delayed several hours on Monday as senators negotiated Moody's amendment and others that were eventually adopted, including a provision to make it easier for athletes to sue over sexual assault and a requirement to disclose foreign financing.The Senate rejected an amendment by Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., that would have put limits on ticket prices for fans and two by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., that would have capped coaches' salaries at $5 million a year and increased compensation for athletes who have catastrophic injuries.Critics say it wouldn't do enough to help athletes The legislation includes new protections for athletes, including caps on agent fees and guarantees for health insurance and scholarships. It would also require schools to maintain a minimum number of sports and roster spots — an effort to ensure that women’s and Olympic sports are not cut in favor of football, basketball and other sports that generate more revenue. Still, some Democrats say it wouldn’t do enough to limit the big money in college sports. The legislation "places a cap on the students' cut of the revenues, but there are no caps on coaches' salaries or on the size of donations to athletic programs," Murphy said last week. Groups like the NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus and AFL-CIO have also opposed the bill, in part, because it leaves unresolved whether athletes should be considered employees with the ability to collectively bargain.All four Black Democrats in the Senate — Booker, Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland — have opposed the bill. Booker, who played football at Stanford in the late 1980s on a scholarship, noted the "outsized role" that Black athletes play in college sports. He said it wasn’t until college athletes were able to begin to win cases in court that the power started to shift, "and now the NCAA is coming here to the United States Senate, asking for sweeping powers” to exempt antitrust laws. "We know who this bill is protecting," Booker said. House passage is uncertain Despite strong bipartisan support in the Senate, the bill faces a murky path in the House. House lawmakers won’t return to Washington until mid-November, after the elections. And it’s unclear what will be on Republican leaders’ agenda in the chaotic last few weeks of the session. Pressure from Trump could help push the bill to passage. But some House Republicans have insisted on language explicitly stating that athletes are not employees, which the Senate bill does not have — a key concession to Cantwell to win enough Democratic support. After the bill’s passage, Cruz said it is his hope "that we see in the House the same thing we saw in the Senate: a big bipartisan vote." ___Pells reported from Denver. Associated Press writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.
Ex-special counsel Jack Smith tells senators he won't be 'silenced' by Trump threats
Former special counsel Jack Smith forcefully defended his prosecutions of President Donald Trump and his investigative tactics, pushing back against repeated Republican efforts to paint him and his team as partisan political operators during a Senate hearing Tuesday that divided along familiar party lines.The hearing came as Republicans have pushed for Smith to himself be prosecuted and offered a forum for them to assail him for what they contend were politicized prosecutions that unfolded at the height of the 2024 presidential race. Democrats rallied to Smith’s defense, eliciting testimony about the legal and factual basis for the criminal cases against the-then candidate and decrying the Trump administration’s firing of prosecutors involved in the investigations.Smith, for his part, defended his work in an hours-long Senate Judiciary Committee hearing — the latest congressional effort to revisit federal cases that accused Trump of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 race and of hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both were abandoned after Trump’s 2024 election win."Anybody who has worked with me or knows me during the course of my career knows that I would not let politics play a role. And I would just add that if you knew the people I worked with, they would not either,” Smith said. He lamented what he called an unprecedented assault on the rule of law, and sweeping terminations of his team that he said had deprived the government of crucial expertise and made the country less safe."That has never happened in my career. I have never seen anything remotely like it in any Republican or Democratic administration," he said.The testimony did nothing to appease Smith’s Republican critics, who during the hearing described him as a "villain” and a “dirtbag," worse than former President Richard Nixon. They even accused him of perjuring himself about his attendance at an out-of-town basketball game that appeared to be a misunderstanding over a team name.The hearing focused on subpoenas for phone recordsSmith was pressed anew by Republican senators about his team's access to the phone records of GOP lawmakers as prosecutors investigated Trump's efforts to reverse his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.Prosecutors issued subpoenas for the phone records of numerous Republican members of Congress who were contacted by Trump or his aides on Jan. 6, 2021, the day supporters of the president rioted inside the U.S. Capitol. Smith has said that such subpoenas are common practice in investigations and were necessary in this instance to understand the "scope of the conspiracy" between Trump and his Republican allies.The subpoenas, he said Tuesday, provided powerful "corroborating evidence" that Trump and his alleged co-conspirators sought to exploit the violence of the day by invoking it to try to further delay the congressional certification of Biden’s win."They were taking the fact that law enforcement officers had been assaulted at this institution and using that to seek to delay the proceedings further in violation of the law," Smith said.The data at issue are known as "toll records," which reveal the date, length and time of phone calls between two parties but not the content of the communications.Nonetheless, the revelation that Smith's team secretly obtained the records has animated Republican lawmakers, who consider it proof of overreach by the Biden administration Justice Department and the hard-charging prosecutor it picked to be special counsel.Several Republicans said the tactic was a breach of the "speech and debate" constitutional protection shielding lawmakers from prosecutorial scrutiny for their legislative acts. Smith denied that was the case and said he had received approval from the Justice Department’s elite Public Integrity Section.In July, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, referred Smith to the Justice Department for potential prosecution on allegations he lied at a previous hearing about his collection of the records — something Smith's attorneys have vigorously disputed."I stand by my testimony before the House of Representatives," Smith said Tuesday. "I will not be silenced by the continued threats of prosecution from the president or others."Smith faced bitingly personal criticism from RepublicansSmith was appointed by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland to lead investigations into Trump’s efforts to reverse his election loss and Trump’s retention of classified documents. Smith abandoned the prosecutions after Trump’s 2024 win, citing Justice Department opinions that sitting presidents cannot be federally indicted.Smith has remained a top target of retribution for Trump and his administrations, and Republicans on the committee repeatedly confronted him in a hearing that frequently devolved into partisan sniping and name-calling. They sought to cast the prosecution as a political fishing expedition, accusing Smith of bending ordinary procedures in pursuit of Trump."The Smith election case ultimately wasn't just about Trump," said Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the chairman of the committee. "It was about partisan agents and prosecutors mapping out the Republican apparatus."During one tense exchange, Republican Sen. John Kennedy grew exasperated as he pressed Smith on whether the Biden White House instructed the Justice Department to prosecute Trump. Smith said he had "no idea about that," and that the decision to prosecute Trump was his own.In an effort to show Smith was being evasive, Kennedy asked Smith whether he believed in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny. Smith said no."You make me want to throw up in my mouth," Kennedy told Smith as he concluded his line of questioning.In another notable moment, Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt accused Smith of traveling to Atlanta and attending a game for the city's NBA team — the Hawks — in February 2024 while Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was facing scrutiny for her romantic relationship with a special prosecutor in the Georgia 2020 election case.But it appeared the Missouri senator got his teams confused. After appearing perplexed by the question and denying any travel to Georgia, Smith revealed that the contest he had actually attended was an Iowa Hawkeyes women’s basketball game in Maryland.Schmitt appeared unbowed."You may think you're a hero in this story, but let me tell you something: you're the villain," he said. "You will go down as a total dirtbag."Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the committee, accused Republicans of spreading "baseless conspiracy theories" about Smith's investigations in an effort to "whitewash" the history of Trump's election loss and the subsequent attack on the U.S. Capitol."President Trump demonstrated a wanton disdain for the laws of the United States, the will of the people and our national security," Durbin said. "The aspersions cast on Mr. Smith, nonstop, are petty, personal and political. They are nothing but a smoke screen to distract from the president's own clear, unlawful conduct."
White House using taxpayer money to run ads promoting Trump. Is it legal?
The White House has spent days fiercely defending three taxpayer-funded advertisements that glorify President Donald Trump and have cost more than $1.7 million in public spending, calling them public service announcements like those used in past administrations."Don't let the Fake News get away with their lies about our epic Public Service Announcements that have been running on tv," White House communications director Steven Cheung posted on X on Sunday.But the Republican administration’s ads attracted mounting criticism on Monday, including from members of Trump's own party."It shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars," Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters. "It would not have been something that I would have done. And I know that the White House is not covered by the same guidance that we are, but it's not something that I would have done,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, another South Dakota Republican.Multiple legal experts consulted by The Associated Press said the ads appear to run afoul of federal statutes, including a law against congressionally appropriated funds being used for "publicity or propaganda" and a law that limits the partisan political activities of government employees. They said the new ads, which are airing on network and cable TV and streaming, differ from other administrations' PSAs because they aren't designed to help Americans access any specific program."You watch all three ads, they're sheer propaganda," said Richard Painter, a former White House ethics czar under Republican President George W. Bush. "This is increasingly looking like what authoritarian governments do to promote their leaders."One of the ads is nearly identical to an ad put out by Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. The White House did not specifically respond to NBC News' question about that observation. The heightened scrutiny comes as the Trump administration has increased spending on the ads and bought time on popular TV shows, including college football and National Football League programming. It remains unclear which part of the government is supplying the funds.With both chambers of Congress led by Republicans, any oversight would likely have to come from Trump’s allies, decreasing the likelihood of hearings or other accountability efforts before November’s midterm elections.Three ads have aired in less than a week, totaling well over $1 millionThe first ad in the campaign, which began airing last Wednesday, features clips of Trump talking about defeating communism interspersed with onscreen text promoting the "largest tax cuts in history," "reigniting American manufacturing" and a call to "defend law and order and police." Later in the week, a second ad began running, showing scenic videos of Mount Rushmore at night with quotes and clips from Trump's Fourth of July weekend speech there honoring the country's 250th anniversary.The latest of the ads, a spot first aired over the weekend, is virtually identical to an ad for Trump's Republican reelection campaign in 2024. It shows him walking down a hallway as his voice can be heard warning of a "final battle" against "globalists" and "warmongers." All three ads end with a message that says: “Paid for by the U.S. Government." The White House hasn’t responded to inquiries about which part of the government is paying.According to AdImpact, which tracks political ad spending, the spots have so far cost more than $1.7 million and run across a wide range of TV networks around the country, NBC News reports. AdImpact doesn't have full visibility into airings on every cable channel in every market in the country, hampering that estimate.The actual amount spent could be significantly more, depending on whether networks classified the ad as a political ad.The ads are different from past PSAs, experts sayIn defending the campaign, the White House published a list of PSAs from recent Democratic and Republican administrations. Among the examples it cited were Bush's Republican administration touting a Medicare law, Barack Obama’s Democratic administration promoting Affordable Care Act subsidies and Joe Biden’s Democratic administration running ads promoting COVID-19 vaccinations."The announcements are very clearly not campaign ads; President Trump is not on the ballot and there is no call to action," the White House wrote. "Instead, the announcements are a reminder for Americans to love their country and know why it's worth defending — at home, at the border, and abroad."Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said in her view the new ads differ from the examples the White House provided because they aren't aimed at helping members of the public benefit from specific government programs."These ads are nothing more than government propaganda, aimed at helping Trump," she said. Painter, who joined the Bush administration after the Medicare PSAs went out, said that ad campaign toed the line on appropriateness because it included misleading information about Medicare Part D. But he said Trump’s campaign is a far more egregious violation of the statute that blocks congressionally appropriated money from being spent on publicity or propaganda."There’s nothing in here about a particular policy that’s at all focused,” Painter said of Trump’s ads. "One of them is just about the evils of the deep state. Another one of them is about communists and Marxists." In its support for the ads, the White House also referenced the administrations of President Woodrow Wilson and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, both of whom used posters, radio and film to rally the country during World Wars I and II. James Kimble, a communication professor at Seton Hall University who studies domestic propaganda, said it’s true that Wilson’s Democratic administration used propaganda to rally Americans. But he said most Americans no longer view its actions in a positive light."By almost any objective measure, looking back, we find what they did pretty repulsive,” he said.Skepticism of the campaign grows on the HillTop Democrats on the Senate and House appropriations committees last week wrote to the White House demanding the ads be taken down and requesting more information on how much money was spent to create and air them.In the days since, more than a dozen Democrats and a handful of Republicans have spoken up to further criticize the ads. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the latest ad "an absolute violation of what a democracy is supposed to look like.""Americans sat down to watch football, not to be force-fed Trump's propaganda on their own dime," he said in a Senate floor speech Monday.Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, said on CBS’s "Face the Nation" on Sunday that no public official should spend public money on private ads for themselves. And Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who lost his primary to a Trump-backed challenger, had his own harsh words for the administration on Monday."Don't worry, using taxpayer dollars to run ominous campaign ads of the President has been done before and is completely legal… in banana republics," he wrote in an X post.The Republican chairs of the Senate and House appropriation committees didn’t respond to requests for comment.___Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Steven Sloan contributed to this report.
Lawsuit accuses Central Bucks School District of abuse of student with autism
A Philadelphia-based law firm announced Tuesday that it filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Central Bucks School District and other defendants over allegations that staff abused a student with autism in 2024.The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a 10-year-old child with nonverbal autism, claims the boy was illegally restrained 2,933 times between Sept. 3 and Dec. 20, 2024, while attending an autistic support classroom at Jamison Elementary School. In addition, the complaint accuses school employees of restricting the boy’s access to water and the bathroom, removing his communication device and “repeatedly humiliating him because of behaviors connected to his disability.”"This case involves an extraordinary betrayal of a child who depended entirely on the adults around him for his safety, education, and care," said attorney M. Stewart Ryan, partner at Laffey Bucci D'Andrea Reich & Ryan. "Not only did our client endure relentless and degrading treatment, but district officials were repeatedly given opportunities to protect him and failed to do so."According to the lawyers, the complaint also alleges that Central Bucks School District officials were aware of reports of misconduct but allowed the employees accused of mistreating the child to remain in the classroom.Moreover, the lawsuit accuses the district of delaying reporting the allegations to ChildLine, providing incomplete or misleading information to authorities and “falsely” telling the child’s parents that an internal investigation found no evidence of abuse.According to the complaint, the child has since been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.In a joint statement, the boy’s family said:"It is devastating to learn that our son was treated this way by the very people we trusted to care for and protect him. Because he is nonverbal, he could not come home and tell us that he was being viciously abused and traumatized on a daily basis. We are also furious with the many people who covered up his abuse. We are speaking out for our son and for every vulnerable and defenseless child who depends on teachers and school administrators to protect their dignity and keep them safe. Our son and entire family have been changed forever. This can never happen again to another child."In April 2025, Disability Rights Pennsylvania (DRP) released a report after an investigation into allegations of abuse of children in an autistic support classroom at Jamison Elementary School. The investigation found the allegations were credible and corroborated by several staff who worked in the classroom.“The students – kindergarteners through second graders -experienced abuse, neglect, illegal restraints, aversive techniques, and disability discrimination by the teacher and educational assistant in the classroom,” the DRP said in a release.In the report, the DRP recommended a series of actions to address the issues, including staff and administrator discipline, training, policy development and additional safeguards for the safety and rights of students with disabilities.In October 2025, NBC10 Investigators reported on concerns over an increase in restraints for students with disabilities across the state, including at Jamison Elementary School in the Central Bucks School District.The state Department of Education found that the district restrained a child — along with the son of a school board member — by using desks to wedge them in their chairs against a wall. In total, the Central Bucks School District reported more than 6,400 restraints for the 2024-25 school year. That's nearly a quarter of the total number of restraints reported statewide in 2024.NBC10 reached out to the Central Bucks School District for comment on the lawsuit and responded with the following statement:“Central Bucks School District has acknowledged what occurred in Classroom 119 at Jamison Elementary School during the fall of 2024. The district took the actions within its power to discipline both those employees who committed these offenses, and those employees who failed to report them. The district terminated the superintendent who was in charge of the district at the time, as well as the then-principal of Jamison, and the district's then-director of special education. The district also approved charges against the teacher and educational assistant, and fully litigated those terminations through the arbitration process, which is ongoing. The district implemented significant changes at Jamison Elementary School to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. The Disability Rights Project returned to Jamison last year, reviewed these changes, and closed their investigation. The district understands that none of these actions can change what happened to the students in Classroom 119 at Jamison. Before the filing of the lawsuit, the district communicated to the attorneys for this family that the district was open to a resolution of their claims. The filing of the lawsuit does not change that position."
Dennis Haskins, principal on TV's 'Saved by the Bell,' dies at 75
Dennis Haskins, the actor best known for his role as principal Richard Belding on the high school comedy series "Saved by the Bell," has died, his agent said Monday.Haskins was 75. A cause and manner of death were unavailable."It's a tragic loss," Jay Schachter, head of film and television for Stewart Talent in New York City, said in a statement.Haskins' role on the show, which aired from 1989 to 1993, would come to define him for millions of fans."Everyone loved Mr. Belding and those of us who got to know Dennis, loved him even more," Schachter said. "He was a great person, and he loved, I mean absolutely LOVED his fans."Haskins was born and raised in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and attended the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, where he reported for the student newspaper, acted in campus productions and was a founding member of the community theater group known as the Harlequins, according to his university biography.As a young man he worked as a music manager, agent and concert promoter and called Tom Jones and Gregg Allman among his clients, according to his IMDb bio. Early in his career he landed appearances on TV's "Magnum, P.I." and "The Twilight Zone," according to IMDb.His acting career was boosted by his portrayal of Mr. Belding on Disney Channel's "Good Morning, Miss Bliss" in 1988, according to the university bio. The next year, NBC aired the show as "Saved by the Bell" until 1993.He reprised the role on "Saved by the Bell: The New Class," which aired Saturday mornings from 1993 to 2000 on NBC. After the show's end, he found work appearing in several movies and television shows, including "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia," according to his university bio.Schachter said Haskins will be missed."He was my client and dear friend for over 20 years, and I will miss him terribly," he said. "I'm heartbroken."
Toronto Maple Leafs, Montreal Canadiens to battle as new NHL season begins
A new NHL season kicks off tonight with some historic rivalries and the reigning Stanley Cup champions celebrating their title. The Carolina Hurricanes will raise their championship banner before taking on a Florida Panthers side reinvigorated by the return of captain Aleksander Barkov. Four Canadian teams are also in action, starting with No. 1 draft […]
RAF Fairford: Rubio says 'foreign actor' behind suspected plot as some evacuated residents begin to return home – as it happened
US secretary of state and Donald Trump express concerns about decision to bail suspects; some residents reported as hesitant to return homeRubio says foreign actor was 'clearly' behind suspected RAF Fairford plotTell us: have you been affected by the incident at RAF Fairford?Former national co-ordinator for UK counter-terrorism policing Nick Aldworth said investigators make bail decisions based on risk rather than investigative or geopolitical concerns.His comments come as US president Donald Trump had earlier said he was "surprised" the five men had been freed on bail.The provision of bail is set from a concrete foundation devoid of political or even investigative influence.A custody officer will determine if those in custody will present any of a number of statutory risks and if they do not, then bail is usually granted if there is a need to conduct further investigation.I have every confidence that if the police have released these individuals on bail, that they do not pose any ongoing risks to the public at large. The rest will undoubtedly come out in the ongoing investigation. Continue reading...
UK: US government questions bail for Fairford base suspects
The US government sees "the hand of a foreign actor" in the security scare at RAF Fairford, a hub for US heavy bombers in Europe. Donald Trump criticized the suspects being released on bail amid ongoing investigations.
What’s different around SBA for the Maple Leafs 2026-27 home opener
The 100th anniversary season of the Maple Leafs seems to have sparked 1,000 changes around the team and Scotiabank Arena.  Many of the revisions will be easy to spot Tuesday night for the home opener against the Montreal Canadiens. Starting with 12 new players on the 23-man roster; Sergei Bobrovsky in goal, Darren Raddysh and […]
On TV

Nothing airing worth remote control today. The screen can rest.

New Music

No new drops today. Go rediscover something in your old playlists.

In theaters

No new releases hitting theaters today. Your popcorn can wait.

Launching today

Nothing launching today. Every rocket is staying grounded and behaving.

Useless Fact

All US Presidents have worn glasses; some just didn`t like being seen wearing them in public.

The loonie
CAD → USD
0.7048
▼ 0.0010
CAD → EUR
0.6217
▲ 0.0010
Today In History
642 — Conquest of Egypt by Arab General ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ
In 642 AD, Arab General ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ led the final conquest of Egypt for the Rashidun Caliphate, capturing the city of Alexandria after a three-year Arab invasion.
2005 — John G. Roberts Jr. Sworn in as 17th U.S. Chief Justice
American jurist John G. Roberts, Jr., was sworn in as the 17th chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.Why are there nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court?Paul Morse/The White House
1988 — Space Shuttle Discovery Launches After Challenger Disaster
Space Shuttle Discovery was launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida in 1988, marking the resumption of NASA's space shuttle program after the Challenger explosion in 1986.
1961 — Julia Gillard's Birth in Wales
Julia Gillard, who in 2010 became Australia's first female prime minister, was born in Wales
1938 — Greyhound Sets 1 Mile Trotting Record of 1:55 1/4 in 1938
The American harness racehorse Greyhound established a new trotting record of 1:55 1/4 for 1 mile in 1938, which stood as the record for over 30 years until it was broken in 1969.
1938 — Poland demands Teschen region from Czechoslovakia
Poland demanded the cession of Teschen, a rich region that had been contested and then divided between Poland and Czechoslovakia following World War I
1923 — British mandate in Palestine
Set in motion by the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the British mandate for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was finally approved by the Council of the League of Nations and came into force this day in 1923
1918 — German Chancellor Resigns During WWI
German Chancellor Georg von Hertling tendered his resignation on the day of the Bulgarian armistice and the British attack of the Western Front during World War I
1906 — U.S. Occupation of Cuba After 1906 Election
The United States occupied Cuba after the rebellion surrounding the reelection of Tomás Estrada Palma. The occupation lasted until 1909 as the U.S. intervened in Cuban politics to maintain stability following the disputed election.
1833 — Succession of Isabella II to Spanish Throne
King Ferdinand VII of Spain died, and his two-year-old daughter, Isabella II, was proclaimed queen
1829 — Founding of London's Metropolitan Police
Through the efforts of Robert Peel, England's first professional police force, London's Metropolitan Police (often called Scotland Yard), was founded; it became a model for future police departments in various other countries, including the United States.Topical Press Agency—

This is today, boiled down to the essentials. The full stash lives at logicalchaos.ca. Go get lost in it.