Duke's Diaz: QB Murphy faces internal discipline for raising middle fingers in Virginia Tech winNEW YORK (AP) — An early rebound for U.S. stocks on Thursday petered out by the end of the day, leaving indexes close to flat. The S&P 500 edged down by 0.1% following Wednesday’s tumble of 2.9% when the Federal Reserve said it may deliver fewer cuts to interest rates next year than earlier thought. The index had been up as much as 1.1% in the morning. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 15 points, or less than 0.1%, following Wednesday’s drop of 1,123 points, while the Nasdaq composite slipped 0.1%. This week’s struggles have taken some of the enthusiasm out of the market, which critics had been warning was overly buoyant and would need everything to go correctly for it to justify its high prices. But indexes remain near their records , and the S&P 500 is still on track for one of its best years of the millennium with a gain of 23%. Traders are now expecting the Federal Reserve to deliver just one or maybe two cuts to interest rates next year, according to data from CME Group. Some are even betting on none. A month ago, the majority saw at least two cuts in 2025 as a safe bet. Wall Street loves lower interest rates because they give the economy a boost and goose prices for investments, but they can also provide fuel for inflation. Micron Technology was one of the heaviest weights on the S&P 500 Thursday. It fell 16.2% despite reporting stronger profit for the latest quarter than expected. The computer memory company’s revenue fell short of Wall Street’s forecasts, and CEO Sanjay Mehrotra said it expects demand from consumers to remain weaker in the near term. It gave a forecast for revenue in the current quarter that fell well short of what analysts were thinking. Lamb Weston, which makes French fries and other potato products, dropped 20.1% after falling short of analysts’ expectations for profit and revenue in the latest quarter. It also cut its financial targets for the fiscal year, saying demand for frozen potatoes is continuing to soften, particularly outside North America. The company replaced its chief executive. Such losses helped overshadow a 14.7% jump for Darden Restaurants, the company behind Olive Garden and other chains. It delivered profit for the latest quarter that edged past analysts’ expectations. The operator of LongHorn Steakhouses also gave a forecast for revenue for this fiscal year that topped analysts’. Accenture rose 7.1% after the professional services company likewise topped expectations for profit in the latest quarter. CEO Julie Sweet said it saw growth around the world, and the company raised its forecast for revenue this fiscal year. Amazon shares added 1.3%, even as workers at seven of its facilities went on strike Thursday in the middle of the online retail giant’s busiest time of the year. Amazon says it doesn’t expect an impact on its operations during what the workers’ union calls the largest strike against the company in U.S. history. In the bond market, yields were mixed a day after shooting higher on expectations that the Fed would deliver fewer cuts to rates in 2025. Reports on the U.S. economy came in mixed. One showed the overall economy grew at a 3.1% annualized rate during the summer, faster than earlier thought. The economy has remained remarkably resilient even though the Fed held its main interest rate at a two-decade high for a while before beginning to cut them in September. A separate report showed fewer U.S. workers applied for unemployment benefits last week, an indication that the job market also remains solid. But a third report said manufacturing in the mid-Atlantic region is unexpectedly contracting again despite economists’ expectations for growth. The yield on the 10-year Treasury rose to 4.57% from 4.52% late Wednesday and from less than 4.20% earlier this month. But the two-year yield, which more closely tracks expectations for action by the Fed in the near term, eased back to 4.31% from 4.35%. The rise in longer-term yields has put pressure on the housing market by keeping mortgage rates higher. Homebuilder Lennar fell 5.2% after reporting weaker profit and revenue for the latest quarter than analysts expected. CEO Stuart Miller said that “the housing market that appeared to be improving as the Fed cut short-term interest rates, proved to be far more challenging as mortgage rates rose” through the quarter. “Even while demand remained strong, and the chronic supply shortage continued to drive the market, our results were driven by affordability limitations from higher interest rates,” he said. A report on Thursday may have offered some encouragement for the housing industry. It showed a pickup in sales of previously occupied homes. All told, the S&P 500 slipped 5.08 points to 5,867.08. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 15.37 to 42,342.24, and the Nasdaq composite lost 19.92 to 19,372.77. In stock markets abroad, London’s FTSE 100 fell 1.1% after the Bank of England paused its cuts to rates and kept its main interest rate unchanged on Thursday. The move comes as inflation there moved further above the central bank’s 2% target rate, while the British economy is flatlining at best. The Bank of Japan also kept its benchmark interest rate unchanged, and Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 fell 0.7%. Indexes likewise sank across much of the rest of Asia and Europe. AP Business Writers Matt Ott and Elaine Kurtenbach contributed.
Police say suspect in UnitedHealthcare CEO killing wasn't a client of the insurer
My dear 2024, By Dakuku Peterside Letter writing may be a lost art in this digital age, yet there are moments when the weight of reflection demands the intimacy of a letter. So, dear 2024, consider this a heartfelt note from a Nigerian seeking to encapsulate the whirlwind of emotions, events, and transformations that have unfolded over the past twelve months. As I pen down these words, I do so with the awareness that you are not an ordinary year. Your arrival brought hope, but as the days rolled, that hope was replaced with hardship, struggle, perseverance and lessons. In this letter, as tricky as it may be, I will attempt to recount the key events that shaped you – the milestones that defined not only my life but the collective experience of a nation grappling with economic hardship, political uncertainty, and social upheaval. Nigeria stands at a crossroads, and you will be remembered as a year that tested our spirit and resolve. This is not just a recollection of facts but a narrative of survival in a land where, at times, the future seemed uncertain. You were, indeed harsh, but we, the Nigerian people, have shown remarkable resilience and perseverance. Despite the economic hardships you brought, with inflation, unemployment, and rising living costs affecting all, we have stood strong. Your visitation of economic hardships worsened by 34-40% inflation rate and supply chain disruptions, an embarrassing unemployment rate of 40%, and rising living costs affected both the high and the low. Almost all households felt your pinch. Nigeria’s food inflation rate rose to close to 40% by mid-year, pushing millions into poverty. National Bureau of Statistics reports indicated that over 71 million Nigerians faced food insecurity by the third quarter. The exchange rate rose by over 60%. Yet, amid these challenges, the Nigerian people showed remarkable resilience and perseverance. To put it into context, essential commodities such as rice, maize, and garri doubled in price within months. The petrol price fluctuated between ₦700 to ₦1200 per litre, severely impacting transportation and logistics. Even sachet water, popularly called ‘pure water’, became a luxury for many, reflecting the depth of economic strain. You made our economic thinkers and planners look clueless. Thank God we, the people, showed understanding with them. You brought needless political contentions –the Rivers crisis, contentious elections in Edo and Ondo states, the Kano Emir drama, the Old-New-Old national anthem, and “Endbadgovernance”demonstrations. An attempt to reform our tax system highlighted our stubborn ethnic fault lines. You were not short of drama, both relevant and irrelevant. The reinstatement of the old national anthem left citizens divided, as critics viewed it as distracting from pressing governance issues. However, amid these contentions, the Nigerian people stood united, showing remarkable solidarity. Despite the divisive nature of some of these events, we have remained a united front. Poverty and hunger became our companions, resulting in three deadly stampedes during palliative distributions in Oyo, Anambra, and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), leaving no fewer than 60 people dead. Unemployment among the youth reached over 45%, with many university graduates resorting to menial jobs or leaving the country in search of greener pastures, contributing to the ongoing ‘Japa’ wave. At the global scene, you delivered historic elections and global unrest. People in more than 60 countries—representing almost 50 per cent of the world’s population—went to the polls during the year. Voters in Mexico and the United Kingdom picked new leaders, while a former U.S. president was invited by voters back to the White House. In Nigeria, voter turnout in local elections dipped to a record low of 28%, reflecting growing disillusionment with governance. This disinterest was amplified by widespread insecurity, with over 1,500 reported cases of abduction and banditry disrupting daily life. Villages in Zamfara, Kaduna, and Borno faced relentless attacks, forcing thousands into internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. “Lakurawa” gained a strong foothold in parts of North-West states. Some strange things happened that we did not foresee. Greece extended adoption rights to same-sex couples, and Thailand legalised same-sex marriage, becoming the first country in Southeast Asia to do so. You gave LGBTQ+ rights activists something to celebrate. This felt strange in this part of the world, where same-sex relations remain criminalised, and social acceptance lags far behind. In Nigeria, lawmakers intensified efforts to uphold conservative values, with proposed bills aimed at further restricting LGBTQ+ rights. The disparity in cultural values highlighted the widening gap between regions of the world, reflecting the complex layers of societal evolution. You saw the world in turmoil, and the Russian vs Ukraine war continued unabated. This war brought about lots of military posturing, leading some to fear nuclear conflict between Russia and NATO. The conflict between Israel, Hamas, and Iran ramped up to greater heights. The Middle East is in commotion, with the war extending to Lebanon and Israel vowing not to stop until it wipes Hamas and Hezbollah out. Iran has shown its willingness to confront Israel, framing itself as the watchdog of the Middle East against Israel’s aggression. You also witnessed the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, raising fears of extremist groups seizing power. Reports from the UN suggested that over 300,000 Syrian refugees fled to neighbouring countries by year-end, adding to the growing refugee crisis. But amid it all, you allowed some of my compatriots to think and look at things differently, to learn that hard work does not kill and bad governance is for a season. Despite the odds, small businesses grew by 7% in sectors like agriculture and technology, offering a glimmer of hope. Despite the increase in tariffs and persistent collapse of the national grid, there has been a marginal improvement in power output in homes and factories. The healthcare sector witnessed significant transformation in the past few months of 2024 because of incisive, superlative reforms and programmes. So far, 53,000 health workers have been re-trained—an impressive number—to deliver integrated, high-quality services. The Maternal and Newborn Mortality Reduction Initiative, which offers free caesarean sections to all eligible Nigerian women meeting the criteria, and the Nigeria Climate Change and Health Vulnerability and Adaptation (V&A) Assessment Report were launched. These initiatives represent a step forward in our healthcare system, offering hope for the future. Your successor, 2025, is shaping up to be quite the mixed bag — it’s like the year is expecting a baby, but no one knows if it’ll be a bundle of joy or a handful of trouble. Nigeria is trying really hard to stop putting all its eggs in the oil basket. There’s a lot of noise about agriculture, tech, and manufacturing stepping up. With this African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) getting more action, we might see Nigeria flexing as West Africa’s trade big brother. But let’s be honest — oil and gas aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. The Dangote Refinery finally kicking into gear might help us cut down on those expensive imported petroleum products. If it plays out right, that could mean fewer trade deficits and more jobs, which we desperately need. But you know how it is with oil — prices are like Lagos traffic, unpredictable and everywhere. Plus, the world’s moving towards greener energy, so we’ve got to figure out how to keep the money flowing long-term. Now, on the money front, I won’t sugarcoat it. Inflation and the exchange rate will probably keep dancing around, and not in a fun way. The Central Bank will try to keep things under control, but they’ll need serious foreign investment and more non-oil exports to make it work. The tech space is looking exciting, though. With all these young, sharp minds and everyone glued to their phones, Lagos and Abuja are becoming mini–Silicon Valley — fintech, e-commerce, aggrotech, you name it. Politically, Nigerians are still out here demanding real change. Anti-corruption will stay a hot topic — we’re all tired of the same old stories. There’s also this growing pressure for electoral reforms and better public services. Civil society is getting louder, and I’m here for it. But security? Whew. That’s going to be a big one. Between insurgency in the Northeast, banditry up North, and secessionist noise in the Southeast, the government has its hands full. It will take more than military action — they must dig into why these issues keep popping up. On top of that, some states are pushing harder for more control over their resources and policies. The whole decentralisation and restructuring debate might heat up. Meanwhile, you can bet politicians are already gearing up for 2027. Alliances will shift — it’s like watching chess, but with higher stakes. Look, Nigeria has its share of problems—inequality, environmental issues, governance struggles. But the potential? It’s huge. We’ve got the people and the energy, and if we can channel it right, the sky’s the limit. Here’s hoping 2025 is more of a blessing than a headache. As I look ahead to 2025, I do so with cautious optimism. While the road ahead remains uncertain, I am reminded that even in the darkest of times, resilience shines through. So, to everything we have passed through, thank you, 2024, for setting us free. 2025, if you’re reading, please be more liberal to us as a nation and as a people. May our leaders listen more and apply more wisdom. May 2025 usher in real hope, stability, and progress for Nigeria and the world. Wishing Nigerians a happy, peaceful, and prosperous new year. DAP .Political leaders jousting to prove their love for Ambedkar should read Anand Teltumbde’s Iconoclast: A Reflective Biography of . In this book, they will discover that Ambedkar was a man of contradictory parts. Nothing illustrates this more vividly than his decision to enter into a pact on religious conversion with Hindu Mahasabha leader B S Moonje, whose disdain for the Depressed Classes, as the so-called ‘Untouchables’ were then classified, was revolting. A February 1936 entry in Moonje’s diary bears this out: “Any money spent on untouchables is like feeding a garden-serpent.” The genesis of their pact dates to October 13, 1935, when, at Yeola, declared that though he was born a Hindu, he shall not die as one. Hindu nationalists panicked at the thought of Ambedkar and his followers leaving Hinduism, for in that era, the population of every religious community determined representation in the legislatures. For this reason, there ensued a scramble among leaders of other faiths to woo him. Thereafter, Ambedkar explained at several public meetings why the Depressed Classes should exit Hinduism but never explicitly stated to which religion they should convert. For instance, in April 1936, he attended the Sikh Mission’s conference in Amritsar, where a conversion ceremony took place, sparking speculation whether Sikhism was to be his new faith. But then, on May 30-31, 1936, at the Bombay Mahar Provincial Conference, Ambedkar seemed to suggest yet another “path for salvation.” He said the Untouchables’ plight stemmed from three factors—they were numerically inferior everywhere; they were financially strapped; they were spiritually debilitated as they had internalised their demeaning status as fated and, therefore, lacked confidence. Muslims too, Ambedkar said, were a numerical minority and financially weak, but they were spiritually strong, the reason why violence was seldom visited on them as casually as it was on the Dalits. To overcome the three factors behind their plight, they should convert to an existing religion, he advised. Teltumbde writes, “The manner in which he referred to the Muslim community...indicated his preference for Islam over other religions.” were alarmed, for the conversion of Ambedkar’s followers to Islam would have ballooned the Muslim population and upset the communal balance of power. They sent Moonje to meet Ambedkar on June 18, 1936. Ambedkar took just three days to agree on a pact with Moonje, whom he had dubbed as “communalist” in 1932. The pact stipulated that the Hindu Mahasabha would not object to Ambedkar converting to Sikhism; nor to the inclusion of neo-Sikhs in the list of the Scheduled Castes for whom government jobs were reserved; nor to them contesting seats reserved for the Depressed Classes in the joint electorate. The Depressed Classes were, thus, not to forfeit their rights on abandoning Hinduism as long as they embraced Sikhism, not any other faith. In exchange for these gains, academic Keith Meadowcroft points out in his article on the pact, Ambedkar agreed to assist the Mahasabha in “countering Muslim and Christian proselytising and in propagating Hindu culture.” Sounds incredible today, doesn’t it? For Moonje, the Sikh population was so small that its augmentation because of Ambedkar’s conversion to it could not have posed a threat to the Hindus. By contrast, Ambedkar’s motivation to sign the pact was bewildering, for its purported gains to his followers on conversion could have been guaranteed by the British and perhaps Gandhi, not Moonje. The pact was to be a secret till such time the Mahasabha leadership endorsed it. However, Moonje wrote about the pact to another Depressed Classes leader, M C Rajah, who made it public, triggering a furore that ultimately nixed the pact. Yet, as the controversy over the pact raged, Ambedkar made statements saying conversion to Sikhism suited even Hindus. How? Ambedkar explained, “If the Depressed Classes join Islam or Christianity, they not only go out of the Hindu religion, but they also go out of the Hindu culture...” It would “denationalise the Depressed Classes.” This statement implied Muslims and Christians were not national. On the other hand, their conversion to Sikhism would retain them within the Hindu culture, “by no means a small advantage to Hindus,” he said. Ambedkar’s statements testify to his belief in the Hindutva ideology, which claims that there exists a cultural unity among the followers of faiths born in India. This ‘truth’ constitutes the foundation of cultural nationalism, of which Muslims and Christians cannot be a part as their religions were birthed outside India. Even a decade later, Ambedkar’s idea on this count did not change, Meadowcroft says, citing from his book, Pakistan Or The Partition Of India, published in 1945-46, as evidence: “Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland.” That he did not believe India had evolved a truly syncretic culture, which was the basis of its nationalism, was evident from his explanation for converting, in 1956, to Buddhism: “Buddhism is part and parcel of Bharatiya culture. I have taken care that my conversion will not hurt the tradition and culture of this land.” Yet, in the same Partition book, Ambedkar also warns, “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.... Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.” He was instrumental in enshrining the rights of the minorities in the Constitution, and deepening the meaning of liberty, equality and fraternity. Ambedkar lived a life of contradictions, as did Gandhi and Nehru, as much to be admired as critiqued.
Stock market today: Wall Street ends little changed after giving up a big morning gain
A major U.S. Supreme Court decision this summer was hailed as a conservative court’s broadside against a Democratic administration, giving red states more backing to delay or overturn policies they don’t like, such as transgender protections and clean energy goals. But the ruling in the Loper Bright case, which granted courts more power to scrutinize federal rules, can go both ways. Experts say it will likely give blue states more leeway to attack any forthcoming policy changes from President-elect Donald Trump — ranging from immigration and the environment to Medicaid and civil rights. The decision overturns a legal concept called “Chevron deference,” in place since 1984 and named after a case involving the Chevron oil company. That ruling granted federal agencies wide discretion in interpreting vague laws that had been passed by Congress and sent to the executive branch to sort out the details. Generally, courts deferred to the agency regulations. Chevron deference became a superstar of the courts, cited in more than 18,000 federal court decisions. The latest ruling wipes that all away. Experts said it will boost blue-state resistance to Trump policies. Lawsuits already are being planned in many statehouses, as California holds a special session to set aside money for legal fights, and other states such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York also talk court strategy. Democratic governors in Colorado and Illinois formed a coalition in November to “fortify essential democratic rights nationwide.” In effect, the ruling opens more federal rules to those court challenges. Blue states now have a new weapon to fight conservative federal rules on issues such as immigration, climate change, abortion access and civil rights. Ironically, the original 1984 decision establishing more power for federal agencies was made by a conservative court that was paving the way for deregulation in the Reagan administration, noted Leonardo Cuello, a research professor at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy’s Center for Children and Families. “It was a case that really opened the door to Reagan deregulation, sort of untying the hands of the [federal] agencies by saying, ‘We’re going to give you a lot of slack to start doing things,’ ” Cuello said. “Fast-forward to today, and overturning Chevron really has the opposite effect,” Cuello said. “You’re handcuffing the new [Trump administration] agency from deregulating. “It makes it hard for an agency to build out new things and it makes it hard to undo existing things,” he said. “There’s some irony to the fact that a conservative majority issued that ruling just before a conservative administration took office.” Trump appointed three of the six justices who supported the decision. Some Trump allies still see the ruling as a weapon against excessive regulation. Vivek Ramaswamy, chosen by Trump alongside tech billionaire Elon Musk to lead an advisory body the president-elect named the Department of Government Efficiency, said in a December post on X that the decision “paves the way for not a slight but a drastic reduction in the scope of the federal regulatory state.” But most experts see the change as an obstacle to a new Republican administration looking to make sweeping changes but lacking enough support in Congress to pass large-scale legislation. Any proposals restricting access to abortion or attempting to dismantle the Affordable Care Act or Medicaid expansion will be more complicated, said Zachary Baron, a director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute. “All these new policies are going to be challenged in court, and state attorneys general will certainly be leading the way,” Baron said. “I think there will be a lot of big legal fights to come.” Now, it could become harder for a Trump administration to deregulate areas of the economy, crack down on immigration, impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, or remove protections for gender and LBGTQ+ status. The Biden administration similarly has run into roadblocks. “We have already seen conservative judges point to Loper Bright as one reason to block the Biden administration’s efforts to expand the reach of nondiscrimination protections, including with respect to LGBTQ+ folks,” Baron said. For instance, federal courts in Florida, Mississippi and Texas — in response to lawsuits brought by various Republican states — prevented an Affordable Care Act rule banning gender identity-based discrimination from taking effect in July. Each ruling cited Loper Bright as one factor. With Trump’s election, it’s now blue states that have a sharper tool to combat Republican agendas. “To the extent that the Trump administration tries to radically rewrite these nondiscrimination protections again, he may well find that Democratic state AGs [attorneys general] will be able to successfully block such efforts as a result of Loper Bright also,” Baron said. Congress has not approved a major immigration or environmental law for decades. That has forced both Democratic and Republican administrations to change policy through either executive order or federal regulations that can now be more easily challenged by hostile states in the courts. “If you like the administration that’s advancing policies, then Loper Bright is not a good thing for what would happen when states challenge those policies,” said Nancy Morawetz, a New York University law professor who helps run an immigrant legal clinic, speaking at a September conference on immigration law. Trump’s election does not change that, Morawetz told Stateline later. “If the administration is anti-immigrant, Loper Bright provides stronger grounds for having a court look at whether it is breaking the law,” Morawetz said. “The executive branch gets less deference.” The court’s decision may also help immigrants themselves when they go to court to challenge federal policies on deportation and legal status, Morawetz said. Red states looking to enact Medicaid work requirements under a more amenable Trump administration also might be thwarted by the Loper Bright decision, Cuello said. The first Trump administration lost every court challenge when it granted state requests for work requirements, he said, and Loper Bright will make it even harder this time. “Even with the more generous standards granted to the agency [under the previous Chevron deference], those cases got shot down, and so now you would expect they’d be even more likely to be shot down,” Cuello said. “The win is harder.” The Loper Bright decision could also hamper promised efforts by a Trump administration to unwind environmental regulations, by making it easier for blue states to challenge any changes. That would flip the script from today’s lawsuits, in which red states are fighting the stricter regulations of coal-fired power plants. Red states have also fought new Biden administration vehicle pollution standards, and Trump allies have threatened to undermine scientific integrity policies seen as preventing deregulation by shielding scientists from political interference. The Loper Bright decision went 6-2 in favor of New Jersey herring fishermen who opposed a 2020 federal rule requiring them to pay salaries for the third-party observers on their boats who were there to ensure compliance with regulations. The fishermen argued that the cost, up to $710 per day, had no legal justification and cut their family profits by 20 percent. Lower courts ruled against the fishermen, saying the often-cited Chevron deference principle did not allow them to challenge the federal rule. The Supreme Court struck down the principle, ruling that courts are required “to exercise their independent judgment” on federal rules. “Agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. In a dissenting opinion joined by liberal justices, Associate Justice Elena Kagan called the deference to agency interpretations “part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds ... keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest. And the rule is right.”
Dolby Laboratories (NYSE:DLB) Earns “Outperform” Rating from Barrington Research