Rice is a staple food for billions of people in Asia and Africa. It’s also a versatile ingredient for many iconic dishes from around the world‚ including dolmades from Greece‚ risottos from Italy‚ paella from Spain and rice puddings from the United Kingdom.Despite its universal appeal‚ the question asked in every kitchen‚ be it a professional one or your own home‚ is whether you should pre-wash (or rinse) your rice before cooking.What do chefs and cooks say?Culinary experts claim pre-washing rice reduces the amount of starch coming from the rice grains. You can see this in the cloudy rinse water‚ which studies have shown to be the free starch (amylose) on the surface of the rice grain produced by the milling process.In culinary circles‚ washing is advocated for some dishes when a separated grain is sought after. Yet for other dishes such as risottos‚ paella and rice puddings (where you need a sticky‚ creamy effect)‚ washing is avoided.Other factors‚ such as the type of rice‚ family tradition‚ local health warnings and even the perceived time and effort required will influence whether people pre-wash their rice.For risotto‚ traditionally cooked with arborio rice‚ rinsing the rice is not recommended‚ to help enhance the creamy texture of the dish. ShutterstockIs there evidence that washing rice makes it less sticky?A recent study compared the effect of washing on the stickiness and hardness of three different types of rice from the same supplier. The three types were glutinous rice‚ medium grain rice and jasmine rice. These different rices were either not washed at all‚ washed three times with water‚ or washed ten times with water.Contrary to what chefs will tell you‚ this study showed the washing process had no effect on the stickiness (or hardness) of the rice.Instead‚ the researchers demonstrated the stickiness was not due to the surface starch (amylose)‚ but rather a different starch called amylopectin that is leached out of the rice grain during the cooking process. The amount leached differed between the types of rice grains.So‚ it’s the variety of rice – rather than washing – that’s critical to the stickiness. In this study‚ glutinous rice was the stickiest‚ while medium grain rice and jasmine rice were less sticky‚ and also harder as tested in the laboratory. (Hardness is representative of the textures associated with biting and chewing.)Fried rice dishes‚ such as nasi goreng‚ tend to use less sticky varieties of rice‚ leading to a more fluffy texture. ShutterstockYou may still want to wash your rice‚ thoughTraditionally rice was washed to rinse off dust‚ insects‚ little stones and bits of husk left from the rice hulling process. This may still be important for some regions of the world where the processing is not as meticulous‚ and may provide peace of mind for others.More recently‚ with the heavy use of plastics in the food supply chain‚ microplastics have been found in our foods‚ including rice. The washing process has been shown to rinse up to 20% of the plastics from uncooked rice.This same study found that irrespective of the packaging (plastic or paper bags) you buy rice in‚ it contains the same level of microplastics. The researchers also showed plastics in (pre-cooked) instant rice have been found to be fourfold higher than in uncooked rice. If you pre-rinse instant rice‚ you could reduce plastics by 40%.Rice is also known to contain relatively high levels of arsenic‚ due to the crop absorbing more arsenic as it grows. Washing rice has been shown to remove about 90% of bio-accessible arsenic‚ but it also rinses out a large amount of other nutrients important for our health‚ including copper‚ iron‚ zinc and vanadium.For some people‚ rice offers a small percentage of their daily intake of these nutrients and hence will have a small impact on their health. But for populations that consume large amounts of heavily washed rice daily‚ it could impact their overall nutrition.Another study looked at other heavy metals‚ lead and cadmium‚ in addition to arsenic; it found that pre-washing decreased levels of all these from between 7–20%. The World Health Organization has warned  of the risk of arsenic exposure from water and food.Arsenic levels in rice vary depending on where it’s grown‚ the cultivars of rice and the ways it is cooked. The best advice remains to pre-wash your rice and ensure you consume a variety of grains. The most recent study in 2005 found that the highest level of arsenic was in the United States. However it is important to keep in mind that arsenic is present in other foods including products made from rice (cakes‚ crackers‚ biscuits and cereals)‚ seaweed‚ seafood and vegetables.Can washing rice prevent bacteria?In short‚ no. Washing rice will have no effect on the bacterial content of the cooked rice‚ as high cooking temperatures will kill all bacteria present.What is more concerning is how long you store cooked rice or washed rice at room temperature. Cooking rice does not kill the bacterial spores from a pathogen called Bacillus cereus.If wet rice or cooked rice is kept at room temperature‚ this can activate the bacterial spores and they begin to grow. These bacteria then produce toxins which can not be deactivated by cooking or re-heating; these toxins can cause severe gastrointestinal disease. So‚ make sure you avoid keeping washed or cooked rice at room temperature for too long.Evangeline Mantzioris‚ Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences‚ Accredited Practising Dietitian‚ University of South AustraliaThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Buried beneath the oceans surrounding continents is a naturally occurring frozen form of methane and water. Sometimes dubbed “fire-ice” as you can literally set light to it‚ marine methane hydrate can melt as the climate warms‚ uncontrollably releasing methane – a potent greenhouse gas – into the ocean and possibly the atmosphere.Colleagues and I have just published research showing more of this methane hydrate is vulnerable to warming than previously thought. This is a worry as that hydrate contains about as much carbon as all of the remaining oil and gas on Earth.Releasing it from the seabed could cause the oceans to become more acidic and the climate to warm further. This is a dangerous set of circumstances.The massive venting of methane from similar ancient marine hydrate reservoirs has been linked to some of the severest and most rapid climate changes in the Earth’s history. There is even evidence that the process has started again near the east coast of the US.I have worked on hydrates for over a decade‚ mainly looking at the methane hydrate offshore of Mauritania‚ West Africa. Recently I have taken 3D seismic data intended to reveal oil and gas and repurposed it to map out the hydrates under the ocean floor. Ultimately‚ I wanted to work out if climate change is causing methane to bubble to the surface.3D seismic is the geologist’s equivalent of the doctor’s CT scan. It can cover hundreds of square kilometres‚ and can reveal hydrates a few kilometres below the seabed. Hydrate is easily identified in these giant surveys because the sound waves created by a source of seismic energy towed by a ship reflect off the bottom of the hydrate layers.Looking for methane using 3D seismic imageryAs I settled into a new way of life during the first COVID lockdown in early 2020‚ I reopened the much-studied dataset and started mapping again. I knew there were many examples of hydrate that had thawed as a result of warming since the last glacial period peaked some 20‚000 years ago‚ and I knew we could detect this on the 3D datasets.But what was the fate of the methane? Did it reach the oceans and atmosphere? Because if it did‚ this is a major clue that it could happen again.Around continents‚ where the oceans are relatively shallow‚ hydrate is only just cold enough to remain frozen. So it is very vulnerable to any warming‚ and that is why these areas have been the focus of most scientific investigations.The good news is that only 3.5% of the world’s hydrate resides in the vulnerable zone‚ in this precarious state. Most hydrate is instead deemed to be “safe”‚ buried hundreds of metres below the seabed in deeper waters tens of kilometres further from land.But frozen methane in the deep ocean may vulnerable after all. In oceans and seas where the water is deeper than around 450 metres to 700 metres are layer upon layer of sediment that contains the hydrate. And some of it is deeply buried and warmed geothermally by the Earth so‚ despite being hundreds of metres below the seafloor‚ it is right at the point of instability.Some layers of sediment are permeable and create a complex underground plumbing for the gas to move through if it’s liberated during climatic warming. Just like holding a football underwater methane gas wants to push upwards because of its buoyancy and burst through the 100s of metres of sediment layers.Imposed upon this complex geology has been the seven glacials (or ice ages) and interglacials‚ which warmed and cooled the system repeatedly over the last million years.Methane is migratingDuring this first lockdown of 2020 I found spectacular evidence that during warm periods during the last million or so years methane migrated laterally‚ upwards and landwards toward Africa and leaked in much shallower water. Beneath a layer of up to 80 metres of sediment are 23 giant craters on the ancient seabed‚ each one kilometre wide and up to 50 metres deep‚ big enough to be filled with multiple Wembley stadiums.The seismic imaging provides the tell tale signs of methane immediately below the craters. And similar craters elsewhere form due to prolonged or explosive release of gas at the seabed.These craters are not located in the vulnerable zone where all the attention has been – they are landward of it at about 330 metres water depth. With the discovery in hand‚ I gathered an international team of scientists (modellers‚ physicists‚ geoscientists) to work out what caused the formation of these remarkable things and when they formed. Our results are now published in Nature Geoscience.We believe they formed as a result of repeated warming periods. These periods impacted hydrate in the deep ocean and the released methane migrated up to 40km towards the continent‚ to be vented beyond the shallowest hydrate deposits. So during a warming world the volume of hydrate that will be vulnerable to leaking methane is more significant than previously thought.The positive outlook is that there are many natural barriers to this methane. But be warned‚ we expect that in some places on earth‚ as we warm the planet‚ methane from the deep will escape into our oceans.Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday‚ The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine‚ a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20‚000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.Richard Davies‚ Pro-Vice Chancellor: Global and Sustainability‚ Newcastle UniversityThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Only 1 in 10‚000 people can recognize musical notes on the spot. Why?

Dozens of California teachers are under fire for staging a “sit-in” that taught pro-Palestine lesson plans amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. This week‚ the liberal city of Oakland held an unauthorized…

While clearing out Hamas strongholds in Gaza‚ Israeli forces stumbled upon the credit card of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. It’s a Visa card‚ and the man reportedly put some significant charges on the…

When it comes to self-defense‚ guns‚ knives‚ and pepper spray get most of the attention. But Tasers are an effective option with unique capabilities‚ one that has been overlooked by civilians for quite a while. With increased awareness of their effectiveness and a growingly permissive legal attitude towards them in most states‚ they are seeing a huge groundswell of interest among defensively-minded civilians. Though taser laws are hardly consistent across the land‚ you’ll still see similar legal concepts pop up again and again. If you have any interest in owning a taser for self-defense‚ you’ll need to know what these concepts are. Keep reading and I’ll give you an overview of the taser laws you can expect to see in the US. Are Tasers Legal Throughout the US? Very nearly. As of press time‚ 49 of 50 states allow civilians to possess and use tasers for self-defense in at least some capacity. This makes them a viable option for defense in the home‚ at a place of business‚ and much of the time in any public place where a person has a legal‚ lawful right to be. I’m in the process of writing about taser laws for each state‚ and will update the below table with links as they are getting published: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington DC Washington State West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming What States Don’t Allow Civilian Possession of Tasers? Presently Rhode Island‚ and this is owing to a technicality of sorts. Rhode Island has laws on the books that utterly ban the possession of Tasers and similar weapons from civilian hands. However‚ a federal court decision that took place in 2019 ruled that the state ban was totally unconstitutional. But don’t celebrate yet; that Supreme Court decision itself was contested by the state government‚ and as of this article’s publishing‚ every single one of these statutes banning the possession of tasers by civilians is‚ ostensibly‚ still in effect and still enforceable if any local or state police wanted to push the issue. Accordingly‚ the manufacturer of the most popular taser devices on the market will not ship them to the state and you generally don’t see them for sale even in places where firearms and other self-defense implements are sold. Tasers Can Also Be Restricted at the Local Level Something else to consider is that even though 49 of the 50 US states allow folks to buy‚ possess‚ and carry tasers in at least some capacity‚ the same cannot be said for every county and city in each of these otherwise permissive states. That’s right: Local laws‚ of one kind or another‚ might contravene the state-level laws and in most cases will still absolutely apply to your possession or carry of the device! Regrettably‚ most statewide preemption laws (meaning the state reserves the right to overrule municipal laws) concerning weapons don’t apply to tasers. Typically‚ they just apply to firearms and knives. This means that if you live‚ work‚ or regularly travel through a county or city where tasers are banned or heavily restricted even the most permissive state laws aren’t really going to help you. This is something you’ll have to investigate for yourself depending on where you live‚ so make sure to check out our state-by-state deep dive on taser laws here on Survival Sullivan. Are Stun Guns and Tasers the Same Thing? No‚ practically speaking. Stun guns and tasers are two types of weapons that fit broadly under the same umbrella category of electric weapons. Stun guns have electrodes that transmit the electricity fixed to the front of the device‚ and in use‚ they are switched on and then jammed into an attacker directly. Tasers‚ on the other hand‚ fire a pair of darts or probes that have wires trailing back to the launching unit. Electricity flows through these wires‚ between the probes‚ and then back to the unit completing the circuit and shocking the target. Both use electricity to inflict pain and cause debilitation‚ but functionally they are quite different. How are Tasers Defined in Law? Further complicating matters is the fact that tasers do not have a unified definition from state to state… Some states define “tasers” and “stun guns” under the umbrella term of stun gun. Others have a definition that includes both tasers and stun guns alike‚ while still others use a generic term like electroshock weapon‚ electrical incapacitation device‚ or some other softened legalese for the definition that might apply to one‚ the other‚ both‚ or to any device capable of shocking a person in use as a weapon- whether or not it is designed to! Most troubling‚ some states still don’t have a specific definition in their statutes for these devices at all! Once more‚ you’ll have to look this up for yourself but our exhaustive guide on the subject can help… Is a Taser Legally Considered a Weapon? Broadly‚ yes‚ but if you want to get into strict legal definitions‚ again‚ it depends on the state. You might find tasers‚ stun guns‚ and related devices defined under statutes covering various kinds of weapons‚ or you might not. But I would remind all readers that anything can be used and found to be a weapon depending on the manner of its use. Whether or not the device is explicitly legal in your possession‚ in the state‚ or in your municipality‚ if it is used to inflict harm‚ injury‚ great bodily injury or death on someone‚ it can legally be ruled a weapon and subject to all of the relevant statutes before the use of weapons. It sounds pedantic‚ and it is‚ but I press the point because it’s critical that you understand that tasers are not toys. They are‚ in fact‚ weapons and should only be used accordingly. How Old Do You Need to Be to Own a Taser? Typically 18 or older‚ although there are quite a few states that allow underage people to own a taser with their parents’ permission‚ such as Florida. A few states mandate that you must be 21 years old or older in order to possess and carry a taser‚ Hawaii being one example. This can make tasers an especially good option for folks who are too young to legally carry a firearm for self-defense or‚ in more restrictive areas‚ even a substantial knife. Can People Be Prohibited from Owning a Firearm Own a Taser? Typically not. In the vast majority of states‚ anyone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm for any reason‚ under state or federal law‚ is not allowed to possess a taser. However‚ this is not the case everywhere. Some states might allow a person who has lost their rights to possess or carry a firearm for self-defense to possess a taser at their home or place of business legally. However‚ this typically comes with other stipulations such as when the device is being transported to or from the home and place of business it must be securely encased. Do You Need a Concealed Weapons Permit to Carry a Taser? Sometimes‚ but not usually. For most states where tasers are legal‚ especially the states that are far more permissive with their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment‚ it is legal to carry a taser in public anywhere that you may legally‚ lawfully go with no permit required. Note that much of the time this means that you can carry it concealed if you want to‚ but it pays to check the fine print of your state statutes before you commit. Concealing any weapon in an unlawful manner entails serious charges‚ so it’s not something you want to get wrong! Do You Need to Undergo a Background Check to Buy a Taser? Sometimes‚ though this is often a requirement of the state or sometimes required by the dealer of the taser device. The most popular brand of taser on the market‚ sold by Axon‚ keeps a database of all legal buyers since the devices are serialized and discharge a type of tracking confetti that will help them identify unlawful users when coordinating with law enforcement. Though a dealer may or may not require a background check to sell you the device‚ your personal info will be recorded and transmitted to the manufacturer at the very least. Note that some states mandate by law a background check and waiting period prior to acquiring a taser. Is Training Required to Purchase‚ Own‚ or Carry a Taser? Sometimes‚ but usually not. Hawaii is one infamous state that requires all prospective purchasers undergo both a background check and mandatory training in the use‚ operation and carry of a taser before it can legally be acquired in the first place. This is definitely not the norm‚ and most states don’t require any kind of training whatsoever for either purchase or carry. As always‚ I strongly recommend all prospective users of such devices seek out and undergo training voluntarily not only so you’ll be safer with your device but also so you’ll be better prepared to use it in defense of yourself or someone else when the chips are down. Can Tasers Be Carried Places Where Other Weapons Can’t? Often‚ yes. In many states tasers aren’t even properly categorized as weapons (unless used accordingly in an incident) or at least as weapons subject to the same restrictions that knives‚ guns‚ and so forth are. This means it is probably completely legal for you to carry your taser into places that serve alcohol on premises or other kinds of private or public property where other weapons are restricted. That being said‚ there are some places that your taser can never go and it’s always a bad idea to carry them into any government building like a courthouse or post office and similar areas. Likewise‚ you cannot carry your taser into the restricted area of an airport or other installation beyond a security checkpoint‚ so don’t even try it! Again‚ make sure you check out the relevant laws of your state in the table above covering taser laws for more details. That can at least tell you what to expect when it comes to restricted areas before you purchase and start carrying it… When Can You Use a Taser on Someone? The only time that you should use a Taser is in legitimate instances of self-defense. Specifically‚ when you or someone else are facing an imminent threat of injury or death because an assailant is using unlawful force against you. Said another way‚ you should never‚ ever‚ use your taser as a prank‚ use it to settle an argument‚ use it because someone insulted you‚ or use it for any other purpose whatsoever outside of legitimate practice or training. That‚ or self-defense training; nothing else! To the uninitiated‚ tasers are thought of as completely non-lethal devices but that just is not reality as we will learn in the very next section. If You Use a Taser in Defense‚ is it Considered Deadly Force? It can be‚ and the legal presumption concerning the level of force tasers produce depends somewhat on the laws of the state and legal precedents in that state. Here’s what you need to know above everything else: a taser is not non-lethal. A taser is less-lethal‚ a term meaning it is less likely to be lethal but not less-than-lethal. I know‚ it sounds like semantics again‚ but this is a crucially important distinction. The fact of the matter is that people have died or suffered serious bodily injury because they were tased. Sometimes there were extenuating circumstances that contributed to their injury or death upon being tased‚ but other times there weren’t. Anytime you zap someone with enough electricity that it can interfere with major muscle groups there exists a significant possibility of harm although the manufacturers of these devices will of course assure you that they are tiny. Accordingly‚ when you deploy your taser against someone even under ideal circumstances there’s a non-zero chance that they could be killed or suffer crippling injury. That is adequate under legal scrutiny for tasers to be considered deadly force‚ or at least be considered deadly force according to the outcome of the event. What Kind of Attack Justifies the Use of a Taser? Because of the dangerous nature of tasers‚ it is imperative that you only use your taser in self-defense when the level of force they produce is proportional to the unlawful force being used against you. If someone insults you‚ pushes you‚ or is just harassing you‚ you had better think twice before you whip out that taser. If someone is punching or kicking you‚ or if you suspect you’ll be truly beaten within an inch of your life you can likely justify the use of the taser. Of course‚ you can certainly justify tasing someone if they have any deadly weapon of any kind‚ be it a gun‚ club‚ knife‚ or something else. I’ll leave you with this: whatever the state statutes might say about a taser and however they might classify them‚ tasing someone is always serious business and the responsibility for the outcome of its deployment will rest on you. Make sure you buff up your self-defense IQ and that you learn how to handle yourself in a fight; that’s the only way a taser will be a good component of your self-defense strategy. The post Taser Laws in the USA – An Overview appeared first on Survival Sullivan.

Like an earthquake.

On Thursday‚ Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) brought legislation to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria to a vote in the Senate. “Keeping 900 US troops in Syria does nothing to advance American security. Rather‚ our intervention puts those servicemembers at grave risk by providing an enticing target for Iranian-backed militias‚” Paul said. “Our continued presence risks the United States getting dragged into yet another regional war in the Middle East without debate or a vote by the people’s representatives in Congress. Congress must cease abdicating its constitutional war powers to the executive branch‚” he continued. In a 13-84 vote‚ the U.S. Senate overwhelming rejected withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria. U.S. troops have come under attack dozens of times since the Israel-Gaza conflict began in the region. “The bill failed in a vote of 13-84 and received support from seven Democrats‚ five Republicans‚ and one Independent‚ Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT). The resolution was introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)‚ who argued the US occupation of eastern Syria risks a major regional war‚” Antiwar.com wrote. Senate Votes Down Resolution to Withdraw Troops from SyriaThe bill was led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and failed in a vote of 13-84by Dave DeCamp@DecampDave @RandPaul #Syria #RandPaul https://t.co/kKEBKK8TCB pic.twitter.com/3Y85F2qCvp — Antiwar.com (@Antiwarcom) December 7‚ 2023 Antiwar.com reports: Paul’s bill would have given the president 30 days to withdraw from Syria unless he was able to get authorization from Congress. The resolution received support from Robert Ford‚ who was the US ambassador to Syria from 2011 to 2014 when the US first threw its weight behind the regime change effort against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “We owe our soldiers serving there in harm’s way a serious debate about whether their mission is‚ in fact‚ achievable. Absent a debate and authorization of such a mission‚ our troops should be removed. Consideration of S.J. Res. 51 is an important opportunity for the Senate to take a step towards that necessary outcome‚” Ford said. The US has launched several rounds of airstrikes against Shia militias in Syria and Iraq in response to the rocket and drone attacks that have targeted US bases since October 17. The US bombings‚ which have killed dozens of militia members‚ have not deterred further attacks‚ and the region has turned into a powder keg. The US maintains that its presence in eastern Syria is about fighting ISIS remnants‚ but the occupation is part of a broader campaign against Damascus and its allies‚ which includes Iran. The US maintains crippling economic sanctions on Syria that are designed to prevent the country’s reconstruction‚ and the area the US occupies is where most of Syria’s oil and gas fields are located. Senate Votes Down Resolution To Withdraw Troops From Syria: "Another Regional War Without Debate" https://t.co/w44w5CkiY9 — zerohedge (@zerohedge) December 9‚ 2023 Sen. Rand Paul said in this press release: Although Congress never authorized the use of military force in Syria‚ the Biden Administration maintains 900 troops there. These troops are vulnerable to attacks by state and non-state actors as is tragically evident by recent weeks. Since Hamas’ reprehensible October 7th attack on Israel‚ our troops in Syria and Iraq have been attacked at least 76 times. According to the Pentagon‚ a total of 59 U.S. military personnel were injured in these attacks. Of those injured‚ 32 were at al-Tanf garrison in southeastern Syria‚ where our soldiers suffered various injuries‚ including traumatic brain injuries. In September 2014‚ the Obama administration initiated U.S. military operations in Syria without congressional authorization. By 2017‚ the Pentagon revealed that 2‚000 U.S. troops were deployed to Syria. The mission outlined in Operation Inherent Resolve to degrade and destroy ISIS was achieved in 2019 when the ISIS caliphate was eradicated. Four years later‚ 900 U.S. troops remain in Syria‚ with no clear objective‚ no definition of victory‚ no exit strategy‚ and no authorization from Congress to engage in hostilities there. “After a Thanksgiving weekend break that coincided with a humanitarian pause in the Israel-Hamas war‚ Iran-backed militias have resumed attacking bases housing American troops in Iraq and Syria‚ although less frequently than in October and November‚” Military Times noted. The #Pentagon reports there have been 78 attacks on #American forces in #Iraq and #Syria with 66 injuries: https://t.co/Wv5y6H6Cp1. This means these continuous attacks on our country and these injuries are acceptable to the #BidenAdministration. In what world is this acceptable? — Gordon G. Chang (@GordonGChang) December 8‚ 2023 Per Military Times: The Pentagon has recorded 78 attacks total‚ spokeswoman Sabrina Singh told reporters on Thursday. That number includes five attacks since Nov. 29‚ the last day of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire. “Look‚ in terms of the attacks on our forces I think it’s important to remember that it’s good that we have not seen attacks on our forces in the last 24 hours‚” Singh said. “We would like to see that continue.” It’s hard to say whether the attacks will escalate to previous levels‚ Singh added‚ when multiple attacks were taking place daily between Oct. 17 and Nov. 22. There have been 66 total injuries‚ Singh said at the briefing‚ a number that’s held steady since late November. Officials have not specified how many of those incidents included traumatic brain injuries. “I can’t predict the future‚” Singh said of the possibility of additional attacks. “But I would remind you that when we have decided to respond‚ it has been deliberate. It has been effective.” Since October‚ there have been three preplanned‚ targeted strikes on facilities in Syria aimed at destroying weapons the militias use in their attacks.

Dozens of high schoolers at Utah’s Layton Christian Academy sprung into action to rescue a mother and her two children after they were hit and pinned underneath a vehicle. According to KSL TV‚ the incident happened in the school’s parking lot. “One of the children‚ a 3-year-old girl‚ was able to free herself. The kids then lifted the car to pull the mom and her 2-year-old son to safety‚” the outlet wrote. Chris Crowder‚ associate pastor and CEO of the school‚ called the students from inside the school to provide assistance. “I didn’t really know what was going on‚” Crowder said. “I looked across the parking lot and noticed the car and they were screaming and so I ran over there and I look under the car and I see mom and child underneath the car pinned. It was split second. I immediately just ran into the building because I knew I had to get a lot of people to lift this car. We have about 220 domestic kids and over 300 international kids at the school. They just heard me yell. All these kids from different countries just come running out and lift it up‚” he continued. KSL TV reports: School surveillance video of the parking lots shows the kids running out of the school and surrounding the car to pick it up. An airman from Hill Air Force Base then pulled the mom and child to safety. “We got to just lift enough to get them out and the kids listened‚” Crowder said. “They picked up the car on the one side‚ 20 to 30 kids‚ just an inch or two‚ enough for the air force gentleman (who) was able to pull them out. The kids were heroes‚ as well as the gentleman that was there and pulled them out.” The 2-year-old boy was flown to Primary Children’s Hospital. The mom and 3-year-old girl were taken to the hospital by ambulance. The mom has the most serious of the injuries. She is expected to have to undergo several surgeries. “Mom took the brunt of it being under the car‚” Crowder said. “The car was resting on mom and she had (her boy) in her arms and I think she protected him.” All three are expected to survive‚ and Crowder said that’s a miracle. WATCH: ABC News added: Senior Airman Dominique Childress said he relied on his military training when he jumped into action to help after seeing the accident while picking up his children from the school. Childress described the students who ran to the scene to help as the “real heroes.” “They’ve never had that [military] training‚ and so for each and every one of them to instinctively go out and do what they did in that traumatic experience is what makes them the real heroes of this story‚” he told “GMA.” “Nobody ever told them that they were going to have to deal with something like this. They weren’t prepared for that‚ and they still did it.” Crowder confirmed to “GMA” that the mom in the accident‚ whom he identified by her first name only‚ Bridgette‚ is an employee of the school. She was transported to a hospital‚ where she underwent surgery and is being treated for non-life threatening injuries‚ according to Lyman. Both of her children survived with only minor injuries‚ according to Lyman. Lyman said the driver of the car‚ who has not been publicly identified‚ told police that she did not see the mom and kids in front of her car.

Donald Trump said Friday that he has a very good chance of winning New Jersey. Trump announced on Truth Social that Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ)‚ a former Democrat who switch to Republican in 2020‚ will lead his 2024 effort in the Garden State. “I am pleased to announce that very popular and highly respected Congressman‚ Jeff Van Drew‚ will be heading up my New Jersey effort for President. I have known Jeff for a long time and consider him to be one of the best political minds anywhere. He feels‚ as do I‚ that because the Biden Administration has been so bad to the Garden State‚ that we have a very good chance of winning New Jersey‚” Trump wrote. “We will put it on our List for Rallies and all other forms of Events‚ and make a concerted effort to WIN! I spend a great deal of time in New Jersey‚ love the State‚ and its people. With what is going on in our Country now‚ Open and Broken Borders‚ Record Setting Crime‚ High Taxes and Regulations‚ Disrespect of our Military and Vets‚ the Worst Inflation in 72 years‚ and a Terrible Economy‚ we will win New Jersey‚ and possibly by a lot‚” he continued. “Jeff Van Drew will put his Talents on display for all to see. I thank him very much. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” he added. New: Donald Trump has named Rep. Jeff Van Drew as his New Jersey campaign chairman and said he may play to win the state's 14 electoral votes in 2024. https://t.co/kl8Z5jYZII — David Wildstein (@wildstein) December 8‚ 2023 New Jersey Globe reports: Van Drew is one of Trump’s top allies in New Jersey. He endorsed Trump a week after the 2022 general election. For now‚ Trump faces a high-profile New Jersey challenger: former Gov. Chris Christie. Van Drew spent 17 years in the New Jersey Legislature‚ assembling a fairly moderate-to-conservative record in a Republican part of the state‚ and was elected to Congress as a Democrat in 2018‚ but switched parties in December 2019 after refusing to vote for Trump’s impeachment. He was re-elected as a Republican. Sitting with the president in the Oval Office‚ Van Drew pledged his “undying support” for Trump. “I believe that this is just a better fit for me‚” Van Drew said at the time. “This is who I am.” “Trump mentioned Van Drew as a possible running mate during a fundraiser for the New Jersey congressman’s re-election campaign Wednesday night in August 2022‚” New Jersey Globe added. TRUMP will win New Jersey in the 2024 General Election. I look forward to doing everything I can to help @Congressman_JVD and President Trump make this happen! https://t.co/TAbyVW3Xfu — Mike Crispi (@MikeCrispiNJ) December 8‚ 2023 Per Breitbart: It is certainly a large undertaking‚ as New Jersey‚ which has 14 electoral votes to offer‚ has chosen the Democrat nominee in every single presidential election for the last three decades — since 1992. In 2016‚ Trump lost the state by 14.1 percentage points‚ and in 2020‚ the gap was 15.9 percentage points. Rep. Van Drew spoke to Breitbart News Saturday in April and said at the time that he believes Democrats are targeting Trump with the New York indictment because they are afraid of what he will do — let the “truth ring out” — if he makes it back to the White House. “This is a disease with the Democrats at this point. They just can’t stop. We had one impeachment‚ we had another impeachment‚ we had the Russian collusion‚ we had the stuff with Ukraine‚ that’s only to mention a few. They just can’t leave it alone‚” he said. “They are‚ in my opinion‚ so afraid of this man because they know if he wins the presidency of the United States again‚ that he will let the truth ring out.” “He will crack that ugly egg called Washington‚ DC‚ and let out the stench and corruption and everything else‚” the congressman added.