“Martha Marcy May Marlene” se fait un prénom… Véritable révélation du film de Sean Durkin, Elizabeth Olsen s’invente un destin bien différent de celui (très people) de ses sœurs, les fameuses jumelles Ashley et Mary-Kate. Portrait d’une jeune actrice en 7 questions…
Martha Marcy May Marlene, de Sean Durkin, avec Elizabeth Olsen, John Hawkes, Brady Corbet…
Tout sur le film
Propos recueillis par Alexis Geng / Montage : Sébastien Olland
Suite àl’incendie de Lubrizol à Rouen, l’Anses (Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail) a réalisé plusieurs tests afin de vérifier la qualité du lait. Les premiers résultats sont rassurants, la commercialisation peut reprendre.
Les premiers résultats sont rassurants concernant la qualité du lait : d’après
l’Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail (Anses), il n’y aurait pas de sur-doses de contaminants, comme les dioxines, molécules toxiques une fois ingérées. La commercialisation du lait a repris ce lundi 14 octobre, deux semaines et demi après que l’incendie ait frappé la ville de Rouen. Les agriculteurs des 5 départements (Seine-Maritime, Oise, Nord, Somme et Aisne) peuvent aujourd’hui reprendre la vente de leurs produits.Pour en arriver à ces résultats, les chercheurs ont effectué des prélèvements de lait entre le 29 septembre et le 7 octobre, en se basant sur des indicateurs forts de pollution. L’Anses met tout de même un point d’honneur en rappelant qu’une surveillance renforcée doit être opérée suite à cette levée de restriction, notamment par l’alimentation des animaux ou par des aliments locaux, susceptibles d’avoir été confrontés à ces contaminations.Ce mardi 15 ou mercredi 16 octobre, un nouvel avis concernant les oeufs, le poisson, le miel et autres produits végétaux, qui ont fait l’objet du même arrêté, devrait être publié.Click Here: cheap nsw blues jersey
Un groupe international d’experts dirigé par l’université de la Colombie-Britannique (Canada) a établi de nouvelles lignes directrices en matière d’exercice physique pour les survivants du cancer.
Les nouvelles lignes directrices recommandent aux patients qui ont survécu à un cancer des séances de 30 minutes d'entraînement en aérobic et en musculation trois fois par semaine.
Publiées dans la revue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, ces nouvelles recommandations prescrivent des types d’exercice physique spécifiquement pensés pour traiter les effets secondaires fréquemment observés après un cancer. L’exercice pendant et après le traitement du cancer améliore la fatigue, l’anxiété, la dépression, la fonction physique, la qualité de vie et n’exacerbe pas le
lymphoedème, assurent les auteurs de l’étude.
Les nouvelles lignes directrices recommandent aux patients qui ont survécu à un cancer des séances de 30 minutes d’entraînement en aérobic et en musculation trois fois par semaine. Il s’agit d’un changement par rapport aux lignes directrices antérieures, publiées il y a près d’une décennie, qui conseillaient aux survivants du cancer de suivre les mêmes recommandations que celles adressées à la population globale américaine, à savoir 150 minutes d’exercice par semaine.
“L’exercice est considéré comme un moyen sûr et utile pour les survivants du cancer de réduire l’impact du traitement du cancer sur leur santé physique et mentale, mais le type et la quantité précis d’exercice pour traiter les nombreux résultats de santé différents liés au traitement du cancer ne sont pas clairs“, affirme la Dre Kristin Campbell, professeure agrégée au Département de physiothérapie de l’université de la Colombie-Britannique et autrice principale de l’étude.
Cette recherche fait partie d’une série de trois documents visant à offrir de nouvelles recommandations fondées sur des données probantes pour intégrer l’exercice physique dans les plans de prévention et de traitement contre le cancer. Intitulée
Moving Through Cancer et dirigée par l’American College of Sports Medicine, elle vise à guider les cliniciens du monde entier dans la prescription de ces recommandations.
Idées reçues sur le cancer
L’actrice de "Riverdale" et de "Hustlers" a été recrutée par la marque du groupe Coty pour représenter sa nouvelle ligne de maquillage.
Covergirl a misé sur des visages aussi connus que variés pour ses campagnes publicitaires ces dernières années, en signant avec l’actrice et star YouTube Issa Rae, la cheffe Ayesha Curry ou encore le mannequin de 71 ans Maye Musk. “Nous sommes ravis d’accueillir une actrice et auteure si authentique, inspirante et talentueuse dans la famille Easy Breezy”, ajoute Covergirl sur sa page.
Voir cette publication sur Instagram SURPRISE! The secret is out: @lilireinhart is our newest #COVERGIRL! We’re SO excited to welcome such an authentic, inspirational, talented actress & author to the Easy Breezy family. Give her a warm welcome in the comments below! #EasyBreezyBeautiful Une publication partagée par COVERGIRL (@covergirl) le
D’abord félicitée par Cruelty Free International l’an dernier pour sa politique de produits non testés sur les animaux, la marque met aujourd’hui la diversité au coeur de ses préoccupations. Elle a lancé une gamme ‘Full Spectrum’ spécialement conçue pour les femmes de couleur, ainsi que la ligne ‘Outlast Custom Nudes’, créée en janvier pour correspondre à toutes les carnations.
On adopte la bonne mine avec les nouveautés fonds de teint !
Click Here: cheap nsw blues jersey
Click:dragon dance costume
La source de son indignation : une vidéo où l’on voit des hommes en rang et en uniforme turc, le bras et la main tendus. Un « comportement nazi », juge l’institut kurde de Washington, qui a partagé la vidéo en premier. En cumulé, elle totalise plusieurs centaines de milliers de vues sur Twitter.Ce que personne ne dit, c’est que cette séquence a plus d’un an et demi. Et que rien ne permet d’affirmer que ses protagonistes effectuent un salut nazi. Grâce à des recherches d’image inversées sur Yandex, le Google russe, Désintox a retrouvé ces images dans des vidéos publiées par des médias turcs en mai 2018. Elles ont en fait été filmées par l’agence de presse prorégime Anadolu. Elles montrent l’entraînement par des militaires turcs de policiers syriens à Afrin, au printemps 2018, peu après la prise de la ville par Ankara.Ces policiers effectuent-ils un salut nazi ? Le geste, aussi parfois appelé “salut romain” est en fait courant au Proche-Orient, sans qu’il soit possible de l’expliquer par une affinité avec le IIIe Reich. L’observateur du conflit syrien qui tient le compte Historicoblog confirme à Désintox : « J’ai souvent vu de tels saluts notamment lors de prestations de serment comme celle de la vidéo, souvent filmées pour la propagande. » Quant à assimiler le bras tendu dans cette vidéo à un salut hitlérien, « je m’en garderais bien », nuance le spécialiste. Pas de référence nazie donc mais pas de quoi rassurer sur le sort des kurdes pour autant…Retrouvez Désintox du lundi au jeudi, dans l’émission 28 Minutes sur Arte, présentée par Elisabeth Quin.Sur YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/user/28minutesARTESur le site d’Arte : http://28minutes.arte.tv/
Nathalie Tocci is director of Istituto Affari Internazionali, a former special adviser to former European High Representative for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini, and the author of POLITICO‘s World View column.
The new leadership in Brussels has proclaimed itself as “geopolitical” and eager to “use the language of power.” They have, to an extent, the means to act too. Taken together, Europeans have an impressive panoply of instruments to exert influence in world affairs. It’s time they used them — starting in Libya.
There are countless conflicts within and beyond Europe. The EU can’t intervene in each one, nor would it always be able to bring about change if it did. But there are also cases where Europeans have the ability to influence a conflict and where their absence directly harms the Continent’s interests.
In these conflicts, the case for intervention is clear — and Europe’s inaction in them makes all the talk of grand strategy ring hollow. Libya is one of these.
Europeans clearly have the ability to influence Libya. Bound by historical, economic, societal, energy, security and migratory interdependences, Europe’s potential to exert its will in the country is significant.
The reason it doesn’t is all too familiar: divisions between the EU’s member countries. Disagreements, most notably between France and Italy, played a huge role in Europe’s paralysis in Libya — leaving a vacuum that has been filled by Russia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.
The outcome of last month’s Berlin conference on Libya — in which Europe’s most powerful players in the region attempted to present a united front — offers us an opportunity to turn this around. At the very least it has provided Europe a place at the table in the Libyan chess game. The question is whether we’ll be willing and able to make a difference in the match.
Let’s face it: Europe holds a weak hand. Europeans leaders like to respond to each conflict by saying there are no military solutions. Whatever the truth of that, the fact is that there are military outcomes — and that those are determined by the military forces in the country.
With no boots on the ground, there’s only so much Europe can accomplish — and the likely outcomes of the conflict in Libya range from bad to worse.
One bad outcome would be if Russia and Turkey were to succeed in imposing a cease-fire designed not so much to resolve the situation as to create a frozen crisis on the EU’s and NATO’s southern border.
This has been, after all, what Moscow has done in Eastern Europe for decades — Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine being the most prominent examples. It is perfectly reasonable to assume the same could happen in Libya too.
An even worse outcome would be no cease-fire at all, leaving Khalifa Haftar to continue his onslaught undeterred, supported by the UAE and Egypt, in the hope or illusion of a definitive and lasting victory over Tripoli. Haftar is unlikely to conquer the entire country, no matter how many weapons he has. The consequent fracturing of Libya’s territorial integrity would seriously harm European interests, in terms of migration, energy and security.
So what should Europe do in Libya? Given our bad hand, the best we can do in the short term is to throw our weight behind a Russian-Turkish push for a cease-fire, and then, crucially, act on the ground to secure it.
Only by being present in the country will we stand a chance of steering the dynamic away from that of a frozen conflict and toward genuine peace-building.
What would it take to accomplish this — assuming a cease-fire agreement is reached and sanctified by a U.N. Security Council Resolution?
Many in Europe would be tempted to limit their involvement to reactivating Operation Sophia, the maritime operation aimed at enforcing the U.N. arms embargo and disrupting human smuggling in the Mediterranean.
This would be the easiest option, but it’s also problematic — not only because reaching an EU agreement on the mission would first require national governments to strike a truce on migration, but also because, when it comes to arms in Libya, the train has already left the station.
The country is awash with weapons, and the enforcement of the arms embargo at sea could neither reverse this nor prevent far greater amounts of weapons reaching Libya through land and air.
A more significant — and infinitely more useful — step would be to put in place a civilian mission to monitor the cease-fire and its demarcation line, and to facilitate the process of demobilization, disarmament and reintegration.
A civilian mission alone, however, would be insufficient. At the very least, it would require force protection — and most likely it would have to be bolstered by a military operation as well.
This would be an opportunity to resurrect the EU battlegroups, the bloc’s supposedly rapid-intervention forces that have become somewhat of a joke after 14 years without a single deployment. These could be deployed in a bridging operation for a wider EU-U.N. or EU-U.N.-African Union peace-keeping mission, in which regional actors with a stake in the conflict would play a role.
To be sure, a military deployment in Libya would face an uphill battle politically. But what’s certain is that if Europeans don’t even try to make a difference in the country, the cost of doing nothing will be incomparably higher for decades to come.
In the early days of the European Security and Defense Policy, the EU didn’t have much of a narrative about its role in the world, but it was far readier to act.
Think about the 2003 EU military operation Artemis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the EU monitoring mission in Aceh in 2005, the 2007 military operation in Chad and the 2008 naval operation Atlanta to fight piracy off the coast of Somalia that is ongoing to this day.
True, the risks were much lower back then than they are today — and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan cast long shadows. But today the need for Europeans to step up is commensurately higher.
With the creation of her geopolitical European Commission, President Ursula von der Leyen has given the EU a story to tell. Now, it’s time for action.
EU ambassadors used a breakfast meeting on Wednesday to discuss a Franco-German proposal on the future of Europe | Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP via Getty Images
One of the main problems ‘is that our French friends want to hurry,’ says one diplomat.
EU ambassadors used a breakfast meeting on Wednesday to discuss a Franco-German proposal on the future of Europe — and their response was to call for caution, according to four diplomats.
A senior diplomat who was at the breakfast said “nobody was against” the Conference on the Future of Europe plan that Paris and Berlin have proposed. The ambassadors discussed an unofficial document put forward by the two capitals, in which they set out their view on the way the conference will be organized and what it needs to achieve.
One of the main “problems is that our French friends want to hurry” but “it’s a delicate process, involving civil society and many other actors and it has to be done properly,” the senior diplomat added.
During the meeting, there were some calls for caution on timing and others on the scope of the conference, which is likely to be headed by former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, whose federalist views are a cause of concern for some. There was also one call to appoint a woman instead, two of the diplomats said.
Another point that emerged from the informal conversation was a lack of appetite for a line in the Franco-German paper about “possible treaty change,” the diplomats said. Ireland and Denmark were among the countries that stressed the lack of will to reopen the treaties, “but no treaty changes was supported by almost everyone, except France and Germany,” a second diplomat said.
One of the key issues discussed on Wednesday was the role the EU institutions will play, with some countries happy to leave the lead role to the European Parliament and others wanting the Council to play a leading part. “It’s clear that we have to do something if we don’t want the whole process to be hijacked by the European Parliament,” the second diplomat said.
Some of the diplomats argued that it would only make sense for the Council to have a leading role: The Parliament is getting ready to work on its own proposals to reform the EU, and incoming Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote in the mission letter to Dubravka Šuica, soon-to-be commissioner for democracy and demography, that “I believe we need a Conference on the Future of Europe, to start in 2020.”
During the discussion, there were also calls for national parliaments to be involved as well as “concern that we are engaged in navel-gazing when we should be talking about climate change, China and the consequences of AI on our labor market,” said a third diplomat. But whether Paris and Berlin will manage to get everybody on board remains to be seen: If they move too quickly, they risk rocking the boat, stressed the third diplomat.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to talk about the proposal during a meeting of EU leaders in two weeks’ time and the president-elect of the European Council, Charles Michel, has to decide whether to put the discussion on the agenda.
“There is a joint understanding that EU member states and the European Council have a role to play in the Conference on the Future of Europe,” said a fourth EU diplomat. “It is important that the European Council addresses the issue in a timely manner,” the diplomat added. The discussion could then continue at the General Affairs Council, featuring EU and foreign ministers.
Williams is the second F1 team after McLaren to put part of its staff on temporary leave as the Grove-based outfit deals with the impact of the COVID-19 crisis.
Williams released a statement on Monday announcing its furlough plan.
“Due to the ongoing situation involving COVID-19, ROKiT Williams Racing is temporarily furloughing a number of employees as part of a wider range of cost-cutting measures,” said the team.
“The furlough period will last until the end of May whilst senior management, and our drivers, have taken a pay cut of 20% effective from 1st April.
“These decisions have not been taken lightly, however our aim is to protect the jobs of our staff at Grove and ensuring they can return to full-time work when the situation allows.”
The British outfit’s measures follow those implemented last week by McLaren and are likely not the last austerity resolutions we’ll see from an F1 team in the current troubled period.
Williams – the sport’s third most successful team behind Ferrari and McLaren – currently employs approximately 255 people and is considered along with Haas as an outfit extremely vulnerable to F1’s economic downturn.
Sir Frank Williams’ squad endured a succession of very lean years in F1, securing just 8 points in its last two campaigns, a shortfall that has hit the team’s bottom line.
Gallery: The beautiful wives and girlfriends of F1 drivers
Keep up to date with all the F1 news via Facebook and Twitter
LUXEMBOURG — It has been a good three days in court for the EU’s competition chief Margrethe Vestager.
Google had appealed one of her biggest calls — the 2017 decision to fine the company €2.42 billion for unduly favoring its own shopping comparison service.
At no point during the three-day hearing at the EU General Court in Luxembourg was the Commission’s position fundamentally threatened — unlike Google’s.
If the case goes Vestager’s way, it will strengthen her hand to take a tougher approach not only toward Google’s other specialized search services, including flights and restaurants, but also on similar ventures by other tech giants, such as Facebook’s Marketplace or Apple Music. It would also pave the way for damages cases as Google’s crushed rivals will seek compensation.
Conversely, the EU has a big problem if the judges in Luxembourg, who serve as the only check on the unrivaled powers of the EU’s antitrust czar, decide that she had been too bold. A victory for Google would be a major setback for Vestager’s Brussels reign, potentially driving her to make more use of her new powers to initiate legislation, rather than focus on antitrust cases.
The most striking moment of the hearing was when Irish judge Colm Mac Eochaidh on Thursday said he saw the company’s favoritism of its own shopping service as a clear infraction, and insisted that in terms of the board game Monopoly, the internet giant had landed on “Go to jail.”
The same judge colored Friday’s proceedings with an unexpected suggestion that the court might actually increase the €2.42 billion fine — not what the search giant’s lawyers had in mind.
But that is no guarantee of victory for the Commission when the five-judge panel delivers its ruling in the coming months. Friday’s exchange showed the judges are not all on the same page. Decisions of the EU General Court are taken by majority, with the presiding judge holding the casting vote.
Whatever the outcome, the parties can still appeal the judgment with the higher European Court of Justice.
Overall, Google’s lawyers struggled to convince the court that the way it cultivated its shopping service was to the benefit of consumers and that the updates of its algorithms were primarily aimed at offering them more relevant results.
An intervention from European consumer organization BEUC on the side of the Commission did not help to maintain that claim.
“Google’s conduct places rivals out of the sight of consumers under the pretext of making things better for consumers when in reality it is done for Google’s own benefit,” BEUC’s lawyer Alessandra Fratini said.
But that does not necessarily mean Google infringed EU competition law.
One of the crucial legal questions is whether the company had a duty to provide its rivals access to its results pages. As EU law stands, that is only possible under very strict conditions, which are widely considered not to apply in this case.
The Commission is terrified that the case is requalified as such a “duty to supply” case, as Google is arguing should happen. It had its most difficult moment on Thursday when judge Stéphane Gervasoni, the lead judge on the panel, suggested that the court could update the legal standard for the digital age.
The Commission’s lawyer refused to engage in the brainstorming with Gervasoni — any sign of following the reasoning that this is a duty to supply case could endanger its decision. But it was difficult to deny this case was about shopping comparison services wanting to be featured on Google’s first results page.
There are other points on which the California-based company could prevail.
In its final pleadings, Google’s lawyers emphasised the Commission’s failure to establish a causal link between its alleged anti-competitive behavior and the loss of traffic suffered by its rivals, referring to a Google comparison of countries where the search giant did or did not apply its controversial “Panda” algorithm.
“Because traffic of [rivals] developed similarly, with or without the abuse, the abuse cannot have been the cause of the traffic decreases the [Commission’s] decision described,” Google lawyer Thomas Graf argued.
VALLETTA — The EU’s smallest country could become its biggest problem.
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has promised to step down in the new year after the investigation into the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia revealed close connections between suspects in the case and his top team. That’s nowhere near enough, according to a group of MEPs who visited the island this week, and it could be a major headache for the new European Commission.
On Tuesday, the group of six EU lawmakers from the justice and home affairs committee left the prime minister’s official residence, the Auberge de Castille, in the Maltese capital after talks with Muscat, a former MEP who has been prime minister since 2013, saying they had serious concerns about the rule of law.
“It is difficult to see how the credibility of [Muscat’s] office can be upheld,” Dutch liberal Sophie in ‘t Veld told reporters as she left the PM’s office along with the other MEPs, including German Green Sven Giegold and Malta’s Roberta Metsola, from the conservative European People’s Party. “This is not just between the prime minister and the Maltese people, this is also between Malta and the European Union.”
“Cooperation within the European Union is based on trust and I think it is very evident to everybody that that trust has been very seriously damaged,” in ‘t Veld added.
At the weekend, Muscat said in a statement that he will resign as head of the Labour Party on January 12 so the party can choose a new leader and prime minister, which will take about a month. In the meantime, Muscat said he would continue to serve as prime minister to ensure stability. The move came after his chief of staff, Keith Schembri, and a government minister stepped down after being linked to a prominent local businessman who has been charged with complicity in the murder.
The crisis has not only destabilized the island, it has also raised concerns about the impact it could have on the European Union, which has been under pressure over its handling of rule of law concerns in Hungary and Poland. A new Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, provides a chance for a new approach to the bloc’s more difficult members, and Malta could be its first test.
“This is a test case for Ursula von der Leyen,” Giegold told POLITICO. “Will she improve the rule of law? Will she use all the tools she has and not keep silent when it comes to rule of law?” he asked, adding that former Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and First Vice-President Frans Timmermans had “blocked progress on Malta.”
Giegold was speaking on day one of a two-day fact-finding mission, which also included meetings with Maltese President George Vella and members of Caruana Galizia’s family. The Maltese government issued a statement that merely acknowledged the meeting had taken place.
Caruana Galizia, a controversial journalist and blogger, was killed by a car bomb in October 2017. The investigation took an unexpected turn late last month when Muscat offered to pardon a man who claimed to know the mastermind behind the murder. That same week, businessman Yorgen Fenech was detained on board his luxury yacht. Fenech was later charged with participating in a criminal organization, complicity in causing an explosion, and complicity in the murder.
Schembri, Muscat’s chief of staff, and Cabinet minister Konrad Mizzi have since resigned in connection with the case.
Despite mass demonstrations calling on him to resign, Muscat said in a TV address that while he felt “deepest regret” that Caruana Galizia was murdered, “this case cannot define everything that our country is and what we have accomplished together.”
But it has caused deep embarrassment in Brussels, where Muscat is a fixture at European summits. Earlier this year, he was said to have shown interest in replacing Donald Tusk as European Council president and sought to form an alliance with French President Emmanuel Macron.
Metsola, a member of the opposition Nationalist Party, told POLITICO Muscat had acted “in a very arrogant way” during Tuesday’s meeting. Asked how he would cope with a summit of EU leaders on December 12-13, Metsola said Muscat’s answer “was ‘you deal with your peers, I deal with mine.'”
The situation in Malta, she added, “could be very damaging for the EU.”
Though two European Parliament resolutions were drafted on Malta’s rule of law problems after Caruana Galizia’s death, the European Commission has taken a cautious line and has not triggered the formal mechanism for tackling such issues, known as Article 7. Poland and Hungary are subject to Article 7 proceedings but these have stalled.
Commission spokespeople have said repeatedly in recent days that they are “following developments in Malta very closely” and Vera Jourová, the new commissioner for values and transparency, told an event on Monday that the grounds for triggering the Article 7 procedure were “always caused by systemic deficiency in the system.”
Many MEPs hope that von der Leyen, who has put the rule of law issue high on her agenda, will push for a new mechanism that has “an EU-wide scope” and “objective annual reporting by the Commission,” as she mentioned in her guidelines for taking office.
“Von der Leyen already spoke about the rule of law and we are expecting her to take that action with the rule of law mechanism that we’ve been asking for,” Metsola said.
While Metsola and others have been vocal in their criticism, Muscat’s political family, the Socialists and Democrats group, has shied away from condemning the Maltese PM.
“Of course for the socialists, it is the most difficult situation,” said German S&D MEP Birgit Sippel. “But we have to deal with it, we do need transparency and we do need to find the answers and the truth. There is no other way out.”