Mediaboss Marketing

Yashasvi Jaiswal slammed an unbeaten century while young pacer Kartik Tyagi reminded Pakistan of Waqar Younis' toe-crushing yorkers as India colts cruised to a massive win in the knockout game. The Pakistani cricketers were no match to their Indian counterparts as they were outclassed in every department of the game.

ICC U-19 World Cup: Wishes pour in as India colts thrash Pakistan to storm into final

The gulf in class between the two sides was evident as Indian bowlers collectively choked Pakistan to a paltry 172 in 43.1 overs.

Later, left-handed opener Jaiswal then showed his class with an unbeaten knock of 105 off 113 balls, with an equally graceful Divyansh Saxena (59 not out off 99 balls) supporting him in an easy chase completed in only 35.2 overs.

ICC U-19 World Cup: One more step towards what we set out to achieve: India captain Priyam Garg

The Nawab of Najafgarh, who is known for his witty oneliners, took to his Twitter handle and posted the picture of the victorious U-19 Indian side and captioned it, "Ab toh Aadat si hai! (We are accustomed to it now!)."

Team India enjoys a fairly decent record against Pakistan in the World Cups. However, in the U-19 World Cups, both the teams have secured five wins against each other.

ICC U-19 World Cup 2020: India vs Pakistan, Highlights: India storm into final after thrashing Pakistan by 10 wickets

Indian cricket board's senior selection committee chairman MSK Prasad also congratulated the U-19 side for their comprehensive win and making it to their seventh junior World Cup final.

"Many many congratulations to India U-19 team for having successfully reached the finals with a thumping victory in quarters & semifinals. I wish the young bunch all the success in finals and defend the Cup," Prasad said.

They will now meet the winners of the second semi-final between Bangladesh and New Zealand.

Get breaking news alerts.

Allow Notifications

You have already subscribed

View post:
Virender Sehwag has an epic reaction as Yashasvi Jaiswal guides India U-19 to a thumping win over Pakistan in - myKhel

Aston Villa vs. Leicester City hardly leapt off the page as a standout game to the casual observer scrolling the fixtures lists last night looking for some midweek sporting entertainment.

Of course, once they had remembered it was the Carabao Cup semi-final second leg, with the score poised at 1-1, it became a little more interesting. But given were in the part of the season where Premier League games come bi-weekly, and were about to hit the first knockout round of the Champions League, it still wasnt top of most peoples must watch lists.

In the end it was a thrilling match however, and while this game is now essentially the Who Gets To Get Battered By Man City In The Final playoff, it meant a lot to both teams. For many players on the pitch this was the biggest stage theyve played on in their careers, with the chance to compete for a cup just 90 minutes away.

Brendan Rodgers Leicester, rightly praised for 12 months now, looked the better team and were heavy favourites. But despite their superior squad they ended up on the losing side. The greatest factor in swinging the game against them wasnt the home support, or any tactical magic from Aston Villa manager Dean Smith. It was a superb performance from Jack Grealish.

This was his chance to take his excellent Premier League form into a one-off, high pressure knockout game, and he delivered in every aspect.

A Chelsea fan doesnt say this lightly, but Grealish played a worth of Eden Hazards very finest hours. The Belgian blew hot and cold at some stages, but when he was on his game there was little the opposition could do to stop him. This was the state the 24 year old Villa midfielder achieved last night.

Playing off the left wing, just like the Belgian tended to, he was everywhere. He created danger every time the ball came to him in the final third, but just as often as he produced an outlandish flick he would also play a simple delayed pass that would cause just as much trouble for the Foxes.

His awareness not just of the players around him but also of the shape of the game was impressive. The tempo of the match was decided by what he did with the ball at his feet, sometimes pushing on quickly and sometimes drawing in Leicester defenders before laying a simple pass back to his midfield.

As the game wore on and Villa came under more pressure, he didnt fade from the game or hide higher up the pitch. He came deeper, got more involved and used his supreme confidence on the ball to help his team work their way out of trouble rather than allowing them to panic and play it long.

At this stage of the game he was at his most Hazard-like, using his body brilliantly to win foul after foul to take the pressure off his teammates. Of course he doesnt quite have the speedy low-slung scurry of the former Chelsea winger, but instead his height and strength gives him even more ability to play deeper and more centrally.

The combination of tactical intelligence, technical skill and pure desire that Grealish showed in one game was exceptional. In a season where hes already taken a step up, he excelled in its biggest game so far, and it was hard to not imagine Europes top clubs taking note.

The midfielder should be celebrated as a great player for Villa, and his achievements there should by no means be seen just as CV building in the hope of joining a Champions League club. Watching as a Chelsea fan, however, it was hard not to imagine what he would bring to Frank Lampards incomplete XI.

That creativity and touch between the lines, that brilliant football brain, the set-pieces, shots and crosses cracked in to the box from all angles, even the confident swagger that transmits his belief in his own ability to every other member of his team and lifts them all. All of it would add so much to the squad Lampard is trying to build; and this season already would likely have been worth half a dozen precious Premier League points to the Blues in the games where they toiled toothlessly against deep-set defences.

Prising Grealish away from the club he has showed so much loyalty to wont be easy, and it perhaps wont even be possible. But last nights game was the evidence that not at least giving him the chance to step up would be a failure on the part of a club desperately looking for a new star man to fill the void left by Eden Hazards departure.

Continued here:
Hazard-like Grealish elevates his game on big stage to show what he could bring to Chelsea as creative hub of the future - Talk Chelsea

Its the type of move that might have prompted a backlash from within his own party not too long ago, and several senators said they would not have done it. But after three weeks of the impeachment trial and with Trumps firm grip over the party, there was little blowback from his colleagues on Tuesday.

I was glad we didnt put the chief justice in a bad situation, said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of the GOP leadership. I have some sympathy for [Pauls] view on this. The whistleblower law should protect the whistleblowers job and future opportunity and not necessarily hide who the whistleblower is.

Its fine, said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). Had there been a vote on it, I probably would have voted to override the chief justice.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who has long touted his reputation protecting whistleblowers, said simply: If its the same name everybody else used, then its kind of out there.

Trump has repeatedly attacked the whistleblower on social media and in recent remarks. And in using the person's name on the Senate floor, Paul went further than any other House or Senate Republican. When Paul sought to have Roberts read his question during a two-day round of inquiries during the trial Roberts refused, saying, "The presiding officer declines to read the question."

Under the Constitution, Pauls own speech is protected on the Senate floor. That means he can do whatever he wants on the floor, said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

But some Republicans did seek to gently put distance between themselves and Paul, a longtime troublemaker within the Senate GOP who has single handedly caused brief shutdowns of the government and the Patriot Act in his two terms in the Senate.

I still believe in whistleblower protection. I think the fact that the chief justice wouldnt read it is an indicator of the sensitivity of it, said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). So I probably wouldnt have done that.

I wouldnt have done it, agreed Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who said he would have voted down Paul if he had contested Roberts on the Senate floor. I would have said that weve asked the chief justice by constitutional directive to oversee this and Im going to respect his wishes.

Paul said Tuesday that he supports protections against reprisal for whistleblowers but not necessarily anonymity.

"In the first month of [Trump's] office, in January of 2017, they were already plotting the impeachment," he alleged. "And you say 'Well, we should protect the whistleblower, and the whistleblower deserves anonymity.' The law does not preserve anonymity. His boss is not supposed to say anything about him, he's not supposed to be fired. I'm for that."

The whistleblower filed a complaint in August with an intelligence community watchdog, Inspector General Michael Atkinson. The complaint, which cited widespread concerns inside the Trump administration, alleged that Trump appeared to pressure Ukraine's president to launch politically motivated investigations of his Democratic rivals.

Atkinson indicated that the whistleblower showed "some indicia of an arguable political bias" but after reviewing the complaint and deemed it "urgent" and credible, triggering a requirement to transmit the complaint to Congress. The director of national intelligence, though, instead forwarded the complaint to the Justice Department, which overruled Atkinson's judgment and blocked the complaint from reaching the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

More here:
Rand Paul reads alleged whistleblower's name and Republicans 'fine' with it - POLITICO

On Wednesday, the Senate will most likely vote to acquit President Trump. The vote should send shock waves through our democracy. It is not so much that the Senate is absolving him of all charges of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power; the shock waves should emanate from how his Republican allies go about it. By rejecting a conviction, the party will demonstrate that it believes anything goes in winning elections.

Most Republican senators have insisted that in pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, Mr. Trump did nothing wrong. A few say he crossed a line, but they have never explained why his actions fall short of conviction, or what it would take for them to consider a conviction.

Rather than reining in a president who clearly abused his power for personal gain, most Republicans have conceded to Mr. Trumps overarching defense: that his re-election would serve the public interest. That argument was enough, for his Senate allies, to override campaign finance laws and the norms of governance that have prevailed in our country until this presidency.

This defense is a natural outgrowth of the unitary executive theory, a legal doctrine advanced by apologists for the imperial presidency, including Attorney General William Barr. It was Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor representing Mr. Trump, who gave this idea its most outrageous frame: Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest, he said. And if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

If this were simply verbiage in service of his client, one might almost forgive Mr. Dershowitz for his claim. But Republican senators and other party leaders have embraced this theory as if our Constitution was in fact a pact to establish a monarchy. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a close ally of the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, declared that Mr. Dershowitz had said the presidents actions were not impeachable, and I dont disagree with that.

In other words, the core message from Senate Republicans is this: No matter how dangerous or incompetent any president might be, he or she has only to think that remaining in office serves our nation to justify any act to stay there.

This is a five-alarm fire for democracy. The Republican Party has aggressively sought to rig elections in its favor, including voter purging, vote suppression and gerrymandering. Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Moral Majority, explained his support for vote suppression at an evangelical Christian campaign rally for Ronald Reagan in 1980. Many of our Christians have what I call the goo goo syndrome good government, he said. They want everybody to vote. I dont want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people.

That statement has been the foundation of the Republican approach to elections ensure that only the people you want to vote can vote, and if you cant win even with vote suppression, look the other way when Russians intervene. Mr. Trumps defense in the Senate is in keeping with this no-holds-barred approach. Anything in service of victory is permissible.

This impeachment is as much about what happens in November as it is about Mr. Trumps actions. With the Republicans in thrall to a demagogic leader, will it accept the results if Mr. Trump loses the election? Will Mr. Trump vacate the White House next Jan. 20, or will he claim that the election was a fraud?

Or even more likely, will allies in swing states like Florida, Ohio and Arizona contest results in favor of Mr. Trumps opponent? We have already seen how Floridas Republican governor and Legislature have thwarted the will of the voters, who last year approved a ballot initiative to allow former felons to vote: They enacted the equivalent of a poll tax, in defiance of the Constitution.

The time for those who believe in our Constitution and our democracy to act is now. We must prepare in every possible way to counter efforts by the Republicans and Mr. Trump to rig the coming election and to nullify it if they lose. While the statements during impeachment and the lock-step way the Republicans follow Mr. Trump might look like the temporary aberration of a party in the grip of a cult of personality, the roots of this anti-democratic impulse are much deeper. What Mr. Trump has laid bare is the true emptiness of the Republican Partys commitment to fair elections and its antagonism to the rules of democracy.

If we dont work now to prepare the public and the machinery of voting around the country for an end-run around our representative form of government, we shall be akin to nations like Russia, where elections are just cover for autocracy.

Caroline Fredrickson (@crfredrickson) is the author of The Democracy Fix: How to Win the Fight for Fair Rules, Fair Courts and Fair Elections and a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

View original post here:
After Acquittal, Its Anything Goes for the Republicans - The New York Times

The truth is that Mr. Obama was only sort of techie. More important, his administration did not challenge the industry in any significant way. In the Obama years, Silicon Valley consolidated its influence and centralized its power without oversight. In addition, the idea took hold that the tech industry was full of liberals, when in fact it is more libertarian-lite with a strong proclivity for an unusual combination of live-and-let-live social mores and dont regulate my innovation or tax me business attitude.

In fact, from the start of the internet age in the 1990s, the right has been more clever than its rivals in exploiting ever-morphing tech to influence vast numbers of people with targeted messages.

While its hard to forget in the age of Fox News ubiquity, a couple of decades ago most of the truly powerful media outlets were centrist (or slightly left of center), and mass-media broadcast technology was not readily available to the emerging conservative movement.

Thus, these outsiders latched on to the web, which in many cases meant they were among the first to effectively use highly targeted email and search ads. Back in the early 2000s, people like the evangelical political strategist Ralph Reed showed us what was coming: campaigns that are fought and won online, and power shifting to those who know how to move the tech levers.

Right now thats people like Mr. Parscale, whose tactic is to use the entire arsenal of weapons that companies like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have provided in the most creative and sometimes nefarious of ways. And, as loath as I am to say this, why shouldnt he create a raging digital fire of confusion and propaganda and microtargeted lies and truths if no one is making rules to stop him? It is not meant as a compliment, but right now being the best tech arsonist is what rates.

Meanwhile, as it all burns, the Democrats in Iowa are fiddling away on an app that cant tally what is a relatively simple set of data. Long ago, during a debate about the Obamacare site mess and what it meant for eventual online voting, I suggested to a panel of Washington power players that maybe we get a start-up like Tinder to run the voting system, since it did complex matching calculations in real time.

My comment was greeted by looks of horror, with one panel member asking me why our democracy should rely on dating app technology.

The answer was simple: because it works.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Go here to see the original:
Sorry, Republicans Rule the Internet - The New York Times