Trolling can never be justified. Celebs often have to go through virtual attacks by trolls over some of the most insane and absurd reasons. Take a look.Meeting PM Modi: Priyanka Chopra had a brief meeting with PM Modi in Berlin last year. While what they discussed remains unknown, a certain section on Twitter started trolling the actress for her ‘indecent dress’. As a comeback and in a major burn to the haters, Priyanka shared another picture with her mother showing off their long legs.For napping on hubby Nick’s chest: Soon after her wedding, Priyanka shared an adorable photo with hubby Nick Jonas where she was clicked sleeping on his chest. Trolls had a field day asking if Priyanka has hired a photographer that follows her everywhere, including the couple’s bedroom. Talking about the trolling on Jimmy Fallon’s show, Priyanka said, “I mean, don’t you guys ever go out with friends and you’re sitting with a bunch of friends, and you do something cute and another friend takes a picture? We were like eight of us sitting and watching the Super Bowl. I fell asleep and she took a picture. She was like, ‘You’re probably the first person who fell asleep during the Super Bowl’.”Photo-shopped arm-pits: The cover of Maxim magazine’s June-July issue featuring Priyanka Chopra drew flak for photo shopping her armpit. However, Priyanka gave it back to the haters with another picture showing off her arm-pits.Smoking: Recently, a picture of Priyanka Chopra smoking along with mother Madhu Chopra and husband Nick Jonas on a yacht during a vacation in Miami surfaced online. Netizens started trolling the actress for smoking despite being asthmatic, as claimed by Priyanka herself.Age gap with Nick Jonas: Priyanka Chopra has often been trolled with tags like ‘mom’ and ‘aunty’ for the age difference between her and husband Nick. Addressing the same, Priyanka had said, “I find it really amazing when you flip it and the guy is older, no one cares and actually people like it.”
Some of Bitcoin enthusiast Mike Caldwell’s coins are pictured at his office in Sandy, Utah, September 17, 2013.REUTERS/Jim UrquhartReutersNearly 17,000 Indians have signed a petition challenging the central bank’s decision to end dealings with crypto-related accounts.A Change.org petition for “Mak[ing] India at the forefront of Blockchain Applications Revolution” was filed online on April 5 after the Reserve Bank of India banned all financial firms from dealing with or providing services to any individuals or business entities dealing with or settling virtual currencies.”This is clearly stifling innovation around blockchain. If a government does not facilitate adoption of new technology, the country stands to left behind,” the petition reads.According to the petition, the RBI’s decision – which tech investor Tim Draper had recently called “a huge mistake” – could lead to an increase of irregular cash trading of cryptocurrencies in India.It would also lead to a knee-jerk reaction in the prices of cryptocurrencies, resulting in millions of Indians losing their hard earned money.The price of bitcoin plummeted to a low of Rs 350,000 ($5,392) versus its international market price of $6,617, following the RBI announcement.The petition notes the inevitability of Blockchain development globally and calls on the Indian government to remain competitive with other countries on the issue so as to not be “left behind”.Crypto exchanges and blockchain companies have profitable business models and can give a massive share of revenue to the government who is welcoming. Not only that crypto exchanges and traders are extremely compliant with stringent KYC norms and have already complied mentioning all their trade details. the petition said.Many bitcoin exchanges, including Zebpay and Unocoin, are looking to move their headquarters to jurisdictions outside India following the central bank’s clamp down on cryptocurrencies.
Marjorie Kamys Cotera/Via The Texas TribuneMock weapons used to train educators in Harrold, Texas. The North Texas school district was the first to allow educators to carry guns on school grounds in 2007.Following a deadly mass shooting at Santa Fe High School, Gov. Greg Abbottrolled out a 40-page plan to keep schools safe. Proposals ranged from beefing up existing mental health screening programs to encouraging voluntary use of gun locks at home, but one component seemed to divide lawmakers, districts and Texas schools: arming school employees.If Texas schools want to arm their staffs, they have two options. One is the Marshal Program, which Abbott proposed using state funds to help schools implement. It allows local school boards to authorize employees to carry a handgun on campus, but they must be specially trained and licensed by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement. Under the program, armed school personnel can’t carry firearms around students.The other option was already around when then-Gov. Rick Perry signed the Marshall Program into law in 2012. Created by Harrold Independent School District Superintendent David Thweatt in 2007, the Guardian Plan allows local school boards to determine training standards and authorize specific employees to carry on campus at all times.Here are four things to know about the two existing plans that allow school districts to arm their employees:The Marshal Program creates a new kind of peace officerFor districts that choose to adopt the Marshal Program, teachers and other school staff members who undergo the required training are taught to act as armed security officers — or peace officers — in the absence of law enforcement.“The Marshal Program is about creating an entirely new class of peace officers — certified and [Texas Commission on Law Enforcement] trained — who can act in a moment of crisis to disable and neutralize an active shooter,” said state Rep. Jason Villalba, the Dallas Republican who authored the bill that created the Texas school marshal program Abbott wants to expand. “That’s why the program is so starkly different than what Mr. Thweatt calls the guardian plan.”The Guardian Plan, on the other hand, lets school staff carry guns with or without marshal training. It doesn’t train school personnel as peace officers, but lets them carry their weapons as long as they undergo district-specific training and have a handgun license. And it doesn’t have a maximum requirement for how many teachers can be armed, unlike the Marshal Program which lets schools only designate one employee a marshal for every 400 students.Despite the differences in approach for the two plans, they both aim to mitigate tragedies in the event an active shooter comes on campus grounds.“That’s the reason we’re doing it, and I think we can do that because they’re not going to know from where our particular defense is going to come,” Thweatt said.“When [an active shooter] comes to the school, they’re going to get swarmed from multiple directions,” he added. “Armed shooters go where they know there’s going to be little resistance, but if they don’t know where they’re going to get resistance, they’re not going to come to our schools.”Rural districts are more likely to adopt one of the plansMore than 200 of Texas’ 1,000-plus school districts have adopted one of two programs. And a majority of those districts tend to be in rural communities, according to Dax Gonzalez, a spokesman for the Texas Association of School Boards.“Generally speaking, districts with police departments … do not tend to allow staff to carry firearms,” Gonzalez said. “Those 217 are likely smaller, more rural districts that feel they cannot be serviced by local law enforcement quickly enough.”Villalba told POLITICO in February that he believes anywhere between 20 to 50 districts have adopted the marshal program. At least 172 Texas districts have adopted the Guardian Plan.Training and gun storage requirements varyArguably one of the biggest differences between the two programs is different requirements for teachers or other employees who want to carry a gun.Marshals have to receive 80 training hours and keep their firearms under lock and key. The Guardian Plan, on the other hand, lets teachers keep their firearm with them at all times — as long as they have a concealed handgun license and go through 15 to 20 hours of training.It’s worth noting that these requirements could change, however. Abbott previously proposed streamlining the training course under the Marshal Program — which he called “burdensome”— and eliminating the lockbox requirement.Villalba was critical of Abbott’s tweaks to the Marshal Program, saying that parents might be upset if teachers didn’t have to lock up their weapons.But several Texas Republicans, including Jerry Patterson, Texas’ former land commissioner who helped get the state’s concealed handgun law passed in 1995, say the lockbox requirement does more harm than good.“The lockbox requirement is silly. The gun needs to be carried on the person and accessible immediately,” Patterson said. “Not where you have to run to the office, go through a combination and then get the gun. If you carry it all the time, you won’t lose the weapon.”Individuals schools and districts that adopt the Guardian Plan are also allowed to choose their own training requirements. At Harrold ISD, for example, employees who choose to carry go through at least 15 hours of training that includes videos of hostage scenarios and shooting drills. Fayetteville ISD, which adopted the plan in February, doesn’t require a specific amount of firearms training (though most staff do around 20 hours per year). And at Keene ISD, which adopted the Guardian Plan in 2016, Superintendent Ricky Stephens previously told The Texas Tribune he requires staff to undergo 80 hours of initial training and 40 hours annually after that.Only one plan receives money from the stateTo adopt either plan, districts have to find a way to pay for training, purchase firearms and ammunition and, in some cases, a lock box.But only the Marshal Program has received state funding to help pay for those expenses.When the Marshal Program was first signed into law, the state had a grant program in place to help districts cover training costs. But that money ran out and funding has not been reauthorized. That’s why Abbott proposed that the state pay for school marshal training this summer to ease the burden on individual districts.Funding for the Guardian Plan was notably missing from the governor’s proposal, however. Instead of getting approval from the Legislature, authorization for the plan is outlined under the Texas Government Code, which lets certain school district employees who have a handgun license to carry their weapon.Since there’s no legislative recognition of the Guardian Plan, Thweatt said, districts that adopt the plan have to pay for it themselves. Thweatt said Harrold ISD reimburses employees who participate for the cost of guns, ammunition and training.“I’ve never received any funding [from the state] for the Guardian Plan,” Thweatt said.Note: This story was inspired by a discussion on education policy happening now in our Facebook group, This is Your Texas. Sign up here to join the conversation.Disclosure: The Texas Association of School Boards has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Share