Paraguay Impeaches and Arrests President Peña Over Banking Collapse
Paraguay's Congress has voted to remove President Santiago Peña from office, and the ousted leader was arrested shortly after — a downfall triggered by a banking crisis that left millions unable to access their money. The impeachment capped weeks of mounting fury as ordinary Paraguayans found wages and savings locked behind failing institutions. Peña, an IMF-trained economist who won the presidency in 2023 promising stability, watched his political capital evaporate as the financial system buckled on his watch.
His arrest converts a constitutional crisis into a criminal one, with prosecutors moving against a
| Ticker | Name | Price | Day | Week | Month | Year | 3Yr | 5Yr | 10Yr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ^GSPTSE | S&P/TSX Composite | 35789.10 CAD | ▲0.52% | ▲0.47% | ▲2.13% | ▲18.89% | ▲80.53% | ▲68.44% | ▲139.83% |
| BNS | Scotiabank | 129.54 CAD | ▲0.75% | ▼1.15% | ▲4.22% | ▲45.95% | ▲156.93% | ▲108.30% | ▲201.80% |
| RY | Royal Bank | 284.16 CAD | ▼0.59% | ▲0.08% | ▲4.81% | ▲41.84% | ▲170.01% | ▲162.54% | ▲391.89% |
| CM | CIBC | 162.69 CAD | ▲0.44% | ▼0.16% | ▲5.25% | ▲42.54% | ▲255.07% | ▲172.21% | ▲423.78% |
| NA | National Bank | 214.61 CAD | ▲0.31% | ▲1.91% | ▲8.01% | ▲39.38% | ▲167.52% | ▲150.82% | ▲570.60% |
| TD | TD Bank | 172.92 CAD | ▲0.21% | ▼0.64% | ▲7.20% | ▲56.47% | ▲142.19% | ▲136.30% | ▲332.54% |
| BMO | BMO | 241.42 CAD | ▼0.12% | ▲0.92% | ▲5.37% | ▲43.74% | ▲149.17% | ▲120.02% | ▲327.48% |
| XEQT | World | 44.31 CAD | ▲0.83% | ▼0.73% | ▼3.47% | ▲13.37% | ▲79.66% | ▲79.52% | –0.00% |
| SPY | S&P 500 ETF | 735.29 USD | ▲0.31% | ▼2.70% | ▼4.99% | ▲9.69% | ▲77.00% | ▲70.89% | ▲305.10% |
| QQQ | Nasdaq 100 | 656.10 USD | ▲1.40% | ▼4.98% | ▼12.24% | ▲5.76% | ▲83.60% | ▲74.48% | ▲499.56% |
| AAPL | Apple | 342.37 USD | ▼0.52% | ▼0.66% | ▲0.57% | ▲27.21% | ▲95.42% | ▲135.64% | ▲1216.50% |
| MSFT | Microsoft | 530.61 USD | ▼0.99% | ▲1.67% | ▲1.53% | ▲5.48% | ▲55.90% | ▲67.86% | ▲898.09% |
| NVDA | NVIDIA | 186.64 USD | ▲2.78% | ▼8.80% | ▼19.02% | ▼4.16% | ▲330.28% | ▲625.84% | ▲10681.97% |
| GLD | Gold ETF | 372.52 USD | ▼0.79% | ▲4.71% | ▼1.61% | ▲1.64% | ▲102.32% | ▲122.37% | ▲206.40% |
| CL=F | WTI Crude Oil | 90.83 USD | ▲0.34% | ▼12.76% | ▼0.72% | ▲52.40% | ▲12.39% | ▲12.33% | ▲93.83% |
| BTC-USD | Bitcoin | 75796.81 USD | ▲0.06% | ▼2.00% | ▼7.58% | ▲15.30% | ▲14.76% | ▲173.18% | ▲993.36% |
7 AM: 6°C, overcast clouds, wind 3 km/h 10 AM: 7°C, overcast clouds, wind 3 km/h 1 PM: 9°C, overcast clouds, wind 3 km/h 4 PM: 10°C, light rain, wind 4 km/h 7 PM: 8°C, broken clouds, wind 3 km/h 10 PM: 7°C, overcast clouds, wind 4 km/h 1 AM: 6°C, scattered clouds, wind 5 km/h 4 AM: 5°C, overcast clouds, wind 4 km/h
Next game: TOR vs Memphis Grizzlies — Monday Nov 9, 7:30 PM ET — at Scotiabank Arena — TV/stream: DAZN MEM
| # | Team | W | L | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 76ers | 8 | 2 | - |
| 2 | Celtics | 7 | 2 | 0.5 |
| 3 | Pistons | 6 | 2 | 1 |
| 4 | Hawks | 7 | 4 | 1.5 |
| 5 | Knicks | 5 | 4 | 2.5 |
| 6 | Raptors | 5 | 4 | 2.5 |
| 7 | Cavaliers | 5 | 5 | 3 |
| 8 | Wizards | 4 | 6 | 4 |
| 9 | Heat | 3 | 6 | 4.5 |
| 10 | Hornets | 3 | 7 | 5 |
| 11 | Pacers | 3 | 7 | 5 |
| 12 | Magic | 2 | 7 | 5.5 |
| 13 | Nets | 2 | 7 | 5.5 |
| 14 | Bulls | 1 | 7 | 6 |
| 15 | Bucks | 1 | 8 | 6.5 |
| # | Team | W | L | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Thunder | 8 | 2 | - |
| 2 | Spurs | 8 | 2 | - |
| 3 | Lakers | 8 | 2 | - |
| 4 | Warriors | 7 | 3 | 1 |
| 5 | Timberwolves | 7 | 3 | 1 |
| 6 | Rockets | 7 | 3 | 1 |
| 7 | Grizzlies | 6 | 3 | 1.5 |
| 8 | Trail Blazers | 6 | 3 | 1.5 |
| 9 | Nuggets | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| 10 | Mavericks | 5 | 4 | 2.5 |
| 11 | Pelicans | 4 | 5 | 3.5 |
| 12 | Suns | 3 | 5 | 4 |
| 13 | Clippers | 1 | 7 | 6 |
| 14 | Jazz | 1 | 8 | 6.5 |
| 15 | Kings | 1 | 8 | 6.5 |
War feels distant until it isn't. Your taxes buy the weapons, your vote helps choose the government that deploys them, and your neighbour's child may be the one sent to fight. Drone strikes, sanctions, aid to allies — each is a moral choice made in your name. The philosophy of war asks a question every citizen inherits rather than volunteers for: when, if ever, is organized mass killing justified, and what rules should govern it once it begins?
For centuries, thinkers have rejected two easy answers. Pacifism says never; realism says morality stops at the trench. Between them sits just war theory, the framework that dominates ethics departments, law schools, and military academies alike. It splits the question in two. Jus ad bellum concerns the justice of resorting to war: is there a just cause, a legitimate authority, a reasonable hope of success, has every alternative been exhausted, are the expected harms proportionate to the goal? Its counterpart, jus in bello, governs conduct within war: soldiers may target enemy combatants but never civilians, and foreseeable harm to innocents must not be excessive. Most soldiers who face these decisions — and most citizens who judge them — are working with concepts refined over centuries of argument.
The current debate divides into two camps. Traditionalists hold that morality and international law substantially coincide: states may fight only in national defence, defence of others, or to halt atrocities that "shock the moral conscience of mankind." Crucially, they accept combatant equality — the principle that soldiers on both sides may kill each other, whatever their war's cause. Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977) gave this view its classic statement. Revisionists such as Jeff McMahan, David Rodin, and Cécile Fabre push back. They question why state borders should carry such moral weight, argue that soldiers fighting an unjust war can do nothing right except lay down their weapons, and probe whether civilians who sustain a war effort are as innocent as the law assumes.
Curiously, most revisionists would leave the law itself mostly intact. Rules granting every combatant permission to fight, they concede, may be a pragmatic fiction — no army could function if each soldier first had to settle the justice of their cause. Yet when morality and law collide, revisionists typically side with conscience over codified rules, a stance with unsettling implications for anyone ordered to fight a war they doubt.
Which brings us to the unresolved tension. If a conscript serving a criminal war is no better than a murderer, then the international law that demands he fight, and shields him when he does, rests on a lie. Embracing combatant equality instead obliges us to explain why the content of a soldier's cause has no bearing on his permission to kill. One of these positions must be wrong, and the answer shapes how we treat veterans, prosecute atrocities, and write the rules armies live by. Perhaps the hardest question remains: can any law reasonably ask a frightened nineteen-year-old, rather than a philosopher, to decide whether their war is just?
Want to go deeper? Read the full Stanford Encyclopedia entry on War →
| Habit | Target | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Done |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Pushup routine | 7 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | 0/7 |
| 2. Workout | 2 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | 0/2 |
| 3. Cardio 30 mins | 2 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | 0/2 |
| 4. Meditate | 7 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | 0/7 |
| 5. No sugars | 5 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ | 0/5 |