The bodies of 5 children are recovered off the Turkish coastal town of Ayvacik, Anadolu reports The migrants on the capsized ship were from Myanmar, Afghanistan and Syria They are among scores of migrant deaths this month in the Mediterranean Sea Another day, another group of migrants lost in the Mediterranean Sea – forever. Related gallery Europe's migration crisis in 25 photos This time, at least 33 migrants died after their boat capsized in the Aegean Sea, Turkey’s semiofficial news agency reported Saturday, citing Turkish authorities. Like so many other refugee-packed vessels in recent months, this one was heading to Greece, a major destination for those trying to escape war and poverty and get into Europe. Some of those boats make it, but not this one. At least five of those whose bodies were recovered off Ayvacik, a town on the Turkish coast, were children, according to the Anadolu report. Authorities managed to save 75 people on the same boat, which contained people from Myanmar, Afghanistan and Syria. That wasn’t the only such recent rescue of migrants in the Mediterranean: The Italian Coast Guard reported it had saved 216 people stuck in two dinghies. Those migrants killed off Ayvacik, Turkey, are on top of the 244 reported dead or missing in January by the International Organization for Migration. “Deaths on this route are increasing at an alarming rate,” IOM spokesman Joel Millman told reporters then. 5 examples of ‘backlash against migration’ The same group said then that more than 55,500 migrants managed successfully to cross the Mediterranean into Europe in the year’s first 28 days. The influx – with more than 1 million migrants coming into Europe last year – has put policymakers on the spot, with some countries opening their doors while others come down hard to keep them out. While some migrants debark from North Africa, a vast majority set off from points east like Turkey, which borders war-ravaged Syria. The distance from there to Turkey to Greece, across the Aegean, isn’t incredibly long, but it can be incredibly dangerous – especially when so many people cram onto small, rickety boats that have no business at sea. That’s what happened earlier this week when 10 children were among 26 killed when their boat capsized, a sinking that authorities learned about only after a survivor somehow made it to Kokkari, on the north coast of Greece’s Samos island, the IOM reported. That vessel had been full of Kurds from Iraq. Millman, from that advocacy group, blamed the human smugglers whom desperate people resort to in order to escape dire straits in their homelands. He said, “[These deaths are] happening because of increased ruthlessness of gangs involved in shipping migrants.” CNN’s Gul Tuysuz reported from Lesbos, and CNN’s Greg Botelho reported and wrote from Atlanta.

migrant crossings in the Mediterranean Sea


On Sunday night, James Comey told his side of the story. The former – and fired – FBI director sat down with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Sunday night to talk about his deep concerns about President Donald Trump and to recount a number of now-famous/infamous episodes between the two men. (Comey has written a book about his experiences titled “A Higher Loyalty.”) ABC released the transcript of the entire five-hour(!) interview; I went through it to pluck out the lines from Comey that you absolutely shouldn’t miss. They’re below. 1.  “I liken President Trump in the book to a forest fire. Going to do tremendous damage. Going to damage those important norms. But a forest fire gives healthy things a chance to grow that had no chance before that fire.” Comey’s logic here is intriguing but he’s really talking about a controlled burn – one in which the fire is managed. The consequences of a raging wildfire that no one is able to manage are, I think, a little different. RELATED: Analysis | Trump now faces Comey’s moral assault 2.  “So all of us have to constantly be involved and call it out when we see the truth endangered, when we see lying.” Remember that in his first year in office, Trump said more than 2,000 things that were either partly or totally untrue. And his pace has not slowed since then. 3. “The title [of the book] comes from a bizarre conversation I had with the President in dinner at the White House in January of last year, where he asked for my loyalty personally as the FBI director.” Trump has denied he ever asked for Comey’s loyalty – including on Twitter on Sunday! Tweeted Trump: “I never asked Comey for Personal Loyalty. I hardly even knew this guy. Just another of his many lies. His “memos” are self serving and FAKE!” 4.  “Well, that’s why I was never going to write a book. It always felt like an exercise in ego.” That’s what they all say! (Did I mention I wrote a book?) 5. “President Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich took my breath away. Th– the notion that the president of the United States would pardon a fugitive without asking the prosecutors or the investigators, ‘What do you think,’ was shocking to me.” Clinton’s pardon of Rich, which you can read more about here, was shocking to lots of people. The New York Times editorial board described it as a “shocking abuse of presidential power.” 6.  “I thought David Petraeus should’ve been prosecuted not just for the mishandling of the classified information, but also for lying to the FBI because lying is – strikes at the heart of our rule of law in this country.” Interesting to note here that Comey wanted to go further against Petraeus than the then Attorney General Eric Holder did. (Petraeus was charged – and convicted – only with mishandling classified information.) 7. “I’ve gone through 50 years of cases. I don’t know of a case where anyone has ever been prosecuted for just being careless, even extremely careless.” Comey acknowledges here that from the start of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, he strongly suspected there wouldn’t be charges brought against her.  That will be fodder for Trump who will say the former FBI director had prejudged the case before even seeing it. 8. “If you issue a one liner from the Obama Justice Department about one of the two candidates for president of the United States, in this case the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, and say, ‘We’re done here,’ in the absence of any kind of transparency, corrosive doubt creeps in that the system is rigged somehow.” This is Comey’s explanation for why he delivered extended public remarks about the end of the Clinton investigation. And, yes, that noise you hear is Democrats collectively rolling their eyes at his explanation. 9. “It really did surprise me. He’s a very smart man and a lawyer. And so it surprised me. He shouldn’t have done it.” Comey here scolds then-President Obama for saying publicly he didn’t believe Clinton had done anything wrong with her email server setup. (Here’s more on exactly what Obama said on the investigation.) 10. “Classified information came into the possession of the US intelligence community in the early part of 2016 that indicated there was material out there that raised the question of whether [Attorney General] Loretta Lynch was controlling me and the FBI and keeping the Clinton campaign informed about our investigation.” Wait, what???? 11. “And so whether or not it was true, the fact that it would be out there and allow people to argue that something terrible was going on in this investigation cut in favor of more transparency.” Comey says the investigation into whether Lynch was purposely controlling what the FBI said and found on the investigation wasn’t true. But he is very vague about the whole thing – likely because the information remains classified. 12.  “My staff convinced me that that’s just going to confuse all kinds of people, if you start talking about statutes and what the words mean. What’s a colloquial way to explain it? And elsewhere in my statement I had said, ‘Extremely careless.’” In his original draft on Clinton’s email, Comey used the words “gross negligence” to describe her behavior. Here he explains  why he changed it. (Trump has insisted the change was because Comey was going easy on Clinton.) 13. “This wasn’t your ordinary bureaucrat who just mishandles one document. This was something more than that. But not something that anybody would prosecute.” Related article James Comey: 'It's possible' Russians have dirt on Trump To Comey’s mind, Clinton’s private email server was in the grey area between a very serious crime and a regular old mistake.  Which made it hard to handle especially given her position. 14.”In late July [2016], the FBI got information that there was somebody who had had – was a foreign policy advisor named [George] Papadopoulos to the Trump campaign.” This is an important note. Trump – and some other Republicans – insist that the entire FBI investigation into his campaign and Russia was premised on the dossier put together by Christopher Steele. It wasn’t. It began with Papadopoulos looking for the dirt the Russians allegedly had on Clinton. 15. “The investigation was triggered entirely separately from the Steele dossier.” Again, important. And counter to the Trump narrative. 16. “I discovered President Trump wouldn’t even do it privately, and I don’t know why that is.” Comey suggests here that Trump won’t bash Russian President Vladimir Putin in private, which he finds baffling. 17. “I remember saying that I’m a little bit tired of being the independent voice on things.” [Eye roll emoji] 18. “All of us were operating in a world where the polls were showing that Donald Trump had no chance.” Related article Trump attacks Comey for handling of Clinton email probe For those who say law enforcement is totally blind to politics, I give you this sentence from James Comey. 19. “Speaking is really bad; concealing is catastrophic. If you conceal the fact that you have restarted the Hillary Clinton email investigation, not in some silly way but in a very, very important way that may lead to a different conclusion, what will happen to the institutions of justice when that comes out?” Comey’s deliberations on whether to let the public know about the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation is totally fascinating. The issue many people will take with it is that he had no way of knowing whether the emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop were duplicates of emails the FBI had already seen. So why announce something that may not be news at all? (Turns out there was nothing new on Weiner’s laptop.) 20. “I would so much rather Anthony Weiner had never had a laptop.” So would Anthony Weiner. 21. “Speaking is going to have some impact, potentially. But concealing is going to destroy the institutions that I love.” Comey critics will argue that he is greatly exaggerating the impact of waiting and seeing what was on Weiner’s laptop before speaking publicly. Greatly. 22. “If I ever start considering whose political fortunes will be affected by a decision, we’re done.” But, you just said that you and everyone else were operating under the assumption that Clinton was going to win! 23. “Cause I was operating in a world where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump.” But, but, but [head explodes] 24.  “It sucked.” James Comey on being James Comey in the final days of the 2016 campaign. 25. “The honest answer is I screwed up a couple of things, but in the main, I think given what I knew at the time, these were the decisions that were best calculated to preserve the values of the institutions.” [narrator voice] He doesn’t really think he screwed up much of anything. 26. “I’m glad for a lotta reasons I don’t have a time machine.” Strong disagree. Having a time machine would rule. 27. “I– never going to run for office.” An interesting pledge to make by Comey – and sort of out of the blue. I had been wondering if this whole experience might actually push him to run for office – or at least make him more interested in the prospect. 28. “What did it cost me? Well, (SIGH).” Story of my life – especially the “(SIGH)” 29. “But this was– their sense that given the variety of sources and methods we had, we had this nailed.” This is Comey on the intelligence on Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. “We had this nailed.” 30. “President Obama has a great poker face.” Coming soon to a world poker event near you…. 31. “But I read it as, ‘You poor bastard.’” What Comey believed Obama was conveying to him in advance of a sitdown with the incoming president to talk about the more salacious details in the Steele dossier. 32. “And even though I did not intend to jam Donald Trump with this, my thinking was, given his approach to the world, he may think I’m pulling a J. Edgar Hoover and assume that I’m trying to dangle this over him to get leverage on him.” Knowing Trump, that is exactly what he was thinking. 33. “My impression was he looked exactly like he did on television, except he looked shorter to me than he did on television, but otherwise exactly the same.”Of all the things Comey said in this interview, taking a shot at Trump’s height is probably the thing that upsets the president the most. Related article Trump slams Comey after bombshell interview 34. “I stared at it pretty closely and my reaction was, ‘It most take a heck of a lot of time in the morning, but it’s impressively coifed.’” Well, I can die happy. The “What does Comey think of Trump’s hair?” question has been answered. 35. “I shook his hand I made a note to check the size and it seemed like he had average-sized hands.” “I buy a slightly smaller than large glove,” Donald Trump. 36. “I came to conclude that a lot of times what he said was just kind of pleasantries to begin a conversation, so I don’t know whether he really thought I had handled it well.” This is correct. Trump, in person and one on one, is hugely solicitous. To a fault. 37.  “I did not go into the business about – people peeing on each other, I just thought it was a weird enough experience for me to be talking to the incoming president of the United States about prostitutes in a hotel in Moscow.” “People peeing on each other.” Holy moly. 38. “He was very defensive and started to launch into– for reasons that I don’t understand, started going into the list of people who had accused him of touching them improperly, sexual assault and how he hadn’t done this, he hadn’t done that, he hadn’t done that.” This is Trump’s first reaction to the Comey briefing on the Russia hotel allegations. His first one! 39. “I don’t know whether the – the– current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It’s possible, but I don’t know.” I mean, it is impossible to overestimate the seriousness of this statement.  The former FBI Director isn’t able to say, conclusively, that the president wasn’t involved with prostitutes in Russia. RELATED: Kellyanne Conway questions Comey’s credibility over Trump meeting claims 40. “Remember, that was what I worried about is that he would think I was pulling a J. Edgar Hoover, to come in there and jam him by raising the prospect of salacious, compromising material.” “Pulling a J. Edgar Hoover” is a phrase I could get used to using more often. 41. “Another reason you know it’s not true is I’m a germaphobe. There’s no way I’d let people pee on each other around me.” Comey quoting Trump.  And I thought urine was sterile but apparently it isn’t? 42. “And I just remember thinking, ‘Everything’s gone mad.’” So say we all. 43. “You would think that you would notice me, this giraffe standing at the end of the room.” Comey on Comey: “This giraffe.” 44. “Isn’t he master of television, this is disastrous.” This is Comey on the Trump handshake. And, yes. And yes. 45. “So I extend my hand and he grabs my hand and he pulls in and back.” This is the classic Trump handshake move.  The tug and pull. I believe he’s patented it. 46. “He was going for the hug, going for the hug.” I would not have guessed Donald Trump was a hugger. 47. “I’m not an unusually strong person but I work out.” Same. 48. “And so the whole world saw him kiss me.” This took an unexpected turn. 49. “It was to make me a friend of ours.” All I can think of is “Donnie Brasco.” 50. “He said, ‘I expect loyalty, I need loyalty.’” Trump says he never said any such thing. Someone is not telling the truth. 51. “We just stared at each other and then he went on eating.” Sounds like every date I went on in high school. 52. “It was him talking almost the entire time, which I’ve discovered is something he frequently does.” A little bit of monologuing never hurt anyone, right? 53. “On and on and on and on. Everyone agrees, everyone agrees, I did this, the– I never assaulted these women, I never made fun of a reporter.” The Trump presidency, in three sentences. 54. “He is someone who is – for whom the truth is not a high value.” Related article 'I hope not': Comey on whether Trump should be impeached I actually think Trump thinks he is telling the truth. Because he repeats it to himself enough times that he becomes convinced that whatever he says is the truth no matter what the actual facts bear out. 55. “So what kind of marriage to what kind of man does your wife think there’s only a 99 percent chance you didn’t do that?” If Trump wasn’t already pissed off about this Comey sitdown (he was!) then this would make him crazy. Comey offering judgment on the state of his marriage? Rough. 56. “I’m not a comedian but I occasionally say something that’s funny that people chuckle with each other.” Same. 57. “The president was talking about something that had happened during an airing of a interview he did with Bill O’Reilly on Fox.” “I don’t get to watch much television. Primarily because of documents. I’m reading documents. A lot.” – Donald Trump 58. “I think it’s possible. I don’t know. These are more words I never thought I’d utter about a president of the United States, but it’s possible.” This is Comey’s response to a Stephanopoulos’ question about whether the Russians might actually have something on Trump. His inability to say “absolutely not” is – and should be – stunning. 59. “If he didn’t know he was doing something improper, why did he kick out the attorney general and the vice president of the United States and the leaders of the intelligence community?” This is a very good question from Comey about the Feb. 14 Oval office meeting between he and Trump in which the president allegedly asked the FBI director to see a way to end the investigation in former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Why kick everyone else out if the conversation was totally innocuous and above board? 60. “It’s certainly some evidence of obstruction of justice.” A big accusation here from Comey in regards that Feb. 14 meeting… 61. “Wow, the world s– continues to go crazy.” A variation on a theme. 62. “She somehow got the FBI police to go down and get it, scanned it, e-mailed it to me.” Comey formally found out he was fired because his assistant scanned him a copy of the letter that the White House had dropped off at the Bureau. So, so weird. 63. “[John Kelly] was very emotional and said he had seen the news and that he intended to resign because he wouldn’t work for people who would treat someone like me in such a dishonorable way and that he was going to quit.” [Narrator voice] He didn’t quit. 64. “I actually gave thought to renting a convertible and driving almost 3,000 miles, something I’ve never done.” I would totally watch that reality show. 65. “I took a bottle of red wine out of my suitcase that I was bringing back from California, a California pinot noir, and I drank red wine from a paper coffee cup and just looked out at the lights of the country I love so much as we flew home.” This was the alternative ending of “The Great Gatsby,” I believe. 66. “One of the orders that was issued is I was never to be allowed back on FBI property, like I had killed somebody.” This does deem overly harsh for a former director. 67. “My sense of him, maybe it’s unfair to him, was that he was over matched for the job.” That “thud” you just heard was Comey pushing Attorney General Jeff Sessions under the bus. 68. “I don’t think he’s medically unfit to be president. I think he’s morally unfit to be president.” This will be the lasting and lingering quote of this interview and maybe of the entire Comey book rollout. 69. “A person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville, who talks about and treats women like they’re pieces of meat, who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it, that person’s not fit to be president of the United States, on moral grounds.” While the quote directly above – #68 – will get most of the attention, this one is , to my mind, more damaging. Comey is saying Trump is amoral, that he lacks any basic moral structure at all. Which is a very dangerous thing for the leader of a country. 70. “I don’t follow [Trump] on Twitter, but I’m sure [a tweetstorm is] going to come.” Oh, it came alright! “Comey drafted the Crooked Hillary exoneration long before he talked to her (lied in Congress to Senator G), then based his decisions on her poll numbers,” Trump tweeted at 8:25 am ET Monday. “Disgruntled, he, McCabe, and the others, committed many crimes!”


With Kim Jong Un pushing aggressively to develop missiles that could hit the United States with nuclear warheads, pressure has been mounting on US officials to answer the threat.   One effective countermeasure could lie in an obscure military lab in New Mexico. It’s called CHAMP, for Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project. James Fisher, spokesman for the Air Force Research Lab at Kirtland Air Force Base, said it’s a high-powered microwave weapon that can be delivered on an air-launched cruise missile, deployed from an American bomber. Fisher says the cruise missile with a CHAMP system strapped to it would fly into enemy airspace at low altitude, and send out strong pulses of electromagnetic energy. The enemy’s electronic command-and-control systems would be jammed.  Analysts say the cruise missile it’s deployed on could then be splashed down at sea. The Air Force says CHAMP was not developed specifically to counter the North Korean threat.  But retired Gen. David Deptula, who once headed US Air Force intelligence, said the applications could be effective against North Korea. Related article North Korea's missile tests: What you need to know Retired Air Force intelligence officer Col. Cedric Leighton went further, saying CHAMP could be a game-changer with North Korea. “It would be very useful in the Korean theater because it wouldn’t require the presence of significant numbers of ground forces,” Leighton said. “It wouldn’t require Special Operations forces. And it wouldn’t require kinetic bombing attacks. … In essence, what could happen is an attack can occur, and not a single person on the enemy side would lose a life.” Leighton said a CHAMP system could disable a North Korean missile on the launchpad or in flight. Fisher said the Air Force tested the CHAMP system in 2012, at a testing range in Utah larger than the state of Delaware.  Buildings were rigged with communications and other systems similar to what enemy militaries would have. Mary Lou Robinson, who heads research and development of CHAMP at the Air Force Research Laboratory, told NBC News, “It absolutely did exactly what we thought it was going to do.”  Robinson said they had several target classes, and they “predicted with almost 100%  accuracy” which systems would fail. While CHAMP holds the promise of a nonlethal weapon against the North Koreans, skeptics say it has potentially dangerous drawbacks. “The North Koreans would see many of these missiles flying in,” says Jeffrey Lewis, an adjunct professor at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. “They would try to shoot them down. They’re not actually going to know that they’re armed with high-powered microwaves instead of, say, conventional explosives or even nuclear weapons.” CHAMP weapons are not currently operational. Neither Fisher, Robinson, nor other Air Force officials would say when the weapons could be deployed.  But Leighton said in a crisis, “The CHAMP system could be deployed within days.” CNN’s Brad Hodges contributed to this report.


Melania Trump visited Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling on Wednesday She helped sort toys and decorate cards for their Toys for Tots drive Melania Trump continued a holiday tradition on Wednesday, visiting with military families and sorting gifts at a Toys for Tots event at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, where she delivered a reflective message on her initial year as first lady. “On a personal note, as my first year as first lady comes to an end, I have had the privilege to witness the spirit and resilience of so many people in our country. After this year’s devastating hurricane season, I hope everyone watching at home will consider giving back through programs like Toys for Tots,” she said, delivering brief remarks at a podium surrounded by wrapped holiday gifts and children’s bikes. .@FLOTUS Melania Trump is at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling today, helping sort toys at a Toys for Tots event with military families pic.twitter.com/TUoXGPc4d1 “I’ve seen people from all over our great nation pitch in to help those who lost everything, and I want to challenge people to continue with that giving spirit over Christmas and in the new year,” she added. Trump has been a front-and-center figure for her husband’s administration in the wake of the multiple devastating hurricanes this year, accompanying President Donald Trump on trips to Texas, Louisiana, Florida and Puerto Rico, and last week, viewing recovery and relief efforts in Texas’ Corpus Christi area with second lady Karen Pence. She also recorded a public service announcement encouraging Americans to donate to organizations of their choice or volunteer in storm-ravaged areas. Related article Melania Trump and Karen Pence to visit Texas storm victims On Wednesday, the first lady decorated holiday cards and sorted donated toys with the children of service members as part of the Marine Corps Reserve’s annual Toys for Tots drive. As Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” and other Christmas classics played, Trump and the children carried stuffed animals, action figures, dolls and games, placing them into oversized boxes marked “Boy,” “Girl” and “Toddler.” Trump bent down to help some of the littlest helpers sort their toys as one small boy carried a teddy bear bigger than himself to one of the bins. "It is my hope that during this holiday season, people will remember it is not about gifts – it is abt family, service, & gratitude. We must continue to look out for, & help each other,” @flotus says. She's sorting toys with military children here at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling pic.twitter.com/XNuuMHLC1P Trump, who has made visits with children a hallmark of her public appearances during her tenure, animatedly exchanged hugs and high-fives and posed for photos with the children before moving to a card-decorating station. Dressed in a festive green coat, she lifted one little girl carrying a marker onto her lap as the children colored holiday cards, admiring their work. “Merry Christmas!” she said. “What is your wish?” Then-first lady Michelle Obama also visited the base for each of the eight years her husband was in office. Trump’s holiday message this year: it’s “not about gifts.” “It is my hope that during this holiday season, people will remember it is not about gifts – it is about family, service and gratitude. We must continue to look out for, and help each other,” she said.


Cats. When they’re not scratching up furniture (or your skin), they’re napping, purring, snuggling balls of joy. They’ll probably celebrate National Cat Day the same way. But unlike your beloved feline, you’ve only got one life instead of nine. So live life to the fullest or take a cue from a cat and laze about to honor man’s other best friend. Did cats invent social media? Of course not; they don’t have opposable thumbs . But their impact on the medium can’t be overstated – from Keyboard Cat, “I Can Haz Cheezburger” to DJ Kitty, the legendary cats starred in videos made to be shared and GIF’d to oblivion. So honor the internet cats of yore with a kitty video binge. Science says it’s good for you! And of course, pour one out for the inimitable Grumpy Cat, a feline Instagram pioneer who passed away earlier this year. Did you know her (yes, her) real name was Tardar Sauce? Rest in disgruntled peace, legend. Related video Fat cat's workout routine breaks the internet National Cat Day organizers want cats to find good homes, and the occasion is a fine time to consider adopting a cat from a shelter or pet rescue organization. Volunteering at a local shelter or donating blankets, pet food and toys are also nice ways to celebrate the kitties of the world. Cat cafes have been around for more than 20 years, but it’s a timeless concept: While the caffeine raises your heart rate, the soothing pur of a fuzzy cat brings it right back down – it’s therapy for the cost of a piping hot beverage. The snuggles, though, are free (but exercise caution if you pick them up – these are cats with claws, after all). There are more than 125 cat cafes in the US and 150 in Japan and hundreds more sprinkled like catnip across the globe. Related video Yep, New York has a cat café Many stores employ adoptable cats, so if you’re taken with your cafe companion, you might be able to take them home. And if you’re worried about furballs ending up in your cappuccino (cat-puccino?), furget about it – most cafes keep the kitties separate from the coffee. Related gallery The art of the kitty Make like a cat and get lazy (bonus points if you can get your cat to cuddle up with you without scratching or biting). Before cats had millions of Instagram followers, a photographer named Walter Chandoa made a living compiling photos of them into coffee table books in the ’50s. That’s right – your grandparents might’ve beat you to the cute kitty craze. Check out his work, and you’ll see the appeal of a teeny kitten transcends time. Or maybe you’d like to check out cats in starring roles –  we suggest “The Aristocats,” “Puss in Boots” and “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” which all include felines in starring roles. Take some inspiration from “Artists and Their Cats,” featuring human-kitty pairings, including Salvador Dali with his pet ocelot Babou and Matisse with sleek black stunner la Puce (the flea). They don’t call it a cat nap for nothin’.


Emmanuel Macron will face Marine Le Pen in a runoff next month "I am going to protect the middle classes and the most vulnerable in France," he says There is just over a week to go in France’s presidential election, but the man tipped to become the country’s new leader is taking nothing for granted. Emmanuel Macron may be leading in the polls but the 39-year-old independent centrist has endured one of the most difficult weeks of his campaign so far. Labeled an “elitist” by his rival Marine Le Pen, criticized for his first round victory celebrations, and then overshadowed in his home town by the far-right candidate, Macron has spent much of the past week on the back foot. It’s why he’s not moving his furniture into the Élysée Palace just yet – instead taking a lesson from the 2016 US election, in which Hillary Clinton suffered a surprise defeat. “That was almost certainly the mistake Hillary Clinton made,” Emmanuel Macron told CNN’s Melissa Bell on Thursday. “I’m absolutely not playing that game. Right from the first day, that hasn’t been the way I defended myself or how I fought.” Macron may have won the first round vote and have been endorsed by several of his rivals but the past week has brought new problems for the 39-year-old, who is seeking to become the nation’s youngest leader since Napoleon. Le Pen faces Macron in final round Why Putin and Trump both like Le PenMacron vs. Le Pen: What do they stand for? Markets respond to first round vote Why you should care about the French election What the French elections mean for America Le Pen faces Macron in final round Why Putin and Trump both like Le PenMacron vs. Le Pen: What do they stand for? Markets respond to first round vote Why you should care about the French election What the French elections mean for America First, it was his celebrations after winning the first round – at an upmarket brasserie in Paris  – which caused consternation. The celebration led many to believe he had already declared himself President. He was accused of being out of touch with the public, playing perfectly into Le Pen’s accusation that he remains part of the “elite.” Then on Wednesday, Macron’s election campaign was sent into a spin at the Whirlpool tumble dryer factory in his hometown of Amiens after Le Pen turned up to meet factory workers while he was talking to union representatives at the Chamber of Commerce. “I am in the middle of employees who resist to wild globalization. I am not with the managers who eat petit fours,” Le Pen said, according to BFMTV. While she received cheers and posed for selfies, Macron faced a far more hostile reception when he entered the factory. Macron stopped to talk to workers and answer questions while describing Le Pen’s visit as a stunt. Related article Marine Le Pen: Who is the person behind the party? And on Thursday, in an interview that aired on French national channel TF1, Macron – a millionaire investment banker and former government minister – bristled at the notion he’s a candidate for France’s elite. “I am not the candidate for a little group or a kind of nomenclature,” he said. ” I am going to protect the middle classes and the most vulnerable in France. “I have a policy for education, for labor. That is what is specific about my project. [It] speaks to the whole of France, the entirety of the country, the towns and the countryside, the farmers and the industrialists, the workers and the entrepreneurs.” Related video National Front: Macron's 'project' not patriotic He also made a point of differentiating himself from Le Pen, who has rallied supporters with an anti-European Union message. While Le Pen has advocated taking France out of the EU and closing the country’s borders, Macron has called for closer integration. “I will not be against Berlin. I am with Berlin,” he said. “We have differences. We have disagreements, but I will not tell the French today that I am going to defend their interests against Berlin.” “Europe is a construction: Ours. We decided to create Europe. We did it for our peace, for our prosperity, for our liberty.” Related video Macron will be 'a lame duck' without a majority While most polls have Macron well ahead going into the May 7 runoff he remains cautious. He rejected accusations that he lacks the experience required for the job and says “there is no ideal age to become President of the Republic.” “Every day since the beginning of the campaign, I have never considered myself as the favorite,” he said. “The lack of experience is due to my age. I do not have the experience of politics but of the government, the private sector and the public service. I think it is important, Ms. Le Pen does not have that experience.” CNN’s Vasco Cotovio, Melissa Bell, Judith Vonberg, Bryony Jones and Hilary Clarke contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Raul A. Reyes is an attorney, a member of the USA Today board of contributors and writes frequently for CNN Opinion. The views expressed here are solely his. Raul Reyes: Trump administration mulling plan that would separate mothers from children This kind of deterrence would be cruel, costly and do nothing to stop those fleeing violence The most anti-immigrant administration in modern history appears poised to outdo itself. On Monday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly confirmed to CNN that his agency is considering separating children from their parents at the US border. “We have tremendous experience of dealing with unaccompanied minors,” Kelly told Wolf Blitzer.  “We turn them over to (Health and Human Services) and they do a very, very good job of putting them in foster care or linking them up with parents or family members in the United States.” Kelly explained that this would be part of a strategy to deter Central American migrants from making the trek north to seek asylum. What’s wrong with this idea? Just about everything. You do not have to be a lawyer or a child welfare expert to grasp that forcibly removing children from their parents is cruel and inhumane. If such a practice were implemented – and it is not official policy; not yet, at least – it would face major legal hurdles, all while expanding our government bureaucracy and failing to solve the original problem. Related video DREAMer detained after giving immigration speech Kelly’s remarks echo a report from Reuters that DHS is weighing such a plan – a chilling prospect that could inflict immeasurable psychological trauma on young children who have just completed a perilous journey to the US from their home countries. To be clear, the parents and children who would be affected are not the people we typically think of as undocumented immigrants. Unlike most undocumented immigrants from Mexico, who come to the US to work, these people are literally fleeing for their lives. They are arriving at the US border from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, three of the most dangerous countries on earth. Migrants from these countries arrive at the US border to make their case for asylum, which they are entitled by law to do. Successfully making that case is complicated for anyone – a long process that entails meeting with lawyers and case workers, appearing before a judge, and navigating the byzantine U.S. immigration court system.  It can be difficult for adults to pass the tests and meet the screening requirements.  Under the proposed DHS policy, it would become virtually impossible for mothers and children who are unable to corroborate their stories of “credible fear of persecution” to meet the standards for asylum. Related video Pro-Trump town supports undocumented resident The children in this situation already face language barriers and a lack of access to legal representation.  If they are separated from their parents, it’s easy to imagine that some would become withdrawn and unresponsive to anyone they perceived as a government representative. The all-too-possible result is that they might be deported, with or without their mothers, back to the harrowing conditions they fled. Kelly told CNN that he was considering this new policy “in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network.”  But where is the empirical evidence that shows that a deterrence strategy aimed at Central American migrants works? When people are in a life-or-death situation – with their children – no risk is too great.  Indeed, this new proposal could lead to an increase in trafficking, as desperate families turn to human smugglers to help them reach safety. To be sure, the influx of Central Americans migrants was a problem the Obama administration wrestled with too; it settled on a media campaign in Central America to discourage migrants from beginning their journey and increased deportations of recent arrivals and their children.  Neither of these efforts worked.  According to the Reuters report, between October 1, 2016 and January 31, 2017, about 54,000 children and their guardians were apprehended at the border, more than double the number caught in the same time period a year earlier. A smarter approach by the Trump administration would be to reform our immigration court system: make more attorneys available to children seeking asylum and increase the number of immigration judges, which  would help ease the backlog of people in detention. The government could also expand the CAM (Central American Minors) program, which allows potential refugees from that region to apply for refugee status in their home countries. It seems unlikely that this administration is interested in pursuing such thoughtful moves, but it would do well to look to them for a real, if not perfect, solution. If the Trump administration attempts to implement this new policy instead, it is setting itself up for myriad legal challenges. Family unity is a guiding principle of existing US family and immigration law, and even of the UN High Commission of Refugees. Not allowing parents and children to pursue their asylum claims together would also arguably violate their due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Related article Trump's new travel ban: Changes in substance and style Practically speaking, anyone who is against big government should recognize that sending thousands of foreign-born children into our foster care system, while holding their mothers in long-term detention, will likely amount to increased costs to be paid for by taxpayers. The Obama administration’s policy of releasing mothers and children who are not public safety threats to the care of a relative or sponsor is cheaper than funneling more people into government care.  And despite what Kelly says, the government does not always do a “very, very good” job of handling immigrant children and families. In 2015, a federal judge ordered that hundreds of women and children in detention be released because of the “deplorable” conditions in which they were being held. In 2014, workers at a family detention center in Texas faced allegations of sexual abuse and assault. The private company running the detention center, Geo Group, denied the allegations. DHS may well proceed with its plan to separate children from their mothers at one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives. If so, it will be further evidence of this administration’s complete lack of empathy and compassion towards immigrants.


For all of President Donald Trump’s obvious affection for nationalist autocrats, the first leader he formally welcomed to Washington, on Monday ahead of Tuesday night’s state dinner, was the leader of the French Republic, the free and fairly elected internationalist Emmanuel Macron. Trump and Macron, who was elected in May 2017, share one of the most examined relationships in world politics. At a glance, they would appear to have little in common, ideologically or temperamentally. But over the course of nearly a year on the same global stage, the pair have emerged as remarkably close personal allies. Unlike with the prospect of Brexit, another European thunderclap, Trump took no early liking to Macron’s candidacy, instead indicating his preference for the French centrist’s election runoff opponent, far-right National Front leader Marine Le Pen. But after a few tense meetings, marked in public by their bizarrely protracted – and definitely “not innocent” – handshake in Brussels, Macron seems to have secured what his European counterparts could not: a personal bond with the US President. Related article White House state dinner details: Military display, French-American fare “There’s a strong rapport on the anti-jihadist war and that will continue because France, of course, is at the core of this, both on its territory and in the Middle East,” said Philippe Le Corre, a former French government official who’s now a senior fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “And Trump – to him, it’s very important. He thinks there are terrorists everywhere, even with relatively few attacks in the US compared to Europe.” But this isn’t simply a marriage of mutual interests. Macron and Trump are at odds over most of the most pressing issues they are expected to discuss during the visit. For the next few days, Macron is expected to lobby Trump to, among other things, reverse his expected course and abide by the Iran nuclear deal, maintain the US presence in Syria, tamp down tariff threats and – albeit a long shot – re-enter the Paris climate agreement. “Macron doesn’t come, of course, as the ‘president of Europe,’ but if you look around in the EU and ask people in different countries – and I travel in Europe quite a bit – people don’t see anybody else,” Le Corre said. “But it’s not easy to deal with Trump and already he’s the guy who speaks to Trump the most, so that’s an achievement. He does much better than (British Prime Minister) Theresa May and (German Chancellor) Angela Merkel.” As a first move in securing that position, or at least the perception, Macron on Sunday touted his and Trump’s “very special relationship” and “shared values” on Fox News, in his only American television appearance ahead of the trip. “I think President Trump’s election was unexpected in your country, and probably my election was unexpected in my country,” Macron told host Chris Wallace. “And we are not part of the classical political system.” These were words after Trump’s heart – and ego. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth in them. Both Macron and Trump were elected, in part, as the result of generational rejections of a partisan status quo. They are, similarly, political and personal departures from their predecessors and neither, two years ago, would have made anyone’s short list for their current jobs. “Nobody would have gambled that a man with such a thin political résumé would have made it in less than two years, (defeating) a former prime minister and other luminaries in the French election,” Le Corre said of Macron. “His movement, and they keep saying it’s a movement and not a political party, it allows him to introduce himself as a maverick.” Related article Trump-Macron: Red carpet treatment belies differences on Iran, Syria Swap in a couple of Americanized nouns and he could have been describing Trump. Meanwhile, unrest in France might actually exceed what we’ve seen in the US during the Trump era. Macron’s push for sweeping economic reforms, which would slash the French social safety net, has touched off protests and strikes across the country. During a particularly antagonistic television interview last week, recounted here in excruciating detail by The New York Times, Macron offered an unusual defense. “The discontent of the railway workers,” he snapped, “has nothing to do with the discontent in the hospitals!” Trump doesn’t take questions in that fashion (on the spot, from reporters), though he too has a way of meeting frustration with absurd declarations. They also share a taste for a certain kind of patriotic demonstration. Trump memorably observed the Bastille Day military parade in Paris last July with something between awe and rank jealousy. The US, France and the United Kingdom, meanwhile, launched joint airstrikes on Syria 10 days ago after reports that the Assad regime had again used chemical weapons on its own people. But the Trump-Macron attachment clearly extends beyond a shared interest in multilateral military action. It more clearly now resembles that of a corporate executive – Macron, the former investment banker – and his most treasured client, Trump, the one whose business, though always in doubt, could make him indispensable to Macron’s increasingly impatient employers – the French public – even as his domestic agenda wobbles. For Trump, the calculus would seem to be much simpler. Macron, in words and with his presence, flatters the President, who’s known to hold a special place for those who “look the part.” If nothing else, and as detailed in the new book of his old boss, former President François Hollande, Macron has a unique skill for courting power – then grabbing it for himself.


Early in Mike Pompeo’s confirmation hearing as Secretary of State on Thursday, this exchange happened between the current CIA director and New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez regarding a reported meeting in March 2017 between President Donald Trump, Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats: Menendez: “What did President Trump say to you and Director Coats in that meeting? Pompeo: Senator, I’m not gonna talk about the conversations with the President I had. I think – I think it’s in this setting appropriate for a President to have an opportunity to talk with his senior leaders. I’ll do that throughout the day. But I will tell you this, the article’s suggestion that he asked me to do anything that was improper is false. Menendez: Did he ask you to do anything as it relates to that investigation? Pompeo: Senator, I don’t recall  I don’t recall what he asked me that day precisely, but I have to tell you, I’m with the president an awful lot. He’s never asked me to do anything that I considered remotely improper.” The meeting in question came on March 22, 2017.  Here’s how Adam Entous described it in the Washington Post: On March 22, less than a week after being confirmed by the Senate, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats attended a briefing at the White House together with officials from several government agencies. As the briefing was wrapping up, Trump asked everyone to leave the room except for Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo. The president then started complaining about the FBI investigation and [then FBI Director James] Comey’s handling of it, said officials familiar with the account Coats gave to associates. Two days earlier, Comey had confirmed in a congressional hearing that the bureau was probing whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 race. Whether or not Pompeo wants to talk about that meeting – and what was said in it – is one thing. (He didn’t invoke executive privilege in not discussing the details, he simply said he wouldn’t talk about it.) But, wrapped up in Pompeo’s answer is a classic Washington case of having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too-ism. Pompeo first says that he did not “recall” whether or not Trump asked him about the probe being led by Mueller. “I don’t recall what he asked me that day precisely,” Pompeo said. But then, in the next sentence(!), Pompeo added this: “I’m with the President and awful lot [and] he’s never asked me to do anything that I considered remotely improper.” So….. If Pompeo can’t recall the nature/contents of that March meeting, how is he somehow able to commit – beyond a shadow of a doubt – that Trump had never asked him to do anything “remotely improper.” That’s like saying “I am certain I have never left my house for the last three days” but also noting that “I can’t recall what I did on Wednesday night.” You can’t simultaneously have total recall that you have never been asked something and be uncertain about a certain conversation in which you might have been asked something. Pompeo is willing to live with that obvious contradiction because a) he’s not going to talk about what happened in that March 2017 meeting and b) he’s not going to leave any string out there that might suggest he had been asked to do something by Trump that would suggest improper conduct. Which, OK, I guess. But let’s not pretend that the answer he gave to Menendez makes sense. Because it doesn’t.


NEW: German, French leaders lay flowers at Paris victims' memorial "There is no alternative" but to destroy ISIS, French Prime Minister says Ringleader Abdelhamid Abaaoud planned attack on financial district, prosecutor says French authorities working to dismantle the terrorist network behind the Paris attacks say another attack could have been hours away when police closed in on the suspects’ hideaway last week. Suspected ringleader Abdelhamid Abaaoud and another man were planning a suicide attack on the Paris financial district of La Defense on November 18 or 19, Paris prosecutor Francois Molins said Tuesday. Both men were killed during a raid in Saint-Denis that caused the collapse of a floor of an apartment building. Two suspects in last week’s attack remain on the run, however. They are Salah Abdeslam, whose brother died in the attack, and Mohamed Abrini – whom police named as a suspect Tuesday. Related gallery The search for Paris terror suspects Police say Abrini – now the subject of an international arrest warrant – drove a car that was abandoned in the Paris neighborhood where one of the November 13 shootings occurred, according to police. Cameras at a gas station in Resson, France – on a highway between Brussels and Paris – captured images of Abrini and Abdeslam two days before the attacks, the Belgian federal prosecutor’s office said. According to a source close to the investigation, Abrini went to Syria in 2014, but it was unclear when he returned to Europe. That would make him the latest of at least six of the alleged Paris attackers believed to have traveled to war-torn Syria. Here’s a look at some other developments: French warplanes struck eight targets Tuesday in the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa and new targets in Mosul, Iraq, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said in an address Wednesday to French lawmakers. “This brings the number of attacks to more than 300 since the beginning of our involvement in the Levant,” Valls said, referring to the region of the Middle East that includes Syria. He vowed the country will further increase the volume of attacks, relying heavily on the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to strike at targets in Iraq and Syria. “There is no alternative. We have to destroy Daesh,” he said, using another term for ISIS. Paris tourism suffers huge slump after terror attack Brussels, which has been under partial lockdown since Friday night, is to remain at the highest terror alert level until at least the start of next week. Much of the metro reopened Wednesday, though two lines remained closed. Belgium, and specifically a Brussels suburb with a history of links to terrorism, have been a focus of the investigation. Sources in France close to the investigation believe Abdeslam could not have survived so long on the run without help, which might involve a support network in Belgium. They say extensive raids in Belgium on Sunday and Monday – in which 21 people were detained – targeted people suspected of helping organize the attacks. Opinion: The hardest questions about fighting ISIS A suicide vest found in a garbage bin could give investigators new clues about Abdeslam’s whereabouts. They are analyzing the vest, which was found in the Paris suburb of Montrouge, near where Abdeslam’s cell phone was traced the night of the attacks, prosecutor Molins said. Related video Possible suicide vest found near Paris CNN affiliate BFMTV reported the vest contained bolts and TATP, the same explosive as the suicide belts the Paris attackers used. Questions have been raised over whether Abdeslam aborted part of the attacks before fleeing toward Belgium. The Paris prosecutor suggested that could have been the case, noting that an ISIS message claiming responsibility for the attacks mentioned the 18th arrondissement, a Paris neighborhood where no attack occurred. “Our investigation on that is still ongoing, to determine if Salah was planning on a suicide attack in the 18th arrondissement and why it didn’t happen,” Molins said. Related video Terrorism analyst: Suicide vest is key piece of evidence Complete coverage of the Paris attacks But CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank asked why, if the suicide vest belonged to Abdeslam, would it have been discovered 10 days after the attacks? “It is possible that somebody else may have jettisoned it, an attacker that we don’t know much about at this point,” Cruickshank said. “So they’ll be doing all sorts of forensics, trying to establish who this belonged to, and that will be a huge priority for French investigators.” Authorities in Montrouge said garbage cans there are emptied “once or twice a week,” Le Monde reported. French President Francois Hollande is in the midst of a week of diplomacy aimed at building a global coalition to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq. He held talks Wednesday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris. The two visited the Place de la Republique, the site of a memorial to victims of the November 13 attacks, to lay flowers before their talks. That meeting comes two days after Hollande hosted British Prime Minister David Cameron in Paris on Monday and met Tuesday with  President Barack Obama in Washington. Hollande travels Thursday to Moscow to see Russian President Vladimir Putin. France and Britain are already part of a U.S.-led coalition that has been bombing ISIS targets. Russia is conducting separate airstrikes against ISIS and other groups in coordination with the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Any efforts to form an alliance that includes both Russia and the United States are likely to run into thorny issues such as Assad’s future role in Syria and international sanctions against Russia for its interference in Ukraine. Opinion: Beating ISIS will take an army – and an end goal CNN’s Margot Haddad reported from Paris, while Catherine E. Shoichet reported and wrote from Atlanta and Don Melvin wrote from London. CNN’s Ashley Fantz, Jethro Mullen, Tim Lister, Ralph Ellis, Evan Perez and Shimon Prokupecz contributed to this report.


What do you do with 400 of the world’s most unwanted extremists, held in a territory that isn’t technically a state, that doesn’t really have the legal means to extradite them, or the resources to jail them indefinitely? That’s the question facing Syrian Kurdish forces and their US allies in northern Syria now. The final stages of the anti-ISIS battle swept up a large number of ISIS fighters, including many foreigners. Some may have been allowed to leave Raqqa, the so-called capital of the caliphate, in the final deal agreed between the Syrian Kurds and ISIS to reduce civilian casualties, under which dozens of ISIS fighters, foreign and Syrian, fled with civilians into the desert. Other ISIS fighters have been on the run longer. Some are unknown players, but some are also noted criminals, like the so-called “Beatles” – British ISIS fighters who taunted western audiences as they tortured and executed bound, unarmed hostages kneeling before them. Related article Captured ISIS fighters provide clues to remains of Jihadi John victims Their fate has presented the US – to whom much of the world looks for a solution to this problem – with a quandary. The US principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, Katie Wheelbarger, recently told reporters: “These aren’t necessarily the best detention facilities in the sense of they are being held in Syria and not in the most secure area. I think it would be better if we make sure they are prosecuted if possible in their countries of origin.” To this end, talks with other members of the coalition were ongoing, she said. But the US cannot force other countries to accept their citizens back. Some do not want their extremists. Notably, five days after their capture, the UK has made no public statement about what it wants to do with the two surviving “Beatles,” named by US intelligence sources as El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey. There is clearly a reluctance to put them on public trial in the UK. Perhaps it is out of a fear that it would give them a platform for their extremist beliefs. But there is also a risk of failure – it may be hard to gather convincing evidence of crimes committed in a far away land. The remains of many victims have yet to be located. A US official says there has been no discussion about bringing Elsheikh and Kotey to Guantanamo Bay, the American detention facility in Cuba that is frowned upon by UK politicians. Further complicating the situation, one western official told CNN there is a strong possibility of the Beatles being stripped of their UK citizenship. That would effectively leave them stateless, held by an unrecognized state controlled by Syrian Kurds in northern Syria. France’s foreign minister has indicated that its citizens should be tried in northern Syria. But the Syrian Kurds are unlikely to have the capacity to try hundreds of ISIS members. So then what? Indefinite detention, or execution, by an unrecognized state? Would that mollify Europe’s moral jitters here? There is one possible solution. When US forces detain someone on the anti-ISIS battlefield, they sometimes hand them over to Iraqi security forces. Iraq is the only functional state where ISIS has territory, and with which the US has a diplomatic relationship. They have also been trying those ISIS fighters caught in their territory quickly and putting many on death row. Many detainees may have been to Iraq as well as Syria, perhaps putting their conduct under Iraqi jurisdiction. In the meantime, the legal complications are mounting – as is the number of detainees – in a detention facility that’s far from ideal. It is extraordinary that after nearly 17 years since the September 11 attacks, and after four years combating ISIS at home and abroad, Europe’s capitals still stumble when working out what to do with this latest variation of defeated extremist.

US handling of ISIS detainees in northern Syria


City attempts to break world record for largest fried rice dish But officials criticized for letting massive helping be used as pig feed Guinness World Records says attempt has been declared invalid An attempt to make the world’s largest serving of fried rice has left officials in one Chinese city red-faced after criticism that some of the four-tonne portion was used to feed pigs. Some 300 cooks – including local residents and foreign visitors – took part in the event in the eastern Chinese city of Yangzhou Thursday, churning out 4,192 kilograms (9,241 lbs) of fried rice, the city’s signature dish, according to China’s state news agency China News Service. The amount of fried rice broke the record set at a culinary event last year in Turkey, where 3,150 kilograms (6,945 lbs) of fried rice was cooked, according to the Guinness World Records. But Yangzhou officials had little time to celebrate the achievement. Internet users slammed the event, with local media reports and video footage showing the rice being loaded into trash trucks. Yangzhou’s tourism bureau, which supervised the event, acknowledged Sunday a lack of oversight. It said that 150 kilograms (330 lbs) – a small fraction of the entire serving –  of “inedible” rice was sent to pig farms but claimed that the rest had been sent to local canteens, without giving further details. Sharon Yang, the Greater China marketing director for Guinness World Records, said that the organizer had initially provided documentation suggesting that the rice was sent to five companies to be eaten by their staff but the world record attempt had since been disqualified because the dish wasn’t “entirely edible.” “Following a further review of the evidence, it is now clear that over 150 kilograms of fried rice was not fit for human consumption,” she said. “We will not be able to accept claims for large food items if they prove to be inedible, or if they are prepared in such a way as to make them unfit for general consumption.” A commentary published in the state-run People’s Daily newspaper called for an end to such wasteful events, citing the government’s ongoing crackdown on lavish spending by officials. “Who paid for the event exactly?” the commentator asked. “If it was paid for by public funds, then it was a waste of tax payers’ money. If it was sponsored by a company, it still was a huge waste of food.” Yangzhou fried rice – often called Yeung Chow fried rice in Chinese restaurants abroad – combines rice, eggs, chicken, ham, shrimp, dried scallop, and vegetables. Some local media reports estimated it cost about 140,000 yuan ($22,000) to stage the event.


Editor’s note: This story was published in July 2012. David Chancellor photographed the African hunting scene The photos here focus on legal hunting where the hunters are supervised The African hunting scene draws tourists from around the globe interested in chasing and killing some of the world’s most dangerous game. For four years, photographer David Chancellor has traveled with some of these hunters in sub-Saharan Africa. Chancellor said his goal is to examine both legal and illegal forms of hunting. These photos, from the first of three planned books on the subject, focus on legal hunting – in which guides are hired to help track animals and supervise hunters – and explore “the complex relationship that man has with animal, through the eyes of the tourist trophy hunter,” Chancellor’s website says. During the project, Chancellor embedded with the hunters, sleeping on the floor of the bush and stalking animals with them, sometimes for up to two weeks. He said he worked to keep an open mind about hunting, even though he’s a vegetarian. Members of the hunting party walk until they find tracks and judge the size of an animal, Chancellor said. If it’s deemed worthy of pursuing, the hunters will walk faster and catch up. But lions, for example, will realize they’re being tracked and turn around to face predators. Chancellor doesn’t carry a gun for protection. Most of the people he followed were Americans, but “not necessarily that stereotypical brash, loud, slightly plump American.” He trekked with the likes of mechanics who had saved for years and surgeons on vacation. “It’s all about income,” he said. Sometimes children were among the hunting parties. Among the animals hunted in Africa are black rhinos, even though they’re an endangered species. Under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, 10 black rhinos a year – five each in South Africa and Namibia – are allowed to be hunted for trophies. It’s estimated that hunters pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the right to take home a black rhino trophy, and the governments said the money is used to help pay for conservation efforts. Only adult male surplus black rhinos are to be hunted. Social mediaFollow @CNNPhotos on Twitter to join the conversation about photography. Arguments for trophy hunting as a conservation tool include sustainability, generating high revenue from few hunters and the ability to reduce illegal hunting, according to a 2008 report (PDF) from the University of Pretoria, South Africa. And some countries such as Namibia have had success with increasing the numbers of its game through hunting and harvesting the animals, according The Economist. “You have to meet in the middle,” Chancellor told CNN. The hunters are achievers, Chancellor said, and they’re at the top of their game during the fatal moment. As part of a tradition in many African tribes, the blood of a child’s first killed animal is painted on the youngster’s face. African guides will often follow the tradition when taking young trophy hunters into the wild. Different tribes paint various amounts of blood on the face; some children have it daubed on, while others have their entire faces painted, Chancellor said. “The strongest portraits were directly after they’ve achieved, after they’ve killed the animal,” Chancellor said of the hunters. “They’re full of adrenaline; they’re ecstatic.” But dealing with the deaths of these animals was hard for him to process. “Seeing someone shoot Africa’s iconic animals for the reason of having it sitting in the living room,” he said, made it a difficult project for him. You can follow David Chancellor on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.


Seoul needs nuclear weapons of its own if it is to negotiate with North Korea on an equal footing, a leading South Korean opposition figure says. A once marginal call for South Korea to add nuclear weapons to its arsenal has gained momentum and support in recent months as Pyongyang’s nuclear capabilities have gone from theoretical threat to present danger. “Only by deploying tactical (nuclear) weapons on South Korean territory can we negotiate with North Korea on an equal footing,” said Hong Jun-pyo, who will travel to Washington next week to press his case to US lawmakers. Hong leads the conservative Liberty Korea Party, which was formed from the rump of President Park Geun-hye’s Saenuri Party after it collapsed amid infighting and finger pointing in the wake of her impeachment on corruption and other charges. While Moon Jae-in, who beat Hong to replace Park as President in May, still has widespread support, Hong represents a growing swell of dissent from conservative South Koreans, who have long accused Moon and his liberal Democratic Party of being too soft on Pyongyang. Moon has outright dismissed the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons in his country, warning it could “lead to a nuclear arms race in northeast Asia.” However, US President Donald Trump – who visits Seoul next month – voiced support for the move during the campaign, and Republican Sen. John McCain said in September the US should consider deploying nukes to South Korea. Hong told CNN he was traveling to the US “out of desperation over what we’re seeing with North Korea and what we’re seeing in terms of our security threat.” “What I’m doing is to try to convey the public opinion of South Korea to US lawmakers,” he said. While Moon’s popularity rating is still around 70%, according to Gallup Korea, there does seem to be increasing support for greater militarization of South Korea in response to the threat from the north. A Gallup survey in September found 60% of South Koreans supported some form of nuclear capability for the country. At present, South Korea is defended by the US nuclear umbrella, a guarantee by Washington to defend the country in the wake of an attack. On Wednesday, the country’s unification minister, who oversees North Korea policy, reiterated Moon’s view. “The deployment of tactical nukes is an impossible solution,” Cho Myoung-gyon said, adding that doing so would be a tacit acceptance of a nuclear North Korea. While Moon’s government is opposed to any further nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, Hong’s stance echoes comments Trump made on the campaign trail, when he spoke approvingly of South Korea and Japan getting nuclear weapons. Nicknamed “Hong Trump,” he has been compared to the US President in the past for his outspoken, sometimes offensive campaigning style. Hong says he hopes Trump will address the issue of nuclear weapons during the US leader’s visit to South Korea next month, and encouraged him to visit the demilitarized zone between South and North Korea. The White House is said to be undecided whether Trump will go. However, despite being supportive of the Trump administration’s hardline policy on North Korea, Hong said he was worried by the potential for conflict between the three countries. “I’m nervous and I’m concerned (when the US talks about a military option),” he said. “If there was a balance of nuclear power between North Korea and South Korea then there would be no war and no cause for anxiety.” Like Trump, Hong attracted criticism during the campaign over his attitudes towards women, after he was quoted as saying washing dishes was women’s work. Controversy also erupted over an anecdote in Hong’s autobiography in which he described helping a friend drug a girl he was on a date with. Hong later distanced himself from the story, saying he had not actually taken part in the attempted date rape but was only recounting a story he heard second-hand as a student. Also speaking in Seoul Wednesday, Trump’s erstwhile opponent Hillary Clinton was far more critical of his foreign policy. “Picking fights with Kim Jong Un just puts a smile on his face,” she said at the World Knowledge Forum. She called out Trump for slinging insults at North Korea on Twitter, saying doing so benefits “a regime that is thrilled to get (that) kind of personal attention from the leader of our country.” “I think that’s a grave error because it makes any kind of negotiation more difficult (in future),” Clinton added.


President Donald Trump’s decision to follow through on steel and aluminum tariffs against some of the United States’ closest allies puts a series of vulnerable Republicans at considerable risk, leading some of those candidates to caution the President against following through with the trade talk. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told reporters that a 25% tariff on imported steel and 10% on imported aluminum from Canada, Mexico and the European Union will take effect on Friday. Mexico announced in a statement Thursday it would retaliate against the US by imposing “equivalent measures” on products such as “flat steel, lamps, pork and numerous produce items until the US eliminates the imposed tariffs.” Some Republicans are worried. Party operatives told CNN Thursday that they are fretting the ramifications of more trade talk, worried that those countries could respond by targeting key US exports, many of which come from districts that could decide the balance of the House in November. “Trade is an area where President Trump’s thinking and policy differs profoundly from most other Republicans,” said longtime Republican operative Michael Steel. “I think there are real worries that a trade war could undercut the strong impact tax reform has had on jobs and the economy, so you’ll see Republicans across the country make it very, very clear that they support expanded American trade and the jobs that come with it - particularly in states and Congressional Districts that would be hardest hit.” Although tough talk on trade animated Trump’s 2016 campaign, it has also been one area where Republicans, especially those with heavily agricultural states or districts, have broken with him. Those fears are both policy and politically focused, too. Republicans have maintained a dominance in rural America for years, but some top Republicans worry that making moves that hurt farmers and growers could have disastrous political implications for Republicans. As CNN analyst Ron Brownstein wrote earlier this year, Trump’s trade rhetoric “threatens to light a bonfire directly beneath the Republican Party’s last firewall against potentially significant losses in the 2018 midterm elections.”

President Donald Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs


Hannah Bladon, 20, was a student at the University of Birmingham The suspect, a 57-year-old Palestinian man, was arrested at the scene A British student who was visiting Jerusalem on an exchange program was stabbed to death Friday on the city’s light rail line, authorities said. Paramedics rushed Hannah Bladon, 20, to the hospital, police said, but she died shortly after she arrived there. In a statement Saturday by the UK Foreign Office, her relatives said they were “devastated by this senseless and tragic attack.” “Hannah was the most caring, sensitive and compassionate daughter you could ever wish for,” her family said. “She was driven and passionate, and her death leaves so much promise unfulfilled.” Bladon was a talented musician studying for a degree in religion, theology and archaeology at the University of Birmingham in central England, her family said. She was on a student exchange program with the Rothberg International School at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and had been taking part in an archaeological dig Friday morning. “Our thoughts are with those who were injured and the family of the British woman who was killed in the terror attack in Jerusalem today,” the Israeli Embassy in the United Kingdom said on Twitter. Our thoughts are with those who were injured and the family of the British woman who was killed in the terror attack in Jerusalem today. A suspect was arrested at the scene. Security officials identified him as Jameel Tamimi, a 57-year-old Palestinian man from the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Ras al-Amud. Despite the Israeli Embassy’s characterization of the stabbing as a “terror attack,” the alleged perpetrator’s motive is unknown. Tamimi suffers from “personal, mental, or moral hardship,” according to the Israel Security Agency. Tamimi was convicted of sexually abusing his daughter in 2011 and attempted to commit suicide this year by swallowing a razor blade, the agency said. The attack comes with police on heightened alert due to heavy tourism during the Easter and Passover holidays. CNN’s Laura Smith-Spark and James Gray contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and member of the USA Today Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter @RaulAReyes. The views expressed are his own. Raul A. Reyes: Sean Penn veered off-script at the Oscars in an offensive way Immigration status is no joke,  Reyes says It was the jab heard around the world. At Sunday night’s Academy Awards ceremony, Sean Penn veered off-script in an utterly offensive way. Presenting “Birdman” director Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu with his prize for best picture, Penn quipped, “Who gave this son of a bitch his green card?” It is beyond comprehension why Penn chose to make such a reference on a night where, literally, the whole world was watching. A green card, of course, confers lawful permanent residence on a foreign national in the United States. But immigration status is no joke, and his off-the-cuff remark only legitimizes the idea that it is OK to mock Latinos for their real or imagined immigration status. Related gallery Oscars 2015: Winners Related gallery Oscars 2015: Red carpet Yes, Iñarritu later covered for Penn – the two of them worked together on the film “21 Grams,” and Iñarritu noted they were friends and accustomed to teasing each other. That’s nice of him. But Penn ought to recognize that one of the most-watched television events of the year is not the most appropriate place for a private joke that crosses the line of good taste. After all, last year’s Oscars reached about 43 million viewers in the United States alone, while ABC notes that the show is broadcast to some 200 countries around the world. As a result, millions of viewers heard an award-winning actor making fun out of the idea of a Latino’s lack of “papers.” Penn’s comment was particularly insensitive given that the immigration debate in the United States in nowhere near being settled – an estimated 11 million undocumented people in the U.S. live in constant fear of seeing their families torn apart by deportation. Right now, nearly 4 million undocumented immigrants who could have been eligible for deportation relief under President Barack Obama’s executive action plan have their futures on hold as a result of a Texas court decision to suspend the programs. Meanwhile, immigrants are too often the victims of hate crimes. Sadly, Penn’s remark reflects the reality that Latinos, no matter what their status in society, are subject to ethnic stereotyping. Iñarritu’s award was the most prestigious prize of the evening, and he is only the second Latino ever to take home an award for best director. (“Gravity” director Alfonso Cuaron won last year.) Other actors have used the Oscars as a moment to raise awareness of a cause, as Patricia Arquette did with her call for wage equality. How unfortunate that Iñarritu’s night of triumph will simply be associated with Penn’s thoughtless comments. As Mario Lopez tweeted, “Great job Sean Penn. Ruining a fantastic moment with a green card ‘joke.’ ” (By the way, I don’t recall anyone questioning the immigration status of Penn’s girlfriend, Charlize Theron, who was born in South Africa, but is now a U.S. citizen.) And while it is true that Penn is also a political activist who has championed liberal causes in the past, that fact in no way excuses his remark. He should know as well as anyone that Hollywood is an industry that largely excludes Latinos, a point underscored by a University of Southern California study last year that found that Hispanic characters were the most underrepresented demographic in major films. In his acceptance speech, Iñarritu dedicated his award to Mexicans living in Mexico and in the United States. Speaking about them, he said, “I just pray that they can be treated with the same dignity and respect of the ones who came before and built this incredible immigrant nation.” If only his “amigo” Penn could have shown such grace. Read CNNOpinion’s new Flipboard magazine. Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.


Kim Jong Un’s annual New Year’s Day address is akin to the State of the Union for US Presidents. It’s when the North Korean leader sets out his aims for the coming year, and this year it reaped almost instant results with the start of the first face-to-face talks with Seoul in almost two years. But there was more to this year’s speech than the olive branch extended to South Korea. The North Korean leader talked about factory jobs and coal. He talked about textiles and scientific research. He talked about domestic production of consumer goods. He even talked about green initiatives. “We have created a mighty sword for defending peace, as desired by all our people who had to tighten their belts for long years,” said Kim. “This great victory eloquently proves the validity and vitality of the Party’s line of simultaneously conducting economic construction and building up our nuclear forces and its idea of prioritizing science, and it is a great historic achievement that has opened up bright prospects for the building of a prosperous country and inspired our service personnel and people with confidence in sure victory.” It’s not exactly “Make North Korea Great Again,” but it’s not wholly dissimilar either. In policy circles, Kim’s agenda is known as “byungjin,” a twofold strategy of investing in the economy and the nuclear program. Kim has aggressively pursued byungjin since taking the reins from his father in 2011. The reason the nuclear program investments are so important, experts say, is because in the long run it’s a cheaper way to deter the United States than maintaining a massive military.North Korea’s armed forces employees millions of people. The country currently has the fourth-largest standing army in the world. Having the ability to threaten the US with a nuclear strike would remove the need to keep such a large army employed, fed and happy. Pyongyang spends nearly 25% of its gross domestic product on the military, which it justifies as necessary to force the US to think twice before invading and finally finishing the Korean War, which ended in 1953without a formal peace treaty. The North Korean government tells its people the US started the Korean War, but most historians agree the hostilities began after Kim Il Sung invaded the south in a failed attempt to reunify the Korean Peninsula. “The amazing thing that’s been hiding in the open is the North Korean game plan of byungjin,” said John Park, director of the Korea Working Group at the Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. According to Park, the North Korean regime under Kim has been very consistent in saying that its primary policy goal is the parallel pursuit of a nuclear deterrent for self-defense and the building of the economy. To that end, Kim used the speech to call upon his rocket and nuclear industries to mass-produce the weapons that have already been successfully tested, while also pursuing economic advances, such as diversified energy sources. Experts CNN spoke to believe Kim’s proclamations aren’t the wish-list of a delusional dictator, but rather a key set of priorities tallied by a calculating, pragmatic leader who plans to address the immediate challenges his country faces. “Every year these speeches are primarily about the economic situation,” said John Delury, a professor at Yonsei University’s Graduate School of International Relations in Seoul. Delury has listened to each of Kim’s speeches since the young leader took power in 2011. “(But) Kim Jong Un is not pretending everything is groovy,” said Delury. “He’s consistently acknowledged hardship and that the economic situation should be better. And he’s publicly committed himself to improving the economy.” Some of the proposals offered specific insight into the government’s evolving strategy, explained Rodger Baker, a vice president at the geopolitical analysis firm Stratfor. Baker said in previous years, Kim had called for the construction of a national power grid in the electricity-starved country. This year, however, Kim said different provinces should develop localized power sources, which Baker believes is due to the dangers of having a single national grid in the event of war. Analysts said Kim appeared to acknowledge the difficulty his country faces in the coming year due to the punitive sanctions passed by the United Nations in response to the countries nuclear and missile tests, especially those that target Pyongyang’s energy supply. Midway through the speech, he offered his “noble respects” to the “heroic Korean people” who, despite the “difficult living conditions caused by life-threatening sanctions and blockade,” have “firmly trusted, absolutely supported and dynamically implemented our Party’s line of simultaneously promoting the two fronts.” The latest round of sanctions passed by the United Nations Security Council in December were said to be the toughest yet, imposing tighter limits on the supply of all refined petroleum products to North Korea. In addition, Kim’s talk of not wasting power and exploring hydroelectric and geothermal energy sources is likely borne more out of necessity than environmental concerns, Baker believes. This view was shared by Duyeon Kim, a senior fellow at the Korean Peninsula Future Forum in Seoul. “His speech also seemed to be an implicit admission that sanctions appear to be working or he’s expecting them to bite,” said Kim. But the North Korean leader’s speech also hinted at how he plans to ensure his country survives the crippling sanctions targeting Pyongyang’s oil imports. “The electric-power industry should maintain and reinforce the self-supporting power generation bases, and direct a great deal of efforts to developing new power sources,” said Kim. Coal has helped drive the North Korean economy for decades. The country’s reserves could last for decades – and could possibly be converted into gas to meet the country’s energy needs as its ability to import oil is slashed, according to Baker. North Korea is believed to have already begun construction on coal gasification plants, but Kim’s lengthy set of detailed instructions in this year’s speech urging the country’s chemists to accelerate their research into synthetic gas chemistry will likely give the efforts renewed focus, in the hope they can overcome the challenges faced in perfecting the technology. Stratfor’s Baker said this could be interpreted as the regime’s response to the sanctions, and particularly to China’s imposition of sanctions. “It’s a bit of thumbing its nose at the rest of the world to emphasize how silly sanctions are,” Baker said. Despite hopes the youngest member of the Kim dynasty would be something of a economic reformer when he took power in 2011, Kim, who was educated in Switzerland, soon made it clear he was no friend of the West. Any remaining hope of a nascent opening up, or the adoption of a more China-style economic model appeared to be firmly quashed in 2013, when in a New Year’s speech, Kim announced his specific intention to build up the country’s military might, further distancing himself – and his country – from the broader international community. This was followed last year by Kim’s declaration that his country was close to testing a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Some scoffed at the prediction, or dismissed it entirely. But the end of 2017, Pyongyang had successfully test-fired three ICBMs. That success has some analysts concerned about Kim’s order to mass-produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in the 2018 speech. But the byungjin model calls for achievements in areas beyond the military, too, and Kim has shown a clear intention to begin that process. The question now is how much can he achieve, given such massive international constraints? Speaking to CNN in December, Curtis Melvin, a senior fellow with the US-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, said privately run pizza parlors, coffee shops, bars and gas stations have quietly mushroomed in Pyongyang under Kim’s watch. According to Melvin, Kim’s government has allowed more entrepreneurial activity and encouraged limited competition between small private firms. But so far, most of this appears to be concentrated in Pyongyang, beyond the confines of the capital economic growth has been dependent on large state-backed projects. As ever, sanctions will continue to be the biggest roadblock when it comes to this type of reform. But, conversely, sanctions also provide Kim with a useful excuse should things not go according to plan. Sanctions offer a very effective rationale for why there are setbacks, said Park of Harvard’s Kennedy school. “They (sanctions) are a multipurpose variable or factor that the regime uses.” CNN’s Steve George and Daniel Shane contributed reporting


Sources tell CNN the North Koreans may invite Moon to Pyongyang The invitation could be made at the lunch meeting on Saturday There is a “good chance” Kim Yo Jong, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, will invite South Korean President Moon Jae-in to visit Pyongyang “sometime this year,” diplomatic sources say. While the sources say “nothing is final,” a visit by Moon to North Korea would be the first time a South Korean President has stepped foot in the country since 2007. A potential date could be August 15, the day Korea was liberated from Japanese occupation in 1945, a holiday marked by both Koreas. The invitation for Moon to go north could be made at a scheduled welcome luncheon on Saturday, several diplomatic sources with deep knowledge of North Korea’s intentions told CNN. South Korea’s presidential spokesman confirmed Friday that Moon plans to meet Kim Yo Jong and three other high-level delegates on the sidelines of the Winter Olympics Saturday. The spokesman said there would be no comment on the possibility of a visit by the South Korean leader to Pyongyang. A private jet carrying the North Korean delegation touched down at South Korea’s Incheon International Airport on the outskirts of Seoul around 2 p.m. local time, ahead of the Opening Ceremony. The US has made it clear it’s not pleased about North Korea’s overtures to the South. Leading the US delegation in Pyeongchang, Vice President Mike Pence said he’s there to ensure the Games aren’t hijacked by North Korean propaganda. Despite the scheduled high-level meeting, Pence said there was “no daylight” between the United States and South Korea on their North Korea policy. “We don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past. President Moon and I reflected on that last night. And that denuclearization has to be the starting point of any change, not the end point of any change,” Pence told reporters Friday. Kim Yo Jong is the first member of North Korea’s ruling family to go to South Korea since the 1950-1953 Korean War. Sources say an informal luncheon between Kim and the South Korean delegation would give her more freedom to interact with the South Koreans than anybody else in the North Korean delegation. Hosting an informal lunch for the high level North Korean delegation avoids any protocol format where only one main speaker has a voice. That main speaker would normally be Kim Yong Nam, the head of the delegation and North Korea’s ceremonial head of state. Both sides are maintaining a delicate balance to avoid any diplomatic upsets that could risk overshadowing the Winter Olympics. On the eve of the Games, North Korea staged a parade involving thousands of soldiers marching in unison, planes soaring above and four of Pyongyang’s newest and most sophisticated missiles, the Hwasong-15. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un watched all of it from a balcony above and gave a rousing speech in which he warned about the dangers of imperialism in the world. Sources say it was noteworthy that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un didn’t mention the word “nuclear” during his speech, instead choosing to refer to his country as having “developed into a world class military power.” Images broadcast on North Korean state television showed huge formations of people marching in unison, and row of tanks and weapons. However sources say the parade plans were “scaled down at the last minute.” South Korean President Moon is seeking to continue a meaningful dialogue with North Korea, but he’s also under pressure from the United States to disengage from Pyongyang after the Olympics and join Washington in a campaign of “maximum pressure.” Sources said an invitation for Moon to visit North Korea may be a continuation of Pyongyang’s efforts to drive a wedge between Seoul and Washington. While North Korea has stated it has no intention of meeting with the United States at the Olympics, Kim Yo Jong is expected to use her visit to South Korea to attempt to thaw relations with China, which has been stepping up enforcement of unprecedented sanctions against North Korea, resulting in billions of dollars in trade losses for both countries.


Editor’s Note: Romina Ruiz-Goiriena is editor-in-chief at Prowell Media, a native digital media company in Mexico producing content for around 11 million people across Mexico and the United States, and founder of its site Barrio. Other outlets in Prowell Media’s portfolio include Referee, Noticias en la Mira and Código Magenta. The views expressed are the writer’s own. Donald Trump met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Wednesday Romina Ruiz-Goiriena: Trump confirmed what Mexicans feared would happen all along -- he talked about the wall In a delirious attempt to divert attention from the fact that he is perhaps the most unpopular President in the history of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto invited Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to visit him at Los Pinos. Sure, changing the subject must have seemed like a good idea. After all, the Reforma newspaper has just released a poll showing the President with a dismal 23% approval rating, just a few weeks before presenting the state of the union address to Congress. Meanwhile, his administration continues to be rocked by corruption allegations, a troubled economy and even accusations that he plagiarized his college thesis. But what has just occurred was a fiasco. Naturally, Peña Nieto also sent an invitation to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. But that’s probably because he never really thought anyone would actually come. It’s a cultural thing in Mexico – you run into a business contact or an acquaintance you haven’t seen since that party where you totally made a fool of yourself, and you say you’ll meet for coffee. But there’s a certain etiquette to these things south of the border. Deep down, you both know you’re not really supposed to actually make a plan to meet. It’s street-smart Mexican diplomacy, the kind of understanding that runs far and wide across this country of 120 million. Clearly, though, Peña Nieto doesn’t get the Trump campaign, and nor do any of his trusted advisers. This despite the fact that Trump has made it his campaign modus operandi to blow up protocols, media outlets and political correctness alike. He is the anti-candidate candidate. It’s what got him the GOP nomination. Related article Trump's dystopian immigration speech out of touch with reality As a result, in less than 24 hours, Peña Nieto had backed himself into a corner; Trump was on his way. Mexicans were out on the street protesting, social media was abuzz, #TrumpNoEresBienvenido (#TrumpYouAreNotWelcome) was trending on Twitter, and Mexico’s President was now hosting a state visit with perhaps the second-most hated man in the entire country. It couldn’t get any worse, but somehow did. Peña Nieto held a joint press conference standing side-by-side with a man he previously likened to Adolf Hitler. The Mexican President’s speech was gracious, and he said he would work with whomever won November’s election. The thing is, Trump isn’t the leader of the free world, so you can’t expect to play a suave game of hardball with the former host of “The Apprentice” the way Barack Obama has with Russian President Vladimir Putin. As a result, Trump got the photo op he wanted, standing there looking presidential in an attempt to bolster his credentials as a potential world leader to anyone still on the fence. And then he opened his mouth and confirmed what Mexicans feared would happen all along: He talked about the wall. To a captive audience in Mexico and the United States, Trump said, “We did discuss the wall. We didn’t discuss payment of the wall. That’ll be for a later date.” Peña, te hiciste güey. Peña Nieto just stood there. And even though millions of Mexicans were seething with anger and indignation, their President didn’t respond to a comment by a man who has single-handedly riled up millions of American voters against Mexico since, oh, about three minutes into his campaign. Related article Trump visits Mexico, brings home xenophobic tirade for his base True, many Mexicans see Peña Nieto as incompetent and even corrupt. But what Trump said was worse than any of that. So at the very least, Mexicans expected Peña Nieto to reprimand his guest. But it didn’t happen. And, as expected, Trump returned triumphantly to Arizona to present a much awaited immigration plan on Wednesday night – and also got to brag about how he had spoken to the Mexican President himself. We all watched, flabbergasted. And were reminded why Peña Nieto is these days as despised in Mexico as Trump. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook So the neta, or awful truth as we say in Mexico, is not that Enrique Peña Nieto got “punked” by a Republican nominee (although he did). And it’s not even just that Trump could become the commander in chief come January 2017. No, the really sad truth is that this could be what a bilateral conference between these two neighbors looks like in future. Perhaps the most depressing part of all this is that it demonstrates that Americans are far too enthralled by reality TV, in much the same way that Mexicans love their telenovelas. This is despite the fact that these two important nations jointly face genuine challenges such as over the economy, drug and human trafficking and security issues on both sides of the US-Mexico border. At some point, we’re all going to have to remember we need serious heads of state to lead us as we try to address these challenges. But right now, we are still waiting for them.