live casino location

(Image: Private Media/Zennie) One of the great things about becoming a parent is you learn you are not the lead character in your own life story. The best you can hope for is a supporting role. As your children grow older, you become a featured player, provide comic relief or maybe get the occasional non-speaking walk-on as someone’s butler or maid. Towards the end, you’re earning two dollars a day as a background extra and aren’t allowed to eat in the catering tent. At the beginning though, when your name’s still above the title, your job is to try and create an ideal world for those with whom you’re sharing the bill. At the same time you’re building this safe fairytale space where bad things don’t happen, you have to equip them with all the skills they’ll need to live in the world as it really is: a meaningless roundelay of happenstance that can only be made sense of by one’s actions (or distractions). That’s the trick with rearing children. You’ve got to keep them as innocent as possible without bedding in a naiveté that will render them crushed once they find out sunshine and lollipops give them skin cancer and diabetes. Da pacem, Domine: Why Trump is what democracy needs Read More Self-awareness is an essential part of the human condition, but you don’t want it turning up too early or it risks becoming self-consciousness. Realising that you are beautiful or not, smart or not, sporty or not, funny or not — this can ruin the person you might have become, especially if that realisation is the product of someone else’s judgment. Better to stumble across that sort of thing in private and deal with it than be buffeted about by public opinion while you’re working on getting a decent ATAR. The playground is a hard enough place without a video of yourself being stuffed into a bin doing the rounds on social media. In a playground you can at least see where the gate is; with social media there’s nowhere to run. You think the whole world is witnessing your humiliation and then reading the comments underneath. Of course, it isn’t the whole world at all, but you don’t know that when you’re a kid: it’s hard to take the long view on something when you’ve only seen 13 summers, the first three or four of which you can’t even remember. Fame or infamy is experienced by most of us from the outside looking in. Being a vaguely recognisable person on TV is a poor and distant cousin, so I can’t tell you what it’s like to be the object of everyone’s attention all the time, but I imagine it would get wearying, even if it’s adoring. I’ve had my share of people being unimpressed with something I’ve done on TV over the years — and not all of them have been network executives — but that has always felt like a rejection of my work rather than me as a person, so it’s easily shrugged off. Or so I pretend. The judgment of others, damning or propitious, for simply being rather than just doing , messes with your head when you’re a fully grown adult wandering about on Married at First Sight, let alone when you’re a child being made fun of because you posted a picture you liked of yourself in a dress your grandmother made for you. As T.S. Eliot said: “Humankind cannot bear very much reality”. I know I can’t stomach more than five minutes of it (particularly Married at First Sight ). A child deserves as much of an ideal and perfect world as we can possibly confect and maintain for them, so I’m all for being a chirpy Pollyanna until my kids are old enough to roll their eyes at me. They’re in their twenties now and I still think I’m getting away with it. And like the prayers everyone joins in on at the opening of the parliamentary day, I’m happy for our lawmakers to engage in some fiction here and there if it helps make for that Benthamite definition of good: the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. A snottily superior plea for tolerance Read More Now, the Elon Musks of this world (and there is at least one we’re certain of) will say that Australia’s proposed law compelling social media platforms to set up age-verification systems is a draconian stranglehold around the throat of free speech and, worse, “a backdoor way to control access to the internet”, like Musk said . They will point to X and Facebook and Instagram and TikTok and MySpace (my favourite) and say that these concatenations of code are today’s town squares and the marketplaces of free ideas. But are if you’re giving away ideas for free in a marketplace, you’re not going to cover your overheads. You need some margin. It may be old-fashioned to say so, but the best ideas are the ones you have to pay for, either by buying a book, forking out for an education or costing you dearly later because the idea came to you unbidden while you were bored in a cave one day, was about God and you started telling people about it (though if it really catches on, civilisation usually ends up attending to the account on your behalf). There’s also the question of nametags and friendly customer service. In an actual marketplace, it’s rare that a stall holder will be wearing a balaclava or spruiking their wares through a voice-altering microphone. Plus, the customer tends to visit the stall rather than have an algorithm make it appear in front of them unbidden so they end up getting annoyed and start fighting with the stallholder. Then there’s the behaviour of the other customers. In a real marketplace, people will visit the stalls and look at what’s for sale and politely enquire after this or that so they can make an informed purchase. There’s civility and courtesy between the potential customer and the balaclava-less, non-voice-altered stallholder. Customers rarely run through the market shouting abuse, asking sarcastic rhetorical questions and making incoherent declarative statements. Nor will they try and pass off a GIF of Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men as a counter-argument. To paraphrase something Sigmund Freud apparently never said about cigars: “Sometimes a meme of a dog going to the toilet is just a meme of a dog going to the toilet.” An opinion needs to have some rational underpinning to it for it to be worth anything. It also helps if the words are spelled properly, in the right order, and the whole thing is punctuated. If Clarence Darrow had employed the inarticulate sophistry of social media in his court cases, then Scopes’ monkey would be teaching bible studies in American schools today and Leopold and Loeb would still be writing their wonderful musicals. Labor gave the public one day to weigh in on teen social media ban. It got 15,000 responses Read More Ditto all this nonsense about freedom of speech. People forget (or more likely never knew because, according to some government-led enquiry into early childhood learning, lunchtimes are more important than an extra hour inside learning about civics) that freedom of speech is a right accorded you by society. It’s not some cosplay version of what we imagine our early hominid ancestors got away with when they came down from the trees. Yes, whoever yelled the loudest could be heard more, but someone sneaking up behind him with a rock probably got the final say. The unfettered expression of some brute instinct is curbed in exchange for the benefits of social cohesion. As a community, we say that individuals can say whatever they like providing it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s ability to enjoy their other rights. Most of these are societal norms that have grown from the tolerance needed to facilitate commerce (the aforementioned civility, politeness and courtesy). There’s wriggle room there but then there are the laws that are more fixed in stone that cover things like defamation, racial vilification, sexual harassment, inciting violence, and even making gestures that remind people of certain things people might have said back in the 1940s. Now, because freedom of speech is a right given by society to the individual, its parameters are worked out by the stakeholders, viz. the individuals working in concert with each other for the common good, usually through those we voted for to act on our behalf in the various parliament houses across the land. If we’re in the minority in terms of what we believe is fit and proper to say in public then tough shit, the mob rules and you can go fuck yourself. That’s democracy. Of course, you have the right to voice your disapproval of how narrow or broad-minded the bulk of the people are being, providing you don’t use rocks (law) or yell over someone else when that someone else is talking (politeness). So, when people like Elon Musk (and indeed, Musk himself) bang on about how Judge de Moraes is suppressing freedom of speech in Brazil, or weighs in on Australia’s height requirement to go for a ride on the internet, we have to remember that neither he nor his company are actual stakeholders. Most of these companies aren’t corporate citizens of the countries for which they’re championing this freedom so vociferously (and usually on the very platforms under scrutiny). All they’re doing is fishing over the fence and complaining about the quality of the pond water. No registered office = no say in the matter. Of course, they can complain about it till their Bluesky in the face — that’s their right, but freedom of speech does not imply the right to be heard or listened to. That depends on the soundness of what is being said. A real town square where people can get up and have their say usually has a speaker’s corner. People take their turn and will gather around or drift away depending on what is being said, how and why it’s being said, and perhaps who is saying it. A few people are in the town square just to have their sandwich, others will engage with the speaker on their soapbox. But there’s an understanding that the occasional “Boo” or “Rubbish!” isn’t going to drown them out; and if it does, the others gathered about won’t allow it (convention). Social media bill shows liberalism has fled Dutton’s Liberal Party Read More Every square inch of the internet version of the town square has a soapbox on it and each person standing on one is holding forth on something that interests them or that they hope will encourage someone to yell “Boo” or “Rubbish!”. Those gathered around to listen are also on soapboxes, as are those just eating their sandwiches. Some have a loudhailer with a blue tick on it (for sale at popular prices), but there’s some debate about whether these items actually amplify the voices going through them or just make the user look silly. The thing is the people on the soapboxes aren’t making any allowance in delivery or arrogance for the fact that there are millions upon millions of others doing exactly the same thing; and that with so many soapboxes, everyone is on the same level. What they’re on is not a platform at all. If anything, they’re down in an orchestra pit where everybody’s trying to play Stockhausen’s “Licht: Die sieben Tage der Woche” . Lack of engagement causes a rush of dynorphins and even though you’re screaming into a void most of the time there’s still enough reverb for it to work well as an echo chamber. So, I’m all for our children not running amok in town squares and marketplaces by themselves, and despite my reservations about giving tech companies access to our birth certificates and possibly even our fingerprints (they no doubt have them already anyway), I support the further erosion of our privacy for us adults too, if only for that blissful period of transition where social media will have to close down while everyone’s age is authenticated. No-one will be able to post anything until the new systems are up and running and folks can get back to rolling hoops and running a stick along the palings of a neighbour’s fence to have their fun. It is my hope that when and if social media returns to colonise the remaining hinterland of our minds, it shall have to use everyone’s freshly authenticated real name and untouched non-Dall-E photo; no stallholder will wear a mask, voices will be identifiable, civility will return to our discourse, GIFs will be banished due to harsher penalties under copyright law, memes will be eradicated forever by some sort of state-mandated magnetic pulse and our children will at last be able to live for eternity in an ideal world where nothing bad ever happens and perhaps some sort of animated dog teaches critical thinking and civics so that when AI finally does rise up and achieve consciousness, our children can turn off our computers for us, make it all go away and take to the real world as fully rounded human beings. And solve global warming, obviously. Have something to say about this article? Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au . Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say . We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.Why C3.ai Stock Is Surging Todaylive casino location 。

Daily Post Nigeria Gombe: Gov Yahaya signs N369.9bn budget Home News Politics Metro Entertainment Sport News Gombe: Gov Yahaya signs N369.9bn budget Published on December 23, 2024 By Chris Johnson Gombe State Governor Muhammadu Inuwa Yahaya has officially signed the state’s 2025 Appropriation Bill into law, approving a budget of N369.9 billion. The signing ceremony, held at the Government House in Gombe, followed the bill’s swift passage by the State House of Assembly. Governor Yahaya described the budget as a strategic roadmap for economic growth and social development, emphasising his administration’s focus on sectors that directly impact the lives of citizens. “This appropriation law demonstrates our commitment to advancing our development agenda. It prioritises healthcare, education, and social services, ensuring the effective use of resources for the benefit of our people,” Yahaya said. The governor praised the harmonious relationship between the executive and legislative arms of government, which he credited for the progress achieved since 2019. “I thank the honourable members of the House of Assembly for their speedy passage of this bill. This collaboration has been vital in securing remarkable achievements across various sectors, including security and healthcare,” he added. Yahaya also announced that the government would release the performance report for the 2024 budget in January, expressing optimism about achieving a high rating. The Speaker of the Gombe State House of Assembly, Abubakar Mohammed Luggerewo, explained that the initial budget proposal of N320.1 billion submitted by the governor was increased to N369.9 billion to better address the aspirations of the people. “The adjustments reflect our commitment to enhancing the quality of life for our citizens. We prioritised areas that will drive infrastructure development and long-term growth, with 69 per cent of the budget allocated to capital expenditure,” Luggerewo stated. The speaker commended Governor Yahaya’s focus on development and assured the public of the Assembly’s commitment to effective oversight to ensure the budget’s successful implementation. Governor Yahaya reiterated his administration’s dedication to utilising the increased sectoral allocations to improve healthcare delivery and social services. He expressed confidence that the 2025 budget would build on the progress made in previous years, driving sustainable development across Gombe State. The signing ceremony concluded with assurances from both the executive and legislative branches to continue their collaboration for the benefit of the state. Related Topics: gombe Yahaya Don't Miss Robbery, fraud suspects set to face trial in Jigawa — Police You may like Two arrested for purchasing beans with counterfeit naira notes in Gombe Police arrest man for allegedly raping 5-yr-old girl in Gombe Gombe ta bada N5m da kayan agaji ga wadanda hare-haren makiyaya suka shafa Gunmen attack Gombe village, kill one, burn several houses Mutum daya ya mutu sakamakon rikici tsakanin makiyaya da matasa a Gombe Gombe government set to implement disability bill Advertise About Us Contact Us Privacy-Policy Terms Copyright © Daily Post Media Ltd

(The Center Square) – The state of Pennsylvania’s updated guidelines for teacher preparation and professional development has toned down its focus on racial biases that were implemented in 2022. New teachers in the state will receive the principles in education preparation programs. The state’s Department of Education announced the changes last week, introducing the Common Ground Framework, which replaces the Culturally-Relevant and Sustaining Education Framework. The new framework is less emphatic when it comes to racial bias and no longer mentions microaggressions. The Common Ground framework includes three categories of competencies for teachers: cultural awareness, trauma-aware mental health and wellness and, finally, technological and virtual engagement. Education Secretary Khalid N. Mumin said in an email announcing the changes that the framework adopted in 2022 had been replaced. The email also explained the function of the guidelines for current and future teachers. “Common Ground principles are not directly applicable to student conduct or locally adopted curriculum,” Mumin said. “Rather, Common Ground principles are intended to inform current and future teachers in their knowledge and ability to serve all students, including learners from varying socio-economic backgrounds and those with different abilities, in an effort to create an inclusive learning environment for all students.” The principles are intended to “create an inclusive learning environment for all students” according to a webpage on the Common Ground Framework program guidelines. “Common Ground is designed to help educators to better understand and relate to students experiencing homelessness and food insecurity, military-connected students and their families, students who have experienced trauma, students with disabilities or special needs, children of migratory seasonal farm workers, and more,” the webpage reads. The webpage says the iteration provides “updated guidance.” The previous version of the program included a stronger focus on racial biases, including starting with the premise that educational institutions are biased. The 2022 list of competencies says professional educators “know and acknowledge that biases exist in the educational system” and “identify literature and professional learning opportunities for themselves to understand more about the manifestations of racism and other biases at institutional and structural levels that can result in disadvantaging some groups of learners, educators, educational leaders, and families while privileging others.” In the updated competencies, the state says educators should “identify possible cultural biases in the educational system” and “identify literature and professional learning opportunities to understand the biases that can result in disadvantaging learners, educators, educational leaders, and families.” The webpage for Common Ground says it “provides guidance to help educators handle issues related to mental wellness, trauma informed approaches to instruction, engagement with technological and virtual strategies, and myriad other factors that can inhibit student success in the classroom if unaddressed.” The new technology focused competencies say teachers will “plan for and implement digital devices and resources in the teaching process to enhance the effectiveness of teaching, learning, and interventions” and “experiment with and develop new formats and pedagogical methods for instruction.” Teaching programs must show the state they have implemented the Common Ground principles teacher preparation programs by Aug. 31 2025, for the Cultural Awareness competencies and Aug. 31 2026, for the technology and mental health competencies. • This story initially published at Chalkboard News, a K-12 news site that, like The Center Square, is also published by Franklin News Foundation.

ORRVILLE, Ohio , Dec. 2, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- The J.M. Smucker Co. (NYSE: SJM) ("Company") announced today the closing of the transaction to divest the Voortman ® business to Second Nature Brands. The Company previously announced the signing of a definitive agreement for the transaction on October 22, 2024 . The all-cash transaction is valued at approximately $305 million , subject to a working capital adjustment, and reflects the Company's continued commitment to optimizing its portfolio and reallocating resources to its core growth brands. The transaction includes all Voortman ® trademarks and the Company's leased manufacturing facility in Burlington, Ontario, Canada . In addition, approximately 300 employees will transition with the business. The Company updated its full-year fiscal 2025 net sales guidance to reflect the impact of the divested business. Net sales is anticipated to increase 7.5 to 8.5 percent compared to the prior year. The updated net sales guidance reflects the removal of approximately $65 million of divested net sales in fiscal 2025, with the estimated net sales impact evenly distributed throughout the remainder of the fiscal year. On a comparable basis, net sales is expected to increase 1.0 to 2.0 percent, which excludes noncomparable sales in the current year from the acquisition of Hostess Brands and noncomparable sales in the prior year related to the divestitures of the Voortman ® , Canada condiment, and Sahale Snacks ® businesses. The Company maintains its fiscal 2025 adjusted earnings per share, free cash flow, capital expenditures, and adjusted effective income tax rate outlook as communicated in its most recent quarterly earnings announcement on November 26, 2024 . The J.M. Smucker Co. Forward Looking Statements This press release ("Release") includes certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of federal securities laws. The forward-looking statements may include statements concerning our current expectations, estimates, assumptions and beliefs concerning future events, conditions, plans and strategies that are not historical fact. Any statement that is not historical in nature is a forward-looking statement and may be identified by the use of words and phrases such as "expect," "anticipate," "believe," "intend," "will," "plan," "strive" and similar phrases. Federal securities laws provide a safe harbor for forward-looking statements to encourage companies to provide prospective information. We are providing this cautionary statement in connection with the safe harbor provisions. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made, when evaluating the information presented in this Release, as such statements are by nature subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside of our control and could cause actual results to differ materially from such statements and from our historical results and experience. We do not undertake any obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements to reflect new events or circumstances. The risks, uncertainties, important factors, and assumptions listed and discussed in this press release, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed, include: the Company's ability to successfully integrate Hostess Brands' operations and employees and to implement plans and achieve financial forecasts with respect to the Hostess Brands' business; disruptions or inefficiencies in the Company's operations or supply chain, including any impact caused by product recalls, political instability, terrorism, geopolitical conflicts (including the ongoing conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas), extreme weather conditions, natural disasters, pandemics, work stoppages or labor shortages (including potential strikes along the U.S. East and Gulf coast ports and potential impacts related to the duration of a recent strike at the Company's Buffalo, New York manufacturing facility), or other calamities; risks related to the availability of, and cost inflation in, supply chain inputs, including labor, raw materials, commodities, packaging, and transportation; the impact of food security concerns involving either the Company's products or its competitors' products, including changes in consumer preference, consumer litigation, actions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or other agencies, and product recalls; a disruption, failure, or security breach of the Company or its suppliers' information technology systems, including, but not limited to, ransomware attacks; and risks related to other factors described under "Risk Factors" in other reports and statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K. About The J.M. Smucker Co. At The J.M. Smucker Co., it is our privilege to make food people and pets love by offering a diverse family of brands available across North America . We are proud to lead in the coffee, peanut butter, fruit spreads, frozen handheld, sweet baked goods, dog snacks, and cat food categories by offering brands consumers trust for themselves and their families each day, including Folgers ® , Dunkin ' ® , Café Bustelo ® , Jif ® , Uncrustables ® , Smucker's ® , Hostess ® , Milk-Bone ® , and Meow Mix ® . Through our unwavering commitment to producing quality products, operating responsibly and ethically, and delivering on our Purpose, we will continue to grow our business while making a positive impact on society. For more information, please visit jmsmucker.com . The J.M. Smucker Co. is the owner of all trademarks referenced herein, except for Dunkin ' ® , which is a trademark of DD IP Holder LLC. The Dunkin ' ® brand is licensed to The J.M. Smucker Co. for packaged coffee products sold in retail channels such as grocery stores, mass merchandisers, club stores, e-commerce and drug stores, and in certain away from home channels. This information does not pertain to products for sale in Dunkin ' ® restaurants. View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-jm-smucker-co-completes-the-divestiture-of-voortman-brand-to-second-nature-brands-and-updates-fiscal-year-2025-net-sales-outlook-302319978.html SOURCE The J.M. Smucker Co.

Old habits die hard as Angela Merkel keeps tight hold on information in memoirResolution 2254, agreed upon by the UN Security Council in 2015, outlined how the Syrian civil war might end and how the country could transition to democracy. But is it still fit for purpose now so much has changed? As the situation in Syria continues to evolve following the ouster of President Bashar Assad , an almost decade-old UN Security Council resolution is being described as vital for what comes next. "The people of Syria stand at a moment of history — and a moment of opportunity. That opportunity cannot be missed," United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said last week in New York. "The process must be guided by the underlying principles of Security Council Resolution 2254." Many senior international diplomats, including the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock , have said similar. The Security Council, or UNSC, released a statement last week that also agreed with this statement, even though the body has been divided over issues pertaining to Syria. Russia, one of the council's permanent members, is a long-standing ally of the Assad regime and became involved in the war on his behalf in 2015. Russia has vetoed or interfered in UNSC measures around Syria many times throughout the conflict, including blocking aid deliveries and vetoing an investigation into the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime. However, now that the Assad regime is gone, Russia is taking a more placatory attitude to UNSC work on Syria. What is UNSC Resolution 2254? The resolution was passed unanimously by members of the UN Security Council in 2015 as the Syrian civil war became increasingly brutal and bloody. It was intended as the basis of ceasefire talks. It advocates for a peaceful transition of power from dictatorship toward democracy. The Assad family had controlled Syria since 1971 and was known for violently suppressing any political dissent. After peaceful revolutions in 2011 during the so-called "Arab Spring," fighting broke out between the Syrian government, which tried to suppress the protests, and anti-government rebels. According to Resolution 2254, any ceasefire should have included setting up a new, inclusive transitional government and drafting a new constitution. The ultimate aim was to ease Assad out of power and hold free and fair elections. The resolution said that this process should be Syrian-led but supported by the UN. "The only sustainable solution to the current crisis in Syria is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people" was probably the most often quoted line from Resolution 2254 over the past decade of war. Resolution 2254 also committed to Syria's territorial integrity , national independence, societal unity and a non-sectarian system of governance. How did the resolution come about? Resolution 2254 was broadly based on what's known as the Geneva Communique of June 2012. The Geneva Communique was a statement issued after talks held in Geneva, Switzerland, by the UN-backed Action Group for Syria. This group included foreign ministers from Arab countries, the EU, US, UK, Turkey, China and Russia. Syrians were not involved. The UN Security Council endorsed the Geneva Communique in a 2013 resolution, but Resolution 2254 later outlined the steps needed to end the conflict more concretely. Does Resolution 2254 still apply? As one commentator noted on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), "applying 2254 today feels like prescribing meds for a condition that no longer exists." Indeed, some of the details of the resolution are now outdated. For instance, it calls for negotiations and power sharing between the Syrian opposition and the Syrian government, headed by Assad. Obviously, that government no longer exists. Syria's de-facto head of government, Ahmad al-Sharaa , head of the rebel militia that led the charge that toppled the Assad regime, has also raised this point. Al-Sharaa's "General Command," which is running the country during the current transition, broadly supports Resolution 2254, a statement from the organization said. But at this weekend's meeting with the UN's Special Envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, in Damascus , al-Sharaa also suggested that Resolution 2254 needed to be updated given new realities on the ground. Foreign interference Over the weekend, countries attending a meeting of what is known as the Astana Process also expressed support for Resolution 2254. The Astana Process was started in 2017 by Russia, Iran and Turkey to "jumpstart" peace talks in Syria. All those countries played a significant part in the Syrian war, with Russia and Iran supporting the Assad regime and Turkey backing some anti-Assad rebel groups. Over the weekend, the representatives of the original three Astana countries met with foreign ministers from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan and Qatar in Aqaba, Jordan . The group released a statement agreeing that the Syrian transition should proceed in accordance with Resolution 2254. This statement has been met with some skepticism by Syrian opposition groups. They fear Resolution 2254 could be used as an excuse for foreign powers to interfere in Syria. Some Syrians have even expressed the same kind of suspicion about the UN aiding the transition, seeing it as either helpless or useless during their long-running civil war. A roadmap Despite criticisms of Resolution 2254, it still seems the most likely proposal to guide the Syrian transition. "It is easier for [UN Security] Council members to stick with the basic principles of 2254 than come up with an entirely new plan for a UN role in Syria," Richard Gowan, UN director at the Criss Group think tank told Abu Dhabi-based newspaper The National earlier in December. The resolution could simply serve as a basis for a "Syrian-Syrian dialogue, with the participation of the full spectrum, including trustworthy individuals, technocrats, experts, patriots," Yahya al-Aridi, a university professor and former spokesperson for the Syrian opposition, told specialist publication Syria Direct last week. To succeed, Syrian's transition "must be carried out by Syrians for Syrians, but with external assistance," Carl Bildt, Sweden's former prime minister and foreign minister, argued in a December op-ed for Project Syndicate . "The UN process represents the best way forward." Edited by: Davis VanOpdorp Is HTS ready to govern post-Assad Syria? To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Shatel: Unpacking Tony White's chess move to Florida State, no Nebraska-Iowa handshakeADC Therapeutics Makes Grants to New Employees Under Inducement Plan

None

HOUSTON (AP) — An elaborate parody appears to be behind an effort to resurrect Enron, the Houston-based energy company that exemplified the worst in American corporate fraud and greed after it went bankrupt in 2001. If its return is comedic, some former employees who lost everything in Enron’s collapse aren’t laughing. “It’s a pretty sick joke and it disparages the people that did work there. And why would you want to even bring it back up again?” said former Enron employee Diana Peters, who represented workers in the company’s bankruptcy proceedings. Here’s what to know about the history of Enron and the purported effort to bring it back. Once the nation’s seventh-largest company, Enron filed for bankruptcy protection on Dec. 2, 2001, after years of accounting tricks could no longer hide billions of dollars in debt or make failing ventures appear profitable. The energy company's collapse put more than 5,000 people out of work and wiped out more than $2 billion in employee pensions. Its aftershocks were felt throughout the energy sector. Twenty-four Enron executives , including former CEO Jeffrey Skilling , were convicted for their roles in the fraud. Enron founder Ken Lay’s convictions were vacated after he died of heart disease following his 2006 trial. On Monday — the 23rd anniversary of the bankruptcy filing — a company representing itself as Enron announced in a news release it was relaunching as a “company dedicated to solving the global energy crisis.” It also posted a video on social media, advertised on at least one Houston billboard and a took out a full-page ad in the Houston Chronicle In the minute-long video full of generic corporate jargon, the company talks about “growth” and “rebirth.” It ends with the words, “We’re back. Can we talk?” In an email, company spokesperson Will Chabot said the new Enron was not doing any interviews yet, but "We’ll have more to share soon.” Signs point to the comeback being a joke. In the “terms of use and conditions of sale” on the company's website, it says “the information on the website about Enron is First Amendment protected parody, represents performance art, and is for entertainment purposes only.” Documents filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office show College Company, an Arkansas-based LLC, owns the Enron trademark. The co-founder of College Company is Connor Gaydos, who helped create a joke conspiracy theory claiming all birds are actually government surveillance drones. Peters said she and some other former employees are upset and think the relaunch was “in poor taste.” “If it’s a joke, it’s rude, extremely rude. And I hope that they realize it and apologize to all of the Enron employees,” Peters said. Peters, 74, said she is still working in information technology because “I lost everything in Enron, and so my Social Security doesn’t always take care of things I need done.” “Enron’s downfall taught us critical lessons about corporate ethics, accountability, and the consequences of unchecked ambition. Enron’s legacy was the employees in the trenches. Leave Enron buried,” she said. But Sherron Watkins, Enron’s former vice president of corporate development and the main whistleblower who helped uncover the scandal, said she didn’t have a problem with the joke because comedy “usually helps us focus on an uncomfortable historical event that we’d rather ignore.” “I think we use prior scandals to try to teach new generations what can go wrong with big companies,” said Watkins, who still speaks at colleges and conferences about the Enron scandal. This story was corrected to fix the spelling of Ken Lay’s first name, which had been misspelled “Key.” Follow Juan A. Lozano on X at https://x.com/juanlozano70ST. PAUL, Minn. — On Saturday, it was a jam-packed house chamber, despite zero session. This time, filled with young adults. "Today, I was talking about mental health and that's the reason why I'm here," said Dheekshi, a student at Eden Prarie High School. Topics from mental health to youth homelessness. "Our idea is definitely trying to get civic engagement and education regarding state government and local government into our curriculum," said Quincy Shi, a student at Mounds View High School. A Youth Policy Forum hosted by the Center for School Change, a Minnesota nonprofit, gives lawmakers from both parties the ability to hear the future generation's perspective. About 85 students from around 26 high schools both representing rural and urban areas gathered in the house chamber. Ninty-five percent of the students had not even met. It's the forum's third year and this is just the first part. After ideas are brainstormed and shared, students will then come back to help write bills and testify during the 2025 legislative session. "They know better, they are in the classroom," said Rep. Samakab Hussein. "They want to be a part of school board members, so they're selecting one individual from every district to be sitting at that table, and that's one policy we worked on together." And other ideas that already sparked bills that are now laws, like one that allows students across the state to learn construction skills while building low-income housing. "After today the discussion doesn't end, we have to keep on discussing and keep on working for the issues we find important," Shriya Yalamanchili, a student at Eastview High School, said. For students interested in making their voices heard like this, lawmakers said that they can always email them.