Citing America’s “toxic political environment” and the need to highlight dialogue, the University of Notre Dame has given one of the highest honors in U.S. Catholicism to Vice President Biden and former House speaker John Boehner. The announcement Saturday set off impassioned responses from Catholics, with some viewing it as a high moment for their church and others deeming it political pandering.
The announcement of the 2016 Laetare Medal recipients comes at a time of changing messages from Catholic leaders about what it means to be a Catholic voter — or what it means to live out the faith in public life. After years of popes and many U.S. bishops who often characterized Catholicism through opposition to liberalizing social changes around abortion and human sexuality, Pope Francis has encouraged leaders to be less judgmental as they teach traditional faith. Biden and Boehner — two lifelong, practicing Catholics taking very different policy positions, sometimes in opposition to church teaching — sat behind Francis this past fall when he spoke to Congress and urged civility.
Catholics were set off by — and are still debating — Notre Dame’s decision in 2009 to give an honorary doctorate to President Obama. Dozens of U.S. bishops — including five cardinals — reportedly criticized the decision, and that year a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican declined the Laetare Medal in protest.

“We live in a toxic political environment where poisonous invective and partisan gamesmanship pass for political leadership,” the Rev. John Jenkins, president of the prominent Catholic school, wrote in announcing the medal on Saturday. “Public confidence in government is at historic lows, and cynicism is high. It is a good time to remind ourselves what lives dedicated to genuine public service in politics look like. We find it in the lives of Vice President Biden and Speaker Boehner.

“While both have been loyal and committed partisans, they were leaders who put the good of the nation ahead of partisan victory, seeking through respectful dialogue honorable compromise and progress. Speaker Boehner’s resistance to a simple reductionism made him suspect in his own party; Vice President Biden reminded his fellow Democrats that those in the other party are ‘our opponents, not our enemies.’
“In recognizing both men, Notre Dame is not endorsing the policy positions of either, but celebrating two lives dedicated to keeping our democratic institutions working for the common good through dialogue focused on the issues and responsible compromise.”

The award will be presented at commencement on May 15. Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Washington’s archbishop and one of the U.S. bishops closest to Francis, will receive an honorary doctorate that day in what many will see as a symbolic church approval of the bipartisan award.
Jenkins “has made a bold move to begin the fraught process of dismantling the architecture of the culture warrior model of Church that has plagued our Church and our country for too long,” Michael Sean Winters, a writer on U.S. Catholicism, wrote Sunday in the National Catholic Reporter. “This year’s Laetare award sends the unmistakable signal that the time for building walls, either those erected by the [U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] or those promised by [Donald] Trump, has ended and the time for building bridges has begun.”
Debate was intense on Notre Dame’s Facebook page, where the award was announced. Some saw the award as a sign of what modern church leadership should look like — moderate and open. Others disagreed over whether either man deserved the award, Biden as a supporter of abortion rights and Boehner as someone seen as not prioritizing immigration reform. Dignity for immigrants and opposition to abortion are basic Catholic principles. Others wondered why Notre Dame seemed to be in the news again for its honoring of a politician.
The Laetare Medal is given to Catholics in all fields. Recent recipients include singer Aaron Neville, poet Dana Gioia, former head of the Catholic Relief Services Ken Hackett (now U.S. ambassador to the Vatican) and prominent death-penalty opponent Sister Helen Prejean. The last time a politician received the award was in 1992, when it was given to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
“We were just getting over the Obama embarrassment and now this!! How are the behaviors and attitudes of these two men in anyway representative of Catholicism? This is just wrong,
The most popular comment — with the most likes — on the school’s page was one urging compromise, which then morphed through replies into a debate about whether science proves or disproves that zygotes are lives.
“The U.S. Is a melting pot of beliefs and freedom of religion and the law of the land governs our free society. To hear people affiliated with such a blessed university be so closed minded and closed hearted is concerning,” the initial comment read.
The medal (pronounced lay-TAH-ray) is named for the Latin word “rejoice” and for part of the liturgy on the fourth Sunday of Lent, just before Easter. According to the university, it is given annually to a Catholic “whose genius has ennobled the arts and sciences, illustrated the ideals of the Church and enriched the heritage of humanity.” On the medal is inscribed in Latin “Magna est veritas et prevalebit,” which means “Truth is mighty, and it shall prevail.

View photos

Jennifer Lopez and Mariah Carey (Photos:)Rumors of a feud between Jennifer Lopez and Mariah Carey have existed in Internet lore for years. And, like most pop star-on-pop star feuds which appear to exist solely in the minds of fans, it’s the type of thing that the two are constantly having to deny. Twice this week Jennifer Lopez has had to address it and, twice this week, Lopez has denied it.So here’s how the whole thing went down.The BeginningsIn the early ‘00s, Mariah Carey was doing an interview with a foreign TV station in which she was asked her opinion about several pop stars. She called Beyoncé “nice” and “a good writer” and then she was asked about Jennifer Lopez. “I don’t know her,” Mariah Carey said. And, immediately, a meme was born.

If you’ve not seen the GIF, you’ve probably not spent a lot of time on the web.The AftermathIt is years later; “I don’t know her” has become perhaps the most iconic words to come out of Mariah Carey’s mouth since “all I want for Christmas is you.” It was Andy Cohen, in 2014, who was the first to ask J.Lo directly about the shade of it all.“I know from back in the day, I’ve read things that she’s said about me that were not the greatest, but we have never met,” Lopez, who is no amateur at delivering a verbal knockout, said. “Like, we don’t know each other. I think it’s kind of from word of mouth of things that have happened in the past that I’m not really aware of.”Then, last year, Carey was doing an interview with The Cut in which she was asked about gifts she receives from her army of fans, the “Lambs.”Recently? I don’t know. [yawns] I’m sorry, I’m having a “sleep” moment…

Well, there was a very interesting shirt that a fan made with a quote that I said years ago that, when I said it, I really wasn’t trying to be funny. I was just being honest and everybody’s kind of blowing it out of proportion but this guy had a shirt on and it was a picture of me that he made and the quote was underneath it — and I’m going to leave you hanging as to what it was.To recap: Carey yawns before she explains she was “just being honest.” The word shade is thrown around hyperbolically these days, but true shade doesn’t really sound like an insult. However, the recipient knows. Mariah Carey is one of the masters of the art.

Blocking the Donald from winning the Republican nomination isn’t impossible. But it will likely require one of his rivals to remain in the race until the GOP convention in July — and to pull off an upset of historic proportions.To understand how strong Trump’s position is — but also why it’s too early to declare him the winner — you have to understand the byzantine delegate math that Republicans will be relying on to select this year’s nominee. The rules are remarkably convoluted. They’re different in almost every state. But in a nominating contest unlike any we’ve seen before, they will be critical going forward.Barring some sort of cataclysmic event that torpedoes the previously unsinkable Trump — a murder charge, perhaps — it appears that the Republican race can end only one of two ways at this point. Either (a) Trump wins the nomination or (b) one of his opponents snatches it away from him in Cleveland.Let’s consider the likelier scenario first: a Trump victory.To be the nominee, a Republican needs to win a majority of delegates; this year’s magic number is 1,237. A scoreboard reads “2016” and “76” for the number of delegates the state of Georgia has as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a rally at Valdosta State University in Valdosta, Ga., Monday. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)You may have heard that all the delegates at stake before March 15 will be awarded proportionally and that many of the delegates at stake after March 15 will be awarded to the candidate who wins each state.

On the Republican side, the vote comes amid a chaotic descent into what in any other year would have been described as madness, with the leading candidates trading crude schoolyard insults; mugging, chortling and shouting over each other in debates, and one (you know who) blaming a faulty earpiece for his inability to renounce the support of a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. One can imagine the GOP’s power brokers, regardless of their actual preferences, secretly hoping all the candidates will lose, enabling the party to start over with someone new — or give Jeb Bush, who dropped out in February, a second chance. But the rules are that someone has to win. In polling, generally, Trump holds leads ranging from moderate to overwhelming in most states, with the notable exception of Cruz’s home state of Texas. To stay in the race, Cruz has to win there, at least, and Marco Rubio, who has made the most of any candidate in history out of second- and third-place finishes, has to show he can win somewhere. Trump just has to avoid any embarrassing losses; Kasich is mostly just trying to hang on until the electoral map becomes friendlier. His home state, Ohio — a must-win for him — votes on March 15, the same day as Florida, Rubio’s base, where Trump has held a big lead in polls. Ben Carson is now considered a nonfactor in the race after a string of distant finishes.

Clinton campaigned hard in the state, drawing large, mostly African-American crowds to town halls and rallies across South Carolina. (ABC exit polling showed that Clinton won 84 percent of the black vote.) She stressed her personal commitment to the state, which she first visited as a young lawyer fighting against a system that sent juveniles to adult jails, and slammed Sanders on gun control in particular. She campaigned with African-American mothers whose children were killed by police or as a result of gun violence, and made reforming the criminal justice system and ending “systemic racism” a centerpiece of her stump speech.

 

 

 

There is no more slavishly liberal editorial board than that of the New York Times, so when it tells Hillary Clinton to shape up, that is rather extraordinary. The board writes:

“Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly-paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts.
A televised town hall on Tuesday was at least the fourth candidate forum in which Mrs. Clinton was asked about those speeches. Again, she gave a terrible answer, saying that she would release the transcripts “if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans.” . . . .
Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.

This raises a few key points.
First, if the board is sincere, it should henceforth declare that it will no longer endorse candidates who are not transparent about their finances. It’s simple, easy to apply and, in this case, might have some impact on the Clinton team’s cost-benefit analysis.
Second, Democrats should be nervous. Do they imagine none of these speeches were ever recorded or that there are no attendees with good memories? Surely bits and pieces of Clinton’s remarks to Wall Street execs will come out. And, hey, if she ever sent her scripts by email — well, we know what happens to unsecured emails.
Third, the exact same principle is at work with regard to Donald Trump and his taxes. And here the Republican National Committee can actually play a constructive role in reclaiming its manhood. It should call on all candidates to disclose ample financial material, including past tax returns. How else are Republicans to make the case against Clinton’s secrecy and hypocrisy if their own potential nominees do not do so? If need be, try adding it to the convention rules as a condition of having one’s name entered in consideration for the nomination. Simply put, Trump can keep his tax records secret, or he can pursue the nomination, but not both.
Oh, I can hear the mice squeaking right now. Trump will be mad! He’ll run as a third-party candidate. Listen, anyone who does not think he will do so anyway if he loses the GOP nomination is kidding themselves. It’s time for the party to show some leadership and defend the party from a hostile takeover.
Fourth, Trump’s GOP opponents and their super PACs should make this a key issue. Run ads on the topic, asking what there is to hide. Remind voters that he has been accused of inflating his wealth in the past and is now selling himself on his phenomenal success as a businessman.
Disclosure is no small matter, especially when the candidates at issue have a long history of dissembling and of financial intrigue. If they are not willing to turn speeches or tax returns over for inspection, they shouldn’t be running for president. And neither party should let them get away with it.

There's new heat on Donald Trump over a rather dry topic: his tax returns. Mitt Romney, who has been making the TV news rounds, claimed this week that he expects a "bombshell" in Trump's tax returns, if only the candidate would release them.
Trump, in turn, raised eyebrows at the Republican presidential debate on Thursday when he said that he can't release his tax returns yet because he is in the midst of an audit. He also added this claim, a different sort of bombshell: "I’ve been audited every year. Twelve years or something like that.”
Is that plausible? And, if Trump isn't exaggerating: Why would he get audited 12 years in a row? We consulted four tax experts to dissect the claim.
Possible, but a stretch
The odds of getting audited 12 years in a row are slim, but not impossible, experts say.
Less than 1% of Americans get audited every year, and that number shrinks each year as the IRS workforce and budget has slimmed down. But among "high net-worth individuals," the rate is higher: Nearly 7% get audited. And Trump is certainly a high net-worth individual.
"As your income increases, your chances of being audited go up significantly," says John Petosa, a CPA and professor at Syracuse University's Whitman School of Management. "If you think about it, it makes sense—is the IRS going to spend time and money and resources auditing somebody who makes $30,000 a year? Or are they going to spend their time auditing someone who makes billions of dollars? There is probably more tax revenue to collect from a guy like Donald Trump, especially if he's being aggressive in his deductions." (As the campaign cycle has proven, there are few areas in which Trump is not aggressive.)
The IRS actually has a rule, in its agent manual, that if a person is audited and receives an assessment of zero (that is, does not owe additional money), the IRS cannot audit them again for two years. That means if Trump is telling the truth, then the IRS has repeatedly found discrepancies in his returns.
Until recently, it was typical for big corporations to get audited every year. This was called the Coordinated Examination Program. Many big public corporations even had rooms specifically designated for use by visiting IRS agents. But as the IRS's budget has been slashed, it has shrunk the program.
It's worth noting that for wealthy individuals, the stigma once associated with an audit has faded. As Steven Burke, a partner at McLane Middleton and a tax professor at the University of New Hampshire Law School, explains, "Many wealthy people welcome an audit, because once an audit occurs, your return is done, you don’t have to worry about it. If you take an aggressive position in something, for example, once the IRS has audited it, it is highly unlikely they will ever come back and give you trouble about it again." For regular, non-mogul folks, too, an audit is less unpleasant these days. "It used to be an agent would come to your house and it was an embarrassing thing. Many audits now are done just electronically by correspondence; you get an email, you send back a check," Burke says. "That said, the IRS does still do some in-person audits, and it is still a scary, nerve-wracking experience for the average person."
Investments abroad
Although Trump is more prone to tax audits because of his wealth, experts say it's the geographical breadth of his business interests, more than his wealth, that makes him a target. When Trump says he has been audited, he is likely referring to both himself, as an individual, and to his companies, or companies in which he has a stake. Audits can occur on an individual basis or a corporate basis, and some companies Trump has a hand in may be considered "passthrough entities," which do not pay federal taxes, just report it to the IRS, and the individual owners or investors have to report and pay it.
"With all of his real estate abroad, he must have foreign income coming in, and that's what I imagine they're checking," says Vincent Cervone, who runs VRC Associates, a tax shop in Brooklyn, N.Y. "His regular income is kind of straightforward, but the foreign income is what they would be investigating. Right now the IRS has a pet peeve with foreign accounts because a lot of people are taking their money overseas to get certain benefits."
Trump owns golf courses and resorts in places like Scotland, Ireland and Dubai. "The IRS is definitely paying closer attention to people who have money abroad," says Petosa. "There used to be a question that said, 'Do you have money overseas?' And you could simply check a box: 'Yes.' Now there's actually a reporting element where you have to tell them your funds and how they're invested."
It isn't just about his money abroad, either, but the complexity of his business empire. Trump has partnerships, trusts, subsidiaries, and all manner of entities in which he has full or partial ownership. That means his return isn't as simple as just earnings from a single corporation. As one tax agent, who did not want to be named, put it: "I gotta believe his tax return is just unbelievable. If you look at the face of his 1040, I'd be surprised if there's a single line that's blank. Well, maybe unemployment benefits."
How long will it take?
What about Trump's excuse that he can't yet release his tax returns because he is in the midst of an audit? Mitt Romney didn't buy it, and tweeted during the debate: "No legit reason [Trump] can't release returns while being audited, but if scared, release earlier returns no longer under audit."

Trump indicated that he would release the returns as soon as the audit is complete, but that he can't be sure it will be complete by November. Whether this is a good excuse or not, could it really take that long? The experts say yes. "With the IRS, it takes forever," says Cervone. "And because the IRS had its workforce cut, a lot of things are taking a lot of time right now. Anything that is not for this year, they are putting on the back burner because they need to get all the refund checks out. Will it be done by November? I'm thinking yes, but there's no guarantee."
Whether or not his current active audits are complete, Trump won't get to hold out forever: If he makes it to the general election, he must release his returns by law.

Napoli striker Gonzalo Higuain could reportedly depart the Serie A club this summer with Paris Saint-Germain, Chelsea and Arsenal all linked with the Argentinian.
Continue for updates.

---

Higuain 'Could Decide Against' Contract Extension

Wednesday, Feb. 24

"Gazzetta dello Sport reports today that there is no renewal [of Higuain's contract] on the horizon, as the arrival of Higuain’s father Jorge in Naples last weekend hasn’t led to a meeting with president Aurelio De Laurentiis to discuss a new deal," revealed Football Italia.
The report relays the "mechanical" way Higuain's representatives responded to talk of a new deal, with PSG and Chelsea both rumoured to be interested in the 28-year-old: "Gonzalo is focused on the Scudetto, it’s not the time to talk about a contract."
Arsenal have also long been linked with Higuain, as noted by James Whaling  and would likely jump at the chance to sign him.
His current contract with Napoli runs until 2018, but the Partenopei would clearly like to tie him to an extended deal.
Higuain is currently enjoying one of the best seasons of his career and has scored 24 times in 26 matches in Serie A,
Napoli are still very much in with a chance of winning the Scudetto as they sit just a point behind leaders Juventus.
But Higuain has unsurprisingly drawn interest from some of the biggest clubs in Europe and could likely be tempted by the financial rewards offered by the likes of PSG and Chelsea.
He also undoubtedly has ambitions of winning the UEFA Champions League, which are more likely to be fulfilled at the Parc des Princes than at the San Paolo.
Napoli will still be able to demand a significant fee for Higuain—they slapped a €94.7 million (£67 million) price tag on him last summer—but they will be loath to sell him for any price given his importance to the side.

Pre-vote surveys showed the billionaire businessman with a big lead over five Republican rivals in the Palmetto State.

Rick Tyler, former communications director for Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, in Storm Lake, Iowa, in January. (Photo: Scott Bauer/AP) Cruz’s decision to fire Tyler, who was one of his earliest hires, was widely seen by the media as an effort to turn the page on the narrative that his campaign has been engaging in dirty tricks. In the wake of Iowa, where Cruz staffers misleadingly suggested that Ben Carson was about to drop out of the race, the Rubio campaign has repeatedly claimed that Cruz is “willing to do or say anything to get elected,” and GOP frontrunner Donald Trump has been even more direct, calling Cruz a “liar” at nearly every campaign stop. The charges seem to have resonated with evangelicals in South Carolina, where Cruz delivered a disappointing third-place finish despite the state’s conservative reputation and favorable demographics.Trump immediately took to Twitter to crow that the Tyler incident reinforced what he’s been saying about Cruz all along. “Ted Cruz has now apologized to Marco Rubio and Ben Carson for fraud and dirty tricks,” Trump tweeted. “No wonder he has lost Evangelical support!”The Rubio campaign soon piled on, with spokesman Alex Conant insisting that it was actually Cruz, not Tyler, who was at fault and using the fracas as an opportunity to repeat his team’s favorite line about Cruz.“Rick is a really good spokesman who had the unenviable task of working for a candidate who is willing to do or say anything to get elected,” Conant said in a statement, adding that “there is a culture in the Cruz campaign, from top to bottom, that no lie is too big and no trick too dirty.”The Cruz campaign disputed Conant’s accusation. “Marco Rubio’s attacks have been misleading from the beginning, and we’ll continue talking about that,” said Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. “We believe voters are smart enough to recognize the difference.”What isn’t clear is whether Tyler’s firing will change anyone’s impression of Cruz — or whether, in fact, Nevadans will care at all. In the Durango YMCA gymnasium, television reporters from NBC and Fox News rushed in front of their cameras to do standup reports about Cruz’s decision, speculating on the air about how it will impact the race. But most voters interviewed by Yahoo News had no idea who Tyler was.

In the midst of Apple’s legal battle with the FBI, there has been no shortage of tech leaders who have come out and applauded Apple’s position on user privacy and its refusal to help the FBI bypass the iPhone’s security measures. From Sundar Pichai and Jack Dorsey to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, it almost seems as if Tim Cook’s public letter last week has unified large segments of the tech community behind a common cause.But not every tech leader and luminary necessarily sees things from Apple’s point of view. So while Tim Cook maintains helping the FBI would set a dangerous precedent, Microsoft founder Bill Gates begs to differ.DON’T MISS: Galaxy S7 vs. iPhone 6s: The 5 most important ways Samsung outshines AppleDuring a recent interview with the Financial Times, Gates challenged Tim Cook’s assessment that helping the FBI access the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone would be akin to establishing a backdoor that would wreak havoc on user privacy.“This is a specific case where the government is asking for access to information,” Gates explained. “They are not asking for some general thing, they are asking for a particular case. It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records. Let’s say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said ‘don’t make me cut this ribbon because you’ll make me cut it many times’.”In a similar vein, FBI director James Comey recently emphasized that the software solution the FBI is seeking is narrow in scope and that the agency doesn’t “want to break anyone’s encryption or set a master key loose on the land.”Apple of course doesn’t quite see things that way. In an FAQ published on Apple’s website on Monday, the company specifically addressed the argument raised by Gates, Comey and others who believe Apple should accommodate the FBI’s demands.In the physical world you can destroy something and it’s gone. But in the digital world, the technique, once created, could be used over and over again, on any number of devices.Law enforcement agents around the country have already said they have hundreds of iPhones they want Apple to unlock if the FBI wins this case. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks. Of course, Apple would do our best to protect that key, but in a world where all of our data is under constant threat, it would be relentlessly attacked by hackers and cybercriminals.

Gov. John Kasich of Ohio addresses a town hall event in Fairfax, Va., on Monday. (Photo: Jim Bourg/Reuters)Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols tried to downplay the governor’s comments.“John Kasich’s campaigns have always been homegrown affairs,” Nichols said in a statement to NBC News. “They’ve literally been run out of his friends’ kitchens, and many of his early campaign teams were made up of stay-at-home moms who believed deeply in the changes he wanted to bring to them and their families. That’s real grassroots campaigning, and he’s proud of that authentic support. To try and twist his comments into anything else is just desperate politics.”Kasich himself later apologized.“Sure, I’m sorry,” Kasich told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Anybody who’s offended, of course. I’m not — look. Of course, I’m more than happy to say I’m sorry if I offended somebody out there, but it wasn’t intended to be offensive.“"Sometimes when you operate on the high wire without a net, you’ll fall off and not say things exactly the way you want to,” he said. “But let me be clear: The beginning of my campaign for public office, I did town halls. Except they were in people’s homes. They were at breakfast tables, they were during — at evening when we had coffee, and I recruited people. And I want to be clear: We had a lot of women that played a major role in my political campaign.”On this point, Kasich appears to be right.  In 1978, when Kasich mounted his state senate run, just 33 percent of women aged 16 to 64 worked full-time in the United States, according to a survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2013, that figure was over 53 percent.And women continue to volunteer at a higher rate than men “across all age groups, educational levels and other major demographic characteristics,” according to a BLS report released last year. About 28 percent of women volunteered in 2014, the survey found, compared to 22 percent of men.Still, it’s not the first time the Ohio Republican’s tongue has gotten him into trouble this cycle.