j love f
Carraro India IPO gets 1.12 times subscription
Tens of thousands of Spaniards protest housing crunch and high rents in Barcelona
NEW YORK (AP) — Top-ranked chess player Magnus Carlsen is headed back to the World Blitz Championship on Monday after its governing body agreed to loosen a dress code that got him fined and denied a late-round game in another tournament for refusing to change out of jeans . Lamenting the contretemps, International Chess Federation President Arkady Dvorkovich said in a statement Sunday that he'd let World Blitz Championship tournament officials consider allowing “appropriate jeans” with a jacket, and other “elegant minor deviations” from the dress code. He said Carlsen's stand — which culminated in his quitting the tournament Friday — highlighted a need for more discussion “to ensure that our rules and their application reflect the evolving nature of chess as a global and accessible sport.” Carlsen, meanwhile, said in a video posted Sunday on social media that he would play — and wear jeans — in the World Blitz Championship when it begins Monday. “I think the situation was badly mishandled on their side,” the 34-year-old Norwegian grandmaster said. But he added that he loves playing blitz — a fast-paced form of chess — and wanted fans to be able to watch, and that he was encouraged by his discussions with the federation after Friday's showdown. “I think we sort of all want the same thing,” he suggested in the video on his Take Take Take chess app’s YouTube channel. “We want the players to be comfortable, sure, but also relatively presentable.” The events began when Carlsen wore jeans and a sportcoat Friday to the Rapid World Championship, which is separate from but held in conjunction with the blitz event. The chess federation said Friday that longstanding rules prohibit jeans at those tournaments, and players are lodged nearby to make sartorial switch-ups easy if needed. An official fined Carlsen $200 and asked him to change pants, but he refused and wasn't paired for a ninth-round game, the federation said at the time. The organization noted that another grandmaster, Ian Nepomniachtchi, was fined earlier in the day for wearing sports shoes, changed and continued to play. Carlsen has said that he offered to wear something else the next day, but officials were unyielding. He said “it became a bit of a matter of principle,” so he quit the rapid and blitz championships. In the video posted Sunday, he questioned whether he had indeed broken a rule and said changing clothes would have needlessly interrupted his concentration between games. He called the punishment “unbelievably harsh.” “Of course, I could have changed. Obviously, I didn’t want to,” he said, and “I stand by that.”Fantasy football championships delivered by NFL's stars of tomorrow — today
Seadrill (OTCMKTS:SDRLF) Trading Up 6.9% – Time to Buy?
Timeline: Jimmy Carter, 1924-2024GreenPower Motor Company Inc. ( OTCMKTS:GPVRF – Get Free Report )’s share price rose 7.1% during trading on Friday . The company traded as high as $0.80 and last traded at $0.80. Approximately 160,164 shares changed hands during mid-day trading, a decline of 60% from the average daily volume of 401,459 shares. The stock had previously closed at $0.74. GreenPower Motor Trading Down 4.7 % The company has a 50-day moving average price of $0.98 and a two-hundred day moving average price of $1.08. GreenPower Motor Company Profile ( Get Free Report ) GreenPower Motor Co, Inc engages in the design, manufacture, and distribution of electric powered vehicles for commercial markets. It offers electric-powered school buses, vans, charter buses, and double-deckers. The company was founded by Fraser Atkinson and Phillip W. Oldridge on March 30, 2010 and is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada. Recommended Stories Receive News & Ratings for GreenPower Motor Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for GreenPower Motor and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .
Auto repair from your car insurer and fire extinguishers courtesy your home insurer? Not outlandish ideas, but part of the government's plans to allow insurance companies to sell related products and services. The government may allow general insurers to bundle their core insurance products with non-insurance products and services to increase insurance penetration and allow companies to offer competitively priced insurance products, two persons aware of the plans said. Also read | The plan, if rolled out, will allow the sale of gym memberships and basic healthcare by health insurers; vehicle repairs, diagnostic services and roadside assistance bycar insurers; and safety consultations, fire extinguishers and safety alarms from home insurers. The thinking is that insurers would provide comprehensive risk mitigation solutions that would help reduce the incidence of losses for them, resulting in better-priced products and lower overall risk for the nation, one of the two persons cited above said on the condition of anonymity. Seeking amendments Insurers have sought amendments to permit the sale of value-added services as they try to deliver new and valuable services to customers, the finance ministry said, citing the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Irdai). “The proposal to enable insurers and insurance intermediaries to provide services related or incidental to the insurance business as specified by Irdai is under consideration," the ministry said in response to the observations of the Parliament's standing committee of finance on the matter. The second person cited above said that the finance ministry is working on the Insurance Amendment Bill, which will also redefine insurance. The bill is expected to be presented in the Parliament's budget session after securing Cabinet approval, the person added. This will allow the Centre to notify any other or ancillary business that insurance companies may be permitted to undertake beyond their core operation of providing insurance and risk coverage products to customers in consultation with Irdai, the person added. Also read | A query emailed to the finance ministry remained unanswered till press time. “These are good suggestions theoretically. In practice, Insurance is still a push product. If an insurance company runs a diagnostic centre, does it mean that their customers should only use that to get an insurance claim? Car repair is still a domain of OEMs and dealers. No dealer makes money in selling a car. They make money in service/repair of vehicle. My view is that insurers should focus on their core business," said C R Vijayan, former secretary general of General Insurance (GI) Council, the official representative body of the general insurance industry. Better auxiliary services “In my opinion, this is fine. To provide better auxiliary services while selling insurance products is a must-have, as customer demands have changed and they are looking for combined products. Like, if I am going to the gym, then I need better pricing for a health product; if I drive better, then I need a competitive quote on my motor insurance. So, allowing these frills baked into the insurance products will not only ensure innovation and provide a competitive edge to insurers, but will also help customers get very personalized coverages. So, it's in the right direction," said Debashish Banerjee, partner and insurance sector leader at Deloitte India. However, insurers may still not be allowed to sell financial products such as mutual funds on the lines of banks, as the government and regulators fear these specialized financial products could add more risk to their insurance operations. Also read | Irdai had earlier suggested permitting insurance companies to sell even mutual funds, but the proposal did not find favour with the government, the first person said. According to Banerjee of Deloitte, keeping insurers out of mutual funds is fair, since MFs are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), while insurance comes under Irdai. In countries where a single regulator for banks, insurers and stock markets oversees all financial products, it's easier to sell all products under a single umbrella. In India, unless an insurance company also takes a banking licence and is regulated by Reserve Bank of India and Sebi, they won't be able to sell MF products. DFS, Irdai to decide The department of financial services (DFS) in the finance ministry and the insurance regulator would decide on a list of related activities or activities incidental to the core insurance business. These may include services and wellness packages clubbed with general insurance products. According to a note on the insurance amendments by law firm Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas published earlier, insurers need to be customer-driven in their approach towards products and services and offer a range of value-added services to their customers in addition to the core insurance product. Also read | “Typically, value-added services include non-core services in an industry, or the enhancements made to the core product or service offered to customers. The UK permits both value-added services and cross-selling services by insurers. Singapore allows life insurers to provide financial advisory to its clients, while Malaysia allows life insurers to provide services incidental to the insurance business," the note said, adding that Australian law, on the other hand, permits the conduct of business that is incidental to the insurance business of general insurers. However, life insurers are permitted only to carry out life insurance.A machinists strike. Another safety problem involving its troubled top-selling airliner. A plunging stock price. 2024 was already a dispiriting year for Boeing , the American aviation giant. But when one of the company's jets crash-landed in South Korea on Sunday, killing all but two of the 181 people on board, it brought to a close an especially unfortunate year for Boeing. The cause of the crash remains under investigation, and aviation experts were quick to distinguish Sunday's incident from the company’s earlier safety problems. Alan Price, a former chief pilot at Delta Air Lines who is now a consultant, said it would be inappropriate to link the incident Sunday to two fatal crashes involving Boeing’s troubled 737 Max jetliner in 2018 and 2019. In January this year, a door plug blew off a 737 Max while it was in flight, raising more questions about the plane. The Boeing 737-800 that crash-landed in Korea, Price noted, is “a very proven airplane. "It’s different from the Max ...It’s a very safe airplane.’’ For decades, Boeing has maintained a role as one of the giants of American manufacturing. But the the past year's repeated troubles have been damaging. The company's stock price is down more than 30% in 2024. The company's reputation for safety was especially tarnished by the 737 Max crashes, which occurred off the coast of Indonesia and in Ethiopia less than five months apart in 2018 and 2019 and left a combined 346 people dead. In the five years since then, Boeing has lost more than $23 billion. And it has fallen behind its European rival, Airbus , in selling and delivering new planes. Last fall, 33,000 Boeing machinists went on strike, crippling the production of the 737 Max, the company's bestseller, the 777 airliner and 767 cargo plane. The walkout lasted seven weeks, until members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers agreed to an offer that included 38% pay raises over four years. In January, a door plug blew off a 737 Max during an Alaska Airlines flight. Federal regulators responded by imposing limits on Boeing aircraft production that they said would remain in place until they felt confident about manufacturing safety at the company. In July, Boeing agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud for deceiving the Federal Aviation Administration regulators who approved the 737 Max. Acting on Boeing’s incomplete disclosures, the FAA approved minimal, computer-based training instead of more intensive training in flight simulators. Simulator training would have increased the cost for airlines to operate the Max and might have pushed some to buy planes from Airbus instead. (Prosecutors said they lacked evidence to argue that Boeing’s deception had played a role in the crashes.) But the plea deal was rejected this month by a federal judge in Texas, Reed O’Connor, who decided that diversity, inclusion and equity or DEI policies in the government and at Boeing could result in race being a factor in choosing an official to oversee Boeing’s compliance with the agreement. Boeing has sought to change its culture. Under intense pressure over safety issues, David Calhoun departed as CEO in August. Since January, 70,000 Boeing employees have participated in meetings to discuss ways to improve safety.
Amber Heard criticises social media in response to Blake Lively complaintPresident James Earl “Jimmy” Carter Jr. died on Sunday, December 29, 2024 at his home in Plains, Georgia, at 100 years old. Carter will be remembered as a consummate humanitarian and Nobel Prize winning statesman who spent his retirement years building houses with Habitat for Humanity and all but eradicating a truly terrible parasite, the guinea worm, from the planet. He will also be rather unfairly remembered as a weak, ineffectual leader, relegated to a single four-year stint in the White House; a rarity among modern presidents. It’s a reputation pushed by the Greed-is-Good Reaganites who immediately followed Carter’s single-term presidency. But looking back, it’s clear that Carter’s presidency included plenty of far-reaching changes that could have drastically altered the course of America — specifically, our dependency on cars and foreign oil, and our rate of toxic pollution output — if only we had stuck with his plans. It is far beyond anyone’s ability to sum up such a man, even with a few thousand words to work with, but here’s how Carter biographer Jonathan Alter describes his subject : With skills ranging from agronomist, land-use planner, nuclear engineer and sonar technologist to poet, painter, Sunday School teacher and master woodworker, Carter was the first president since Thomas Jefferson who could rightly be considered a Renaissance Man. He was also the first since Jefferson under whom no blood was shed in war. And his record of honesty and decency — once seen as minimum qualifications — have loomed larger with time. At a farewell dinner just before leaving office, his vice-president, Walter F. Mondale, whose job Carter turned from punchline into a position of real responsibility, toasted the Carter Administration: “We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace.” Carter later added a fourth major accomplishment: “And we championed human rights.” Carter served as president from 1977 to 1981, during a time when the U.S. alone consumed one-third of the entire planet’s energy production — much of that going towards fueling the large, criminally inefficient cars of the era. Carter created ground-breaking policies that attempted to reverse this trend, many of which Regan dismantled quicker than a solar panel on the White House roof. Even so, there were some deeply-felt lasting effects of his administration. Carter wrote in his autobiography: The Congressional Quarterly reported that since 1953 Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy and I ranked in that order in obtaining approval of legislation proposed to Congress. The Miller Center reported that my record exceeded Kennedy’s. Indeed, he got his legislative way in Congress 76.6 percent of the time, according to Politifact . He left a deep mark on this country, especially when it comes to the environment and the automotive industry. Carter was the first president to bail out an American automaker, Chrysler, with a $1.5-billion Treasury loan. He was the first to attempt to get oil companies to pay their fair share of taxes during times of record profits (and record gas-pump prices) and the first leader in the world to address global warming, and humanity’s role in it, as a reality. Carter looked at our wasteful, energy-hungry American culture and struck a solemn — occasionally scolding — chord, imploring us to build toward a brighter future. But such a vision is not sexy, and it’s not fun. It’s certainly not part of what we think of as the go-go 1980s culture. Instead of seriously investing in innovations that would reduce our dependence on carbon-emitting oil from hostile countries, America chose to proceed in an entirely different direction, made clear when the electorate chose Ronald Regan by a landslide in the 1980 presidential election. “Carter also envisioned electric cars by the mid-1980s, and would have used his power to push automakers in that direction, as he did on CAFE standards,” Carter biographer Jonathan Alter told Jalopnik. Alter believes that a second Carter term would have been much better in a lot of ways. “Starting with more compassion domestically and less saber-rattling abroad, where he would have likely completed the unfinished business of Camp David, namely some comprehensive Mideast peace deal that included an eventual Palestinian state. Carter told me this was his biggest regret about losing.” Carter won the Nobel Peace Price in 2002, the committee citing his groundbreaking work towards peace throughout his career, both as president and as a private civilian. The Camp David Accords ended 30 years of hostility between Egypt and Israel and remain the longest-lasting peace agreement since World War II. That’s not to say Carter was without fault. As president, Carter saved Chrysler (and the automaker paid off its debt to the American people seven years early), but the Carter administration also helped establish an emboldened corporate America where workers still regularly bear the burden of highly-paid CEOs’ mistakes. He created a new tax that would directly result in the rise of the SUV, inspiring automakers to revamp their ’70s gas-guzzler shortsightedness for the 21st century. And he led a White House that seemed chaotic and directionless when America yearned for strong leadership. Let’s take a look at where this influential president went right — and where he went wrong — in his dealings with the American automotive industry. Taking on Fuel Economy and Big Oil By 1977, the concept of the modern suburb was only about 25 years old, but had overtaken the American way of life. By the 1970s, the number of cars on American roads had quadrupled in two decades, to 118 million vehicles, and the number of miles traveled by car had doubled. This was the Malaise Era of cars — a time of inefficient, poorly built, uninspired land yachts. The rise of in-car air conditioning shaved even more miles off the U.S. economy average, costing new car owners about two and a half miles per gallon. Carter addressed this waste in his first address as president: We have learned that “more” is not necessarily “better,” that even our great Nation has its recognized limits, and that we can neither answer all questions nor solve all problems. We cannot afford to do everything, nor can we afford to lack boldness as we meet the future. So, together, in a spirit of individual sacrifice for the common good, we must simply do our best. The country was still reeling from the 1973 Gas Crisis, caused after the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries placed an embargo on U.S. oil sales in response to the U.S. re-supplying Israel during the Yom Kippur War. This caused a spike in gas prices and shortages in fuel across the country. OPEC ended its embargo in May of 1974, but fuel prices remained high while oil companies profited immensely. To prevent another painful energy crisis, Carter’s predecessor, Gerald Ford, had signed into law the first Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard. This policy would eventually be expanded by the energy bill Carter promised in his inaugural address. Passed in 1978 as the National Energy Act, the collection of eight bills created the Department of Energy, pushed renewable energy goals, raised fleet average MPG requirements, reduced oil imports by supporting the U.S. oil industry, and imposed a gas guzzler tax which would increase as CAFE standards tightened. Carter called the previous administration’s energy crisis the “...moral equivalent of war,” and he planned to come out with both guns blazing. His new Department of Energy would be put to the test just a year after its creation when, in 1979, Carter faced the moral war of his own energy crisis. The Iranian Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis sent oil prices soaring from $13 per barrel in mid-1979 to $34 per barrel by mid-1980 — despite the loss in oil supply being estimated at only four to five percent. Long lines at fuel pumps were once again angering Americans. But folksy Carter was famous for facing moral struggles. The president sequestered himself at Camp David for 10 days to consider the energy problems facing America. He met with leaders in business, science and faith, and spent hours alone studying and writing. After this period of reflection, Carter believed he had identified the problem. In what would later become known as Carter’s Malaise Speech , he cut to the heart of U.S. consumerist culture: The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America. . . . In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose. The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past five years. Two-thirds of our people do not even vote. The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world. While certainly not wrong, saying as much is kind of a bummer. Amazingly, Carter’s incredibly low approval numbers received an 11-point bump after the speech, which was squandered a few days later when Carter fired five cabinet members. His presidency seemed scattered and chaotic heading into the 1980 presidential election. In order to bring down gas prices, Carter would begin to deregulate domestic fuel markets even as he imposed a large tax on oil company windfalls during the nationwide gas shortages and price hikes. His policies would initially lead to an increase in domestic oil production of nearly 1 million barrels a day between 1980 and 1985, according to the Miller Center. However, the price of oil plummeted in the mid ’80s, and the tax became a significant hindrance to domestic oil production, while not raking in all that much dough for the federal government. It was repealed in 1988; politicians have been twitchy over the idea of taxing massive oil company profits ever since. President Joe Biden recently floated the same idea, which was almost universally panned as being doomed to repeat Carter’s failure. Carter’s regulation of the auto industry wasn’t perfect, either. During his time in office, Carter expanded a tax on Japanese light-trucks in order to prop up domestic sales. Reagan would build on this policy in 1981, pressing Japanese automakers into “voluntary” export restrictions. Further, light trucks were exempt from Carter’s strict new MPG standards, and continue to be exempt to this day. These little favors for the automakers would lead directly to the rise of deadly, dangerous and wasteful SUVs and trucks on America’s roads, setting us up for yet another energy crisis in 2022, when gas prices and inflation once again reared their ugly heads. Carter told the Harvard Business Review he was proactive with automakers about building more fuel-efficient cars even before his own oil crisis. The heads of the Big Three were hesitant to get on board, however: [...] I called in to my cabinet room the chief executive officers—the chairmen of the board and the presidents of every automobile manufacturer in the nation—along with the autoworkers’ union representatives. I told them we were going to pass some very strict air pollution and energy conservation laws. My hope was that they would take the initiative right then and commit themselves to producing energy-efficient automobiles that would comply with these strict standards. Their unanimous response was that it simply was not possible. I told them that automakers in Sweden and in Japan were doing it, so it was possible. But they insisted that they just couldn’t make a profit on it because their profit came from the larger automobiles. So they refused to modify their designs. Eventually we passed a law that required them, incrementally and annually, to improve their automobiles’ efficiency and to comply with environmental standards. In the meantime, American manufacturers lost a lot of the domestic market. That was a case of the automobile industry being unwilling to look to the future. They could not see the long-run advantage, even though it might prove to be costly in the close-in years. That delay would cost Chrysler dearly. The 1979 Chrysler Bailout That lack of long-term foresight Carter spoke of in his Malaise speech would send Chrysler spiraling towards something unimaginable in the post-war United States: The bankruptcy of a major American automobile manufacturer. And yet, in 1979 Chrysler faced half a billion dollars in losses. At a time of rising gas prices and the emergence of stringent federal fuel economy standards, the American automaker was still churning out those poorly-built road yachts. No automaker built them quite as big (or as wasteful) as the Chrysler corporation. At the time, Chrysler was the third-largest automaker in the country, and the 10th-largest industrial manufacturer. By the time Carter took office, America had waded through five years of energy ups and downs, but Chrysler hadn’t changed its vehicles all that much. When the second gas crisis hit, along with the new regulations put in place by Carter’s energy policy, Chrysler fumbled. The company had recently scooped up celebrity CEO Lee Iaoccoa , fresh off eight years of making money hand over fist for Henry Ford II. Iacoccoa was the fall guy for the Ford Pinto disaster, but had made few friends with his desire to push the company towards more fuel-efficient vehicles. As a sign of the serious situation Chrysler was in, Iacoccoa took a salary of only $1 in his first year as CEO. Iacocca then tried to move Chrysler towards smaller vehicles, but quickly realized his new employer would not be able to weather this financial storm alone. Iacocca reached out to the feds for help. He persuaded lawmakers that Chrysler was too big to fail. Carter’s Treasury Department was on board, but in order to get enough support in Congress for a loan, the Carter administration would ask the company, and the UAW, to make deep concessions. Treasury Secretary G. William Miller proposed a $1.5 billion loan, then the Carter Administration’s Council on Wage and Price Stability testified before the Senate Banking Committee that such a loan would be consumed in three years flat, thanks to the automaker’s obligations to the UAW. After a summer of bad press and congressional cajoling, the UAW eventually agreed to $525 million in concessions in late October 1979, along with a three-year wage freeze. Just before Christmas, Chrysler got its $1.5 billion loan in the form of the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act. The act did more than just bail out Chrysler. While Chrysler would be subject to more government oversight while paying off the debt — including $2 billion in cost-cutting measures and a three-year plan approved by Congress to get the company back on track — the special act also relaxed the brand-new gas mileage requirements updated by the 1978 National Energy Act. That alone gave Chrysler a much-needed boost, which Iacocca used to springboard the company-saving K-cars and, eventually, the minivan, which came to define the brand in the 1980s and 1990s. This bailout would be used as a blueprint by the Obama administration in 2008 when General Motors and Chrysler found themselves in the same situation Chrysler had faced in 1979. While Chrysler employees weren’t the ones who made the bad business decisions in the ’70s, they would bear a great burden in the plan to right the company’s course. As they accepted major concessions, union members were painted by the media as selfish and lazy, willing to kill Chrysler to get their golden retirement funds. Even with steep concessions and wage freezes in the middle of historic inflation, Chrysler laid off 57,000 of its 134,000-strong production workforce, the Washington Post reported in a retrospective on the bailout published in 1984. All told, the auto industry as a whole would lay off 239,000 workers in one month in 1980 . Still, Carter biographer Jonathan Alter says saving Chrysler was worth it. “It was a binary decision: Save Chrysler and thousands of jobs or not, and he clearly made the right call for workers, for whom he had much more respect than did Reagan,” Alter told Jalopnik The damage to unions would last much longer than Chrysler’s debt. The automaker managed to pay off its loan seven years early — mostly to get out from under federal oversight. The U.S. made $300 million on its investment in the company. While Chrysler would thrive in the ’80s and ’90s thanks to Iacocca’s simple, fuel-efficient K-cars and the popular minivan, union membership in America dropped precipitously as Right-to-Work laws swept the nation. And as union memberships stagnate, so do wages . Carter Was Right The energy crisis was a key issue to voters who tossed Carter out in favor of Ronald Reagan in a legendary landslide. Having fellow democrat Ted Kennedy challenge the sitting president for his party’s nomination was just one more nail in the coffin of Carter’s re-election campaign. His shaky administration didn’t look any more solid when the president lost consciousness during a 10K run. Reagan didn’t chide the American public for their gas-guzzling cars. He didn’t ask Americans to spend less, or look deep within themselves and question consumerist culture — Reagan promised wealth, abundance and a revitalization of the American dream (for some, anyway). Once he took office, Reagan stripped the Carter-installed solar panels off the roof of the White House and tossed them in a basement. The dismantling served as a symbol of America rejecting Carter’s old energy policies wholesale. When the solar panels were found in 2010, they still worked . Carter’s concerns about the U.S. didn’t disappear — we just put them on the back burner for a few decades. Now we’re facing challenges similar to what Carter attempted to address with his time in office: climate change; oil companies profiteering on the back of sky-high fuel prices; the runaway popularity of giant, inefficient vehicles; and detrimental consumerism on a scale familiar to anyone who lived through the 1970s. So what if Reagan had lost the 1980 election? According to a New York Times op-ed, we might be living in a very different world: According to a recent report by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, if the United States had continued to conserve oil at the rate it did in the period from 1976 to 1985, it would no longer have needed Persian Gulf oil after 1985. Had we continued this wise course, we might not have had to fight the Persian Gulf war, and we would have insulated ourselves from price shocks in the international oil market. Just before Carter left office in 1981, a member of his White House Council on Environmental Quality, Gus Speth, authored a presidential report as part of Global 2000, a process recommending action on global warming. It was the first such policy pronouncement anywhere in the world. “Speth’s recommendations for tackling climate change in 1981 would be almost identical to the Paris Climate Accords some 34 years later. Such a report would have become part of Carter’s legislative agenda in 1980,” Alter told Jalopnik. With Jimmy Carter’s death, America didn’t just lose an exemplary humanitarian who doubled the size of the National Parks system and signed 15 major pieces of environmental legislation, including the first toxic waste cleanup. We lost a reminder that our nation once had a head-start on solving some of the greatest problems we face today: environmental pollution, runaway oil consumption, rampant consumerism, a mental health crisis, climate change and Middle East violence. Carter envisioned a different, more responsible America, and he was rejected for it. Carter’s most enduring legacy will be this: He tried to leave America a little better than he found it. He attempted to warn Americans about the challenges we’d face over the next five decades. Our own legacy shows we were completely unwilling to heed those warnings.At one point on Sunday, the Indianapolis Colts had a 38-7 lead over the Tennessee Titans in the second half. Usually, that's a sure sign you're coasting to a comfortable win. But flash forward to the 2-minute warning at the end of the 4th quarter, and there was nothing comfortable about it. The Colts lead had been cut down to 38-30, and Indianapolis was trying to put together a drive that would bleed the clock out. On 3rd & 8 on the IND 34 yard line, the Colts had to convert or else they'd risk the Titans getting the ball back with a little under 2 minutes to play. Anthony Richardson ended up finding Michael Pittman Jr. wide open at the boundary for an easy 1st that effectively put the game out of reach for Tennessee. In the moment, many were upset and confused seeing rookie CB Jarvis Brownlee Jr. playing with such a significant cushion against Pittman, seemingly gifting Indy the 1st and ending their chance to complete the comeback. But Titans legend Blaine Bishop broke down the truth of what happened on his 104.5 The Zone radio show Cover 2 on Monday. In Bishop's eyes, Brownlee is being unfairly criticized on the play. "That was a tough one there. I think they really out-coached us more so than anything else, even though that's how it looks there". Bishop went into detail on the play call and assignments he saw on the critical snap: "Well, the stuff they did, I think the Titans were expecting some form of an inside route. They played robber, which is one rover with one of the safeties coming down, robber in the middle of the field. So they probably show some things through, you know, studying them on that down and they didn't have the bunch. Initially, Pittman kind of motioned out a little bit. So he got like four yards or so from the bunch. So it's now two guys and then Pittman on his own. So it was really hard for him to be up on them. And they were playing zone, some form of a flat curl by (Roger) McCreary. And then Brownlee is supposed to be deep third. So to be honest, it's supposed to be the throw over McCreary's head. And then Brownlee is supposed to be over the top of that." In summary, Brownlee's assignment on this concept is the deep third of the field. He's responsible for keeping everything on that side of the field in front of him and picking up any vertical routes. McCreary, the underneath defensive back on the play who is put into conflict by the bunch formation and the routes run out of it, is likely more responsible for covering Pittman on that out-breaking route than Brownlee. But the way the way it plays out in real time to the untrained eye, it looks like Brownlee is just asleep on his man. "So unfairly or justified, I don't think he could have gotten up there. The other side was playing man. So they were in press. I think just because of the formation of bunch, then it was going to be hard to be in-between." Bishop can speak on this topic with authority because, as he put it, "I've been that flat curl person" which is what McCreary was on the play. "And Samari Rolle would be like, 'dang man...you going to get that out? Because it looks like I'm getting toasted because people are going to assume that that's my guy!' And I couldn't get out there in time and like, and they can throw it right on the sideline and I'm almost there and it's going right past my fingertips. And I could have just ran out there immediately. You can't miss a timing route. So they had a great play call. I can't blame (Brownlee)." This article first appeared on A to Z Sports and was syndicated with permission.Jets Week 17 report card: One of the worst-coached teams ever
The holidays don’t have to bring anxiety, and you don’t have to be perfect | OpinionST. LOUIS (AP) — Jason Zucker scored a tiebreaking power-play goal with 9:30 remaining and the Buffalo Sabres notched their third straight victory by beating the St. Louis Blues 4-2 on Sunday. Jiri Kulich extended Buffalo’s lead with a breakaway goal that went between Blues goalie Jordan Binnington’s legs with 3:41 to play. Tage Thompson had a goal and an assist against his former team as the Sabres won in St. Louis for just the second time in 12 years to sweep the season series. Zucker had a goal and an assist, and Jack Quinn had two assists for Buffalo. Ukko-Pekka Luukkonen stopped 35 shots. Brayden Schenn and Nathan Walker scored for the Blues. Binnington had 12 saves. Buffalo scored on two of its first three shots, including its first of the game. Takeaways Buffalo: After a 13-game losing streak (0-10-3), the Sabres have scored 17 goals while winning three straight. St. Louis: The Blues, who are tied for an NHL-low five power-play goals at home, went 0 for 4 with the man advantage. Key moment After Walker pulled the Blues even with 14:04 left in the game, rookie Zack Bolduc took a cross checking penalty midway through the third period that led to the decisive goal. Key stat The Sabres had scored on only six of 43 road power plays (14%) this season before going 2 for 3 on Sunday. Buffalo ranked 27th out of 32 NHL teams. Up next The Blues play Chicago in the Winter Classic on Tuesday at Wrigley Field. Buffalo will play at Dallas on Tuesday night. ___ AP NHL: https://apnews.com/hub/nhl Jeff Latzke, The Associated Press
VANCOUVER, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec 23, 2024-- ZoomInfo (NASDAQ: ZI), the go-to-market Intelligence platform, announced its ranking at No. 55 on Newsweek ’s 2025 Excellence 1000 Index. The second annual list, developed in partnership with Best Practice Institute (BPI) – a leadership development and benchmark research company – honors top U.S. companies that demonstrate a commitment to business excellence, sustainable financial growth, and a strong dedication to corporate social responsibility and ethical practices. This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241219598554/en/ ZoomInfo ranked No. 55 out of 1,000 U.S. companies on Newsweek's 2025 Excellence Index. (Graphic: Business Wire) “We’re honored to be recognized on Newsweek ’s Excellence 1000 Index alongside some of the world’s most respected organizations,” ZoomInfo’s Founder and CEO Henry Schuck said. “This recognition reflects our ongoing effort to provide the most innovative intelligence platform for our customers while ensuring ZoomInfo remains an outstanding workplace for our employees across the globe.” The Excellence 1000 Index highlights companies that have successfully navigated complex business challenges and achieved sustained success. The results were determined after the Best Practice Institute analyzed over half a million data points and created a proprietary scoring system to measure everything from financial practices to customer reviews, ESG commitments, and more to build the 2nd annual Excellence 1000 Index. “Corporate success today goes beyond financial performance,” said Nancy Cooper, Global Editor in Chief of Newsweek. “The Excellence 1000 Index honors companies that balance strategic growth with a deep commitment to ethics, social responsibility, and sustainability. Together with our partner Best Practice Institute, we are proud to recognize these organizations redefining leadership in the corporate world.” “In an era where narratives often overshadow facts, the Excellence 1000 Index stands as a testament to the importance of verified impact and ethical leadership,” added Louis Carter, CEO of Best Practice Institute. “This year’s honorees exemplify what it means to prioritize innovation, sustainability, and stakeholder value over tradition and superficial metrics. By recognizing these trailblazers, we aim to inspire a new standard for evaluating corporate success—one that values measurable progress and integrity above all.” For the full list of the 2025 Excellence 1000 Index, please visit www.newsweek.com/rankings/newsweek-excellence-index-2025 . Methodology To identify the top 1000 companies for the Excellence 1000 Index, companies were evaluated based on several criteria including Employee rating, Customer rating, ESG risk rating, ESG/Ethical impact, Adherence to ISO standards, R&D spending, Global Compact Status, Financial performance, BBB Rating and Accreditation, and Number of customer complaints, among others. Each of the criteria considered is equally ranked in importance. About ZoomInfo ZoomInfo (NASDAQ: ZI) is the Go-To-Market Intelligence Platform that empowers businesses to grow faster with AI-ready insights, trusted data, and advanced automation. Its solutions provide more than 35,000 companies worldwide with a complete view of their customers, making every seller their best seller. ZoomInfo is a recognized leader in data privacy, with industry-leading GDPR and CCPA compliance and numerous data security and privacy certifications . For more information about how ZoomInfo can help businesses with go-to-market intelligence that accelerates revenue growth, please visit www.zoominfo.com . About Newsweek Newsweek is the modern global digital news organization built around the iconic, over 85-year-old American magazine. Newsweek reaches 100 million people each month with its thought-provoking news, opinion, images, graphics, and video delivered across a dozen print and digital platforms. Headquartered in New York City, Newsweek also publishes international editions in EMEA and Asia. About Best Practice Institute Best Practice Institute (BPI) is a global leader in leadership development and benchmark research, distinguished by its data-driven approach to organizational assessment. As the research architect behind Newsweek's Excellence 1000 Index, BPI analyzes over half a million data points annually through its proprietary scoring system, evaluating companies across multiple dimensions, including employee satisfaction, customer experience, ESG performance, and financial responsibility. BPI's comprehensive methodology encompasses crucial metrics such as ISO standards compliance, R&D investment, UN Global Compact alignment, and stakeholder feedback. Through this rigorous analytical framework and innovative assessment tools, BPI continues to set the standard for identifying and promoting corporate excellence in the modern business landscape. View source version on businesswire.com : https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241219598554/en/ CONTACT: Media Contact Jaime Sarachit Director, Communications pr@zoominfo.com KEYWORD: WASHINGTON UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA INDUSTRY KEYWORD: SOFTWARE SEARCH ENGINE MARKETING MARKETING DATA MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATIONS SMALL BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TECHNOLOGY SOURCE: ZoomInfo Copyright Business Wire 2024. PUB: 12/23/2024 01:41 PM/DISC: 12/23/2024 01:40 PM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241219598554/en
Jet crash disaster in South Korea marks another setback for BoeingGoodman Group shines among Australian property firms on data-centre push
A chorus of support is growing behind actress Blake Lively after she filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment and a smear campaign against "It Ends With Us" co-star Justin Baldoni. Actress Amber Heard on Monday became the latest celebrity to speak out on behalf of the "Gossip Girl" alum over what she says was a coordinated social media effort to tarnish her name. Over the weekend, Lively filed a complaint claiming that Baldoni and a lead producer had behaved unacceptably during the filming of box office hit "It Ends With Us." The allegations included that Baldoni -- who also directed the film -- had spoken inappropriately about his sex life, and had sought to alter the film to include sex scenes that were not in the script and had not been agreed to. They also detailed how lead producer Jamey Heath had watched Lively while she was topless, despite having been asked to turn away. But the complaint goes into great detail -- including with texts and emails -- on a PR campaign to wreck her reputation and to divert attention from any public comments she might make about the men's alleged misbehavior. This was "a carefully crafted, coordinated, and resourced retaliatory scheme to silence her, and others from speaking out about the hostile environment that Mr Baldoni and Mr Heath created," the complaint says. It includes allegations that the two men hired a crisis PR team that amplified or planted negative stories about Lively on social media platforms. "You know we can bury anyone," Melissa Nathan, a member of the team, is alleged to have said, according to messages contained in the complaint. Heard's ex-husband Johnny Depp hired the same PR team during the high-profile defamation trial between the couple in 2022, in which a jury unanimously found that Heard defamed Depp over allegations he abused her. "Social media is the absolute personification of the classic saying 'A lie travels halfway around the world before truth can get its boots on,'" Heard said in a statement carried by NBC News. "I saw this firsthand and up close. It's as horrifying as it is destructive." Heard's support came on the heels of a joint statement by America Ferrera, Amber Tamblyn and Alexis Bledel, who starred with Lively in "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants." "As Blake's friends and sisters for over 20 years, we stand with her in solidarity as she fights back against the reported campaign waged to destroy her reputation," they wrote on Instagram. "Throughout the filming of 'It Ends with Us', we saw her summon the courage to ask for a safe workplace for herself and colleagues on set, and we are appalled to read the evidence of a premeditated and vindictive effort that ensued to discredit her voice." A lawyer for Wayfarer, the studio behind the film, said in a statement released to the New York Times that neither the studio, its executives, nor its PR team did anything to retaliate against Lively. "These claims are completely false, outrageous and intentionally salacious with an intent to publicly hurt and rehash a narrative in the media," lawyer Bryan Freedman wrote. The complaint was lodged with the California Civil Rights Department, and is a precursor to a lawsuit. Major Hollywood talent agency WME -- which represents Lively -- has reportedly dropped Baldoni as a client. hg/ahaATLANTA (AP) — Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer who won the presidency in the wake of the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War, endured humbling defeat after one tumultuous term and then redefined life after the White House as a global humanitarian, has died. He was 100 years old. The longest-lived American president died on Sunday, more than a year after entering hospice care , at his home in the small town of Plains, Georgia, where he and his wife, Rosalynn, who died at 96 in November 2023 , spent most of their lives, The Carter Center said. “Our founder, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, passed away this afternoon in Plains, Georgia,” the center said in posting about his death on the social media platform X. It added in a statement that he died peacefully, surrounded by his family. Businessman, Navy officer, evangelist, politician, negotiator, author, woodworker, citizen of the world — Carter forged a path that still challenges political assumptions and stands out among the 45 men who reached the nation’s highest office. The 39th president leveraged his ambition with a keen intellect, deep religious faith and prodigious work ethic, conducting diplomatic missions into his 80s and building houses for the poor well into his 90s. “My faith demands — this is not optional — my faith demands that I do whatever I can, wherever I am, whenever I can, for as long as I can, with whatever I have to try to make a difference,” Carter once said. A moderate Democrat, Carter entered the 1976 presidential race as a little-known Georgia governor with a broad smile, outspoken Baptist mores and technocratic plans reflecting his education as an engineer. His no-frills campaign depended on public financing, and his promise not to deceive the American people resonated after Richard Nixon’s disgrace and U.S. defeat in southeast Asia. “If I ever lie to you, if I ever make a misleading statement, don’t vote for me. I would not deserve to be your president,” Carter repeated before narrowly beating Republican incumbent Gerald Ford, who had lost popularity pardoning Nixon. Carter governed amid Cold War pressures, turbulent oil markets and social upheaval over racism, women’s rights and America’s global role. His most acclaimed achievement in office was a Mideast peace deal that he brokered by keeping Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at the bargaining table for 13 days in 1978. That Camp David experience inspired the post-presidential center where Carter would establish so much of his legacy. Yet Carter’s electoral coalition splintered under double-digit inflation, gasoline lines and the 444-day hostage crisis in Iran. His bleakest hour came when eight Americans died in a failed hostage rescue in April 1980, helping to ensure his landslide defeat to Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter acknowledged in his 2020 “White House Diary” that he could be “micromanaging” and “excessively autocratic,” complicating dealings with Congress and the federal bureaucracy. He also turned a cold shoulder to Washington’s news media and lobbyists, not fully appreciating their influence on his political fortunes. “It didn’t take us long to realize that the underestimation existed, but by that time we were not able to repair the mistake,” Carter told historians in 1982, suggesting that he had “an inherent incompatibility” with Washington insiders. Carter insisted his overall approach was sound and that he achieved his primary objectives — to “protect our nation’s security and interests peacefully” and “enhance human rights here and abroad” — even if he fell spectacularly short of a second term. Ignominious defeat, though, allowed for renewal. The Carters founded The Carter Center in 1982 as a first-of-its-kind base of operations, asserting themselves as international peacemakers and champions of democracy, public health and human rights. “I was not interested in just building a museum or storing my White House records and memorabilia,” Carter wrote in a memoir published after his 90th birthday. “I wanted a place where we could work.” That work included easing nuclear tensions in North and South Korea, helping to avert a U.S. invasion of Haiti and negotiating cease-fires in Bosnia and Sudan. By 2022, The Carter Center had declared at least 113 elections in Latin America, Asia and Africa to be free or fraudulent. Recently, the center began monitoring U.S. elections as well. Carter’s stubborn self-assuredness and even self-righteousness proved effective once he was unencumbered by the Washington order, sometimes to the point of frustrating his successors . He went “where others are not treading,” he said, to places like Ethiopia, Liberia and North Korea, where he secured the release of an American who had wandered across the border in 2010. “I can say what I like. I can meet whom I want. I can take on projects that please me and reject the ones that don’t,” Carter said. He announced an arms-reduction-for-aid deal with North Korea without clearing the details with Bill Clinton’s White House. He openly criticized President George W. Bush for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He also criticized America’s approach to Israel with his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” And he repeatedly countered U.S. administrations by insisting North Korea should be included in international affairs, a position that most aligned Carter with Republican President Donald Trump. Among the center’s many public health initiatives, Carter vowed to eradicate the guinea worm parasite during his lifetime, and nearly achieved it: Cases dropped from millions in the 1980s to nearly a handful. With hardhats and hammers, the Carters also built homes with Habitat for Humanity. The Nobel committee’s 2002 Peace Prize cites his “untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” Carter should have won it alongside Sadat and Begin in 1978, the chairman added. Carter accepted the recognition saying there was more work to be done. “The world is now, in many ways, a more dangerous place,” he said. “The greater ease of travel and communication has not been matched by equal understanding and mutual respect.” Carter’s globetrotting took him to remote villages where he met little “Jimmy Carters,” so named by admiring parents. But he spent most of his days in the same one-story Plains house — expanded and guarded by Secret Service agents — where they lived before he became governor. He regularly taught Sunday School lessons at Maranatha Baptist Church until his mobility declined and the coronavirus pandemic raged. Those sessions drew visitors from around the world to the small sanctuary where Carter will receive his final send-off after a state funeral at Washington’s National Cathedral. The common assessment that he was a better ex-president than president rankled Carter and his allies. His prolific post-presidency gave him a brand above politics, particularly for Americans too young to witness him in office. But Carter also lived long enough to see biographers and historians reassess his White House years more generously. His record includes the deregulation of key industries, reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign oil, cautious management of the national debt and notable legislation on the environment, education and mental health. He focused on human rights in foreign policy, pressuring dictators to release thousands of political prisoners . He acknowledged America’s historical imperialism, pardoned Vietnam War draft evaders and relinquished control of the Panama Canal. He normalized relations with China. “I am not nominating Jimmy Carter for a place on Mount Rushmore,” Stuart Eizenstat, Carter’s domestic policy director, wrote in a 2018 book. “He was not a great president” but also not the “hapless and weak” caricature voters rejected in 1980, Eizenstat said. Rather, Carter was “good and productive” and “delivered results, many of which were realized only after he left office.” Madeleine Albright, a national security staffer for Carter and Clinton’s secretary of state, wrote in Eizenstat’s forward that Carter was “consequential and successful” and expressed hope that “perceptions will continue to evolve” about his presidency. “Our country was lucky to have him as our leader,” said Albright, who died in 2022. Jonathan Alter, who penned a comprehensive Carter biography published in 2020, said in an interview that Carter should be remembered for “an epic American life” spanning from a humble start in a home with no electricity or indoor plumbing through decades on the world stage across two centuries. “He will likely go down as one of the most misunderstood and underestimated figures in American history,” Alter told The Associated Press. James Earl Carter Jr. was born Oct. 1, 1924, in Plains and spent his early years in nearby Archery. His family was a minority in the mostly Black community, decades before the civil rights movement played out at the dawn of Carter’s political career. Carter, who campaigned as a moderate on race relations but governed more progressively, talked often of the influence of his Black caregivers and playmates but also noted his advantages: His land-owning father sat atop Archery’s tenant-farming system and owned a main street grocery. His mother, Lillian , would become a staple of his political campaigns. Seeking to broaden his world beyond Plains and its population of fewer than 1,000 — then and now — Carter won an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, graduating in 1946. That same year he married Rosalynn Smith, another Plains native, a decision he considered more important than any he made as head of state. She shared his desire to see the world, sacrificing college to support his Navy career. Carter climbed in rank to lieutenant, but then his father was diagnosed with cancer, so the submarine officer set aside his ambitions of admiralty and moved the family back to Plains. His decision angered Rosalynn, even as she dived into the peanut business alongside her husband. Carter again failed to talk with his wife before his first run for office — he later called it “inconceivable” not to have consulted her on such major life decisions — but this time, she was on board. “My wife is much more political,” Carter told the AP in 2021. He won a state Senate seat in 1962 but wasn’t long for the General Assembly and its back-slapping, deal-cutting ways. He ran for governor in 1966 — losing to arch-segregationist Lester Maddox — and then immediately focused on the next campaign. Carter had spoken out against church segregation as a Baptist deacon and opposed racist “Dixiecrats” as a state senator. Yet as a local school board leader in the 1950s he had not pushed to end school segregation even after the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision, despite his private support for integration. And in 1970, Carter ran for governor again as the more conservative Democrat against Carl Sanders, a wealthy businessman Carter mocked as “Cufflinks Carl.” Sanders never forgave him for anonymous, race-baiting flyers, which Carter disavowed. Ultimately, Carter won his races by attracting both Black voters and culturally conservative whites. Once in office, he was more direct. “I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over,” he declared in his 1971 inaugural address, setting a new standard for Southern governors that landed him on the cover of Time magazine. His statehouse initiatives included environmental protection, boosting rural education and overhauling antiquated executive branch structures. He proclaimed Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the slain civil rights leader’s home state. And he decided, as he received presidential candidates in 1972, that they were no more talented than he was. In 1974, he ran Democrats’ national campaign arm. Then he declared his own candidacy for 1976. An Atlanta newspaper responded with the headline: “Jimmy Who?” The Carters and a “Peanut Brigade” of family members and Georgia supporters camped out in Iowa and New Hampshire, establishing both states as presidential proving grounds. His first Senate endorsement: a young first-termer from Delaware named Joe Biden. Yet it was Carter’s ability to navigate America’s complex racial and rural politics that cemented the nomination. He swept the Deep South that November, the last Democrat to do so, as many white Southerners shifted to Republicans in response to civil rights initiatives. A self-declared “born-again Christian,” Carter drew snickers by referring to Scripture in a Playboy magazine interview, saying he “had looked on many women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.” The remarks gave Ford a new foothold and television comedians pounced — including NBC’s new “Saturday Night Live” show. But voters weary of cynicism in politics found it endearing. Carter chose Minnesota Sen. Walter “Fritz” Mondale as his running mate on a “Grits and Fritz” ticket. In office, he elevated the vice presidency and the first lady’s office. Mondale’s governing partnership was a model for influential successors Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Biden. Rosalynn Carter was one of the most involved presidential spouses in history, welcomed into Cabinet meetings and huddles with lawmakers and top aides. The Carters presided with uncommon informality: He used his nickname “Jimmy” even when taking the oath of office, carried his own luggage and tried to silence the Marine Band’s “Hail to the Chief.” They bought their clothes off the rack. Carter wore a cardigan for a White House address, urging Americans to conserve energy by turning down their thermostats. Amy, the youngest of four children, attended District of Columbia public school. Washington’s social and media elite scorned their style. But the larger concern was that “he hated politics,” according to Eizenstat, leaving him nowhere to turn politically once economic turmoil and foreign policy challenges took their toll. Carter partially deregulated the airline, railroad and trucking industries and established the departments of Education and Energy, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He designated millions of acres of Alaska as national parks or wildlife refuges. He appointed a then-record number of women and nonwhite people to federal posts. He never had a Supreme Court nomination, but he elevated civil rights attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the nation’s second highest court, positioning her for a promotion in 1993. He appointed Paul Volker, the Federal Reserve chairman whose policies would help the economy boom in the 1980s — after Carter left office. He built on Nixon’s opening with China, and though he tolerated autocrats in Asia, pushed Latin America from dictatorships to democracy. But he couldn’t immediately tame inflation or the related energy crisis. And then came Iran. After he admitted the exiled Shah of Iran to the U.S. for medical treatment, the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun in 1979 by followers of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Negotiations to free the hostages broke down repeatedly ahead of the failed rescue attempt. The same year, Carter signed SALT II, the new strategic arms treaty with Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union, only to pull it back, impose trade sanctions and order a U.S. boycott of the Moscow Olympics after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Hoping to instill optimism, he delivered what the media dubbed his “malaise” speech, although he didn’t use that word. He declared the nation was suffering “a crisis of confidence.” By then, many Americans had lost confidence in the president, not themselves. Carter campaigned sparingly for reelection because of the hostage crisis, instead sending Rosalynn as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy challenged him for the Democratic nomination. Carter famously said he’d “kick his ass,” but was hobbled by Kennedy as Reagan rallied a broad coalition with “make America great again” appeals and asking voters whether they were “better off than you were four years ago.” Reagan further capitalized on Carter’s lecturing tone, eviscerating him in their lone fall debate with the quip: “There you go again.” Carter lost all but six states and Republicans rolled to a new Senate majority. Carter successfully negotiated the hostages’ freedom after the election, but in one final, bitter turn of events, Tehran waited until hours after Carter left office to let them walk free. At 56, Carter returned to Georgia with “no idea what I would do with the rest of my life.” Four decades after launching The Carter Center, he still talked of unfinished business. “I thought when we got into politics we would have resolved everything,” Carter told the AP in 2021. “But it’s turned out to be much more long-lasting and insidious than I had thought it was. I think in general, the world itself is much more divided than in previous years.” Still, he affirmed what he said when he underwent treatment for a cancer diagnosis in his 10th decade of life. “I’m perfectly at ease with whatever comes,” he said in 2015 . “I’ve had a wonderful life. I’ve had thousands of friends, I’ve had an exciting, adventurous and gratifying existence.” Former Associated Press journalist Alex Sanz contributed to this report.
Reviving History: Nikkhil Advani's 'Freedom at Midnight'
Thai ace unfazed by artificial pitch threatKlubnik's 3 TD passes, DT Page's pick-6 lead No. 17 Clemson to 51-14 win over The Citadel