The New Statesman: Bernie Sanders crashes Kamala Harris’s stubborn farewell speech
The New York Times: How Will White Women Vote? It’s a Question With a Fraught History.
“I hope your beeper doesn’t go off": Mehdi Responds to Racist Attack on CNN
Including link: https://www.theguardian.com/
"The killings in Fall City seem to broadly fit the definition of a type of crime known since the 1980s as family annihilations. Those cases often involve a person with a gun who murders multiple close family members.
Communities in the US have the tendency to interpret family annihilations as isolated tragedies. But a 2023 Indianapolis Star investigation found they had been occurring across the US – on average – once every five days."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/22/five-dead-seattle-shooting#:~:text=The%20killings%20in,every%20five%20days.
Under the new policy, once a children's book is challenged, it must immediately be moved to the adult section, with only adults allowed to access it. The book is then considered by the Citizens Review Committee at a meeting that is "closed to the public except for the Resident who made a formal request for review." The decisions of the Citize's Review Committee are final, and there is no appeals process.
From the outset, critics of the new policy warned that it could be abused.
Teresa Kenney, a Montgomery County resident who owns an independent bookstore, submitted a public records request revealing the decision to reclassify Colonization and the Wampanoag Story. No explanation for the decision was provided.
The Committee's decision to reclassify Colonization and the Wampanoag Story may have exceeded the Committee's authority. The new policy allows the Committee "to reassign the material to a more restrictive portion of the library" or "recommend removal of a material." There is no provision for changing the classification of a children's book from non-fiction to fiction. But with no appeals process, it's unclear whether the decision can be challenged.
Source: substack.com
Their research showed that inclusive institutions were often introduced in countries that were poor when they were colonized, and over time those nations became more prosperous. Meanwhile, other countries experienced low economic growth after they became trapped in situations with institutions that extracted resources.
Generally, inclusive institutions — such as public schools, the rule of law and antitrust policies — create incentives and opportunities for growth, according to Dani Rodrik, a professor of international political economy at the Harvard Kennedy School. Extractive institutions — like slavery and serfdom — concentrate power and resources in the hands of a small few, to the detriment of the broader population.
Rodrik said the trio’s work brought the study of institutions and economic history “to the very center of economic analysis.” He said that marked a major shift and joked that beforehand, most economists “would think you were going soft in the head” if the topic of inclusive institutions came up.
“They’ve added a very important, fresh perspective on different types of institutions, the value of democracy and inclusive institutions in particular, not for their intrinsic worth, but also because they were good for economic performance,” Rodrik said. “More inclusive institutions are actually good for economic growth.”
The Nobel website put it this way: “The introduction of inclusive institutions would create long-term benefits for everyone, but extractive institutions provide short-term gains for the people in power. As long as the political system guarantees they will remain in control, no one will trust their promises of future economic reforms. According to the laureates, this is why no improvement occurs.”
Last year’s prize was awarded to Harvard University economist Claudia Goldin for her work exploring the role of women in the labor market. In 2022, the award went to former Federal Reserve chair Ben S. Bernanke, Douglas W. Diamond of the University of Chicago and Philip H. Dybvig of Washington University in St. Louis, for their work on banks and financial crises.
Source: Washington Post
Multiple Court observers have noted how light the Court’s docket is this fall because, they speculate, Roberts is fully expecting to play a role in the election similar to what five Republicans on the Court did in 2000 when they stopped the Florida recount, handing the White House to George W. Bush.
The Court could then declare the election flawed because of the alleged voter fraud — Republicans across the country, as well as Trump and Vance, are already preparing the ground for this claim — and, citing the 12th Amendment, throw it to the House of Representatives.
Under that scenario, each state’s House delegation has one single vote for president (the Senate is not involved under the 12th Amendment) and right now there are 26 states controlled by Republicans: the 26-24 vote would put Trump and Vance in the White House for the next four years.
That strategy would require one or more individual states to either refuse to certify their vote, delay certifying their vote, or submit multiple slates of electors.
And we’re already hearing from both local elections officials and state legislators’ rumblings that this is exactly what they intend to do.
Source: substack.com