Political bigwigs line up to say final goodbye to Manmohan Singh, the OG reformer
Scanlan: Time for legislators to protect women
The top noisy neighbour complaints made to Preston City Council in 2024FBI investigating ‘numerous bomb threats’ against Trump administration nominees
I'm A Celeb star Coleen Rooney takes a brutal swipe at husband Wayne and admits she feels 'more pressure' since he became a football manager - as back home his team take a 6-1 hammering!
Why do you think the Democrats lost the presidency this year? Was it inflation, immigration, sexism or foreign wars? We believe the answer is a lot simpler. In politics, President-elect Donald Trump has the strongest brand. Start with the baseball cap. It’s an aggressive red: the color of superhero capes, or the flag you wave in front of a bull. It has a four-word slogan, “Make America Great Again.” Or, simply, MAGA. More importantly, the cap stands for an idea: “America First.” It echoed through all of Trump’s messages, repeated over again. It is clear that, to many, America First means keeping immigrants out; shutting foreign products out; retreating from global commitments; and returning to the “American values” of gun rights, traditional masculinity and Trump-approved free speech. During the campaign, every time Trump said something crazy (“they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats”) or staged a photo (at a McDonald’s drive-thru, in a garbage truck, at his Madison Square Garden rally), the message reinforced one of those brand pillars. His provocations weren’t gaffes — they were brand-building exercises. They kept fortifying the America First message. They kept building the MAGA brand. The red caps got attention and provoked an immediate response, both negative and positive. The brand was so strong, it papered over all the things so many Americans dislike about Trump personally. The one thing the brand couldn’t seemingly overcome happened in 2020, when a once-in-a-century pandemic hit. In contrast, what did Vice President Kamala Harris offer? Sadly, not much. The Democratic campaign themes were forgettable: “for the people;” “moving forward;” “turning the page;” and “we’re not going back.” Where was the message? What was the brand? The campaign focused on proposals that pleased policy wonks but never added up to a grander theme. The irony is, Democrats actually have a product people want: better health care, stronger safety nets, serious climate action — but having the better policy isn’t enough if you can’t sell it. The Democrats are selling policy papers; Trump sells a story. In our more than 40 years in the advertising business, working to come up with catchy slogans, we had a basic criterion: Can the message fit on a cap or a T-shirt? Is it a message anyone would wear? It’s not as if politicians haven’t discovered the value of branding over the years, but most of the best examples are on the Republican side: “I like Ike;” “it’s morning again in America” (for former President Ronald Reagan, written by San Francisco’s Hal Riney, who was our boss and mentor at the time); and “compassionate conservatism.” Former President Barack Obama’s slogans were less memorable, but at least “yes, we can,” and “change we can believe in” had some emotional resonance. Brands are powerful. Nike doesn’t sell shoes; it sells victory. Coca-Cola doesn’t sell soda; it sells happiness. MAGA doesn’t sell policies; it sells a vision of American renewal. Does anyone think former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would have received anything like the attention he got this year without the enduring strength of the Kennedy family brand? Look at history’s successful movements. The Nazis had their swastika and their salute. The peace movement has the dove and its symbol. The communists have a hammer and sickle. The civil rights movement has the raised fist. The LBGTQ+ rights movement has the pride flag. What symbols, what slogans, what baseball caps and T-shirts are instantly identifiable with the Democratic Party? There are, maybe, two — but they’re ancient. “The New Deal,” from 1932; and the donkey, from 1828 (and donkeys are thought of as stubborn and slow to change direction – draw your own conclusions). This election season, all the vibes, all the celebrity endorsements, all the “joy,” couldn’t compete with a great brand. Ten years from now we’ll look back and remember “Make America Great Again” — and not a single person will remember the slogans and promises of the Harris campaign. The Democratic Party needs to turn progressive values into a story worth telling, worth wearing, worth sharing. Until those candidates figure that out, they’ll keep bringing position papers to a brand fight. And they’ll keep losing. Kirk Citron, of Mill Valley, and Matt Haligman, of San Anselmo, are partners at Citron Haligman, an advertising agency based in Marin.Maeda saves point for Celtic against Club Brugge after Carter-Vickers error
By Karen Garcia, Los Angeles Times A recent study that recommended toxic chemicals in black plastic products be immediately thrown away included a math error that significantly overstated the risks of contamination, but its authors are standing by their conclusions and warn against using such products. Published in the peer-reviewed journal Chemosphere , experts from the nonprofit Toxic-Free Future said they detected flame retardants and other toxic chemicals in 85% of 203 items made of black plastic including kitchen utensils , take-out containers, children’s toys and hair accessories. The study initially said the potential exposure to chemicals found in one of the kitchen utensils approached the minimum levels the Environmental Protection Agency deemed a health risk. But in an update to the study, the authors say they made an error in their calculations and the real levels were “an order of magnitude lower” than the EPA’s thresholds. The error was discovered by Joe Schwarcz, director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society in Canada. In a blog post, Schwarcz explained that the Toxin-Free Future scientists miscalculated the lower end of what the EPA considered a health risk through a multiplication error. Instead of humans being potentially exposed to a dose of toxic chemicals in black plastic utensils near the minimum level that the EPA deems a health risk, it’s actually about one-tenth of that. Though Schwarcz said the risks outlined in the study aren’t enough for him to discard his black plastic kitchen items if he had them, he agreed with the authors that flame retardants shouldn’t be in these products in the first place. “The math error does not impact the study’s findings, conclusions or recommendations,” said Megan Liu, a co-author of the study who is the science and policy manager for Toxic-Free Future . She added that any traces of flame retardants or toxic chemicals in cooking utensils should be concerning for the public. Flame retardants are getting into commonly used items because black-colored products are being made from recycled electronic waste, such as discarded television sets and computers, that frequently contain the additives. When they’re heated, the flame retardants and other toxic chemicals can migrate out. If you’re wondering whether your old black plastic spoon or other utensils are a part of this group, Liu shared some more guidance. It’s nearly impossible to know whether a black plastic product is contaminated. That’s because these products that include recycled e-waste don’t disclose a detailed list of all ingredients and contaminants in the product. Liu said it’s also unclear how many types of flame retardants are in these black plastic products. Some of the products that researchers tested in this recent study “had up to nine different harmful chemicals and harmful flame retardants in them,” she said. Anytime you’re looking for the type of recycled plastic a product is made of you’re going to look for a number within the chasing arrows (that form a triangle) logo. Recycling symbols are numbered 1 to 7 and we commonly associate the numbers with what we can toss in our blue recycling bins. The 1 through 7 numbers stand for, respectively, polyethylene terephthalate, high-density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), low-density polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene or Styrofoam, and miscellaneous plastics (including polycarbonate, polylactide, acrylic, acrylonitrile butadiene, styrene, fiberglass and nylon). The study found higher levels of toxic flame retardants in polystyrene plastic, which is labeled with the number 6, said Liu. There isn’t a definitively timeline of when recycled electronic-waste started to be incorporated into black plastic products specifically, but e-waste started to get recycled in the early 2000s, Liu said. The way computers, cellphones, stereos, printers and copiers were being disposed of previously was to simply add them to a landfill without reusing salvageable parts. But as the National Conference of State Legislatures notes, electronics production required a significant amount of resources that could be recovered through recycling. Recovering resources such as metals, plastics and glass through recycling used a fraction of the energy needed to mine new materials. However, the study pointed out that flame retardants and other chemical contaminates have been detected in and near e-waste recycling facilities, in indoor air and dust at formal e-waste recycling facilities in Canada, China, Spain and the U.S. It also noted contamination in soil samples surrounding e-waste recycling sites in China and Vietnam. The safest nontoxic material options for kitchen utensil are wood and stainless steel. ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.$1100 off Samsung TV that’s like a ‘work of art’ - news.com.au
Your black plastic kitchen utensils aren’t so toxic after all. But you should still toss them, group says
Simone Magill: NI stunned Norway once... and we’ll defy the odds again
Homelessness. It’s a word that stirs images in people’s minds — of addiction, despair, mental illness. Too often, I’ve heard people talk about those without homes like they’re not human; they’re just a social problem to solve. “They choose that life,” some say dismissively as if anyone would choose to struggle to find a bathroom, a meal, or a safe place to sleep. What if I told you I lived it? That I was homeless, all while working full-time, helping my community and prioritizing others over myself. At first, I didn’t want to share my story. There’s a deep sense of shame and guilt tied to being homeless. It feels like admitting failure. Even as someone who advocates for housing as a right, I struggled to ask for help. I worried about being judged or seen as less capable because I wasn’t “stable.” But the truth is, homelessness isn’t about laziness or poor choices — it’s about a lack of support systems, about gaps in the safety net that let people fall through. During my homelessness, I experienced things I never thought I would. I hauled water just to have something drinkable. I used the gym not for exercise, but to access hot, clean water for a shower. I sat in the dark some nights because I had no power, and I learned to let go of comforts I once took for granted: watching TV, having reliable internet, or even enjoying a snack before bed. Laundry became a logistical nightmare with no nearby laundromats. Sometimes, finding a clean pair of socks felt like a victory. I lived in my car, in hotels, on couches, and even in my trailer this summer. Each situation came with its own challenges, from the physical discomfort to the emotional toll of feeling unmoored. Through it all, I kept working. I helped others find housing while quietly navigating my own homelessness. Each day, I prioritized the needs of my community over my own, carrying their stories, their struggles, and their pain alongside my own. And yet, even in my darkest moments, I found light. Family and friends stepped up in ways I never expected. Their support reminded me of the strength in community and the humility in receiving help. This journey taught me more than I ever imagined about the realities of homelessness. It’s not just about having no roof; it’s about the lack of resources to regain stability. Sometimes, people need more than a home — they need personal support, counselling, or health services. Homelessness is rarely a standalone issue; it’s tied to broader challenges that require collective solutions. Now, I want to acknowledge those who are struggling. To anyone who is unhoused, at risk, or just barely holding on: You are seen. You are valued. And you are not alone. I know this because I’ve been there. What I didn’t tell you earlier is that I’m the housing navigator for Whitefish River First Nation . Yes, the person responsible for helping others find housing was, for a time, homeless. Some might see that as ironic, but I see it as an opportunity. My experience brought me closer to the people I serve. It taught me humility, resilience, and the importance of walking alongside others with empathy and understanding. This is why I do the work I do. I carry my story with me because it’s part of the community’s story. My journey has given me a deeper connection to my people and a renewed determination to advocate for solutions that address not just housing, but the holistic needs of those without it. Together, we can create a world where no one feels invisible or unheard. Because being homeless isn’t just about having no roof—it’s about finding the support and humanity we all deserve. T. Rowe resides in Greater Sudbury. A rotating stable of community members share their thoughts on anything and everything, the only criteria being that it be thought-provoking.Fernwayer Launches Marketplace for Curated High-End Travel Experiences
None