Florida's tourism industry continues to wait for federal relief

Florida's tourism industry continues to wait for federal relief

Recommended Stories

  • Myanmar coup: The shadowy business empire funding the Tatmadaw

    Advocacy groups are calling for sanctions against the military's secretive business interests.

  • In unaired interview clip, Meghan Markle explains why she thinks everyone has a 'basic right to privacy'

    When it comes to privacy, Meghan Markle says she is open to sharing parts of her life, but doesn't see how anyone can expect her to reveal all. On Monday evening, O, The Oprah Magazine, published an unaired clip from Markle's bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which Markle is asked if she should have expected to lose her privacy when she began dating Prince Harry, a high-profile member of one of the world's most famous families. "I think everyone has a basic right to privacy," Markle responded, adding, "we're not talking about anything that anybody else wouldn't expect." She compared the situation to having a nosy co-worker who sees a "photograph of your child on your desk ... and says, 'Oh my gosh, your kid's so cute. That's fantastic! Can I see your phone so I can see all the pictures of your child?' You go, 'No. This is the picture I'm comfortable sharing with you.'" From there, Markle continued, the co-worker doubles down and says that because "you already showed me that one ... you have to show my everything. You know what, I'm gonna hire someone to sit in front of your house, or hide in the bushes, and take pictures into your backyard, because you've lost your right to privacy ... because you shared one image with me.'" Markle said there is a "false narrative" that she and Harry have asked for total privacy, and they want people to know they are happy to share the "parts of their lives" they are "comfortable" making public. "There's no one who's on Instagram or social media that would say, 'Because I shared this one picture, that entitles you to have my entire camera roll. Go ahead and look through it,'" Markle added. "No one would want that. So it's about boundaries, and it's about respect." More stories from theweek.comThe Harry and Meghan interview might have taken down more than the royal family7 spondiferously funny cartoons about the Dr. Seuss controversyLate night hosts roast Britain's royals after Oprah's bombshell interview with Prince Harry and Meghan

  • Biden's big relief package a bet gov't can help cure America

    President Joe Biden wants America to know that he’s from the government and he’s here to help. Democrat Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over in the 1990s, Barack Obama largely kept his party in the same lane and Republican Donald Trump campaigned on the premise that Washington was full of morons, outplayed by the Chinese and others. "When I was elected, I said we were going to get the government out of the business of battling on Twitter and back in the business of delivering for the American people," Biden said after the huge bill passed the Senate on Saturday.

  • Former President Trump is urging Republicans to donate directly to him instead of the GOP

    Trump said donations to Republican committees would be supporting "Republicans in name only."

  • Oprah's interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle didn't just expose the royal family - it also revealed just how the broken US healthcare system is

    British people were shocked by how many pharmaceutical ads ran during Oprah's interview with Meghan Markle, exposing how dire things are in the US.

  • Coronavirus latest news: Pfizer vaccine neutralises Brazil variant, study finds

    Children who receive false positive tests to be banned from class for 10 days Nightingale hospitals to close in April as virus recedes Major Covid outbreaks 'inevitable' at Channel migrant barracks Jill Kirby: Testing should open up society, not shut it down Subscribe to The Telegraph for a month-long free trial The Pfizer vaccine is able to neutralise the highly contagious Brazilian P.1 variant, a study has found. Blood from people who had received the Pfizer/BioNTech jab was effective against a version of the virus engineered to carry the same mutations as P.1, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The vaccine's efficacy against the Brazilian variant was roughly the same as against a less infectious strain from 2020, scientists said. Pfizer has previously found that its vaccine is able to neutralise other highly contagious variants that were first found in the UK and South Africa. Public health experts have said that the Brazilian coronavirus variant has currently not reached the UK in sufficient numbers to present a major threat to the vaccine roll-out, amid evidence it is up to 2.2 times more transmissible. The P.1 variant is thought to have originated in Manaus, where it was able to reinfect a significant number of residents who had developed antibodies from previous infections. Follow the latest updates below.

  • Meghan and Harry: How much did Diana leave in inheritance for Harry?

    Princes received full amount of money from mother’s estate when they turned 30

  • Editorial: Instead of Meghan Markle invigorating the royal family, it drove her to thoughts of suicide

    It's unfortunate that Meghan Markle couldn't bring change to a hidebound British royal family that seems to grow more irrelevant each day.

  • Prince Harry threw cold water on speculation that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip partook in conversations over Archie's skin tone, narrowing down who in the royal family could have been involved

    Former Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle said some members of the royal family had "concerns" about how dark Archie's skin would be before he was born.

  • Up to 8 million eligible Americans yet to receive a stimulus check

    Many of those missing out are people on very low incomes

  • Covishield and Covaxin: What we know about India's Covid-19 vaccines

    As India’s homegrown Covaxin shows 81% efficacy, here's what we know about the country’s vaccination drive.

  • Megyn Kelly says Meghan Markle always claims to be a 'victim' after bombshell Oprah interview: 'Give me a break'

    "Everyone victimizes Meghan! Everyone! The palace! The press!" the former Fox News host, who was fired for making racist statements, said.

  • A new lab study shows troubling signs that Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 shots could be far less effective against the variant first found in South Africa

    A mutation called E484K appeared to help the variant, first found in South Africa, to evade antibodies produced by the vaccines, the authors said.

  • Biden nominates female generals who were passed over by the Pentagon because they feared Trump's reaction

    Pentagon officials believed former President Donald Trump would oppose the promotion of female generals, report says.

  • Olivia Wilde congratulated her ex Jason Sudeikis after he thanked her in his Critics' Choice acceptance speech

    Sudeikis and Wilde broke up in November 2020. Wilde is now reportedly dating pop star, Harry Styles.

  • Prince Harry says he feels ‘really let down’ by Charles as he reveals father stopped taking his calls

    Prince Charles allegedly only took two calls with Prince Harry about so-called “Megxit” before no longer picking up

  • 'Bad news': Wave of GOP retirements signals battles ahead

    This is not the way Republicans wanted to begin the year. Missouri's Roy Blunt on Monday became the fifth Republican senator to announce he will not seek reelection, a retirement wave that portends an ugly campaign season next year and gives Democrats fresh hope in preserving their razor-thin Senate majority. History suggests Republicans are still well-positioned to reclaim at least one chamber of Congress next year.

  • Women reported worse side effects from the COVID-19 vaccine than men, CDC study shows

    Women made up 79.1% of the 7,000 people who reported experiencing side effects after receiving the vaccine, including headaches, fatigue, and dizziness.

  • A 'hand grenade': Harry and Meghan's incendiary interview draws praise, fury in Britain

    Oprah Winfrey's sit-down with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex lays bare Britain's divides over race, class and culture.

  • Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s Oprah Interview Was a Royal Family Depth Charge

    Joe Pugliese/CBSThe contemplation of suicide, blatant racism, and a family of “trapped,” emotionally stunted snobs: nobody expected Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s interview with Oprah Winfrey to be as dramatic as it was, or as grim. It was less a night for popcorn and low-stakes royal dish, and more one for stricken looks of surprise. One bombshell and within-palace-walls horror story followed another, one numbing thud after another. The opening revelation that Kate Middleton had made Meghan cry, not the other way round—as had been previously reported—was a relatively innocent aperitif. This grand guignol was just getting started.Meghan Markle: ‘I Just Didn’t Want to Be Alive Anymore’Harry and Meghan told a similar raw story of gilded nightmares just as Princess Diana told BBC’s Panorama in 1995. We have heard it before, and assumed the institution might have changed in response to the criticism that followed. Not a chance.It was every terrible part of being a princess/duchess in a fairytale-gone-wrong as Diana had told—with a happy ending of a kind, although the question lingering at the end, despite the principals’ smiles was: at what cost? Harry said he felt his mother’s spirit during this time, as well as living off her money having been cut off by the royal family. “She saw it coming,” he said.The British tabloid press, and Harry and Meghan’s harshest critics, will likely find ways to dismiss their words, to criticize them anew. Perhaps, as has happened before, Meghan and Harry will be decried as rich cry-babies, entitled whiners. But these familiar attacks will be harder to make, given how the couple told their stories to Oprah. Britain will finally see this documentary tonight, Monday.Oprah did not, as her detractors expected, simply act as a friend with a shoulder to cry on; she didn’t supply warm bathos or easy platitudes. Sure, she visited the couple’s hens. She joyfully welcomed Meghan’s pregnancy bump. But she interviewed with care and rigor. Every time Meghan or Harry waffled or said something imprecise, she asked them to be precise—especially when it came to identifying the racist or racists within the palace who demeaned Meghan, and who queried how dark Archie’s skin would be when he was born.That person (or persons’) identity remains unknown, but the stricken expressions on Meghan and Harry’s faces, their determination not to tell Oprah, suggest someone who was very close to them, or significant within the palace. The possible darkness of Archie’s skin, the fact he would be the child of a biracial couple, apparently necessitated he would not be thought of as a prince, and that he deserved no security.Oprah asked questions about what had gone wrong in the royal family, and was told bluntly about a catastrophe that—if true—shows just how unfit for modern purpose the royal family is. This was such a compelling interview, brilliantly done, that two hours did not seem enough. Indeed, Oprah said more would be revealed on CBS This Morning in a few hours time, co-anchored by her best friend Gayle King. Sure, Meghan was not asked about the investigation into bullying allegations that broke after the interview was recorded and had so focused minds before its transmission, and which seem—for now at least—the least of the royal family’s concerns.That family is very selective when it comes to opening investigations. For instance, at the time of writing there is one underway about alleged bullying by Meghan Markle of palace staff, and not one about Prince Andrew’s friendship with dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.Here is a suggestion for a few more, after Meghan and Prince Harry’s interview.Is it true a palace figure raised “concerns” about the “darkness” of unborn Archie’s skin? If so, whose racism was this? Why did they feel they could voice it to the baby’s father and mother? Why is this being said in the 21st century? What does it say about the royal family as an institution? Was it a royal family member, an aide, who? Will they be as thoroughly investigated, and if necessary reprimanded, as Meghan? What does the royal family have to say about this proud racism it exhibits directly to a woman of color, carrying a royal family member in her belly?Another investigation idea. Meghan said she felt suicidal when she was five months pregnant and that she approached the palace authorities seeking help, and was effectively told to get lost—when they surely have access to all the best doctors and specialists in the land. This reminds the casual royal observer of the complete dereliction of care when it came to Princess Diana, who was also left by this family to go mad within the confines of the palace.This investigation would focus both on both alleged cruelty and ignorance. Cruelty, because a woman is clearly struggling to maintain her psychological equilibrium. She is not only suffering, she is suffering right in front of you, and you are essentially rolling your eyes at her as if she is an inconvenience. Is this true? Who are you, the people that reportedly did this? And what are you, the institution that facilitates this behavior?After Diana died, so much was written about the changing royal family; that it would be the wake-up call to embrace at least the vestiges of 20th and now 21st century thinking. “Progressive” was the word. Harry and Meghan’s interview showed just how bogus that PR window dressing was. This is an institution, if Harry and Meghan are telling the truth, that is incapable of change, and more than that—actively resistant to it, and vicious to those who represent change, or who herald it. The royal family is not geared to welcoming such figures or forces. According to Harry and Meghan, the institutional instinct rather is to destroy. Prince Harry made brutally clear how deficient his father Prince Charles had been, and said—just as he felt “trapped,” so did his father and brother. The only winner in his recitation of awfulness was the queen, who Harry praised to the hilt.If we believe the couple, their departure from the royal family was quite literally a life or death situation. Harry left the royal family to save his wife’s life, and his son’s future. And to save himself. In her one misconceived idea, Oprah edged into the finale-of-Pretty-Woman territory, when she set up the dynamic of the couple saving each other, and it would have been easy for Meghan and Harry to go along with that, summoning up the image of Richard Gere and Julia Roberts on that apartment ladder joyfully clinging on to each other, allegedly equal saviors (but really, c’mon!).But Meghan could not go there. She said one of her regrets was “believing them when they said I would be protected,” meaning the royal family. They had done the opposite; they had left her not only exposed, she made clear, but life-endangeringly desperate. She told them this, and they did nothing. (Buckingham Palace, of course, may respond to this litany of charges, and claim things unfolded very differently—we shall see.) Harry and Meghan cautiously accepted the Pretty Woman dynamic Oprah offered, but their grim smiles suggested this was less a triumphant romantic ending, and more a case of lives saved by the grittiest of margins.Let’s say Pretty Woman had ended with Richard Gere weeping with fear on the ladder because of his fear of heights, and Julia Roberts coming to help him with the aid of the emergency services—that was more the tone of the end of the Oprah interview. When Meghan said it was “greater than any fairytale you ever read,” it sounded like she meant that this story could have ended very differently; that happiness had only just been snatched from the jaws of unhappiness and desperation.There seem to be a number of vying forces, which will govern the future of royal relationships after this shattering interview. The royal family were right to be nervous. This morning they will likely be pondering how on earth to respond to it.Judging by the sheer scale of anti-Harry and Meghan briefing hours before the broadcast, a war—and one without end—seemed very much on. We learned, variously, in the British Sunday papers that Meghan had exploded over a blanket shaded the wrong kind of red; that Harry was nicknamed “The Hostage” before his wedding, and that he had shouted “What Meghan wants, Meghan gets” in a row over a tiara.The other forces, probably mindful of how this rift might look publicly, were telling certain reporters that reconciliation between the warring Harry and William might be on the cards. The Sunday Telegraph said William and Kate were hopeful for a reconciliation whatever was said in the Oprah interview, and the Telegraph said that Harry was “determined to stand shoulder to shoulder” with William at the unveiling of a statue of their mother Princess Diana, scheduled for July 1 at Kensington Palace on what would have been her 60th birthday.Harry “desperately hopes” to attend the event and considers it “a priority,” the Telegraph said. That sense of old-school royal duty and loyalty mirrors the undertones of Queen Elizabeth’s message to the Commonwealth, broadcast earlier on Sunday by the BBC. The queen spoke of “friendship and a spirit of unity” in her address, praising examples of “courage, commitment, and selfless dedication to duty” in Commonwealth nations and territories, notably by those working on the front line, whether in health care or other public services. “The testing times experienced by so many have led to a deeper appreciation of the mutual support and spiritual sustenance we enjoy by being connected to others,” the queen said in the gentle program—also starring Prince Charles, Kate, William, Camilla, and Sophie, Countess of Wessex—which was in marked dramatic contrast to the Harry and Meghan interview. Post-pandemic, the queen said she looked forward to “a common future that is sustainable and more secure.”Harry and Meghan said they wanted to “move on” after the broadcast of the interview, considering it their opportunity to have their say, and now “consider the matter closed,” sources told the Telegraph. “It was something they felt they wanted and needed to do but now they have done it, they feel a line has been drawn under that chapter of their lives and they want to move on,” a friend told the paper.After the Oprah interview, however, all of this seems entirely unlikely—unless the royal family finally opens its minds and hearts to the multi-layered dysfunctionality it so willingly fosters and tolerates. The number and nature of revelations requiring detailed and considered response by the palace are simply too many. The fact that Meghan came so close to taking her own life; the fact the color of Archie’s skin was a matter of “concern” are matters that are un-spinnable (unless the palace challenges their veracity)—as is Harry’s damning summation of his relationship with Prince Charles. The Oprah interview is a depth charge. It can only be a roadmap to restored relations if the royal family rouses itself from its air of lost-in-time prejudices and snobbery, and answers the questions Meghan and Harry have laid at its door. As for Harry and Meghan, they didn’t seem too bothered about making friends, or making nice. Telling their truth seemed far more important, and this they did—devastatingly.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.