SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, Calif. (KEYT) – Fire teams are responding to multiple spot fires along northbound Highway 101, north of the junction with State Route 166 and the county border, Monday.

According to the California Highway Patrol - San Luis Obispo Area, the spot fires are along northbound portions of the roadway, from the Santa Maria Speedway to Tefft Street in Nipomo.

The San Luis Obispo County Fire Department shared that crews from both counties and the Santa Maria City Fire Department are part of the emergency response and no injuries have been reported at this point.

This is an evolving emergency response and more information will be added to this article as it is received.

The post First Responders Battle Multiple Spot Fires Along Northbound Highway 101 from Santa Maria Speedway to Tefft Street Monday appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

The post ON Culture: Music Academy, PCPA, and Nicole Strasburg Start the Summer Out Strong appeared first on The Santa Barbara Independent.

Por Brian Stelter, CNN

Doce estados presentaron una demanda para bloquear la adquisición de Warner Bros. Discovery por parte de Paramount, dando inicio a una batalla antimonopolio de alto riesgo que podría obstaculizar la mega fusión mediática.

El fiscal general de California, Rob Bonta, dijo que la demanda antimonopolio, presentada el lunes en el Distrito Norte de California, es necesaria porque “esta fusión sofocaría la competencia, elevaría los precios, disminuiría la calidad del contenido y produciría menos películas y programas cada año”.

Paramount dijo que combatirá la demanda enérgicamente. Calificó la demanda de “equivocada tanto en los hechos como en el derecho” y dijo que los estados habían tergiversado la competencia en la industria del entretenimiento actual.

Paramount también señaló que los reguladores en mercados de todo el mundo ya han aprobado la fusión, incluido el Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos (DOJ, por sus siglas en inglés).

La revisión del DOJ estuvo empañada por acusaciones de favoritismo político, dadas las estrechas relaciones de Paramount con el presidente Trump y miembros de su Gobierno. “Esto apesta a corrupción”, dijo la senadora Elizabeth Warren cuando el DOJ aprobó el acuerdo en junio.

Así, la demanda del lunes es un ejemplo de alto perfil de funcionarios a nivel estatal que intentan bloquear una fusión que ya ha sido avalada por el Gobierno federal.

A California se unieron Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Nueva Jersey, Nuevo México, Nueva York, Oregon y Washington. Los doce estados tienen fiscales generales demócratas.

En conversaciones con CNN antes de la presentación, funcionarios a nivel estatal dijeron que creen que el Gobierno de Trump ha abdicado en gran medida de sus responsabilidades de aplicación de las leyes antimonopolio. Así que, como dijo uno de los funcionarios, “alguien tiene que hacerlo”.

Una coalición similar de estados demandó para bloquear la adquisición pendiente de Tegna por parte de Nexstar, un acuerdo que fusionaría a dos propietarios rivales de estaciones de televisión local. Los estados lograron convencer a un juez de pausar la fusión mientras avanza el litigio.

Los analistas especularon que los fiscales estatales podrían tener más dificultades para demostrar un daño antimonopolio derivado del acuerdo Paramount–WBD, pero Bonta se mostró confiado en una conferencia de prensa el lunes.

De pie frente al letrero de Hollywood, Bonta dijo que “la aplicación de las leyes antimonopolio es el control de la democracia sobre la oligarquía”.

En este caso, la coalición dijo que “ha pedido a Warner Bros. y a Paramount que no cierren la fusión hasta después de que concluya el proceso judicial, y si no están de acuerdo, la coalición presentará una orden de restricción temporal”.

Warner Bros. Discovery es la empresa matriz de CNN, y muchos críticos del acuerdo han expresado preocupaciones sobre la posibilidad de que Paramount sea propietaria de la cadena de noticias por cable y la combine con CBS News.

Sin embargo, la demanda antimonopolio de los estados se centra principalmente en los posibles impactos de la fusión en la industria del entretenimiento, no en las noticias.

La demanda señala tres áreas específicas de competencia: la distribución de películas de “estreno amplio”, la distribución prevista de películas taquilleras y la concesión de licencias de canales de cable.

Combinar Paramount con Warner reducirá la competencia en esas áreas, “amenazando a los espectadores con precios más altos, el declive de la exhibición cinematográfica en salas y una reducción en la variedad, la calidad y la cantidad de contenido distribuido”, acusó la oficina del fiscal general de California.

Mientras se preparaban para la demanda prevista, ejecutivos y aliados de Paramount han argumentado que la acción

By Elisabeth Buchwald, CNN

(CNN) — Since the US-Israeli war with Iran broke out, shipping companies have been calling for greater protection for vessels to safely cross through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical trade route that is controlled by Iran. President Donald Trump now says the United States can provide that — but in exchange for a 20% fee on cargo moving through the waterway.

“The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as ‘THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,’ but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Monday.

His proposal, however, raises several questions of legality and feasibility.

Who would foot the bill?

First and foremost, people need to know what it would cost to evaluate whether they want to use the service, John McCown, a senior fellow at the Center for Maritime Strategy, told CNN. From Trump’s post, it’s unclear how the fee would be calculated.

“Is it 20% of what our cost on the blockade is, somehow divided by the number of ships?” McCown questioned. Other possibilities include 20% of the costs the US Navy incurs to escort cargo or a 20% charge on the value of the goods being transported.

The White House did not respond to CNN’s request for further details.

In any event, the fee will likely be high enough that no party is willing to pay it, McCown said.

As a general rule of thumb, shippers pay carriers 2%-3% of the value of their goods in fees, according to McCown, former CEO of shipping logistics company Trailer Bridge. A fee around 10 times the size would likely be entirely unaffordable to shippers, he said.

Insurers may get the final say, though, since they may refuse to cover boats transiting the Strait of Hormuz if they deem the security risks are too high, regardless of whether owners are willing to pay for US protection.

Is the fee even legal?

The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway where vessels have the right of free passage under international law. Iran has previously imposed what it described as service fees on vessels, though those charges are not currently in place.

Those fees were effectively tolls, according to James Kraska, a professor of international maritime law at the US Naval War College. He says the practice is not permitted under international law.

His read of Trump’s post is that the United States is saying: “We’re going to convoy vessels through here, and if you want to join, here’s the cost.”

That option would comply with international law, according to Kraska, because it’s being imposed voluntarily, where shippers could decide whether they want to pay for protection or not, as opposed to a fee that determines if cargo can transit.

But he added that just because something is lawful, it doesn’t mean he’d necessarily advise it.

“The last time the world faced a situation like this was when Denmark charged foreign vessels for passing through Øresund, from the early 1400s through the mid-1800s. Dues were also assessed on declared cargo value,” said Bjorn Vang Jensen, executive industry adviser at Xeneta‏, a freight analytics platform. “Ironically, that practice was stopped by American intervention.”

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Read more

By Leah Asmelash, CNN

(CNN) — Five years ago, Kylian Mbappé almost quit the French national team.

France, a favorite in the Euro 2020 tournament, had just lost to Switzerland in the Round of 16. The French led for most of the game, only for the Swiss to score two late goals and force a penalty shootout. Mbappé ended up taking the deciding shot. The kick was strong, but the keeper reacted swiftly to bat it away.

The loss was catastrophic. ESPN called it a “huge failure.” The cover of Le Parisien, a French newspaper, the next day read “Disillusionment.” On L’Equipe: “Devastated.”

For Mbappé, just 22 years old at the time, this national letdown led to a wave of racist abuse on social media. One tweet went viral: A user wrote, “This dirty n***er deserves to receive a hundred lashes and be sold in Libya.” That Mbappé was born in Paris and had been an instrumental part of France’s World Cup win just a few years prior did not seem to matter.

“I cannot play for people who think I’m a monkey. I’m not gonna play,” Mbappé told the French Football Federation (FFF) President Noël Le Graët at the time.

Mbappé did end up playing, though. The very next year, he led the French all the way to their second straight World Cup Final in Qatar, where they lost in penalties to Argentina. This year, France is in the semifinals, set to play Spain on Tuesday.

Now in his prime, Mbappé is a better player than he was in 2021. He is the French captain and leading goal scorer and now has 20 goals in all World Cup competition, second all-time behind Lionel Messi.

But Mbappé’s status as one of the greatest soccer players of all time still doesn’t insulate him from abuse. Of Cameroonian and Algerian heritage, Mbappé stands, by his very existence, as either an example of the power of France’s multiculturalism or symptom of weakened French identity, depending on who is speaking.

Leading up to this year’s World Cup, Mbappé was embroiled in a public battle with France’s far-right National Rally leaders Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella. After Mbappé urged French citizens to be wary of the National Rally in a Vanity Fair profile, Le Pen and Bardella both struck back by pointing out that his former club, Paris Saint-Germain, won the UEFA Champions League once he had left.

Le Pen, a favorite to win next year’s French presidential election, has previously called to end all immigration into France, and once compared Muslims praying in the street to Nazi occupation.

The French team, made up largely of first- and second-generation immigrants, has rallied against Le Pen and her National Rally in the past. In 2024, Mbappé, Ousmane Dembélé and others on the team urged French citizens to vote, in response to a strong showing in the polls by the National Rally.

“Mbappé doesn’t represent French people with an immigration background,” Le Pen told CNN later that year. “Because there are far more of them living on the minimum wage, who can’t afford housing and can’t afford heating, than people like Mr. Mbappé.”

It’s a revealing, if bogus, argument, one that has been repeated by others in the party: Because Mbappé, or any non-white soccer player, is successful, he has lost his immigrant identity.

In reality, that success may be a buffer, but it’s not a barrier. After France knocked out Paraguay in this year’s World Cup, Paraguayan senator Celeste Amarilla launched her own racist tirade Read more