lottery today
House GOP blocks release of Gaetz ethics report detailing allegations of sex with minor
Opinion: 5 common misconceptions about women and entrepreneurship To make entrepreneurship more gender-inclusive, it's important to confront the underlying biases that create barriers for women. The Conversation Nov 24, 2024 12:00 PM Share by Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Print Share via Text Message Although women in Canada engage in entrepreneurship more than in other comparable countries, there is still a significant gender gap. CoWomen/Pexels Listen to this article 00:06:48 Women entrepreneurs are essential for the Canadian economy, a fact recognized by the government’s Women Entrepreneurship Strategy . This strategy was launched in 2018 and has seen nearly $7 billion be put toward supporting women-owned businesses in Canada. Although women in Canada engage in entrepreneurship more than in other comparable countries, there is still a significant gender gap . Only 15 per cent of women are engaged in startups and seven per cent are owner-managers of established businesses, compared to 24 per cent and nine per cent of men, respectively. If women participated in entrepreneurship as much as men, global GDP would rise by an estimated three to six per cent, adding $2.5 to $5 trillion to the global economy . This is not just about economic growth, but is a broader ethical and societal issue. By limiting women’s entrepreneurial participation, we are also limiting women’s opportunities for employment, empowerment and the promotion of gender equality more broadly. To make entrepreneurship more gender-inclusive, it’s important to confront the underlying biases that create barriers for women. As experts and researchers in entrepreneurship, we’ve identified five common misconceptions about women and entrepreneurship that need to be challenged. Misconception #1: Women don’t want to be entrepreneurs The first misconception is that women are not motivated to become entrepreneurs. This misconception partly arises from the gendered language that is often used to describe entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial language tends to be masculine, using terms like “risk-takers,” “achievement-oriented” and “confident,” which are all characteristics more commonly associated with men . This perceived mismatch may contribute to the belief that women are less motivated to pursue entrepreneurship. While women are less likely than men to start a business, in reality, there is strong entrepreneurial motivation among women. Women make up 37 per cent of self-employment statistics in Canada. Misconception #2: Women are not successful entrepreneurs The second misconception is that women are not successful entrepreneurs. This has to do with traditional measures of success, which focus on business size, profitability and growth rate. Relative to men, women are more likely to run smaller businesses with lower profitability and growth , but this does not necessarily mean they underperform. First, small businesses — regardless of the owner’s gender — have limited profitability and growth in general. Second, women are more likely to be part-time entrepreneurs because they often have to balance business ownership with family and household responsibilities. And third, women are over-represented in lower-growth and lower-wage industries like retail and food services . These factors explain the lower performance levels for women entrepreneurs, which are influenced by socially constructed and historical factors, not an inability to be successful. Misconception #3: Women can’t secure business funding The third misconception is that women entrepreneurs are not capable of securing business funding. While women entrepreneurs are less likely to receive financial backing , this is not because of lack of capabilities. Instead, women are less likely to ask for financial funding, either because they don’t require it or because they’re discouraged from applying due to fear of rejection. When women do seek financial backing, they’re usually asked different questions than men are , which affects their outcomes. Finance providers tend to ask women questions that focus on potential failures, while they ask men about potential success. Since the framing of questions influences their responses, women’s answers — which are often focused on preventing failure — instil less confidence and lead to less funding. Misconception #4: Women are risk-averse The fourth misconception is that women are risk averse, preventing them from becoming entrepreneurs. There is some research that points to this misconception being true; one study , for instance, found that women exhibit higher levels of risk aversion when making financial decisions compared to men. However, most women are not inherently risk-averse. This perception is likely a result of how women are socialized according to cultural norms and expectations. Women are often expected to be more communal and caring , while men are expected to be more competitive and risk-taking. The way we define and understand “risk” may also contribute to this misconception. Success stories about entrepreneurs often focus on financial risk — something more commonly associated with men. Less attention is given to the risks women are more likely to take, such as standing up for their beliefs or choosing the ethical route when faced with a dilemma, even if it might result in lower financial success. Misconception #5: Women don’t establish the right networks The fifth misconception is that women fail to build the right networks as entrepreneurs. Research shows women tend to develop more formal mentoring and networking relationships , such as through professional associations, while men typically have a mix of both formal and informal connections. Formal mentoring often offers fewer career development benefits compared to informal connections. Women are less likely to engage in informal mentoring, not because they lack interest or ability, but because there are fewer women entrepreneurs to connect with. Despite this, women are actually more active than men in supporting others’ careers, both men and women. These misconceptions about women entrepreneurs are rooted in the historically masculine nature of entrepreneurship and can be barriers to women becoming successful entrepreneurs. By challenging these stereotypes and promoting gender inclusivity in entrepreneurship, we can help remove obstacles and create a more supportive environment for women entrepreneurs. Ingrid Chadwick received funding from the Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Société et la Culture (FRQ-SC) for this project. Alexandra Dawson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. See a typo/mistake? Have a story/tip? This has been shared 0 times 0 Shares Share by Email Share on Facebook Share on X Share on LinkedIn Print Share via Text Message Get your daily Victoria news briefing Email Sign Up More Economy, Law & Politics Explosion at B.C. oil waste facility injures two workers, leads to $42K penalty Nov 22, 2024 4:05 PM Opinion: Why taxpayers deserve a public inquiry into Elections BC Nov 22, 2024 3:30 PM S&P/TSX composite up Friday, U.S. stock markets also rise Nov 22, 2024 1:42 PMLAST-MINUTE Christmas shoppers are being urged to rush to Marks and Spencer after the price of a perfect stocking filler has been slashed. The product that was originally £4 and is now down to a staggering £1 would also make the perfect gift for train and chocolate lovers. For just £1 each, shoppers can bag the M&S Hot Chocolate Train Tin. The red and green steam train tin containing hot chocolate powder has already proved to be a popular buy for Christmas . The 100g festive tin features an elf train driver and has a wreath on the front. M&S calls it "a super-cute festive train tin" that is "great for gifting." read more on festive treats The retailer states that the "tin is filled with rich hot chocolate. Just add the hot chocolate to your favourite mug, followed by hot milk, and top with marshmallows and whipped cream. " Shoppers shared the new £1 bargain on the popular Facebook page Extreme Couponing and Bargains UK Group. "Wow would love to find these," one excited shopper wrote. "My daughter loves this wee train," a parent said. Most read in Money "Fabulous! Great buy. Well done," a third wrote. Those who could just not wait for Christmas Day have high praise for the steam train tin. "It’s REALLY yummy the best hot choc I’ve ever had!" one said. But other shoppers are disappointed that they have missed out on a good bargain. "Gutted I brought some a few weeks ago. I thought £2.50 was good when I saw them reduced to that but even more gutted at £1!" one shopper said. "Great bargain tho." Consumer reporter Sam Walker reveals how you can save money on your Christmas shopping. Limit the amount of presents - buying presents for all your family and friends can cost a bomb. Instead, why not organise a Secret Santa between your inner circles so you're not having to buy multiple presents. Plan ahead - if you've got the stamina and budget, it's worth buying your Christmas presents for the following year in the January sales. Make sure you shop around for the best deals by using price comparison sites so you're not forking out more than you should though. Buy in Boxing Day sales - some retailers start their main Christmas sales early so you can actually snap up a bargain before December 25. Delivery may cost you a bit more, but it can be worth it if the savings are decent. Shop via outlet stores - you can save loads of money shopping via outlet stores like Amazon Warehouse or Office Offcuts. They work by selling returned or slightly damaged products at a discounted rate, but usually any wear and tear is minor. "Never let me buy a lot from M&S in advance I could scream," another wrote. "Paid £3 for these the other day bought 3 they are still worth £3 good buy," a third added. Meanwhile, Ocado shoppers could still miss out on the bargain with the hot chocolate tin only being reduced to £3. Those who need a last-minute bottle of fizz are also being urged to rush to M&S and another high street store. READ MORE SUN STORIES The Sun's Laura Hills has tried supermarket Prosecco under £10 and discovered that Lidl and M&S came out on top. Meanwhile, see which is the cheapest supermarket to buy Christmas favourites like Quality Street, Bailey's, and Terry's Chocolate Orange.
U.S. stocks tiptoed to more records after a quiet day of trading. The S&P 500 edged up by 2 points, or less than 0.1%, on Tuesday to set an all-time high for the 55th time this year. The Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped 0.2%, while the Nasdaq composite added 0.4% to its own record set a day earlier. Treasury yields held relatively steady after a report showed U.S. employers were advertising slightly more job openings at the end of October than a month earlier. The South Korean won sank against the dollar after its president declared martial law and then later said he’ll lift it. On Tuesday: The S&P 500 rose 2.73 points, or less than 0.1%, to 6,049.88. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 76.47 points, or 0.2%, to 44,705.53. The Nasdaq composite rose 76.96 points, or 0.4%, to 19,480.91. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell 17.79 points, or 0.7%, to 2,416.35. For the week: The S&P 500 is up 17.50 points, or 0.3%. The Dow is down 205.12 points, or 0.5%. The Nasdaq is up 262.74 points, or 1.4%. The Russell 2000 is down 18.38 points, or 0.8%. For the year: The S&P 500 is up 1,280.05 points, or 26.8%. The Dow is up 7,015.99 points, or 18.6%. The Nasdaq is up 4,469.56 points, or 29.8%. The Russell 2000 is up 389.27 points, or 19.2%.
Vaccine mandates were “not supported by science” and did “more harm than good,” according to the final report from the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, which has concluded its two-year long investigation into the coronavirus pandemic. The subcommittee wrapped up its report — described as the “single most thorough review of the pandemic conducted to date” — this week and highlighted key findings on every aspect of the pandemic — from its origins to the response. A summary of the report shows that the committee concluded that COVID-19 “most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China,” and it provided five strong arguments to back the lab leak theory. Those include the facts that the “virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature” and the fact that “Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research at inadequate biosafety levels.” The committee highlighted a variety of findings in various sections of the report, and of course, there is a section devoted to the vaccine mandates, which many Americans were subjected to under President Biden. It was only thanks to the Supreme Court that millions of Americans were saved from losing their jobs as the Biden administration attempted to force the vaccine via the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The high court rejected this mandate in January 2022. A summary of the 520-page report concludes that “contrary to what was promised, the COVID-19 vaccine did not stop the spread or transmission of the virus.” Further, it notes that the FDA rushed approval of the vaccine in order to meet the Biden administration’s “arbitrary mandate timeline.” They did this despite warnings about the dangers of rushing the process and potential consequences, which include adverse effects of the vaccine. Additionally, the committee found that the vaccine mandates were not supported by science whatsoever and “caused more harm than good.” “The Biden Administration coerced healthy Americans into compliance with COVID-19 vaccine mandates that trampled individual freedoms, harmed military readiness, and disregarded medical freedom to force a novel vaccine on millions of Americans without sufficient evidence to support their policy decisions,” the summary reads, noting that public health officials coordinated with each other to deliberately ignore the reality of natural immunity to the virus. In other words, they failed to craft policy with that reality in mind. Perhaps what is worse, the committee determined that there was mass government failure in the vaccine injury reporting system, which they said “created confusion, failed to properly inform the American public about vaccine injuries, and deteriorated public trust in vaccine safety during the COVID-19 pandemic.” The government was also “failing to efficiently, fairly, and transparently adjudicate claims for the COVID-19 vaccine injured,” they wrote in the summary. The investigation also found that mask mandates were wholly ineffective, despite the ongoing demonization against those who refused to wear masks at the time. That demonization of unmasked and unvaccinated Americans was very much encouraged by Biden himself, even suggesting that they were unpatriotic. Per the report, which detailed the mixed messaging: Ultimately, a systematic review carried out by Cochrane Collaboration—one of the most highly regarded methodologies in evidence-based healthcare—found that the pooled randomized control trials they analyzed “did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks” and that “[t]here were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.” These results appear to directly contradict public health agencies’ and local governments’ support for broadly requiring masking throughout much of the pandemic. Despite that, the Biden administration attempted to force masks. But the committee highlighted this finding: “The Biden Administration Exceeded its Authority by Mandating Masks.” “It is apparent that the CDC and the Biden Administration cherry-picked observational data to fit their narrative that masks are fully effective,” the report reads. “Yet, that is not the role of the CDC.” “The CDC is an agency meant to protect the American people, and part of that responsibility includes conducting, sponsoring, or at the very least examining clinical trials to actually have the best available research before formulating its guidance,” it added. Ultimately, Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) said in a letter to Congress that the coronavirus pandemic “highlighted a distrust in leadership.” “Trust is earned. Accountability, transparency, honesty, and integrity will regain this trust. A future pandemic requires a whole of America response managed by those without personal benefit or bias,” he added. “We can always do better, and for the sake of future generations of Americans, we must. It can be done.” Read the entire report here .‘We’d rather perish’: protests roil South Korean women’s university over plan to admit male students
Ruben Amorim warns Man United stars 'the storm will come' as Portuguese admits his unbeaten start will eventually come to an end ahead of Arsenal acid testTORONTO — Mark Scheifele scored a hat trick and an assist while Kyle Connor collected two goals and an assist to spark the NHL-leading Winnipeg Jets to a 5-2 win over the Toronto Maple Leafs on Monday. The Jets enter the Christmas break with back-to-back wins, while the Maple Leafs dropped their second in a row at Scotiabank Arena without wounded captain Auston Matthews, out with an upper-body injury. Connor scored late in the first period on the power play and early in the second to give the Jets a two-goal lead. Gabriel Vilardi picked up his second assist of the night with a brilliant pass to Scheifele in front at 3:27 of the third, giving the Jets a 3-1 advantage. Scheifele banged in a loose puck for his 20th midway through the third period and added an empty-netter for his hat trick. John Tavares scored twice for the Maple Leafs. Winnipeg out-shot the Leafs 27-25, with Jets goalie Connor Hellebuyck making 23 saves before a crowd of 18,923 fans. Joseph Woll stopped 22 shots in the Toronto net. Jets defenceman Josh Morrissey also notched two assists to reach 30 for the season. The win avenged the Maple Leafs' 6-4 victory in Winnipeg on Oct. 28, which ended the Jets' eight-game win streak to start the season. Maple Leafs forward William Nylander extended his point streak to seven games with assists on the Tavares goals. Takeaways Toronto: Defender Chris Tanev missed his first game this year with a lower-body ailment after skating in the pre-game warmup. Winnipeg: As impressive as the Jets (25-10-1) have played before the break, they are only one point ahead of the 36-game pace of 23-9-4 set a year ago. Key moment After Jets defenceman Neal Pionk had his shot blocked, the puck bounded to Marner for a breakaway. Pionk hustled back to lift Marner's stick to foil his shot attempt early in the second period to preserve Winnipeg's 2-0 lead. Key stat The Maple Leafs have gone 7-4-0 with Matthews on the sidelines this season and 42-23-2 in his career. Up next Toronto returns to action after the holiday break on Friday, visiting the Detroit Red Wings. On Saturday, the Jets play host to the Ottawa Senators. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 23, 2024. Tim Wharnsby, The Canadian PressFlag football uses talent camps to uncover new starsTexans foiled by mistake after mistake in 32-27 loss to Titans
How major US stock indexes fared Tuesday, 12/3/2024ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox . Months before voters went to the polls in November, a group of election skeptics based in North Carolina gathered on a call and discussed what actions to take if they doubted any of the results. One of the ideas they floated: try to get the courts or state election board to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots cast by voters whose registrations are missing a driver’s license number and the last four digits of a Social Security number. But that idea was resisted by two activists on the call, including the leader of the North Carolina chapter of the Election Integrity Network. The data was missing not because voters had done something wrong but largely as a result of an administrative error by the state. The leader said the idea was “voter suppression” and “100%” certain to fail in the courts, according to a recording of the July call obtained by ProPublica. This novel theory is now at the center of a legal challenge by North Carolina appeals court Judge Jefferson Griffin, a Republican who lost a race for a state Supreme Court seat to the Democratic incumbent, Allison Riggs, by just 734 votes and is seeking to have the result overturned. The state election board dismissed a previous version of the challenge , which is now being considered in federal court . Before the election, a Trump-appointed judge denied an attempt by the Republican National Committee to remove 225,000 voters from the rolls based on the same theory. The latest case is getting attention statewide and across the country. But it has not yet been reported that members of the group that had helped publicize the idea had cast doubt on its legality. “I don’t comment on pending litigation,” Griffin wrote to ProPublica in response to a detailed list of questions. “It would be a violation of our code of judicial conduct.” Embry Owen, Riggs’ campaign manager, disputed the challenge and called on Griffin to concede. “It’s not appropriate for this election to be decided in court, period. NC voters have already made the decision to send Justice Riggs back to the Supreme Court,” she said. The theory Griffin is citing originated with a right-wing activist, Carol Snow, who described herself to ProPublica in an email as “a Bona Fide Grade-A Election Denier.” Snow promoted it with the help of the state chapter of the Election Integrity Network, a national group whose leader worked with President Donald Trump in his failed effort to overturn the 2020 election. The network also was behind extensive efforts to prepare to contest a Trump loss this year in other states, as ProPublica has reported , as well as in North Carolina, according to previously unreported recordings and transcripts of meetings of the state chapter. State election officials have found that missing information on a voter’s registration is not disqualifying because there are numerous valid reasons for the state’s database to lack that those details. Those reasons include voters registering before state paperwork was updated about a year ago to require that information or using alternate approved documents, such as a utility bill, to verify their identities. What’s more, voters must still prove their identity when casting a ballot — most often with a driver’s license. “There is virtually no chance of voter fraud resulting from a voter not providing her driver’s license or social security number on her voter registration,” attorneys for the state election board wrote in response to the RNC lawsuit. Bob Orr, a former GOP state Supreme Court justice who left the Republican Party in 2021 , said he too doubts the theory. “I appreciate fighting for every vote: If you honestly think illegal votes have been cast, it’s legitimate to try to prove that,” he said. “But the bottom line is: Did anyone vote illegally? Have you been able to prove one person voted illegally? At this point, no. And we’re weeks past the election and multiple recounts, and there’s no evidence of that.” In modern history, the state board’s decision on who wins elections has been final, said Chris Cooper, a professor specializing in North Carolina politics at Western Carolina University. That includes an even tighter race in 2020, when a Democratic justice conceded to a Republican after protesting her 401-vote loss to the board. “We’re used to close elections, we’re used to protests, we’re used to candidates pushing every legal action up to the point the state election board rules,” Cooper said. But, he added, there is an important difference with Griffin’s petition, which goes beyond the state election board to the courts. “This is basically saying the state elections system is wrong, and we’re going to court to try to change the rules of the game after the game has been played — which is unprecedented.” In July 2024, the North Carolina chapter of the Election Integrity Network convened online to plan its efforts ahead of the presidential election. Worried about a surge of voter registrations from nonwhite voters who they believed would back Democrats, the activists discussed how to assemble a “suspicious voters list” of people whose ballots they could challenge. Then, one of the group’s board members, Jay DeLancy, said he had another idea “that’s a lot slicker.” DeLancy said that if a candidate lost a close election, the loss could be overturned by questioning the validity of voters whose registrations are missing their driver’s license and Social Security information. “Those are illegal votes,” he claimed. “I would file a protest.” Jim Womack, the leader of the chapter, immediately pushed back: “That’s a records keeping problem on the part of the state board. That’s not illegal.” Later in the call Womack said, “I’m 100% sure you’re not going to get a successful prosecution.” And he told the group, “That’s considered to be voter suppression, and there’s no way a court is going to find that way.” But DeLancy asked for backup from the originator of that theory: Carol Snow. She argued that her theory could in fact overturn the outcome of an election. “I guess we’re gonna find that out,” Snow said. Snow is a leader of the conservative activist group North Carolina Audit Force and lives in the state’s rural mountains. After Trump’s loss in 2020, she threw herself into questioning the election’s results. In 2022, she accompanied a pair of far-right activists to a North Carolina election office where the two men unsuccessfully tried to forcefully access voting machines, and she participated in a failed pressure campaign to oust the election director who resisted them, ProPublica previously reported . She also began filing overwhelming numbers of records requests and complaints to state election officials, an effort that Womack praised on the July call: “I think Carol has shown a way of really harassing — not that we want to do it for harassment purposes — but really needling the Board of Elections to do their jobs by just constantly deluging them.” Since late 2021, the state elections board had spent far more time on her requests and complaints than those of any other individual, spokesperson Patrick Gannon said in a statement. “Ms. Snow’s constant barrage of requests and complaints causes other priorities and responsibilities to suffer,” Gannon said. Snow described her work to ProPublica as “simply taking the time to learn about my state’s electoral process” and acting for the public good. “The records I’ve requested are owned by the public. In other words, I’m asking for what belongs to me,” Snow wrote to ProPublica . “If government agencies are understaffed and unable to comply with this state’s Public Records law, they should address the issue with the entities that fund them.” In the fall of 2023, Snow filed a complaint alleging that North Carolina’s voter registration form did not clearly require voters to provide their driver’s license number and the last four digits of their Social Security number, as required by federal law — instead that information was coded as optional. Snow later described the missing information as a “ line of attack ” through which bad actors could cast fraudulent votes using fake identities. (A right-wing conspiracy theory holds that this was how Biden won the 2020 election.) But she was not able to demonstrate that the missing information had led to anyone improperly voting. After obtaining public records for hundreds of thousands of voter registrations, Snow provided the state board with only seven examples of what she called potential double voting. The state board found all seven to be innocuous things like data entry errors . The state board quickly updated the form to require the information. But from late 2023 through the fall of 2024, six complaints , some of which were partly based on Snow’s theory, were filed with the state election board. Aside from the updates to the form, the state board dismissed the complaints. By the time of the July call, some of Snow’s peers seemed dismissive as well. “I’m not suggesting that we can’t arm a candidate that loses a short, a close race with the information they need to file a protest using this,” Womack said on the call. “But I would just suggest to you that that’s not the way to win on this thing.” Yet the information did end up in the Republican National Committee’s lawsuit trying to disqualify 225,000 voters, a challenge DeLancy filed against Riggs’ victory in North Carolina’s most populous county, and, the day after that was dismissed, Griffin’s challenge to over 60,000 voters. DeLancy wrote to ProPublica that he filed the challenge on his own and did not coordinate with Griffin. He also said he disagreed with Womack’s description of such challenges as “voter suppression.” Instead, he said, he saw it as “a proper response” to the state election board’s “violation of federal law.” “Carol Snow deserves an Order of the Long Leaf Pine for exposing this treasonous behavior on the part of the election officials,” he wrote, referring to an award bestowed by North Carolina’s governor . Womack wrote to ProPublica that the group he leads “is a non-partisan, neutral organization” that does “not favor one party over another.” He also said that recordings of the group’s calls are “prohibited and violate our internal policies” and “whatever bootleg recording you may have is unauthorized and may well be altered.” ProPublica has seen a video recording of the call and verified portions of it with some participants. Though Griffin’s challenge of Riggs’ victory is now being considered in federal court, legal experts say it could still end up back where he intended: in front of the state Supreme Court. Griffin’s petition is making what experts describe as extreme asks to the Supreme Court: to allow him to bypass the lower courts, to allow ballots to be thrown out without proving that voters did anything knowingly wrong and to essentially decide whether to change its composition to six Republicans and one Democrat. “Even if they do their best to be open-minded and independent, the facts of the potential conflicts of interest are just too obvious to the public,” said Orr, the former Republican justice. Griffin has described Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby as a “good friend and mentor,” and Newby promoted Griffin’s 2020 run for the court of appeals. What’s more, a ProPublica review of campaign finance reports show that the spouses of three justices, including Newby’s wife, donated over $12,000 to Griffin’s most recent or previous campaigns. (The husband of the Supreme Court’s other Democratic justice donated to Riggs.) Newby and other justices did not respond to a detailed list of questions sent to spokespeople for the Supreme Court. When announcing his candidacy for the Supreme Court , Griffin declared, “We are a team that knows how to win — the same team that helped elect Chief Justice Paul Newby and three other members of the current Republican majority.” A cartoon illustration that hangs in the Supreme Court depicts all the Republican appellate jurists as superheroes from the Justice League, with Newby caricatured as Superman and Griffin as the Flash.
Scottish artist Jasleen Kaur who put doily on a car wins Turner Prize 2024
Online space for teens needed despite social media banCPM backs leader on his remarks against Gandhis