Judiciary recognizes hard-working citizens for ‘Juror Appreciation Week'
First ever 'Farm to Sea Cuisine' highlights local sourcing of food at Ward Village
Circuit Court Judge Paul Wong explained we need to thank our citizens for their contribution to the community and government.
He said there's really no justice, and no American justice system, without juries. Juries end up being the 'conscience of our community.'
It's common for people to not get excited when summoned, and feel that jury duty is an inconvenience, but Judge Wong said it can be rewarding.He explained when people participate in the jury selection process, he thinks the magnitude of the moment awakens their patriotism.
They hear about the case, how important the case is to the community, and their sense of duty replaces their initial reluctance to serve.
When jurors are selected and they work through a trial, they become invested in the case because it is now their case.
Download the free KHON2 app for iOS or Android to stay informed on the latest news
Jurors transform from reluctant citizens to invested, hard-working, and critical thinking judges. At the end of a trial, juror are, and should be, very proud of the work they did – they directly impacted, and ensured, that our democracy works.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
20 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Should universities negotiate with the Trump administration?
Advertisement Understanding the current turmoil requires holding in mind several distinct realities despite the tensions between them. First, higher education, particularly major research universities, is central to American preeminence in many scholarly and economic domains. Wildly exaggerated claims that they've been reduced to organizations promoting woke and Marxist indoctrination, are simply absurd, captured in the phrase ' That said, major problems in higher education have evolved to threaten our capacity to develop new knowledge and transmit existing knowledge to students and the broader society. Some fields within the humanities and social sciences have unfortunately evolved to resemble intellectual monocultures wherein engagement with legitimate alternative perspectives is rare, and a culture of self-silencing replaces vigorous engagement. Real and attempted Advertisement These and other problems must be addressed, and this requires internally-driven reform, as difficult as that is in the complex and Byzantine culture and governance of higher education. Accelerated by problems identified in the aftermath of the Hamas attack on Israel in 2023, progress on these matters has been made, though much more slowly than ideal. In that setting, the second Trump administration announced a war on higher education and made clear its intention to employ all the financial and regulatory weapons at its disposal to profoundly transform the university in a direction far from one dedicated to truth-seeking, but rather subservient to its specific ideology. The federal government has enormous power in this regard, some of it wielded in a manner that should be rejected by the courts, a direction that I fully support. But a reality causing confusion to many is that some of the inappropriate and illegal federal demands do overlap with real problems previously identified by many of those promoting internal reform. Given the disruption and crisis caused by the government stopping awarded grants, taxing endowments, threatening accreditation and other actions, and the attention drawn to this conflict by those extreme actions, might a settlement that accomplishes desirable outcomes, while defending against interventions that are inappropriate and illegal be possible? That is indeed the key question. Advertisement It is certainly possible that the pace of appropriate reform could be accelerated by the current moment of turbulence. Indeed, many of the external demands from the president, such as a policy of But the integrity and sustained impact of those reforms would be undermined if they are seen as responses to demands — 'capitulation' — rather than appropriate and justified university actions. There are internal constituencies content with current realities and opposed to such reforms, and they are more than happy to proclaim any actions as capitulation. And the Trump administration would gladly claim victory for any internal reforms as well. Navigating a path to produce appropriate reform acceptable to both skeptical elements of the faculty and a combative Trump administration will be a formidable challenge to Harvard President Alan Garber's leadership. Beyond the immediate reaction to a particular settlement, another issue looms. Is there good reason to believe that follow-up to such a settlement will not include additional demands and punishments based on claims that many vague negotiated terms have been insufficiently achieved? Should such reasonable concerns about the integrity of the other side cause a university like Columbia or Harvard to eschew negotiations, endure the profound punishment in the hope that the legal system comes to the rescue? This is not an entirely unreasonable position. But it's not the path I currently support. Let's take Harvard, reported now to be in negotiations of some kind. I'd like to see university leadership identify issues in response to federal demands that they are prepared to support and defend on their merits . As described above, some of these have already been announced, others, such as a possible university-wide institute to promote open inquiry, have been in development and could be announced in this setting. Advertisement If so, the reasons for taking such actions must be articulated and defended with great clarity as advancing core university values. And nothing beyond that should be agreed to. As in any negotiation, some issues will reside at the fuzzy border, requiring the judgment expected of strong leaders and for which they should be held accountable. But clear lines to protect academic freedom and institutional autonomy must be drawn and articulated. The reality is that we are at a totally unanticipated moment of both opportunity and threat to higher education. The mounting need for reform is confronting demands from a powerful and illiberal government that is using real problems to justify interventions designed to bring the institutions under their control. The threats are real, and immediate. And so is the opportunity. With eyes open, and their deepest values held close, university leaders and the communities that support them should explore the boundaries for reform offered by this rare moment of opportunity, fully cognizant of the threats of both action and inaction. The world is watching.
Newsweek
21 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Cracks Emerge in G7 Over Macron's Palestine Move
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. European and American leaders have spoken out against French President Emmanuel Macron's plan to officially recognize Palestine as a state, illuminating the cracks among nations that make up the Group of Seven (G7) amid the ongoing crisis in Gaza. On X, formerly Twitter, Macron made the announcement on Thursday and wrote in part: "Consistent with its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognize the State of Palestine. I will make this solemn announcement before the United Nations General Assembly this coming September." Why It Matters Macron's announcement brings to a head months of increasing criticism from France, which has a large Muslim population, regarding Israel's conduct in its war against Hamas—the Palestinian militant group that rules Gaza—that was sparked by the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel that killed 1,200 people. The ongoing Israel-Hamas war has led to mass destruction, death, and famine in Gaza. At least 1.9 million people—about 90 percent of the population in the enclave—have been internally displaced by Israeli bombardments, according to the U.N. Israel's ground and air attacks have killed more than 55,300 Palestinians, per the Gaza Health Ministry. The French president's decision also comes amid a wave of nations moving to recognize Palestinian statehood, with France being the first G7 nation to do so. Other countries that make up the G7 include Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Representatives from other nations say it could be too soon to recognize statehood and further complicate relations between Palestine and Israel. Of the 193 U.N. member states, approximately 147 currently recognize the State of Palestine, which was granted non-member observer status at the U.N. in 2012. Israel, which is a full member of the U.N., is currently recognized by around 165 U.N. member states. What To Know Macron's announcement followed his visit to Egypt's border with Gaza in April where he witnessed the scale of the crisis. "In light of the commitments made to me by the President of the Palestinian Authority, I have written to him to express my determination to move forward," Macron wrote in his X post. He had originally sought a coordinated move with allies, including the U.K. and Canada, but faced reluctance from these governments. While France presses forward, the United States and Israel sharply condemned the decision, characterizing it as bolstering Hamas and undermining peace efforts. "The United States strongly rejects @EmmanuelMacron's plan to recognize a Palestinian state at the @UN general assembly," Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X following Macron's announcement. "This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace. It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th." British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Germany have also resisted immediately following suit, citing the necessity of linking Palestinian statehood to progress on a two-state solution and broader regional negotiations, The Independent reported. Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni reacted to Macron's statement saying in part, "I am very much in favour of the State of Palestine but I am not in favour of recognising it prior to establishing it," Reuters reported. Meloni also rejected premature recognition, saying, "If something that doesn't exist is recognised on paper, the problem could appear to be solved when it isn't." French President Emmanuel Macron talks to media prior to talks with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at Villa Borsig on July 23 in Berlin. French President Emmanuel Macron talks to media prior to talks with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at Villa Borsig on July 23 in Berlin. Photo byHamas 'Always Rejected the Two-State Solution' Macron has said the decision on a Palestinian state was "consistent" with his country's "historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East," and called for an "urgent end to the war" as well as greater humanitarian assistance for the people of Gaza. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot defended the decision and rejected the accusation that it helped Hamas. "Hamas has always rejected the two-state solution. By recognizing Palestine, France proves this terrorist movement wrong. It supports the side of peace against that of war," Barrot posted to X. Israel Reacts to Macron Decision Israel's Permanent Representative to the U.N., Danny Danon, blasted France's decision. "Neither international conferences disconnected from reality nor unilateral statements at the U.N. will lead to peace," Danon said in a statement shared with Newsweek. "Macron's decision to recognize a Palestinian state after the massacre of October 7 and precisely at a time when Hamas is still holding hostages is a disgraceful reward for terrorism." He added: "Anyone who ignores the reality on the ground—that Israel has no partner for peace—harms not only Israel but the stability of the entire region." What People Are Saying President Donald Trump to reporters about Macron's announcement on Friday: "What he says doesn't matter. He's a very good guy. I like him, but that statement doesn't carry weight." British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said in a statement Friday, per The Independent: "Alongside our closest allies, I am working on a pathway to peace in the region, focused on the practical solutions that will make a real difference to the lives of those that are suffering in this war. That pathway will set out the concrete steps needed to turn the ceasefire so desperately needed, into a lasting peace." He added: "Recognition of a Palestinian state has to be one of those steps. I am unequivocal about that. But it must be part of a wider plan which ultimately results in a two-state solution and lasting security for Palestinians and Israelis. This is the way to ensure it is a tool of maximum utility to improve the lives of those who are suffering—which of course, will always be our ultimate goal." French President Emmanuel Macron wrote on X: "...Peace is possible. We need an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and massive humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza. We must also ensure the demilitarization of Hamas, secure and rebuild Gaza. And finally, we must build the State of Palestine, guarantee its viability, and ensure that by accepting its demilitarization and fully recognizing Israel, it contributes to the security of all in the region. There is no alternative. The French people want peace in the Middle East. It is our responsibility—as French citizens, alongside Israelis, Palestinians, and our European and international partners—to prove that peace is possible." What Happens Next? Following Macron's announcement, divisions may further complicate efforts to coordinate Western policy on the Middle East and could weaken the G7's collective influence over the peace process. Within the U.K., Starmer's Labour government faces continued pressure from MPs, trade unions, and allied parties to match France's move, with speculation surrounding potential policy shifts following a planned meeting with Trump in Scotland this week.
Engadget
an hour ago
- Engadget
China calls for the creation of a global AI organization
China wants to work with other countries and has laid out its plans for the global governance of artificial intelligence at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai. Li Qiang, the country's premier, warned about "technological monopolies" and said that AI could become "an exclusive game for a few countries and companies." As such, he proposed the creation of a "world AI cooperation organization" during the event. Li didn't specifically mention the United States when he talked about monopolies, but the US restricts AI chip exports to his country. NVIDIA had to develop chips that are only meant for China and conform to export rules so it wouldn't lose the Chinese market completely. Meanwhile, Chinese companies like Huawei are developing their own AI systems to make up for China's lack of access to more advanced AI chips from American firms. Li also made the statement a few days after the Trump administration revealed its AI Action Plan, which seeks to limit state regulation of AI companies and which aims to ensure that the US can beat China in the AI race. The Chinese premier said his country would "actively promote" the development of open source artificial intelligence and that China is "willing to provide more Chinese solutions to the international community" when it comes to AI. He also said that his country was eager to share AI technologies with developing countries in the global south. "Currently, overall global AI governance is still fragmented. Countries have great differences, particularly in terms of areas such as regulatory concepts [and] institutional rules," Li said. "We should strengthen coordination to form a global AI governance framework that has broad consensus as soon as possible."
