Southern Arizona voters cast ballots to select nominees to succeed late US Rep. Raúl Grijalva
His death in March left the seat wide open for the first time in over two decades. Grijalva was a champion of environmental protections and reliably went to bat for immigrants and Native American tribes. He routinely breezed past GOP challengers in the deep-blue district, which stretches across most of the state's border with Mexico and includes parts of Tucson and nearby counties.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge issues temporary injunction against Trump administration cancellation of humanities grants
WASHINGTON (AP) — A district court judge in New York issued a preliminary injunction Friday night stopping the mass cancellation of National Endowment for the Humanities grants to members of the Authors Guild on the grounds that their First Amendment rights were violated. Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York stayed the mass cancellations of grants previously awarded to guild members and ordered that any funds associated with the grants not be reobligated until a trial on the merits of the case is held. In reaching her decision, the judge said the 'defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat 'Radical Indoctrination' and 'Radical … DEI Programs,' and to further 'Biological Truth.'' One of the grants was to a professor writing a book on the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s and 1980s. On a spreadsheet entitled 'Copy of NEH Active Grants,' the government flagged the work as being connected to diversity, equality and inclusion efforts, McMahon wrote. The judge said several other history projects on the spreadsheet were also canceled in part because of their connection to DEI-related subjects. 'Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches,' McMahon said. 'Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does not give the Government the right to edit history.' McMahon said some of the grantees lost grants simply because they had received them during the Biden administration. The Guild filed a class action lawsuit in May against the NEH and the Department of Government Efficiency for terminating grants that had already been appropriated by Congress. The humanities groups' lawsuit said DOGE brought the core work of the humanities councils 'to a screeching halt' this spring when it terminated its grant program. The filing is the most recent lawsuit filed by humanities groups and historical, research and library associations to try to stop funding cuts and the dissolution of federal agencies and organizations. McMahon noted her injunction is narrowly tailored 'to maintain the status quo until we can decide whether Plaintiffs are entitled to ultimate relief. It does nothing more.' The judge denied a temporary injunction request from the American Council of Learned Societies, as well as several of their claims in the lawsuit. Their case included the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association.
Fox News
14 minutes ago
- Fox News
This post ended up becoming a ‘Democratic confession': Emily Austin
Panelists Emily Austin and Samantha Jo-Roth discuss how Democrats tried to bash President Donald Trump on X for grocery prices on 'Fox News @ Night.'
Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Current Stupid CEO Flex: Everybody's Replaceable (Including Them)
caucasian senior businessman - spooky portrait The Wall Street Journal had an interesting recent article about a change in the way executives talk about workers. What they think of as artificial intelligence has given them the confidence to say that everyone is replaceable. Wholesale elimination of jobs has been developing for at least the last decade — much longer if you consider the broader development of automation. Will new AI technologies enable even more job destruction? Certainly, but it will come at a cost and likely spread further than prudent and intelligent business strategies would allow. Possibly including their own jobs. The Myth Of Profit Maximization Chief executives typically look to improve the fortunes of a company and returns to shareholders. Many take to heart the argument Milton Friedman made in a 1970 New York Times op-ed that the 'social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.' That has been further interpreted as meaning the responsibility to maximize return on investment to shareholders. This is both legally incorrect and strategically troubling and mistaken. Experts in corporate governance have, across many years, tried to find a legal basis for the prescription. It has yet to appear. In the 2014 Supreme Court decision in 'Burwell, Secretary of Health and Huma Services, et. al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores,' the Court addressed whether a for-profit corporation could give money to religious causes. 'While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so,' Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court.' Corporate law and governance also recognize that a company's board and executives have duties to the company. They are charged with strategy and operations for the company's benefit, with the shareholder's benefit being an offshoot. In basic calculus, math students learn that you cannot maximize for more than one variable at a time. That doesn't necessarily mean one factor cannot benefit while another does as well, but maximization mathematically means something has to come first. Everything becomes subject to that desire. Confusing People And Machines There is a peculiar attitude among executives, which has been around for a long time, that people are infinitely extensible. The signs come up with every wave of layoffs, and if you've ever been one of the people who survived a round of staff cuts, you have likely experienced this. Those left are expected to pick up and complete the extra work with neither additional pay nor schedule adjustments. Everything is supposed to be compressible. Employees are expected to contort themselves, making operations look as though they were normal. Forbes contributor Bryan Robinson discussed a study last year that noted 88% of layoff survivors experience burnout, and 25% suffer from mental and physical exhaustion. A developing and increasing trend is the desire to replace people with actual machines. Bring in not only the robots to do everything physical, but software to do everything mental. Chief executives want to make shareholders happy, which drives up share prices and the CEO's own holdings. Replace people with mechanisms to drive labor costs down and profits up. Ten years ago, I wrote about how automation was already coming for white collar jobs, including professional ones. A study at the same time said 'highly creative' professionals would remain safe. That didn't last long. When all work becomes something to be done by mechanisms — robots, artificial intelligence, or people — human needs become unimportant. Ultimately, there is only the need to cut costs, to increase profits. Three Rising Risks The decisions may seem obvious to the MBA crowd, but they bring three risks to business. One is the loss of institutional knowledge. It is people who hold the understanding of how processes work, the things a company needs to know about its customers. Again, this has been known for many decades. Lose people and you lose understanding. In theory, a company could use technology to capture and store much of this, but they don't tend to. Next is the risk of mediocrity, which is particularly true of large language model software that works on complex statistical algorithms. These products don't think. Instead, they're trained on vast examples of how words connect and then respond accordingly. What seems like intelligence is clever repetition, in a way. This brings up average responses. Furthermore, increasingly repeating what others have done undercuts creativity and innovation. The third and biggest risk is the undermining of the jobs and incomes of a growing portion of the populace. What happens when fewer and fewer people can make a good living? Who's going to buy all the products and services that companies need to sell to make their growing profits?
