Editor’s Note: Charu Lata Hogg is an associate fellow of the Asia program at Chatham House, an independent foreign affairs think tank based in London. The opinions in this article belong to the author. This article has been updated to reflect recent news events. Over the past three weeks photographs of anguished, starving and desperate Rohingya Muslims have shocked readers as hundreds of thousands have fled the violence in Myanmar’s Rakhine state, streaming into neighboring Bangladesh. This week, Aung San Suu Kyi, the state councillor of Myanmar, broke her studied silence to speak out in a televised address  from capital Naypyidaw. In classic political speak, she avoided any criticism of the military, pressed the need to gather more evidence and diminished the Rohingya issue, touted as one of the biggest humanitarian crises of today. Related article Aung San Suu Kyi: The rise and fall of Asia's Mandela If her motivation for her silence was unclear, her speech has exposed that political calculation is at the core of her position. Be that as it may, she remains an elected political leader in Myanmar with a moral obligation to address abuses against the minority Rohingya Muslims. She commands the reverence and respect of the majority ethnic Burman population and has the authority to shape political opinion  significantly. She can also work, as she has done in the past, with her international supporters to exercise their political leverage on the Myanmar military and use her privileged position with them to ensure pressure on the armed forces, resulting in an end to the atrocities being committed against the Rohingya. In November 2015, she infamously declared that she would be “above the President” if her party won the national elections. Yet her public position on the Rohingya situation – which UN Secretary-General António Guterres described as a catastrophic humanitarian crisis – is not statesmanlike. She remains curiously distant, stating in the past that she wished “not to take sides” and more recently blaming “terrorists for an iceberg of misinformation.” Increasingly, the Nobel champion of those whose rights were trampled on for decades by a brutal military is looking isolated, stubborn and uncaring. The reality is that even if Suu Kyi wanted to, she could not immediately put an end to the persecution of the Rohingya. An almost universal antagonism toward the minority Muslim community is one of the deeper fault lines in Myanmar society. Her party, the National League for Democracy, has echoed the military’s rhetoric about the Rohingya being “illegal immigrants” and soon after its election in 2015 declared that helping the Rohingya “was not a priority.” The international context remains weak, too. Despite the rapid escalation of attention by the United Nations – which included the UN human rights chief terming it “a textbook example of ethnic cleansing” – there is little chance that UN action will go beyond these rebukes. Myanmar has already made clear it is counting on its allies, permanent UN Security Council members China and Russia, to block a UN resolution on the crisis. Then there is the reality of the Myanmar’s ostensibly civilian-led government where the military has the levers of power. The army continues to hold key ministries, and the prospect of constitutional reform that would reduce its control of parliament remains a distant prospect. In addition, there are questions over the National League for Democracy’s commitment to reform. Suu Kyi’s party has a parliamentary majority, which gives it the power to remove repressive legislation. Instead, it has failed to carry out any discernible human rights reforms, and oppressive laws continue to be in force giving the government powers to detain and charge its critics. Related article The Rohingya don't want our anger -- they want our help Despite major peace talks – which began soon after the 2015 election – conflict rages between state security forces and armed groups across the Kachin and Shan states, causing immense human suffering and reasserting the authority of the military. All this notwithstanding, Suu Kyi could still salvage her legacy and find her voice to speak out against the violent persecution of the Rohingya by her own government. There is no broader reform agenda if she continues to preside over a state that sanctions racism and terror. Her position within the government is not merely symbolic; she occupies at least three offices as state counsellor, foreign minister and minister of the president’s office. As a politically elected representative of the government, she bears the moral responsibility to do right by her people, which include the Rohingya Muslims.


The Zika virus is a mosquito-borne virus that has spread to at least 50 countries according to the CDC. The World Health Organization estimates that 3 to 4 million people in the Americas will be infected in the next year. The virus has been connected to microcephaly, a neurological disorder causing an abnormally small head, sometimes leading to death. The FDA approved the first human trial of a vaccine in June 2016. There are several international organizations that are providing assistance to people affected and at risk of infection: Project HOPE supports several women’s and children’s health clinics in the Dominican Republic by providing Zika virus training on awareness and prevention. The organization also travels to communities and helps identify and remove mosquito breeding grounds and teaches citizens how to prevent infection. MAP International is providing mosquito repellent, antibiotics, and pain relievers in the affected countries. Operation Blessing International is distributing mosquito nets and repellent to pregnant women in El Salvador and Haiti. The organization is also providing Gambusia, a small fish that eats mosquito larva, to families in Mexico to help prevent the spread of the Zika virus. It’s also providing financial assistance to El Salvador’s government for fumigation and plans to purchase a portable prenatal ultrasound machine. Direct Relief is supporting partner organizations in several countries throughout Central and South America. The organizations are providing contraceptives, medicine, IV solutions, and repellents. Additionally, it’s assisting mothers and newborns with pre and post-natal resources. UNICEF launched a 9 million dollar appeal for a program to help stop the spread of the virus and its impact on babies and their families. Save the Children teams are carrying out assessments in affected regions. The organization’s priority is to educate people about the virus and minimize infection especially in pregnant women. Team Impact Your World will continue to follow this story and update with any additional ways you can help.

international organizations providing assistance to Zika virus affected populations


Thousands of well-wishers attended a closed casket public viewing The former first lady died Sunday She will be buried next to Ronald Reagan on Friday Fatiha Demijohn reverentially passed by the casket of Nancy Reagan and soon after reflected on a woman she began admiring from her native France. “She was a mother, a wife, she was a sister,” Demijohn told CNN. “She was poised, respectful, lady.” “France loves Nancy Reagan,” echoed her mother Adele Oudjaoudi, visiting from her homeland.  “She was a great lady.” The mother and daughter, who now live in nearby Thousand Oaks, California, joined 3,115 members of the public who took shuttle vans to the hilltop Ronald Reagan Presidential Library to remember the popular first lady who died Sunday. “She had such a storied career,” began Melissa Giller, spokesperson for the library. Related gallery Ronnie and Nancy: A love story “Starting in Hollywood and following Ronald Reagan to Sacramento for the governorship … Then of course to Washington, D.C. for the presidency. So her friends and her impact span all those different regions.” Eight secret service agents who served the Reagans acted as pallbearers, carrying the closed casket to the public viewing. “It’s just amazing,” Joseph Harvey said. “It’s just patriotic. I think no matter what party affiliation you are, it’s just coming together. It’s a thing we haven’t felt in this country for along time.” Related gallery People we've lost in 2016 Harvey met Phiilip Bennett in the winding lines of conversing strangers who wanted the intimacy of saying good bye to Nancy Reagan in person “I always admired the way that she took care of or protected the President,”  Bennett said. “Even when he (President Reagan) was being attacked by whoever, the media and what not.” Nancy Reagan will be memorialized Friday in a growing service that will be attended by former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura, current first lady Michelle Obama, and past first ladies Hillary Clinton and Rosalynn Carter. Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Selleck and other celebrities are also invited. Opinion: Nancy Reagan’s real role in the White House Workers are erecting a stage and bleachers for up to 1,000 people. A military band and choir will perform. Related gallery Female firsts in politics “It’s everything that she wanted,” said Giller.  “It’s really going to be a great way to show our respect to her and help her with her final wishes.” Nancy Reagan will be buried next to her husband, whom she called Ronnie. Political world mourns Nancy Reagan The simple, elegant gravesite faces west, a short walk from a large piece of the Berlin Wall her “Ronnie” ordered torn down, as his policies help demolish the Iron Curtain. A spectacular reprint of Nancy Reagan in a celebrated red dress from her official White House portrait welcomed visitors to her viewing. Demijohn gazed at the actual dress at the library many times before with her daughters, and Wednesday said farewell with her mother. Demijohn left a final thought. “Seeing her in that dress reminded me of the kind of lady she was.”


Trump's comments drew stern rebukes from members of both parties Trump suggested that the US shouldn't chide Turkey for violations of civil liberties Donald Trump, in a New York Times interview published Thursday, outlined a sharp break in US foreign policy tradition, suggesting the US wouldn’t defend NATO allies like the Baltic states against Russian aggression if they haven’t “fulfilled their obligation to us.” Related article Donald Trump's dreadful night Trump has repeatedly made the case that most of NATO’s 28-member countries are not making the requisite financial contributions for their common defense, and he’s said in the past that “the US must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.” Throughout the interview, the Republican presidential nominee seemed to reject core assumptions of US military and foreign policy thinking – including foreign troop deployment and advocating for civil liberties – and argued for an unprecedented global retrenchment, frequently framing his argument in economic terms. Trump’s comments were met with shock and anger in some quarters, drawing stern rebukes from members of both parties and prompting the White House to assuage anxious allies. They also made matters awkward for Trump’s vice presidential choice, Mike Pence, who delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention within hours of the interview being posted online that contrasted in places with his running mate. At one point, Pence told the RNC audience that Trump would “stand with our allies.” “We cannot have four more years of apologizing to our enemies and abandoning our friends,” Pence said. Related article 7 takeaways from wild night at GOP convention Though Trump said, “I would prefer to be able to continue” existing international agreements, he later explained that “this is not 40 years ago.” He also suggested that the massive expense of maintaining an international order that is contributing to trade losses for the US “doesn’t sound very smart to me.” “We are spending a fortune on a military in order to lose $800 billion,” Trump said. Trump questioned the forward deployment of American troops when answering a question about the tension in the South China Sea. According to the Times interview, Trump explained that “it will be a lot less expensive” for the United States to deploy military assets domestically. Related video What Trump says about NATO and what it actually does Trump was also asked about the recent attempted coup in Turkey, praising President Recep Erdogan “for being able to turn that around.” And Trump suggested that the US shouldn’t chide Erdogan’s administration about potential violations of civil liberties because “when the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don’t think we are a very good messenger.” “I don’t think we have the right to lecture,” he said. NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, in an unusual statement about American domestic politics, responded to Trump’s comments with a call for solidarity. “I will not interfere in the US election campaign, but what I can do is say what matters for NATO,” Stoltenberg said in a statement to CNN. “Solidarity among Allies is a key value for NATO. This is good for European security and good for US security. We defend one another.” Toomas Hendrik, president of NATO member Estonia, appeared to respond to Trump’s comments on Twitter, though he didn’t mention the GOP nominee by name. “Estonia is (one) of 5 NATO allies in Europe to meet its 2% def expenditures commitment,” Hendrik tweeted. “Fought, with no caveats, in NATO’s sole Art. 5 op. in Afg.” Related video The people in charge of NATO's future White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday that the United States’ commitment to the mutual defense pact is “ironclad.” “This is a longstanding commitment that has been strengthened under the leadership of President Obama,” Earnest said. “There should be no mistake or miscalculation made about this country’s commitment to our country’s transatlantic alliance.” Hillary Clinton’s campaign put out a statement early Thursday morning following the publication of Trump’s interview, slamming his remarks and saying, “It is fair to assume that Vladimir Putin is rooting for a Trump presidency.” “For decades, the United States has given an ironclad guarantee to our NATO allies: we will come to their defense if they are attacked, just as they came to our defense after 9/11. Donald Trump was asked if he would honor that guarantee. He said… maybe, maybe not,” Clinton said. The former secretary of state continued, “Ronald Reagan would be ashamed. Harry Truman would be ashamed. Republicans, Democrats and Independents who help build NATO into the most successful military alliance in history would all come to the same conclusion: Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit and fundamentally ill-prepared to be our Commander in Chief.” Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has been pegged as a possible Clinton running mate, said he was “stunned” by Trump’s remarks. “When you say to an ally who you have a treaty obligation to defend, ‘Eh, we’re not sure we will,’ that’s a very dangerous thing,” Kaine said at a press conference on Thursday. Sen. Lindsey Grahham, a South Carolina Republican who challenged Trump in the Republican primaries, also denounced the GOP nominee’s comments. “Statements like these make the world more dangerous and the United States less safe,” Graham said in a statement. “The Republican nominee for President is essentially telling the Russians and other bad actors that the United States is not fully committed to supporting the NATO alliance.” Graham, who last month urged Republicans to rescind their endorsements of the nominee, said he hopes Trump will “correct” his remarks in his speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night. Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican who is publicly supporting Trump and who spoke at the RNC earlier this week, differed with Trump’s NATO comments Thursday. He told CNN’s Jake Tapper that the US is in the trans-Atlantic military alliance “because it’s in our national security interest.” “We want to strengthen NATO and strengthen our common defenses,” he said. “Another part of strengthening it is making clear we’re going to stand by our security pledge.” Not doing so, he continued, “doesn’t make it less likely to get into a hot war, it ultimately makes it more likely.” In an interview with Fox News on Thursday morning, Pence said he hadn’t seen “the exact context” of the comments on NATO, but the Indiana governor nevertheless didn’t take issue with Trump’s position. “I think Donald Trump’s position very broadly with regard to our allies and with regard to treaty obligations and NATO is that it’s time for our allies to begin to pay their fair share. It’s time for people to begin to step up,” Pence said. Related video Farage reacts to Trump's proposed NATO agenda He added, “The NATO alliance since World War II has been a mutual defense alliance and I have every confidence that Donald Trump will see to it that the United States of America stands by the allies and lives up to the treaty obligation.” Trump also found a sympathetic ear in Nigel Farage, the former leader of the UK’s Independence Party and one of the most vocal supporters of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union. “I think the American military over the last few years has been pretty unhappy with their NATO allies, who have just kept cutting, cutting, cutting their defense spending,” Farage said, adding that NATO was “a wonderful vehicle to keep peace in Europe for 60, 70 years.” “But NATO now does need to redefine itself,” he said. “What is it for? We don’t have the Warsaw Pact. I’m pro-NATO. I’m pro-cooperation. But it’s not a bad thing that we reassess what it’s for.” CNN’s Barbara Starr and Tal Kopan contributed to this report.


NEW: U.S. Central Command says there were airstrikes, but no civilian casualties that they know of Group alleges U.S.-led airstrikes carried out a "massacre" under pretext of attacking ISIS A Syrian group opposed to the country’s autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad, says airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition killed 52 civilians. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights called the alleged killings a “massacre” committed under the “pretext” of targeting ISIS militants. The observatory also leveled a fresh charge against the al-Assad regime on Sunday, saying helicopters dropped explosive barrels on a neighborhood – and that medical sources believe the barrels contained chlorine gas.  At last 40 people suffered from suffocation, the group said. Both attacks allegedly took place Saturday. The London-based organization said U.S.-led coalition airstrikes hit a village northeast of  the city of Aleppo. The dead include seven children and nine women, the observatory said, adding that 13 more civilians were unaccounted for, so the death toll could rise. CNN could not immediately confirm the report. The U.S. military vowed to investigate. U.S. Central Command confirmed that coalition forces did conduct airstrikes to the northeast of Aleppo, in the vicinity of Jubb Mahli, on Thursday. It’s an earlier date than when the Observatory claims the alleged attack happened. In the April 30 airstrikes, the coalition destroyed several ISIS fighting positions and hit more than 50 militants, a Central Command spokesman told CNN’s Barbara Starr. Central Command has no indication that any civilians were killed in those strikes, the spokesman said. Kurdish forces had held the town prior to ISIS, and they reported that there had been no civilians in that area for weeks, the spokesman said. Related video Opposition General: Assad regime 'is falling apart' The U.S. government has cited the observatory’s data in the past. For example, in May 2014, the State Department’s official blog noted that “The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights currently estimates that some 150,000 Syrians have perished in that country’s ongoing conflict.” “We in SOHR condemn in the strongest terms this massacre committed by the U.S led coalition under the pretext of targeting the IS in the village,” the observatory’s statement said Saturday, “and we call the coalition countries to refer who committed this massacre to the courts, as we renew our calls to neutralize all civilians areas from military operations by all parties.” The U.S.-led military coalition said Friday that it had launched 18 air strikes against ISIS, which calls itself the Islamic State, in Syria and Iraq since early Thursday. The coalition, formed in October 2014 to fight the ISIS terrorist group, includes Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Related video Jordan's King on how to defeat ISIS The group’s complaint about the Syrian regime’s alleged chlorine gas attack was the latest in a string of similar accusations. Two explosive barrels fell on the northern neighborhood of Saraqib, the observatory said.  Medical sources reported about 40 cases of suffocation in civilians, including children, who inhaled gases from the explosive barrels, the observatory added. Medical sources believe the barrels contained the gas, the observatory said. CNN could not verify the claims independently. Syria’s state-run news agency SANA has not reported on an operation in that area on Saturday. It carried several reports of Syrian military forces cracking down on “terrorists” in the country. Syria has been wracked by civil war for four years, with a fearsome toll of death, destruction and refugees. SOHR has in the past been accused of selective reporting of the atrocities, publicizing only those committed by the al-Assad regime and ignoring those committed by his opponents. It has also been criticized as essentially a one-man show, run in Britain by a man who left Syria more than 10 years ago, and for failing to make its methodology public. The situation in Syria is complicated. The U.S. has called for al-Assad to leave power. Yet is it conducting airstrikes against ISIS, which is also opposed to al-Assad.


John Sullivan vowed to make the State Department "the pre-eminent force to protect American values" Sullivan's uncle was the last US ambassador to Iran before diplomatic relations were halted The nominee to be Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s top deputy at the State Department committed to advocate for human rights Tuesday amid criticism from Democrats and Republicans that the Trump administration is taking an overly transactional approach to foreign policy. “I am committed to making the State Department the pre-eminent force to protect American values and promote American values in the world,” John Sullivan told the congressional committee considering his nomination. Sullivan’s remarks come less than a week after Tillerson told State Department staff the US must sometimes be willing to separate values from policies, explaining, “if we condition too heavily that others must adopt this value that we’ve come to over a long history of our own, it really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests.” Many policymakers criticized that vision as a signal the administration is willing to turn a blind eye to some human rights violations in exchange for diplomatic concessions by authoritarian leaders. “With those words, Secretary Tillerson sent a message to oppressed people everywhere: Don’t look to the United States for hope,” Republican Sen. John McCain wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times on Monday. “To view foreign policy as simply transactional is more dangerous than its proponents realize,” he went on to say. “Depriving the oppressed of a beacon of hope could lose us the world we have built and thrived in.” Related video Tillerson: US can't idly stand by on N. Korea Sullivan’s nomination was generally well received by Senate foreign relations committee members, who questioned him for just under an hour and a half. If confirmed, Sullivan’s presence at the State Department would provide additional leadership within an agency that remains understaffed at the senior levels. Sullivan currently works as a partner in the law firm Mayer Brown, advising clients on issues related to national security and foreign policy. His profile on the firm’s website says his responsibilities include advising corporate clients “on US sanctions and export controls, international trade disputes and regulation, and foreign investment in the United States, the Middle East, Russia, and other countries.” His previous government experience includes a stint as deputy secretary of commerce under George W. Bush’s administration. At his hearing Tuesday, Sullivan noted his respect for US diplomats, drawing on the dramatic experiences of his paternal uncle, William Sullivan, who served as the last US ambassador to Iran before diplomatic relations were halted in 1979. William Sullivan was recalled from the post just months before the Iran hostage crisis, and was briefly taken captive himself in a separate incident earlier that year.


The Dalai Lama is confident about the future of the US For people with anxiety he suggests finding self compassion and taking time to reflect He also recommends letting go of constant anger, serving others and being kind The Dalai Lama has some advice for anyone who is looking for happiness, no matter what their circumstances. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning spiritual and political leader of the Tibetan people in exile, spoke about the incoming administration in an interview with CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. A post shared by Dalai Lama (@dalailama) The “president, of course, (is a) very important individual, but basically I (am) always telling (people), the world belongs to humanity,” said the Dalai Lama during the Emory-Tibet symposium of Scholars and Scientists held at the Drepung Monastic University in India in December.  “Each nation belongs to the people,” he said. In other words, take comfort in the fact that our country is not run by a lone individual, albeit one that is incredibly powerful. Related article Republicans, enjoy this week's party, but remember 2009 “America, I consider the leading nation of the free world,” His Holiness said. In an earlier interview he said he plans to meet with President-elect Trump after his inauguration and added that once in power, all presidents are forced to work with “reality,” and “so I have no worries.” America will always keep an “emphasis on liberty, democracy, rule of law,” he said, and “the people elected now have the responsibility” to work together and will have to use “team work,” since “America is a democracy and the power is divided.” If, however, someone’s confidence in the country’s checks and balances is still failing them, His Holiness has some additional advice to help you stay happy, no matter what happens in the world around you. First step, work on compassion and start by developing it for yourself. “Mainly,” he said, feeling happy is largely about “your own mental attitude.” If you remain someone who is “honest, truthful,” about how you feel, you can find happiness “no matter what (the) surrounding situation.” His Holiness is talking, in part, about the Buddhist concept of self-compassion. He believes we’d all be happier people if we learned more about our own selves and embraced who we are, flaws and all. Related article Which side of ourselves will prevail? When you have compassion for someone, typically that means you are recognizing and validating someone’s pain. Psychologists have shown when you do that, you automatically develop feelings of kindness and caring for that person. You develop concern for their general well-being. Self-compassion, then, is when you are kind, rather than critical, toward yourself, even when you mess up or when you are in some form of emotional pain. Don’t confuse this with self-pity, when you dwell on that pain. Instead, it’s when “in instances of pain or failure, rather than being harshly self-critical; perceiving one’s experiences as part of the larger human experience rather than seeing them as isolating; and holding painful thoughts and feelings in mindful awareness rather than over-identifying with them,” writes  scholar Kristin Neff in Self-Compassion and Pscyhological Well-Being. Neff is an associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s department of educational psychology and an expert on self-compassion. Related article Buddhism Fast Facts “Most people have much more compassion for others than themselves,” Neff said. If you can develop a compassion toward yourself, it is easier to feel compassion toward others “and is much more sustainable,” Neff said. And the Dalai Lama believes that with less self-criticism, your “health will be much better.” Many studies back that up. It’s a lot easier to feel compassion if you take the time to reflect on what you’re experiencing. The Dalai Lama, for instance, gets up at 3am to meditate five hours a day. Related article Cat yoga: The mewest exercise trend You probably don’t have that much time, but even 10 minutes of meditation has been shown to help your thought process. Meditation can physically change the parts of the brain that help you better handle stress and increase your feelings of empathy, studies show. Longer meditation sessions, even 20 minutes, can improve your mood, your attention span and memory. Thinking more deeply, you start to realize, His Holiness said, that “nothing exists as (it) appears.” Take the time to put your feelings in context, he said, “then the very basis of these negative emotions becomes thinner, thinner, thinner.” If you do feel angry about the election, or any other circumstance, don’t let it dominate your thoughts. Constant anger can lead to depression, insomnia, overeating,  heart problems, strokes and early death, studies show. Related article How to stop being annoyed by life “Constant anger is very bad for our health,” His Holiness said. “I try to keep compassion” constantly in mind and then stay “surrounded by (other) compassionate people” that can reduce your anger. Do that and your health will be “much better.” A lot of negative thought is rooted in perception, studies show, but that doesn’t have to mean you become a Pollyanna about negative experiences. “If a glass is half full, you can’t pretend it’s full,” Neff said. “If you can think about wrapping your suffering and anger in a kind of care and compassion and concern, it can activate the reward center of the brain.” Working with Tibetan teachers over the years, she said, she has been impressed that despite their difficult circumstances of having to flee their country and live as refugees, as the Dalai Lama has since 1959, many people seem to be happy. “It is not like they deny their suffering, they are open to it, but they hold those feelings with love and compassion,” she said. Another key to happiness, His Holiness suggests, is to “try to be of some service to others.” If you can help others, then “no matter what (the) surrounding situation, you can keep (up your) self-confidence and happiness.” Related article Meet the top 10 CNN Heroes of 2016 Service can come in the form of volunteering, like at a soup kitchen, or on a candidate’s campaign, but it can also be simpler, like being a good listener when people are upset. Volunteers feel more socially connected, they’re less lonely, and suffer from depression less, studies show. Volunteering creates physical benefits too: Regular volunteers are less likely to develop high blood pressure and live longer, some studies show. Simple acts like being a good listener can also reduce your own feelings of stress and improve your feelings of well-being, other studies show. Finally, be playful and childlike. Children, the Dalai Lama said are “very honest” and often accept people without judgment. Related article A lifetime in the field “They don’t care what’s their religion, what’s their nationality, they don’t care what sort of family background” they have, he said. “Basic human nature is compassionate.” While competition and materialism can encourage those feelings to go “dormant,” he said, playfulness can bring those feelings back. His Holiness is constantly laughing and he’s playful even when he speaks about such serious subjects. Studies back up his advice, showing that adults who are playful have more positive relationships and better life satisfaction. They also tend to be healthier and experience less anxiety. See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter. Considering this advice could make a real difference to how you experience the next few years. “I will always feel there is real hope we can do something. So no matter (what the) difficult circumstances, it is really worthwhile,” the Dalai Lama said. “Make (an) effort (and) once you committed effort, even small effort results will come,” the Dalai Lama said. “You get tremendous sort of satisfaction and then feel happy.”


Editor’s Note: Arpan Roy is an Indian expatriate based in Singapore. An experimental physicist, he is also the founder and illustrator of The Bong Sense, a popular online magazine. Indians online have been amused and slightly angered by an Australian company’s decision to sell “charpoys” – traditional Indian beds – for upwards of $990. Typically, a charpoy sells for less than $20 in India. The company claims that the beds are “100% Australian made” and “based on thousand-year-old Indian design.” A Delhi court has issued a city wide ban on the sale of fireworks, an essential feature in the Indian festival of Diwali. The excessive use of fireworks during the festival contributes to a spike in toxic smog, which in turn leads to closure of schools and construction sites. That lighter skin is preferred over darker skin in India is no secret. How Indians achieve the highly desired lighter appearance is coming under greater scrutiny, however, after a string of high-profile medical incidents involving unsafe skin whitening methods. A distressed Russian tourist was found begging outside a temple in the southern Indian city of Kancheepuram after reportedly losing all his money. Indian officials later took the man to the Russian embassy in Chennai where he received consular assistance.


'Ties between our two countries are now set to reach new highs,' Malaysian PM says Malaysia to buy four ships from China Malaysia and China signed a series of agreements Tuesday that cover among other things energy and defense coordination, Chinese state media reported. “Ties between our two countries are now set to reach new highs,” Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said in an op-ed in the state-run China Daily. Razak said that his country has agreed to purchase four littoral mission ships from the Chinese – two which will be built in China and two in Malaysia – in what he called “the first significant [sic] defence deal between our two countries. Opinion: Red-line warning haunts US ties in Asia Razak also took an apparent shot at the West for its treatment of former colonial powers. “More generally, we believe it is incumbent upon larger countries to treat smaller ones fairly,” he said. “And this includes former colonial powers. It is not for them to lecture countries they once exploited on how to conduct their own internal affairs today.” Comments on one of the biggest flashpoints in the regions – the South China Sea – were markedly diplomatic. “As two countries on the South China Sea, China and Malaysia’s increasing naval cooperation to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea is of great significance in increasing mutual trust between the two countries,” said Liu Zhenmin, China’s vice foreign minister. Razak said “when it comes to the South China Sea, we firmly believe that overlapping territorial and maritime disputes should be managed calmly and rationally through dialogue, in accordance with the rule of law and peaceful negotiations.” Liu also said that China plans to join in construction of oil and gas pipelines in the Malaysian state of Sabah, which borders the South China Sea, according to China’s The People’s Daily. Philippines top cop: We’ll find other sellers if US won’t give us guns The announcement comes as the Philippines has also begun strengthening its ties with China – a move which some say shows the waning influence of the United States in the region.


The D.B. Cooper manhunt has been one of the longest investigations in FBI history In order to solve a case, the FBI must prove culpability beyond a reasonable doubt The last time anyone saw D.B. Cooper, he parachuted out of a Mexico City-bound airplane with $200,000 in ransom strapped to his body, vanishing over the Pacific Northwest and initiating one of America’s greatest manhunts. Forty-five years later, the FBI is closing the books on this unsolved case. “We have arrived at our conclusion today that it was just time to close the case because there isn’t anything new out there,” said Special Agent in Charge Frank Montoya, Jr. “There’s a lot that goes into that decision but really it was just time.” The infamous hijacking that took place in 1971 became one of the bureau’s “longest and most exhaustive investigations,” the FBI said. While the bureau has chased down an immense number of leads and tips from the public, including accounts of sudden unexplained wealth and detailed descriptions matching the hijacker, none has resulted in definitive answers. “Unfortunately, none of the well-meaning tips or applications of new investigative technology have yielded the necessary proof,” the FBI said. “Every time the FBI assesses additional tips … investigative resources and manpower are diverted from programs that more urgently need attention.” Montoya told reporters at a news conference that the decision to close the case was his. FBI Special Agent Curtis Eng, who told reporters he’s been on the case since 2010, said he’s fine with the decision – and a bit relieved, as new tips have the potential to take him away from other cases. “If it [a new lead] comes in, we’ve got to follow up with it,” Eng said. “It takes time and resources away from my other cases, where there are victims now. Where there’s problems and crimes now.” On November 24, 1971, a dark-haired man who called himself Dan Cooper approached the ticket counter of Northwest Orient Airlines in Portland, Oregon, and used cash to buy a one-way ticket to Seattle. “Cooper was a quiet man who appeared to be in his mid-40s, wearing a business suit with a black tie and white shirt,” the FBI said in a summary of the case on its website. “He ordered a drink – bourbon and soda – while the flight was waiting to take off.” After takeoff, he handed a flight attendant a note saying he had a bomb in his briefcase, opening it to show a mass of wires and red sticks, the FBI said. When the flight landed in Seattle, the hijacker exchanged the flight’s 36 passengers for $200,000 in cash and four parachutes, the FBI said, keeping several crew members on board. The flight took off again after he ordered it to fly to Mexico City. At an altitude of about 1.9 miles, Cooper made his dramatic exodus, disappearing into the night from the back of the jetliner, wearing a suit jacket and with the money strapped to his body. “If something were to arise – principally the parachutes or the money –  you know, we would reopen, we would look into this, we would do what we could to bring the perpetrator to justice. But at the same time, after 45 years we just don’t think that that’s likely,” Montoya said. For years after the great escape, law enforcement and amateur investigators alike have chased theories regarding Cooper’s true identity and his whereabouts. Whether “D.B.” – a name created by the press, according to the FBI –  survived the 10,000 foot plunge into the wilderness has never been confirmed, and his true identity has never been determined. The evidence collected over the years will now be preserved for historical purposes at the bureau’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., the FBI said. One clue came in 1980, when a boy found a rotting package of $5,800 in $20 bills that matched the serial numbers of the ransom money. Pieces of parachute debris and Cooper’s black tie, which he took off before jumping out of the aircraft, are also among the physical evidence being retained. The FBI has identified more than 100 persons of interest since the case started, Eng said. While the bureau is no longer actively investigating Cooper’s case, the saga that generated immense public interest will be sure to live on. “We would love to have solved this, there’s no question about it. To see justice served. And it doesn’t feel good to acknowledge that this is the only unsolved skyjacking in American history,” Montoya said. “But that happens sometimes – either we’re not able to solve it or much time passes before it can be resolved.” “There are a lot of mysteries out there,” he said, “and this is going to be one of those.” CNN’s Joshua Berlinger contributed to this report


Editor’s Note: Andre Spicer is a professor of organizational behavior at Cass Business School, City University London. He is the co-author, with Carl Cederstrom, of “The Wellness Syndrome.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. Andre Spicer: Facebook's sudden willingness to hand over Russian advertisements to Congress is part of slow change in how the tech giant relates to the government But more so than dealing with election meddling, the key step is to begin grappling with the much tougher issue of big money in elections, Spicer writes On Thursday, Mark Zuckerberg popped up on Facebook Live. Just back from parental leave, he had lines under his eyes. He may not have been getting any sleep, but there were no signs of baby spit-up on his T-shirt, which perfectly matched the large couch in the background. Zuck was there to share the big news that Facebook had handed over to Congress 3,000 ads associated with the 2016 presidential campaign that were linked to Russia. In the video, he claims this move came out of a deep concern for “election integrity.” But the prolonged controversy over alleged Russian interference in the US presidential elections, and more recent focus on Facebook’s possible role in enabling it, has clearly had an impact. As Zuck said, “It is a new challenge for internet communities to have to deal with nation states attempting to subvert elections, but if that’s what we must do then we are committed to rising to the occasion.” Facebook’s sudden willingness to hand over advertisements to Congress is part of slow change in how the tech giant relates to the government. In the past, it has dealt with government requests and pressure from regulators by appealing to Internet freedom. When that approach wore thin, it tried to baffle regulators and politicians with technical arguments. For instance, following allegations its newsfeed was biased, Zuck sought to explain the technical details of how it worked to Congress – undoubtedly confusing some. Then, it followed the playbook of other big corporations and used backroom lobbying and piecemeal bargaining to get its way on research and development tax credits for instance. Now Facebook is trying to deal with government pressure with appeals to “transparency.” “I wish I could tell you we’re going to stop all [campaign] interference,” he said Thursday, “but that just wouldn’t be realistic.” Zuck then went on to outline “nine things we’re going to be working on over the next few months” that would ensure electoral integrity. Facebook has also taken the step of voluntarily complying with the Federal Communications Commission requirements for political advertising on other forms of media, like television and radio. They require that the political campaign simply must reveal who paid for the ad. The FCC sets a pretty low bar compared with other countries, which often strictly limit the amount that political campaigns can spend and when they can air their ads. Facebook’s added transparency may reveal which front-group funded a campaign ad, but it is unlikely to make for informed voters. After all, many studies in political psychology show that ideologically committed voters are willing to bend almost any factual information to fit their preconceived values. Related article Want to change minds? Try this These measures may hold off for a little longer the threat of real regulatory scrutiny brewing among politicians for the social media giant and for other such tech companies, but it will do nothing to deal with the real blight in the US political system – which is out-of-control campaign financing. We must remember that $6.8 billion was spent on the 2016 US presidential election. That’s more than double what the nation spends on national parks each year. Spending on elections is growing rapidly, making political campaigning a lucrative market for Facebook. Some American citizens are outraged by a relatively small sum (about $100,000) being allegedly spent by Russian operatives buying Facebook ads. Yet, they seem to be relatively relaxed about the nearly $900 million that the Koch brothers spent during the 2016 election cycle, as just one example. Millions of dollars of other foreign money flowed into the US election from other sources as well. For instance, the British arms company BAE systems spent $415,000 on Congressional candidates and the French pharmaceutical company Sanofi spent just over $400,000. For sure, the corrosion of election integrity from foreign influence (via Facebook or other companies on the internet) is something to be guarded against. But the US also needs to guard against corrosion of election integrity from within its own political system as well. For social media behemoths like Facebook to address the issue of election integrity, providing a touch of transparency is only the start. The next step for social media companies like Facebook would be to think about ways of breaking down people’s ideological biases, which make them impervious to almost any actual information about elections (such as who paid for advertisements). Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook But the most radical, and the most desperately needed step is to begin grappling with the much tougher issue of big money in elections. The US government has shown it is completely unwilling to tackle the widely-acknowledged problem of campaign financing. Sadly, it is also unlikely that social media companies will start asking questions about the estimated $1 billion spent on political advertising on their platforms during the 2016 campaign. If someone doesn’t ask these questions, the US could continue to find itself with a political campaigning industry growing more rapidly than any that produce actual goods and services.


Editor’s Note: Kelly Wallace is CNN’s digital correspondent and editor-at-large covering family, career and life. Read her other columns and follow her reports at CNN Parents and on Twitter. In a new book, children tell best-selling author how they see God The responses showcase more similarities than differences between children of different religions On the way to school, I told my girls there was something I wanted to ask them. As I prepared to write a story on a delightful new book on how children see God, I realized I never asked my daughters, ages 8 and 9, directly how they view God. How would they describe God? What do they think he/she looks like? Sure, we have talked a fair amount about religion, especially since I was raised Catholic, but my kids are being raised Jewish. We go to synagogue once or twice a year for the high holidays and my oldest daughter just started Hebrew school, but still, I wouldn’t have been able to tell you what my kids specifically thought about God until I asked them. Their answers blew me away. My younger daughter said she thinks God is the moral in stories. Every story she reads usually has a moral, she said, and that’s God. My older daughter said she thinks God controls everything. Hearing what children think about God is like opening up “wonderful little treasure boxes” and seeing what comes out of them, said comedian Monica Parker, author of “OMG! How Children See God.” Parker’s own upbringing served as the impetus for the book, she said. Her father was a member of the Church of England, her mother was Jewish and from Austria. “So I joke that on the day I was born, I was both … baptized and matzo-balled on the same day,” said Parker, who is also an actor, writer and producer and has a recurring role on SyFy’s “Defiance.” Religion was never discussed in her household, she said. “I used to see children holding the hands of their parents going into various houses of worship and I had this envy. I don’t know that I was missing religion, because we didn’t have any conversations about it, but what I was missing was a sense of community and a sense of place … and I knew that I wanted to do better by my children.” She and her husband, whom she describes as a “lapsed Catholic,” decided to celebrate every holiday with their son. “Ritual was a big word for me because I didn’t have that and I loved it and so we celebrated everything.” When her son, Remy, was 7, he asked her, “Who is God?” She told him God is inside everything, from spiders to trees to humans. “Then he came the next morning and he said, ‘Mom, Dad, I know who’s seen God.’ And we said, ‘Who?’ And he said, ‘Doctors, when they cut people open.’ “ That literal image stayed with her for years (her son is now 30) until she decided to pursue a book looking at how children in today’s world see God. So many kids are coming from multicultural backgrounds, so many are in divorced households, so many are being raised by single parents, she wondered what they were thinking, especially when news coverage of religion often showcases the passionate believers and nonbelievers and rarely people who don’t fall into either category. Parker started asking children on her street in Toronto, Ontario, and then expanded to her wider network, and eventually traveled from the United Kingdom to Germany to the United States to make sure she had children representing every economic, cultural and religious background. Their responses to questions including “Who is God?” “What does God wear?” and “What is God’s job?” range from the hilarious to the touching and deeply poignant. “God doesn’t have a house. He doesn’t need one except on Sundays ‘cause that’s the day he likes to rest,” said Ethan, age 8. Wrote Kayla, who is 8½, “I wish God could make me famous SOON!” “I call God when I need help with things but not my homework, because my mom says I have to do that by myself,” said Jackson, 7. Said Max, 8, “My father never believed you were real but my mom did, but then she got sick and now he prays to you but my mom doesn’t anymore.” Manny, who’s 6, wrote, “My mom talks to God when we need more money.” Parker said the responses show children “remain openhearted and openminded.” They may come from different religions but there was never a sense their thoughts about God set them apart. “I felt as though it were a very open club that we could all join,” said Parker, who is also author of the best-seller “Getting Waisted: A Survival Guide to Being Fat in a Society That Loves Thin.” “I never felt that one child would have ever said, ‘My God is better than your God,’ unlike the contest that we have going on right now,” said Parker, referring to the anti-Muslim rhetoric that we’ve heard in the U.S. presidential race. Putting her book together has been a “door opener” for many parents who have children but who never talked with them about God, she said. When she approached people asking to interview their kids or give them five to 10 questions that they could pose to their children, she heard from many parents who said, “Oh, I’d love to know that because we’ve never had the conversation.” Her advice to parents who haven’t talked with their childlren about God and don’t know how to begin is to read her book to their children. “It opens a dialogue immediately,” she said. “You sit down, you just turn to any page and look what happens. … It’s a great conversation starter because I think that the kids can educate the parents, because no matter what a child asks, you can’t ignore a child’s questions, or you shouldn’t.” Parker said she was also intrigued to write the book because of how “God” is used over and over in our language, from “Oh my God” to “goddammit” to “God, I’ll never do that again.” She was also curious about how and why people have fallen away from religion but still think about God on holidays such as Christmas and Kwanza or when the “emergency bell” rings in a family. “So what that means is that somewhere on this third or fourth track, for a lot of people, there is a sense of God and I think we’re really praying to our higher selves when we do this. In some way, I think we’re asking the universe to guide us, to help us.” As any parent knows, we learn a ton from our children, and their thoughts about God are no different. The first page of the book opens with Emerson, age 12, raising questions about whether there really is a God, and the book closes with the words of Uma, age 11, who said, “God lives wherever you imagine. … To believe in God, you need to imagine. God does anything you can imagine.” How do the children in your life see God? Share your thoughts with Kelly Wallace on Twitter @kellywallacetv or CNN Parents on Facebook.


The collision happened in disputed waters Ten US sailors are missing A collision involving a US navy ship Monday took place in waters that have been bitterly disputed between Malaysia and Singapore for decades. The incident happened while the USS John McCain, a guided missile destroyer, was on its way to a port call in Singapore. Ten sailors are currently missing and five were injured. Singaporean and Malaysian authorities have both said the incident happened in their territorial waters. Both sides said publicly that each were leading the search and rescue efforts and reiterated those claims when contacted by CNN for clarification. “Singapore should have … joined our search and rescue,” Zulkifili Abu Bakar, the director-general of the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency, told CNN. “This incident happened in Malaysian territorial waters.” Singapore deployed nearby assets to the Malacca Strait – one of the world’s most congested waterways – to help, including divers to help in the search and tugboats. The small city-state also flew four people from the ship to a hospital on land (their injuries are not considered life-threatening.) The US Navy said Malaysian ships joined the search effort in the afternoon local time. Claire Lim, a spokeswoman for the Singapore Maritime and Port Authority, said the crash happened in Singapore’s waters but declined to comment further when asked about the competing Malaysian claim, instead directing CNN to a media relations email address. Though the collision happened in disputed waters, Bakar said at a news conference earlier Monday that the search and rescue effort remains the top priority. “I don’t think we should … argue about whose waters, because I think the most important thing is to focus on the search and rescue effort,” he said. “The assets on the ground also, they are talking to each other. One thing is very clear is that we do not want to have another collision between the assets on the ground.” The USS John McCain was able to sail on its own Singapore’s Changi Naval Base, where it is currently docked. The dispute centers around a legal decision regarding a small piece of land in the middle of the ocean called Pedra Branca. Malaysia and Singapore both claimed it as their own territory and took the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which decided in 2008 that the island belonged to Singapore. The issue of who has sovereignty over the nearby territorial waters, however, was kicked back to Malaysia and Singapore. Earlier this summer, Malaysia asked the ICJ to revisit the issue of the surrounding waters, a request which Singapore called “puzzling.” (Malaysia also applied for a revised judgment in the case in February, claiming it had new evidence.) “The waters were supposed to be decided between Malaysia and Singapore as part of a joint committee,” said Kevin Blackburn, a professor focusing on Malaysian and Singaporean history at Singapore’s National Institute of Education. “The committee never really came to any firm conclusions.” Related article The eagle, the lion and the dragon: Singapore's future in the age of Trump Singapore has played a delicate balancing act in recent years, maintaining fruitful relationships with both China and the United States. The nearby South China Sea dispute has proven a sticking point in recent years, and the election of US President Donald Trump has also shaken things up. But China’s willingness to throw its weight around in the region has meant that both Singapore and Malaysia place a premium on their relationships with the US military. Blackburn says those will likely mean that the territorial disputes will be temporarily pushed to the backburner. “These two countries have had very close relations militarily with the US, and they would never damage those,” Blackburn said. “There shouldn’t be any problems given the strength of those relationships.” CNN’s Brad Lendon and Sophie Jeong contributed to this report

Malaysia-Singapore territorial waters dispute


London police investigating sexual assault allegation related to 1980 incident New York police investigating claims detailed in New Yorker article, including 2004 incident Police on both sides of the Atlantic are investigating allegations of sexual assault involving Harvey Weinstein as the scandal surrounding the disgraced Hollywood movie mogul mounts. In London, the Metropolitan Police are investigating an allegation of sexual assault against Weinstein, while in New York, his hometown, police are reviewing claims made by victims interviewed in a bombshell New Yorker article. The news comes on the heels of mounting accusations of sexual harassment and assault against Weinstein. The studio executive and political power broker is facing allegations of rape, unwanted touching and assault by a number of women, including accusations of harassment by actresses Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie, in recent stories published in The New York Times and The New Yorker. Weinstein representative Sallie Hofmeister declined to comment on the New York Police Department investigation. CNN reached out for comment regarding the fresh investigation launched in London, but has not yet received a response. When asked about the New Yorker story, a Weinstein spokeswoman told CNN on Tuesday: “Mr. Weinstein obviously can’t speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual.” The movie producer has previously denied any allegations of nonconsensual sex. Related: Gwyneth Paltrow and many others accuse Weinstein of harassment A Metropolitan Police spokesperson told CNN that an alleged sexual assault involving Weinstein, which was referred to the London force by police in northern England, will be assessed by officers from the child abuse and sexual offenses command. Merseyside Police, which covers area in and around the city of Liverpool, said the allegation related to an incident in the 1980s. “Merseyside Police can confirm a report was received at 8:40 a.m. on Wednesday of an alleged sexual assault in the London area in the 1980s,” it said in a statement. Similar allegations have riled the criminal justice system across the pond, where the NYPD said on Thursday that it was investigating claims against the Hollywood producer detailed in the New Yorker article. Among those is a 2004 incident involving aspiring actress Lucia Evans, who alleged that Weinstein forced her to “perform oral sex on him” in a Miramax office in New York, the New Yorker reported. When the NYPD became aware of the 2004 allegations, and other criminal allegations detailed in the New Yorker piece, Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce directed investigators from the Special Victims Unit to identify, locate and interview the victims in the article, a law enforcement source with direct knowledge of the investigation told CNN. Related: Explosive Weinstein stories expose mogul’s power over media Weinstein could be subject to arrest in connection with the 2004 incident if law enforcement has enough evidence to prosecute, the source added. Part of the NYPD investigation includes talking to Ronan Farrow, the reporter behind the explosive New Yorker article, who police believe can help identify the unnamed woman. CNN has reached out to Farrow for comment. Related article Harvey Weinstein is a symptom, but what is the deeper problem? Earlier this week, the NYPD and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office traded public finger-pointing in response to questions about why Weinstein was not charged with a crime after a 2015 sting operation recorded him making potentially incriminating comments to a young woman. A New York attorney who represented Weinstein in 2015 discussions with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office regarding the allegations made by Ambra Battilana Gutierrez told CNN the district attorney had found “no crime was committed.” Elkan Abramowitz, former partner of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., would not elaborate on what aspects led the district attorney to find that “no crime was committed,” nor who was interviewed during the investigation. Clarification: This story and headline have been updated to clarify the nature of the investigations involving Harvey Weinstein CNN’s Simon Cullen and Eliza Mackintosh reported from London, with Brynn Gingras reporting in New York. CNN’s Lindsay Isaac and Lauren del Valle also contributed to this report.


"It's going to be hard to see a government that's peaceful and stable with Assad," Haley said "If he needs to do more, he will do more," Haley said when asked if Trump would order more strikes US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN that until Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is out of power, she doesn’t see a political solution to the conflict in Syria. “There’s not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime,” Haley told “State of the Union” anchor Jake Tapper. “It just – if you look at his actions, if you look at the situation, it’s going to be hard to see a government that’s peaceful and stable with Assad.” Haley’s remarks come just a day after she warned that the United States was prepared to take further actions in Syria during a special session at the UN following a US military strike against a Syrian air base. President Donald Trump ordered the strike in response to a chemical weapons attack against civilians earlier in the week, which US officials say was carried out by the Assad government. “The United States took a very measured step last night,” Haley said at the UN special session Friday. “We are prepared to do more. But we hope that will not be necessary. It is time for all civilized nations to stop the horrors that are taking place in Syria and demand a political solution.” Syrian Deputy UN Ambassador Mounzer Mounzer denied the country’s use of chemical weapons, stating at the UN special session that Syria “would never use such weapons in any of its operations against armed terrorist groups.” But Haley reiterated her statements about further actions in Syria in her interview with Tapper. “If he needs to do more, he will do more,” Haley said when asked if Trump would order more strikes. “So, really, now what happens depends on how everyone responds to what happened in Syria, and make sure that we start moving towards a political solution, and we start finding peace in that area.” Haley said she thought a regime change would occur because “all of the parties are going to see that Assad is not the leader that needs to be taking place for Syria.” Haley noted that ousting Assad was not the US’s only priority. “So there’s multiple priorities,” she said. “It’s – getting Assad out is not the only priority. And so what we’re trying to do is obviously defeat ISIS. Secondly, we don’t see a peaceful Syria with Assad in there. Thirdly, get the Iranian influence out, and then, finally, move towards a political solution, because at the end of the day, this is a complicated situation.” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Saturday about the situation in Syria, a longtime Russian ally, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on its official Facebook page. “Lavrov stressed that an attack on a country whose government is fighting terrorism only plays into the hands of extremists (and) creates additional threats to regional and global security,” the post said. On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the US strike “aggression against a sovereign state in violation of the norms of international law.”


With Republicans staring down a blue wave in the fall, House Speaker Paul Ryan recently road-tripped to Las Vegas for an audience with billionaire GOP donor Sheldon Adelson. There, without technically asking, Ryan helped secure from the casino magnate a $30 million donation to a Republican-aligned super PAC. And the best – that is, most cringe-inducing – part? It was all totally legal – a jarring reminder of how things continue to work in the “swamp” nearly 16 months after President Donald Trump was scheduled to begin drainage. To start, the Federal Election Commission remains understaffed at the highest levels. Two of six commissioner seats remain unfilled, while the four still occupied are all held by commissioners working on despite their terms’ having expired. Dysfunction at the FEC matters because it makes the enforcement and, crucially, interpretation of campaign finance law that much more difficult, if not impossible. And in a country with an excruciatingly (and increasingly) complicated campaign finance rulebook, the absence of a full roster of referees means it’s become even easier to, if not break the law, then openly defy its spirit, although the real scandal may be that feints like Ryan’s are apparently perfectly acceptable. Here are just a few ways candidates, elected officials, their allies and outside groups make a joke of the current disclosure laws, as spelled out to CNN by Brendan Fischer, director of federal and FEC reform programs at the nonpartisan, nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. A pair of court rulings in 2010, headlined by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, ushered in the era of the super PAC. These relatively new groups have become a mainstay of presidential campaigns and both parties’ efforts to maintain or take back congressional majorities. Super PACs can raise and spend as much cash as they want, with one major caveat: they’re not allowed to coordinate with or donate to the candidates and campaigns they’re supporting. But as it plays out in the real world, those dividing lines have become so blurry as to render them punchlines – literally, in some cases. In the run-up to the 2016 GOP presidential primary, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, an early but still formally undeclared favorite, was asked at a conservative gathering how a Walker White House might operate. “We want to have the government out of the way. We want to make it as easy and accessible as possible and that’s what we’re going to do in any decisions going forward, should we choose…” he said, a grin forming on his face, “My lawyers love when I say, ‘As we’re exploring a campaign.’” That “love” stemmed from the fact that, according to campaign finance law, Walker as a nearly, but not-quite candidate had much wider latitude to raise money for the outside groups that would support his (brief) campaign. The rules don’t become clearer after a candidate formally enters a race, they just reset to something new and equally difficult to discern. Direct communication and coordination is banned, but candidates from both parties are always finding new and creative ways to keep close, some of them blessed by the FEC. “The FEC has said it is OK for a candidate to raise money for a super PAC that is supporting them as long as they don’t explicitly ask for contributions above what are called the hard money limits – the federal limits,” Fischer said. “A traditional PAC can only accept $5,000, so a candidate can’t ask for more than $5,000 for a super PAC, even though the super PAC can legally accept unlimited amounts of money from any source.” And that, as we learned on Thursday, is part of the legal logic that allows – totally within the bounds of law – for Ryan to talk up the importance of keeping the House in GOP hands during his meeting with Adelson, then walk out of the room so his allies can formally ask for a donation. (Adelson ultimately agreed to give $30 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund.) Other anti-coordination rules, like one that requires a “cooling off period” of 120 days before a staffer moves from a campaign to an outside group. Like the rest, it’s proven to be pretty easy to circumvent. Two members of the Trump campaign tested the rule during the 2016 election. According to Fischer, they “were hired by the campaign, worked there for a few weeks, then left and within two weeks had started a super PAC called Rebuilding America Now, which was exclusively dedicated to supporting Donald Trump.” The Campaign Legal Center recently filed a complaint about the move, which was justified in the eyes of the former Trump staffers by the fact that they had never been paid by the campaign and so, were not bound by the rule. Fischer’s argument here is that there is “no volunteer exemption” and, in any case, the spirit of the rule is pretty clearly broken when “somebody can join the campaign for just long enough to learn about its strategies and needs and then use that strategic information to make sure a super PAC’s ads are going to be of the maximum benefit to the campaign.” This isn’t just a Republican problem. Democrats work just as hard to seize advantages where they see them. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign was also called out for allegedly trying to side-step the rules when it claimed the right to coordinate with David Brock’s super PAC, Correct the Record, because the group was not making independent expenditures, like running television ads. The basis for their argument, Fischer said, was a “narrow exception” meant to “allow bloggers to talk with candidates and do interviews with campaigns.” (You can read more on the campaign’s logic here, in a breakdown of relevant hacked emails made public by Wikileaks.) The upshot, Fischer said, is that coordination with Correct the Record allowed the campaign “to spin off its digital and opposition research arm into a super PAC that could accept unlimited and corporate donations.” Super PACs, unlike some other categories of outside groups, are required to make public their donors and how much money they’re taking in. But even then, there are ways around making the disclosures at politically inconvenient moments. Consider the recent primary elections in West Virginia. Fischer cited a pair of super PACs, one appearing to be associated with Democrats, another with Republicans, who changed their reporting schedules to avoid being required to share potentially damaging information right before the vote. The process here is arcane but the effect is most definitely not. In short, super PACs are required to file reports either quarterly or monthly. If they choose to do it quarterly, they also have to make an additional pre-election filing a little less than two weeks before the polls open. If they file monthly, there’s no pre-election requirement. You’ve been reporting a lot, the logic goes, so it’s unnecessary. The public is sufficiently informed. The groups focused on West Virginia, though, were relatively new and saw a loophole. “Both filed a quarterly report. That period ended on March 31, the primary was May 8. Just after that quarterly reporting period ended, they switched to monthly reporting,” Fischer said. “So because they had just formed, the only quarterly reports they filed didn’t show any fundraising and didn’t tell you who their donors were, then they switched to monthly reporting, so they could evade the pre-election report.” The information won’t stay hidden forever. New reports are due on May 20 – nearly two weeks after the vote. By then (if they haven’t already), people will have moved on and, like Fischer said, “If they do still care, it can’t really affect their vote.” Which brings us back to the agency meant to keep everyone on the level, to interpret the law, establish clear rules of the road and, when those get broken or bent too hard, step up and take action. Alas, it rarely happens. The FEC is supposed to have six sitting commissioners, with no more than three from each major political party. But that balance requirement also has the effect of creating stagnation and deadlocks between the two sides. “The FEC commissioners that have been appointed in the past decade or so, maybe past 15 years, the Republicans in particular, have been opposed to the mission of the agency,” Fischer said. This has become a familiar story, especially in the Trump era, with cabinet level officials often being placed in charge of institutions whose existence they fundamentally oppose. “It’s not partisan in the sense of Democrats only want to enforce the law against Republicans and Republicans only want to enforce the law against Democrats,” Fischer added. It’s more that the Republicans who’ve been nominated and confirmed to the commission have been ideologically opposed to the mission of the agency.” Trump has the power to break the stagnation here and, potentially, do a little to drain the proverbial swamp. There are, as noted above, only four commissioners currently serving. Because each is on an expired appointment, they could all be replaced by presidential appointment, of which there’s been one, and Senate confirmation, of which there’s been none. Democrats, too, would likely go along, or at least keep an open mind, because the balance requirement means Trump couldn’t stack the deck with Republicans. Still, the GOP is more recently in the business of breaking down, not building up, regulatory agencies. Set your expectations appropriately. Another delightful quirk of the campaign finance system is rooted in a recurring question over what candidates (and office holders) can and can’t use donor money to pay for – like legal fees. “Campaign funds can be used to pay legal fees that arise out of the campaign or one’s duty as an officeholder,” Fischer explained. “If the legal fees rise from something else, it would be impermissible to use campaign funds to pay them.” So, as an example, if a candidate gets pulled over driving drunk and issued a DUI, he can’t raid the campaign war chest to pay his legal team for their aid. That has to come from his personal funds. But – and here’s the weird part – the candidate would be within his rights to use campaign cash to compensate the lawyers who review or help draft the campaign’s press release addressing the incident. This rule is being tested, in a way, in connection with the Mueller investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia election meddling. It could also apply down the road to the probe into Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s alleged (and confirmed) activities before and after the 2016 campaign. “To the extent that the Mueller investigation pertains to personal matters, I think there’s an argument that they should not be using campaign funds to pay for that aspect of the legal fees,” Fischer said. “But there’s also an argument that the Mueller investigation wouldn’t exist at all if it weren’t for the campaign and if it weren’t for Trump’s duties as an officeholder, or his acts as an officeholder.” Though there is still lots to be sorted, and surely more information not yet publicly available, the Campaign Legal Center has done some poking around. They filed a complaint centered on Donald Trump Jr.’s June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer, whom he thought might have damaging information about Clinton. “We were wondering whether they would try and argue that Trump Jr. wasn’t acting on behalf of the campaign when he took that meeting,” Fischer said. “But once we saw that the campaign was paying his legal fees, that was effectively an admission that he was, indeed, acting on behalf of the campaign.” Might it have been the wiser route, with regard to the Mueller probe, to claim Trump Jr. was “acting in his personal capacity or freelancing”? Perhaps. But that would mean the Trump campaign’s riches were, by law, off-limits and what’s sure to be a hefty legal bill would fall directly on Trump Jr. To start, someone like Cohen is considered to be a lobbyist under the law if he spends 20% of his time lobbying. But as we learned from a Washington Post report published on Thursday night, his deal with AT&T was not that, as the company reportedly paid him $600,000 for “legislative” and “regulatory policy development.” Whatever that means exactly, it didn’t require or ask Cohen to directly engage lawmakers or the administration’s on the telecom giant’s behalf. (Important to note here: AT&T at that time was seeking government approval for its acquisition of Time Warner, CNN’s parent company. The administration eventually moved to block the deal, sending the dispute to court. A ruling is expected in the next month.) What’s most remarkable, really – according to what we know right now – is that both Cohen and the companies paying for his suddenly precious insights appear to have been acting well within the bounds of the law. Was it ethical? That’s a more difficult question – one AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson addressed on Friday. “There is no other way to say it – AT&T hiring Michael Cohen as a political consultant was a big mistake,” he offered in a statement. “To be clear, everything we did was done according to the law and entirely legitimate. But the fact is, our past association with Cohen was a serious misjudgment.” That apology (of sorts) was, pretty clearly, a response to the bad PR that followed the disclosure – via media reports, not any legal requirement – of their deal. As Fischer pointed out (in a conversation shortly before the Washington Post story was published), the arrangement was likely to be very, well, normal. “Companies will typically pay (former members of Congress or former high-level agency officials) not as lobbyists but as consultants, to provide insight into who they should be talking to, what messages they should be using – inside information on how their lobbying can be more effective,” he said. “According to these companies, that’s what Cohen was being paid for and it is a unreported, dark means of influence peddling.” Until, that is, they get caught.


Before deadly Bastille Day attack Nice already known as extremist hotspot Poverty, unemployment and lack of integration cited as problems in resort city Former group based in region were once known among France's most dangerous The postcard perfect French coastal resort of Nice seems an unlikely flashpoint for extremist violence, but this week’s deadly attack spotlights a dangerous undercurrent of radicalization. Nice is known for its beaches and traditional architecture, but law enforcement and experts on terrorism say its suburbs are unhappier places that have recently become breeding grounds for Islamic militancy. That appears to have reached a deadly crisis point with the attack on a Bastille Day holiday crowd that left more than 80 people dead and others critically injured. The incident follows previous extremist strikes in France – including November 2015’s massacres in Paris and January 2015’s attack focused on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo – that have plunged the country into a state of emergency. In the aftermath of the latest killings, as questions are asked over whether the bloodshed could have been prevented, scrutiny will fall on what was known about Nice’s problems with extremism. It’s not immediately known how Mohamad Lahouaiej Bouhel, the 31-year-old French-Tunisian and local resident who was named as the attacker in Nice, fitted into that picture. Nice, France’s fifth most populous city, is among many in the country struggling with an apparent lack of integration between longstanding residents and migrant populations mainly with roots in North Africa. In late 2015, Nice was prominent among cities reportedly listed by French counter-terrorism experts as hotbeds of Islamic extremism. Ariane, a densely populated neighborhood of high-rise apartment blocks to the north of Nice, was listed among 64 so-called “ghettos” characterized by youth unemployment and immigration. Attacker ‘not very intelligent’Why did he launch rampage?Photos: Celebrations shatteredNice: An extremist hotbed?Walking the trail of terrorWitnesses: Bodies everywhereNew tool of terror?Nice: Idyllic seaside cityShould tourists stay away from Nice? 30 days of terrorWhy France again?  U.S. victims: Father, son killed Attacker ‘not very intelligent’Why did he launch rampage?Photos: Celebrations shatteredNice: An extremist hotbed?Walking the trail of terrorWitnesses: Bodies everywhereNew tool of terror?Nice: Idyllic seaside cityShould tourists stay away from Nice? 30 days of terrorWhy France again?  U.S. victims: Father, son killed Drugs and organized crime are also said to be part of a landscape seen as an ideal recruiting ground for radicalization, chiefly by the so-called Islamic State or ISIS group. “From Nice, dozens of people have gone to join Islamic State in Syria and Iraq,” said Prof. Peter Neumann of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence at Kings College London. While the Nice attack has prompted some in France to call for tougher frontier controls and stricter limits on migration – concerns frequently raised in European nations with open borders – Neumann says much of the trouble is homegrown. France’s Mediterranean Riviera – including Nice’s neighbor Cannes, where movies stars gather every year for a glitzy festival – is a key focal point, Neumann added. “We also know that close to Nice, in Cannes, we had the first plot really after IS emerged early in 2014,” he told CNN. “It’s known that a number of people have gone from Nice and there are networks active that have recruited people.” That plot was behind a dramatic operations by French security service in February 2014 in pursuit of Ibrahim Boudina, a French national born in Algiers, who was suspected of being a member of a terrorist cell behind a grenade attack in Paris. Boudina, according to French security officials, was among members of a close-knit radical circle based around Cannes with links to other attacks and other extremists, particularly in the Paris suburb of Torcy. According to CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank, French officials called the “Cannes-Torcy” group the most dangerous terrorist cell uncovered in the country since a 1995 bombing of the Paris metro. Cruickshank reported that a friend interviewed by police portrayed Boudina as a leading figure in a small group of like-minded radicals who hung out together after prayers in mosques in the Cannes area. Attracted by others from tougher immigrant neighborhoods, they were said to have gathered at a nearby river because the beaches of the Cote D’Azur were inappropriate because of scantily-clad women. After heading to Syria in 2012, Boudina was detected re-entering Europe in 2014 and placed under surveillance as he hid out in Nice. He was arrested in a raid on his parent’s apartment block in Mandelieu-La Napoule, to the west of Cannes, despite trying flee the pursuit of security forces. Following his capture, police later discovered a gun and bomb-making ingredients in the building – cans filled with the high-explosive compound TATP with screws and nails for shrapnel. Similar equipment was later used to deadly effect in the terrorist strikes in Paris and Brussels. CNN’s terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank contributed to this report


The Chinese government cares more about the institution of the Dalai Lama than the man who carries that name, the 14th Dalai Lama told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “I have no concern,” he told Amanpour in London, adding that it is “possible” he would be the last Dalai Lama. Related video Watch the full interview The Chinese government still considers him a political leader, the Dalai Lama said, as the previous men carrying that title were for centuries. But since 2011, he told Amanpour, he is only a spiritual leader. “I totally retired from political responsibility – not only myself retired, but also (a) four-century-old tradition.” Buddhism in Tibet far precedes the Dalai Lama, and “in the future, Tibetan Buddhism will carry (on) without the Dalai Lama.” Decades ago, he told Amanpour, “I publicly, formally, officially – I announced the very institution of the Dalai Lama should continue or not – (it is) up to Tibetan people.” Amanpour spoke with the Dalai Lama shortly before he was hospitalized and forced to cancel several appearances in the United States.  Now back in India, he has assured his followers he is in “excellent condition.” The Chinese government is continually at odds with the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists. Chinese officials label him an “anti-China splittist,” alleging that he wants Tibet – now a region of China – to become an independent country. “We are not seeking independence. Historically, we are (an) independent country. That’s what all historians know – except for the Chinese official historian; they do not accept that.” Labeling him a “splittist,” the Dalai Lama said, fits with China’s “hardliner policy.” “Past is past. We are looking (to the) future.” Tibet, he said, is “materially backward,” and benefits from being part of China. “It’s in our own interest, for further material development – provided we have our own language, very rich spirituality.” Asked if he had a message for Chinese President Xi Jinping, who at the time was on the eve of a state visit to Washington, the Dalai Lama at first demurred. With a laugh, he told Amanpour he’d have to think about it. “I may say to him, Xi Jinping, leader of most populated nation, should think more realistically.” “I want to say (to him), last year, he publicly mentioned in Paris as well as New Delhi, (that) Buddhism is a very important part of Chinese culture. He mentioned that. So I also say – I may sort of say some nice word about his – that comment.” Nowhere else, the Dalai Lama said, is the “pure authentic” tradition of the religion kept so intact as in Tibet. “No other Buddhist countries. So in China, preservation of Tibetan Buddhist tradition and Buddhist culture is (of) immense benefit to millions of those Chinese Buddhists.” In one of those Buddhist countries, Myanmar, the often peaceful image of practitioners has been tarred in recent years with the persecution of – and often outright violence against – Muslim minorities, the Rohingya. Whenever a Buddhist feels “uncomfortable” with a Muslim, or person of any other religion, the Dalai Lama said, he or she should think of “Buddha’s face.” “If Buddha (were) there – certainly protect, or help to these victims. There’s no question. So as a follower of Buddha, you should follow Buddha sincerely. So national interest is secondary.” “Consider as a human brothers, sisters. No matter what is his religious faith.” “To some people, Muslim, Islam, (is) more effective. So let them follow that. We must accept that.”


The threat posed by drones and ISIS has already materialized on the battlefield Last month, the United States bombed an ISIS chemical weapons plant Terrorist groups like ISIS are looking for new ways to employ drone technology that could one day deliver chemical weapons or unleash similar catastrophes, according to a new report. The report from the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the US Military Academy at West Point documents at least four terrorist groups, mainly based in the Middle East, have programs studying how to leverage more resources and infrastructure for producing drones. While the report rates the current       ability of terror groups to mount a lethal attack through a drone as “low to moderate,” the threat posed by unmanned aerial vehicles and ISIS has already materialized on the battlefield. Earlier this month, ISIS attacked a Kurdish defensive post using a drone carrying “some sort of explosives,” a senior Peshmerga officer said at the time. The attack killed two Peshmerga soldiers and injured two French military personnel north of Mosul, Iraq, the Peshmerga officer said. While the technology employed by ISIS has been comprised of commercial items available to any consumer, Major Gen. Gary J. Volesky, commander of coalition forces fighting ISIS in Iraq, said the US is keeping an eye on it. The drones are “clearly not the capacity or capability that, that we have, but they are using them,” he told reporters at the Pentagon Wednesday. “We have seen them, and we’re taking measures to mitigate that.” Related video ISIS' battle tactics Beyond the battlefield in Iraq and Syria, the CTC report says terror groups seem to have advanced the most at using drones for surveillance and strategic communications. But, the report finds, “terrorist interest in drones as an attack platform has been diverse and has spanned a number of ideologies and geographic regions.” And with the proliferation of various drones and reduction in their sizes, among other factors, the report warns that a “tipping point” of more diffuse use by terrorist groups may not be far off. In June 2013, Iraqi authorities arrested five men tied to ISIS who were reportedly planning to use helicopters to release Sarin and mustard gas as part of an attack against targets in Iraq, North America and Europe. Last month, the United States bombed an ISIS chemical weapons plant that was housed in a converted Iraqi pharmaceutical factory, and the US-led coalition has targeted key ISIS figures involved in its chemical weapons program. “We have been very, very focused with our targeting to go after those places where we think this is being produced, those individuals that are producing it, and the resources they require to do that,” Gen. Joseph Votel, the top military commander for US forces throughout the Middle East, said at the Center for American Progress in Washington on Wednesday. ISIS’ development of chemical weapons is not “an overly sophisticated threat at this particular point, but yet it is out there, and so we have got to continue to address that” he said.


One of the world's biggest airliners rolled across two Atlanta streets Saturday to its new museum home Delta mounted a huge three-hour-plus operation to move the first Boeing 747-400 from the airport The 400 series was Boeing's biggest selling version of the 747, the plane that forever changed air travel It was just a short trip across two streets, really. Except it involved one of the biggest passenger airliners in the world. There we were early Saturday morning — perhaps 200 aviation enthusiasts, Delta employees, news media and curious onlookers excited to see how Delta Air Lines would move an approximately 400,000-pound, 232-foot-long airplane from the outskirts of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, down two streets to the Delta Flight Museum. Twitter and Instagram started lighting up as our photos of the jet began shooting around the globe. If you’re wondering what all the fuss was about, well, this plane is historic. It’s the first 747-400 model ever built for a commercial airline. It’s kind of a star among stars. Most people know the Boeing’s 747 — the plane that forever changed the airline industry in the 1970s and opened the door to an entire generation of air travelers. The 400 series was the biggest selling version of the 747. Nearly 700 were sold before Boeing stopped making the passenger version in 2005. They kept making the cargo version until 2009. Boeing estimates that all the 747s in the 400 series flew a total of more than 5 million flights and more than 17 billion miles. Delta dubbed this 747-400 Ship 6301. After 27 years of service — first with Northwest Airlines — then with Delta after the two airlines merged in 2008, it was time to retire Ship 6301 last year. Delta, along with other passenger airlines, are phasing out their 747s and replacing them with more fuel efficient, twin-engine jets with fewer seats and about the same range. So, how do you move one of the world’s biggest airliners to its final resting place? First, you need a powerful towing vehicle. Inside that short and squat little truck, sits the 747’s nose landing gear – which allows the truck to tow the plane. A team of dozens of Delta workers would walk along side the plane as it slowly rolls across the tarmac and onto Atlanta’s Toffie Terrace toward the museum. Second you need local police to help you block local traffic. It might be easier to get this thing to Tokyo than to move it across the street...or not. #delta747experience pic.twitter.com/LGtSPpCLGT You need a small army of tractor equipment operators to lift and place dozens of steel plates on the curbs to protect against damage as the jumbo jet’s main landing gear — each weighing more than 6,000 pounds — rolls over the street. Light posts had to be temporarily removed to accommodate the plane’s gargantuan 211-foot wide wingspan. There was a real sense among everyone that history was being made. Workers stopped to take selfies. Even way up high in the plane’s cockpit window, you could see someone taking photos of the activity down below as it crossed the intersection of Toffie Terrace and Woolman Place. When Ship 6301 made the crucial turn into the museum parking lot, the crowd broke out in cheers. Just another day on Woolman Place. #delta747experience #delta747bigmove pic.twitter.com/FwzcWFs7AU They knew the remaining approximately 700 feet would be relatively easy for the tow vehicle to pull the plane across the smooth flat parking lot to its designated spot near the museum entrance. Then it kind of turned into a parade. Delta employees and others – many with huge grins on their faces – escorted the jet into the parking lot. They walked along side each of its wings –  hooting and hollering with every second of realization they were experiencing rare, up-close access to a moving 747. aaaaaannnnd we're IN! the 1st 747-400 is inside the grounds of  the Delta Flight Museum! #Delta747Experience #avgeek pic.twitter.com/iVGSBXwwpf The final 30 minutes was like the world’s most complicated parallel parking test as the plane and the tow vehicle backed up and moved forward again and again. Finally the crew seemed satisfied with the plane’s position. High fives were exchanged and it was mission accomplished: a very complicated street crossing for one historic passenger airliner. CNN’s Thom Patterson writes about aviation. Follow him on Twitter at @thompatterson.