The Swedes’ fourth LP is something else, but something profoundly exhilarating.

Edinburgh-based rap trio impresses with this potential-rich collection.

Authoritatively compiled 60-track collection of RnB classics.

Breaking out of the new New York, a young rap pair of palpable promise.

An incoherent album from the grime godfather, but one full of loveable eccentricities.

The UK producer’s 10th studio album stamps his authority over his peers.

No great departure for the B21 graduate, but an album with plenty of variety.

This college campus soundtrack barely scrapes a passing grade.

A suffocating soundtrack, but one that suits its movie’s air of oppression.

Balances intensity and introspection well, befitting the game’s conflicted protagonist.

At his best, he’s a composer capable of producing enduring masterpieces.

This new recording, with a new cast, packs a hefty wallop.

Essential listening for anyone fond of trouser-ruining horror scores.

A partial victory, and one buoyed by some outstanding surprise turns.

By Aviram Ganor, General Manager EMEA, Riskified.

Retailers have plenty to keep them awake at night, whether it’s enticing consumers to shop,  utdoing their competition or – most worrying of all – how to ensure their long-term survival in a rocky economy.

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.

Philip Jarrett, commercial director, Dakota Integrated Solutions.

With the world of data capture becoming ever more fast-paced and advanced with the advent of the latest and greatest mobile computing and printing devices, the capabilities of which continue to supersede their predecessors, it is sometimes easy to overlook one of the most important elements of any supply chain solution: the label.

By Georgia Leybourne, Chief Marketing Officer, Linnworks.

Success in ecommerce and retail today hinges on consumer convenience. It is fast becoming a powerful tool in the e-commerce industry, transforming the way businesses engage with their customers and increasing sales through social commerce.

With the holiday season fast approaching, retail payroll teams around the world are bracing for the strain of seasonal hiring.

“We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails,” Dolly Parton once said. In the face of uncertainty and disruption, all we can do is adapt. This rings especially true for the logistics industry, which has been subject to major disruption over the last five years. Here, Dave Walsha, sales and marketing director at drive system supplier EMS, explores how robotics could streamline internal logistics operations.

Tom Vilsack may not have the name recognition of John Edwards or Richard A. Gephardt, but make no mistake: He wants the job badly.

In barely eight months, Arnold Schwarzenegger has defied the naysayers and found an elixir more potent than Botox for an aging action star: political success.

Bill Clinton certainly qualifies as a liberal icon. Yet in many respects, his record belies the liberal tag.

The Law and Political Economy Project at Yale Law School is hosting the following panel:

The Political Economy of Inequality, Democracy & Oligarchy, on Friday, November 13, 2020 at 5:00 pm eastern time.

This panel discussion will focus upon the erosion of democratic institutions and the rise of oligarchy that has followed in the wake of unprecedented economic inequality. The panel will address elite efforts to entrench themselves politically as well as economically, including the consequences of such efforts in terms of human development. The panel will focus upon the specific context of election 2020 and the uncertainty it is creating. The subversion of democracy and the law governing our democracy naturally holds many costs, and each panelist will address such costs. Each panelist will also seek to articulate some mechanism for a path forward.  Register here

PANELISTS:

Emma Coleman Jordan, Georgetown Law Center

andré douglas pond cummings, Univ. of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law

Atiba Ellis, Marquette University Law School

Steven Ramirez, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law

Gerald Torres, Yale Law School

In 2020, pivotal events ushered in a season of antiracism rhetoric in the U.S. The brutal deaths of unarmed black Americans at the hands of police officers and white vigilantes, and the disproportionately harsh impact of COVID-19 in the black American community, launched the nation into a discussion about systemic racism. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the 2020 antiracism discourse was merely seasonal rather than enduring, and unlikely to result in meaningful change. 

Black American’s vulnerability in the face of systemic racism is not limited to death, sickness and injury as a result of COVID-19 or antiblack bias in police departments. Our vulnerability is precipitated by things like lack of access to nonpredatory financial services. This is just one of the contexts that compromise black Americans’ economic survival. Unacknowledged systemic racism destroys the wealth and wellbeing of black individuals, families and communities, sometimes causing working and middle-class black Americans to plummet into poverty. As 2020 comes to a close, an election that threatened democracy in the U.S. and the existential threats of an uncontrolled pandemic, eclipse a system of intentional antiblack racism on the part of the financial institutions that engaged in predatory mortgage lending in the years leading up to and beyond the 2008 recession. It is now well documented that lenders, brokers, and mortgage servicers engaged in conduct that was fraudulent and misleading. The mortgage market charged excessively high rates and fees, engaged in high-pressure sales tactics, imposed unnecessarily harsh prepayment penalties, and distorted loan structures to avoid the application of consumer protection statutes.  But, more than a decade later, many black Americans are still fighting to prevent financial institutions from taking away their homes. 

In a book I coauthored with Dr. Janis Sarra, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, Predatory Lending and the Destruction of the African American Dream (Cambridge University Press, 2020), we describe new iterations of predation that continue to target black consumers years after financial institutions settled litigation that alleged pervasive fraud on their part for steering black Americans into predatory subprime loans. But these renovated predatory practices are obscured by the nation’s focus on COVID-19 and a vitriolic election season. Meanwhile, more black Americans will lose their homes even after investing all or most of their wealth in attempts to keep them. This reality requires the calls for moratoriums on mortgage foreclosures to be answered in the affirmative.

Several years ago, my friend, colleague and mentor, andre cummings, and I created and defined what we call "Corporate Justice."  "At its core, Corporate Justice refers to a responsibility, even a moral obligation, which businesses and corporations have to engage fairly, civilly and responsibly in the world and community that they do business and from which they derive profits. More than that, the concept of Corporate Justice also focuses on the roles that shareholders, policy makers, other stakeholders and the community at large have in fostering a more just and responsible business community."  Our conversation led to the creation of a course, a book, several presentations, and this blog.  In conceptualizing "Corporate Justice," our primary focus was on large corporations and their impact on the world around us.  That perspective influenced much of the work we have completed on the topic as well as the way that we conceptualized its impact.  However, after a recent community event I facilitated here in Miami, Florida, I was presented with a thought provoking question “what does corporate justice mean for small businesses?”  I had never considered this question and realized that I had made a substantial oversight in failing to do so.  Small business are the life line of many communities and they meet the immediate needs of the people in areas in which they operate.  Given that reality, I have begun to critically think about what Corporate Justice at the “micro” level means.  Specifically, do small businesses have the same obligations that we might expect from large corporations?  Over the next few days I plan to think more about this question and welcome your input and insight.  Next week, I will provide you with my initial response.  I look forward to reading about your insights on the issue.  

 

Wikimedia Commons Philadelphia County Prison

In an important move that returns federal government policy to the Obama era, today President Biden signed an executive order calling on the Department of Justice to ends its use of private prisons.  While this executive order does not end federal government reliance on for-profit immigration detention centers, it does require that no future contracts with private prison operators be entered into between the federal government and private prison corporations CoreCivic, GEO Group and others.  Use of the executive order to end private for-profit prison reliance has proven difficult politically as Obama ended their use before the 2016 election, but once Trump entered the White House, he rescinded the policy and made robust use of private prisons for federal prisoners as well as immigration detention.

I was an associate at Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison from 1988 until 1991. These almost three years were impactful even though my time there was brief. To say that I learned a great deal is an understatement. My work at the firm took me to places like Gracie Mansion, and to Hollywood for several weeks to perform due diligence for a music publishing company. My time there was further evidence of my African American family’s dramatic upward mobility in just six generations. My maternal grandmother was the granddaughter of enslaved African Americans. She worked as a maid and cook before she went back to school. With a sixth-grade education, she passed the New York State licensing exam for cosmetology. She opened a successful hair salon, and she and my grandfather sent my mom to Hunter College. My mother retired decades ago from a successful career as a scientist and school administrator. And when I went to Paul Weiss, I was making more money than anyone in my immediate and extended family had ever made.

There were about 400 lawyers at the firm’s New York office during the years I was there. Only six of those lawyers (associates) were Black/African American. None of the approximately 80 partners were Black.  My time at Paul Weiss was brief because my plan was to become a law professor. But while I was at the firm, I was supported and mentored. That is why I was surprised to see a 2018 LinkedIn photo of the firm’s new partners in which almost all were white and male. None were Black.

Happily, much has changed in the years since I was associated with the firm, and even in the almost three years after the LinkedIn photo. I attended the firm’s webinar (The Biden Administration:  What’s Next for Businesses) on March 3^rd, 2021. Two of the firm’s (Black) litigation partners were on the panel– Loretta Lynch, former U.S. Attorney, and Jeh Johnson, Former Secretary of Homeland Security. After the webinar I went to the firm’s website that reported the following: “27% of our attorneys self-identify as racially diverse compared to the 20% Big Law average” and “Racially diverse partners are 13% of the equity partnership, compared to the 8% national average”. 

After seeing this website report, I was left wondering how many of these “racially diverse” individuals are Black. Paul Weiss played such a significant role in the upward trajectory of my African American family. And Paul Weiss issued a statement in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. But its racial diversity disclosure had only a fraction of the precision that has made the firm a giant in the legal profession. Law firms can address antiblack racism, if they choose to do so, only if they confront the problem and its impact on the success of Black lawyers. Firms can’t do this if they fail to consider that Black lawyers face issues that are saliently different from those endured by white women, and indigenous, Asian and Latinx individuals. Firms can make their disclosure on these issues more meaningful by counting the Black lawyers. If the numbers are not good (on retention, percentages of partners), it’s time for the firm to engage in some meaningful introspection.

Oh, and one more small, but important point. People of color bring racial diversity to an organization. White people bring racial diversity to an organization. But to say that an individual (a partner, for example) is “racially diverse” is the kind of inaccurate, imprecise language that clouds discussions about difficult issues like antiblack racism. 

 The United States invented the Rule of Law through the fragmentation of sovereignty among 51 sovereign authorities each with three branches of government. It further protects individual rights from state and federal infringement. This effectively created a legal system that could all state actors to account before law. While still imperfect in many important ways, Donald Trump took a sledgehammer to the Rule of Law particularly since January 6, 2021.

Today in America the rule of law faces severe challenges and may well face a total sunset. If so, the Supreme Court of the United States played a central role as accomplice. Most notably, today granted review (certiorari) on the following question: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. That question in the abstract may hold academic interest, but the answer lies in many disputes in the future over decades or even centuries. 

Prof. Laurence Tribe, a legendary Constitutional Law scholar, explains the effect of this action:

The Supreme Court effectively gives Trump the potential to now escape any accountability for his role in the insurrection of January 6, 2021. This order puts partisan politics above the Rule of Law. A very dark day for America.

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:

The Supreme Court did leave one last avenue for accountability under law that the Biden Administration or DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith could use to disqualify Trump. 18 U.S.C. section 2383 provides:

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.

 

 

Currently, the nation and perhaps the world struggles with the recent jury verdict against Donald Trump finding him guilty of 34 felony counts. Trump claims that the verdict proves Joe Biden uses the criminal justice system as a political tool intended to defeat his political opponents, in this case him. On the other hand, many take the position that the case demonstrates the triumph of the rule of law because it proves that even the most privileged and powerful of citizens must ultimately reckon with legal accountability. I opt for the conclusion that the case exemplifies a healthy rule of law operating to impose reasonable and predictable accountability and consequences for even the most powerful governing elites in American today for the following six reasons.

First, and foremost, the guilty verdict reflects the unanimous conclusion of 12 jurors, after careful deliberation and judicial instruction, empaneled pursuant to pre-announced New York Law. Donald Trump, like all criminal defendants, held the power to refuse a limited number of jurors without cause and to move to strike jurors for cause. The jurors hailed from Trump's former home state and the headquarters of the Trump Organization—New York. It is noteworthy that not a single juror dissented from the verdict and that they reached the verdict without any judicial cajoling through, for example, an Allen charge. The jury questioned the evidence and the instructions to assure they acted properly. They deliberated about 12 hours after spending five weeks listening to witness testimony and reviewing other evidence including extensive documents. Trump's high-powered legal team exercised their right to cross-examine witnesses, explain away evidence and submit their own exculpatory evidence. Despite these rights, the best legal team money could buy failed to raise any reasonable doubt with even one juror, on even one count, regarding Trump’s guilt.

Second, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg holds a well-earned reputation as a professional prosecutor who gets the job done and gets it done professionally. Recall that Bragg endured severe criticism for declining to prosecute Trump for tax fraud in 2022, prompting two prosecutors to resign. Bragg apparently found the case against Trump too risky to warrant pursuit. Instead, he meticulously built this case which proved bullet-proof. Bragg won his office through an election of local voters and does not work for Joe Biden or even the federal government. The man holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and proved himself as a non-partisan prosecutor by letting Trump walk on other fraud charges in 2022. The fact that he sought a Grand Jury indictment against Trump on this case suggests that there was probable cause that Trump committed the crimes—a fact that the jury's verdict fully vindicates.

Third, Justice Juan Merchan presided over the entire Trump matter with appropriate judicial restraint. Given Trump’s contemptuous misconduct and constant threats of violence against the judge, his family, his staff and the jury, Merchan certainly held the power to imprison Trump for contempt. He held his fire and allowed the jury to do its job. Despite Fox “News” reports to the contrary, the evidence suggests the Judge ruled on objections and other procedural matters with judicious wisdom. He righteously rejected Trump’s efforts to dismiss the charges, as proven by the unanimous jury verdict on all counts. Again, Merchan, a New York state judge, holds total legal independence from the Biden Administration and, Trump and his team produced zero evidence that Biden even attempted to influence Merchan.

Fourth, Trump himself knew he faced an uphill battle once he decided not to testify and take the stand to declare his innocence. Due to Trump’s decision the jury never heard Trump deny the charges, claim innocence or explain the mountain of evidence against him in the form of witnesses, key documents, or the tape-recording directing Cohen to pay Daniels by check. In fact, there was no defense theory of the case. Trump would not exude credibility as a witness due to his history of fraud, and he would risk a finding of perjury if he claimed innocence under oath or if he simply made-up stories on the stand. In any event, many defendants face challenges testifying on their own behalf, but Trump made that call, not Joe Biden.

Fifth, after reviewing the jury instructions, I saw no error, in that the instructions fairly reflect governing law in New York. While some complain reasonably that the jury was not required to identify the precise crime that transforms misdemeanor falsification of records into a felony, there is Supreme Court authority in support of this. Juries typically do not need to identify with particularity (nor even agree upon a particular predicate crime) a predicate crime to a felony charge; here the crime Trump intended to further with false business records. The US Supreme Court might well make up some means of saving Donald Trump (see Trump v. United States and Trump v. Anderson). Justice Merchan, however, cannot read the minds of the conservative Court majority and it is not his job to predict ways the Supreme Court can throw lifelines to former President Trump. Merchan’s instructions reflect the law today and that is the goal of jury instructions, not to craft new innovations to save Trump.

Sixth, all the cries of conspiracy theory and a rigged justice system from Trump and his minions lack any evidentiary foundation. They produced zero evidence that Joe Biden masterminded this entire prosecution. The claim is facially absurd. Biden did not set up Trumps illicit and adulterous liaisons, Trump did. Biden did not meet with David Pecker to set up a scheme to hide Trump’s prior bad acts in the run-up to election 2016. Trump signed the checks reimbursing Cohen the hush money paid to Trump’s co-adulterers. Trump can only blame Trump for his 34 felony convictions.

In light of the above, I conclude that Donald Trump enjoyed all the due process the US Constitution accords criminal defendants. Of course, with his billions, Trump can afford the very best lawyers which most defendants cannot. As former President, Trump enjoys the right to argue before many justices he appointed which most defendants do not. From a rule of law perspective the case proves that even the richest and most politically powerful must answer for their crimes.

 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. 

 Donald Trump promises to sign an Executive Order on day one of his new term abolishing Birthright Citizenship. This will trigger litigation thar promises to land in Trump's Supreme Court for final adjudication, Assuming Trump prevails there, the GOP already introduced a Bill to abolish Birthright Citizenship legislatively. JD Vance co-sponsored that Bill. This amounts to an historically unprecedented assault on virtually every American's Citizenship. 

Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that no child is eligible for birthright citizenship if their parents are unlawfully present in the United States, present in the U.S. for diplomatic purposes, or engaged in a hostile operation against the U.S.

Notably, the Act proposed by Vance includes no limitation on this "clarification" of who enjoys citizenship and who does not. The Act includes no limitation on retroactive effect and lacks any express limitation providing for prospective impact only. The Constitution only proscribes retroactive criminal sanctions The intent of the Act is to correct errors in prior interpretations of the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

More broadly, the GOP assault on virtually everyone's citizenship seeks to maximize the power of the next Trump Administration to round-up citizens, as discussed in my prior blog post. As such, this amounts to the greatest power-grab of rights over American citizens in history.

 

Lightworks is a free, Hollywood grade video editor, but while cheap and very powerful it can take a bit of getting used to for the first time user.

The post Getting to Grips with the Lightworks Video Editor appeared first on Richard Farrar.

The debate rages between the Fraunhofer encoder and the LAME encoder for encoding podcasts. Listen for yourself and see if you can tell the difference.

The post Which is the Best MP3 Encoder for Podcasts? appeared first on Richard Farrar.

A technical analysis of the top 4 podcasts about podcasting looking at the audio production, file formats and embedded meta-data used by each podcast

The post A Quasi-technical Analysis of the Top Podcasts about Podcasting appeared first on Richard Farrar.

After 6 years The Internet Monthly podcast is shutting down on this blog, but exactly the same content can be found elsewhere online as the Zen Monthly podcast

The post The Internet Monthly Podcast No-more appeared first on Richard Farrar.