The luggage ad started in the zoo and ended in the permanent collection at the New York Museum of Modern Art. But do you remember which brand was behind it?

It all began with a doctorate, a skiing accident and a bit of ingenuity.

Young Lincoln wrestled in county fairs from his early twenties to his early thirties, and only lost one single match. But maybe his most famous match happened as the result of a bet. A bet that would land him in the Wrestling Hall of Fame. But is that story true?

Without permission to use sandwich boards to attract business, the Irish had to get resourceful.

[Written by Stephen Wright] Boxer Andre Lambe has spent the past few months training in Orlando, Florida, at various professional gyms to prepare for his fight against American Kenny Paklos at The Shed in Dockyard on Saturday [May 25]. Lambe was due to face the undefeated Paklos in March; however, the fight was postponed, with […]

Boxer Andre Lambe continued his winning streak in the paid ranks after beating American Kenny Paklos via a unanimous decision at The Shed in Dockyard yesterday [May 25].’ The southpaw, who has an unblemished record of 11 wins, enjoyed a relatively comfortable night in the six-round welterweight contest, condemning Paklos [3-1-0] to the first defeat […]

[Written by Stephen Wright] Boxer Andre Lambe said he is ready to step up to eight-round contests as he pursues overseas opportunities on fight cards shown on streaming platforms. Lambe improved his professional record to 11 straight victories after defeating American Kenny Paklos [3-1-1] via a unanimous decision at The Shed in Dockyard last Saturday. […]

[Written by Stephen Wright] Twin brothers Cole and Che Durham will step into the ring for amateur boxing bouts in Aruba tonight [July 27]. Cole, who fights at 82kg, faces Aruban Arvin Solognier in the co-main event; meanwhile Che, who fights at 72kg, takes on Jady Gogulski. Both contests at the Manuelitos Sports Bar in […]

[Written by Stephen Wright] Twin brothers Che and Cole Durham stepped between the ropes for amateur boxing matches in Santa Cruz, Aruba, yesterday [July 27]. Cole, fighting at 80kg, faced Aruban Arvin Solognier in the co-main event at the Manuelitos Sports Bar, with the contest ending in a controversial draw. Meanwhile, Che, fighting at 72kg, […]

Kentish singer’s second crack at a music career may lead to rich rewards.

Sandé’s first live album features all the hits – but there’s little edge on display.

Hockey Canada's CEO and board resigned this week after a secret fund to deal with sexual assault allegations came to light. The news came as political and corporate pressure ramped up over the organization's handling of the situation.

An early and severe flu season is starting to hit Canadian kids and Canadian hospitals. It's led to sickness, and in some cases death, among children. Are you or your kids getting the flu shot?

Odido steekt boven alle Nederlandse providers uit in de recente benchmarktest van vaste internetdiensten, uitgevoerd door Umlaut. Hoewel KPN het beste scoort op het gebied van mobiele netwerken, is het Odido dat de kroon spant op het vlak van vast internet.

Internetvergelijker Breedbandwinkel bestaat deze maand 21 jaar en trakteert: klanten ontvangen tot en met 31 oktober minimaal 21,00 euro cashback bij iedere bestelling, een Pathé Thuis film cadeau en kans op één van de zes mooie prijzen.

Vaughan’s retooling of the blues made it relevant to a new generation.

A good introduction, albeit a wandering one.

The most exciting and substantial Coleman release of the last few years.

A second solo set that’s bold of ambition, but flawed of execution.

Deliciously mellow instrumentals from the Californian producer and DJ.

Bocelli’s delivery is irresistible, and these arrangements can be intoxicating.

As retailers accelerate into the ‘golden quarter’ new YouGov research finds nearly half of consumers (48%) that buy Christmas gifts say they are not influenced by Black Friday, Cyber Monday or any other last-minute deals.

NTT DATA Business Solutions has announced that Guernsey Ports has embarked on a strategic partnership to implement Hexagon's Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) solution.

Supply Chain and Omnichannel Commerce Solutions provider Manhattan Associates Inc., has reported revenue of $266.7 million for the third quarter ended September 30, 2024. GAAP diluted earnings per share for Q3 2024 was $1.03 compared to $0.79 in Q3 2023. Non-GAAP adjusted diluted earnings per share for Q3 2024 was $1.35 compared to $1.05 in Q3 2023.

Printing and Labelling Technology Report

Manufacturing & Logistics IT Magazine spoke with leading analysts, vendors and associations about current developments within the printing and labelling technology marketplace about recent developments and what to look out for over the next year or two.

The Supreme Court's decision on Thursday requiring sentencing factors to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt will create a surge in challenged sentences.

The Green Party of the United States rebuffed efforts by Ralph Nader to win its endorsement for president by voting Saturday to make David Cobb its 2004 presidential candidate.

The lineup is intended to spotlight party moderates while underlining a central theme of the Republican gathering: President Bush's response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

All times are Eastern.  

To register and attend by Zoom for free, click here.

Today, the United States Supreme Court obliterated the Fourteenth Amendment, section 3, in Trump v. Anderson. The language of this section appears simple enough:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Court held that: "the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3." More specifically, the Court held that only Congress may enforce the disqualification of section 3 and that states could only enforce the provision against state candidates for office and state officeholders. Otherwise the nation would face a risk of a patchwork of state outcomes. This, despite the fact that in 1868, shortly after the provision became law, the Governor of the State of Georgia disqualified a federal candidate for office. (See fn 3).

Further, if "only" Congress holds power to enforce section 3 then why did the drafters of the Amendment just insert an "only" in the section granting Congress power. The Court needs that "only" and it simply does not exist. Rather than apply the plain meaning the Court instead pretends there is an only when there is no such word. Section 5 plainly states: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The Court did violence to the statute to protect Donald Trump.

Former Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative jurist explains:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The Court cited this section with approval. It would provide a uniform federal solution. And, it arises from an exercise of Congressional power. Even this Court (which works overtime to protect Trump) would uphold such an action. 

Why did Jack Smith (or Attorney General Merrick Garland before him) fail to use this section against the obvious insurrectionist Donald Trump? Or, alternatively, why not bring such an action tomorrow morning? Colorado would provide a form indictment and a trial map, complete with comprehensive evidence?

So, the Court today shifted the spotlight to DOJ with today's SCOTUS ruling. Agreement or disagreement with the Court's opinion no longer matters. Many excellent arguments support the use of section 3 in precisely the manner of Colorado. All moot.

Why did DOJ fail (and continue to fail) to seek disqualification through a criminal action a criminal action? 

The most disturbing and vivid reality of all of this: law failed to hold Trump to account as an oath breaking insurrectionist despite many available pathways.

 I just published a new law review article with the Seattle University Law Review entitled: Students for Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action and Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity? The article can be downloaded here: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sulr/vol47/iss4/7/. Here is the abstract:

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater institutional efficacy, including possible race-neutral alternatives. The programs also failed to break down stereotypes through the introduction of a critical mass to empower diverse voices. The programs thereby resembled prohibited quotas or racial balancing. As such, the programs at issue violated Grutter, which still governs race-based affirmative action in college admissions. More importantly, the Roberts court paved the way for more expansive diversity-based admissions programs by permitting institutions to value individual racial experiences, which authentically further an institution’s mission and interests. After SFFA, the use of race as a factor could well face time limits. Contrastingly, individualized racial experiences may benefit college applicants at institutions that embrace diversity in an authentic way without facing any time limitation. Further, institutions with distinct missions may value diversity in a race-conscious way but without any racial preference. In sum, the Roberts Court guides the use of race in college admissions toward a race-neutral, diversity-based paradigm such that institutions may still unlock the empirically proven benefits of cultural diversity with only de minimus interference from the courts. This approach rests upon a powerful policy basis that leads to superior innovation, macroeconomic outcomes, social cohesion and, therefore, superior national security for the United States. This approach thus could support a powerful interest convergence.

The article shows that Supreme Court did not overrule its prior affirmative action precedents, and in fact paved the way for universities to embrace cultural and cognitive diversity to enrich their educational missions. This is important because the case has been widely misconstrued.

My next article will extend the Court's holding to corporate DEI efforts and demonstrate that such efforts are not only remain lawful but also essential to rational human resources management.

 On March 11, 2024, Donald Trump claimed that cutting Social Security and Medicare could help him cut the national debt tremendously. (See video above). On March 22, 2024, the House GOP announced cuts including a plan to raise the retirement age. This was the second straight year that the House GOP proposed a budget with deep Social Security and Medicare cuts. Trump started promising cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his second term before some audiences as early as January of 2020.  At a Fox News Town Hall in March of 2020, again promised to cut Social Security and Medicare.

All of this talk of cuts forms the prelude to last Thursday's debate which included a question about cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Biden gave a straight-forward answer saying that no cuts are necessary if we raise the Social Security tax to the same level for all. Currently, those making high incomes pay much lower rates than those making low incomes. As President Biden explained at the debate:

Right now, everybody making under $170,000 pays 6 percent of their income, of their paycheck, every single time they get a paycheck, [But] millionaires pay 1 percent – 1 percent. So . . . I would not raise the cost of Social Security for anybody under $400,000. After that, I begin to make the wealthy begin to pay their fair share, by increasing from 1 percent beyond, to be able to guarantee the program for life.

That provides a sensible and efficient means of securing Social Security. And, Biden never varies from that position.

Trump on the other hand, takes different positions with different audiences and covers the full spectrum of options. According to NBC News:

An NBC News examination found that Trump's views have zigzagged over the years — from calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” in 2000 to endorsing then-Rep. Paul Ryan’s plans to restructure Medicare in 2012 to positioning himself as the protector of those programs in 2016 to taking aim at some retirement spending in his White House budgets (which never became law).

Essentially we know Trump is lying because of his radically divergent positions over time. In fact, in 2016 he promised to preserve Social Security and Medicare, and then in his budgets he proposed cuts.

 In recent months, Trump opened the way for Social Security and Medicare cuts and refuses to disclaim the GOP plan to cut those programs as, shown above. Which brings us to the his debate comments in response to a question about entitlement cuts. While Biden gave a simple and clear statement of how he intends to save Social Security and Medicare, Trump attacked Biden's honesty and switched the topic to immigration, Russia, Ukraine, a mysterious laptop, the VA, and luxury hotels. Trump was incoherent. Remarkably, he never addressed his recent comments about Social Security and Medicare cuts, nor the GOP plan to cut Social Security and Medicare. Trump provided no explanation of his prior budget proposals including Social Security and Medicare cuts.  As stated in the Washington Post: "Protecting Social Security . . . was also a major theme of Trump’s 2016 campaign. His avowed stance, however, is at odds with Trump’s own record as president: Each of his White House budget proposals included cuts to Social Security and Medicare programs."

Trump has staked out so many positions on Social Security that no matter what he says he lies. The only thing we know for sure about Trump and entitlements is that despite campaign promises to the contrary he included Social Security and Medicare cuts in each of his annual budget proposals as President. Given the GOP commitment to cutting Social Security and Medicare a vote for any GOP candidate is a vote to slash your Social Security and Medicare benefits by about 30 percent. If Trump gets elected the GOP will have a clear path to gutting Social Security and Medicare as he promised to do in a second term in 2020, and regardless of any lies or gibberish he feeds the voters today. 

While the core of the case remains unchanged with the four original charges intact, the revised indictment refines the scope of the accusations. Notably, it excludes certain claims, such as those involving attempts to use the Justice Department to support Trump’s false election fraud allegations.

This case will not go away absent an order to Jack Smith that he desist from prosecution. That will not happen unless Donald Trump assumes the Presidency. On the other hand, Trump will likely move to dismiss the Superseding Indictment and the trial judge could well partially grant that motion. Whatever remains of this case will very likely go to trial well after election day on November 5, 2024, and even if a jury convicts Trump litigation will continue about the scope of Presidential immunity leading to further Supreme Court review.

But what about the other criminal cases against Donald Trump?

In one criminal action brought in  Florida federal court, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals of the dismissal of all charges relating to Trump's alleged pilfering and mishandling of government documents including classified documents. Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Smith's appointment as Special Prosecutor did not comply with law.  Special Counsel Smith just filed an appellate brief and Trump will file a response; but, this appeal will not conclude before the election and any decision will then face Supreme Court review. Consequently, the election could well decide this matter instead of a jury.

In another criminal action in New York state court, a jury Trump helped pick from his native state, unanimously found Trump guilty of all 34 felony counts alleged against him. Trump's guilt rested on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Politico:

On May 30, 2024, Trump became the first U.S. president to become a convicted felon. After a six-week trial . . . he was found guilty of falsifying business records in connection with a payoff to Stormy Daniels, a porn star who claimed she had a sexual encounter with him. By buying Daniels’ silence, the payoff avoided a possible sex scandal in the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign. Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney and “fixer” at the time, sent the $130,000 hush-money payment to Daniels in October 2016, and then, while Trump was president, he reimbursed Cohen in a series of installments processed by Trump’s company. A unamimous 12-person jury found that Trump fraudulently disguised those installments as corporate legal expenses in violation of New York law.

In short, Trump defrauded voters in election 2016 by covering up his adulterous affair with a porn star. 

Currently, Judge Juan Merchan will rule on the impact of the Supreme Court's new-fangled immunity defense on September 16, 2024, and will sentence Trump for these felony convictions for these 34 felony convictions on September 18, 2024. Experts disagree on the likelihood of prison for these felonies.

Trump also faces felony charges in Georgia for alleged criminal efforts to change the outcome of election 2020 in Georgia. As stated at Politico:

Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election were perhaps most aggressive in the state of Georgia. Multiple recounts confirmed that Joe Biden narrowly prevailed in the race for the state’s 16 electoral votes. But Trump and his allies spread lies about voter fraud, urged Georgia officials and state lawmakers to reverse Biden’s win and plotted to send fake electors to Washington. On Jan. 2, 2021, Trump called Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and urged him to “find” 11,780 votes — the number needed to overcome Biden’s victory. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump and 18 of his allies for these efforts, alleging a wide-ranging criminal enterprise.

Essentially Trump refused to accept the reality of his defeat in Georgia and allegedly resorted to criminal measures to change the outcome. Trump filed an appeal arguing that District Attorney Fani Willis should be removed due to a a romantic relationship with a special prosecutor. Willis' team filed an appeal of a dismissal order of six counts of the indictment. Trump also filed a motion asserting Presidential Immunity. Consequently, this criminal action is hopelessly stalled and will not be resolved for years.

The above summary of the criminal actions pending against Trump suggests the following:

1)    Somewhere American law went wrong. The people no long hold sufficient confidence in the fairness and impartiality of our system of justice. Otherwise, Trump supporters would not so readily fall prey to the Big Lie that all these criminal proceedings arise from a vast Democratic and deep state conspiracy to get Trump. No evidence supports this Big Lie. We need to rebuild confidence in the American criminal justice system.

2)    The rule of law in America failed to hold President Trump accountable for the wrongdoing in connection with contesting the election of 2020, and especially the Insurrection of January 6, 2020. Many others sit in jail. Still more pleaded guilty. There is little doubt Trump led those efforts. He did so openly on television, and in recorded phone calls. Yet, Trump suffered no adverse legal consequences for his role. This failure of the rule of law must lead to reform. Citizens must view criminal justice as fair and non-partisan. It also needs to apply swiftly, even to the rich and powerful.

3)    We need enhanced legal education in primary and secondary schools as well as at the college level. The judicial power in the US is highly fragmented. The split starts with 51 differing sovereigns each with a largely independent judicial power. Yet, many apparently believe that Joe Biden or the Democratic Party holds the ability to influence the independent judicial branch across jurisdictions. This, despite a complete lack of evidence of any improper influence. We should certainly reinforce the independence of the judicial power while simultaneously increasing transparency and accountability. At the same time citizens require more education regarding the structure and protections already in place to maintain a fair and non-partisan criminal justice system.

4)    A Trump victory at the polls will destroy the quest for a fair and non-partisan criminal justice for decades to come, as he has promised to eliminate independence in criminal enforcement at the federal level and to use the system to exact retribution and revenge upon his political opponents. 

WESTS Tigers CEO Justin Pascoe says he doesn’t want to rock the boat with the $27m plans for Concord Oval, and that Shute Shield side West Harbour won’t lose their home.

PERHAPS the most pleasing thing about the differences between the older picture of Newport Beach and the one taken this week is how few there are.

HE jumped off a building on the end of a sling, clambered up a 10m-high zip line in high winds, pounded up and down sand dunes, capsized in a canoe — NRL Rookie David Andjelic loved it.

Elissa Tennant’s competitive spirit has propelled her into football’s most elite levels, with the 11-year-old joining Sydney Olympic FC this year.

jaygooby starred dandavison/delta