#Executive advisory services

[dadjglobal1]

IT & IT enabled Services (ITeS)

DADJ is a leading global consultancy that integrates strategy, design and software engineering to enable enterprises and technology disruptors across the globe to thrive as modern digital businesses

Click Here : https://dadjglobal.com/service/it-ites/

[nicholasholdcraft]

How Can CEO Consulting Services Drive Innovation and Leadership Excellence?

In today's fast-paced business environment, the role of a global CEO has never been more complex. With rapid technological advancements and shifting market dynamics, organizations need strong leadership and innovative strategies to stay ahead.

Hiring an experienced business leader for CEO consulting servicescanprovide the necessary tools and insights to foster innovation and enhance leadership excellence. You can leverage their expertise and experience to drive your business to sustainable growth or steer your company from founder-driven to professional management.

Here is a checklist of ways in which a seasoned global CEO can help your startup or SME.

Understand the Role of a Global CEO

A global CEO is tasked with steering the organization towards growth and success in a competitive landscape. This involves not only making strategic decisions but also inspiring teams and cultivating a culture of innovation. Their consulting services can be invaluable in this regard, offering expert guidance tailored to the unique challenges faced by today’s leaders. CEOs can refine their vision and align their teams towards common goals by leveraging these services.

Drive Innovation Through Expert Insights

Innovation is crucial for business sustainability. Consulting a global CEO for CEO advisory services will provide access to industry trends, emerging technologies, and best practices that can spark new ideas. A global CEO can identify opportunities for innovation within their organization. These services can help in developing a structured approach to innovation that aligns with the company's objectives, ensuring that new initiatives are both relevant and impactful.

Enhance Leadership Skills and Effectiveness

Effective leadership is a cornerstone of organizational success. You can avail of CEO advisory services focused on enhancing the skills and capabilities of your CEOs, enabling them to lead with confidence and clarity. Through personalized coaching and feedback, experienced CEOs will gain insights into their leadership style, helping them to adapt and evolve. This continuous improvement not only benefits the individual leader but also sets a positive example for the entire organization.

Implement CEO Performance Improvement Strategies

Improving CEO performance is a central focus of CEO consulting services which are designed to assess and enhance the effectiveness of your CEO in driving business outcomes. Business consultants work closely with CEOs to identify areas for improvement and establish clear performance metrics and accountability frameworks. With this data-driven approach, leaders can make informed decisions that drive their organizations forward, ensuring sustained success.

Foster a Culture of Collaboration

Collaboration is a cornerstone for fostering innovation. Businesses can promote cross-functional collaboration, breaking down organizational silos and encouraging teamwork through CEO consulting services. By creating an environment where diverse ideas can be shared and explored, a global CEO can leverage the collective intelligence of their teams. This collaborative culture becomes essential for generating fresh ideas and ensuring innovation is a unified priority across the organization.

Strategic Planning for Long-Term Success

Strategic planning is crucial to maintaining a competitive advantage. CEO advisory services are invaluable to global CEOs, helping them develop comprehensive strategies that align with both immediate goals and long-term visions. This holistic approach integrates innovation into the company’s core strategy, ensuring sustainable growth. CEOs can position their companies for success in an ever-changing market landscape by aligning resources and efforts toward strategic objectives.

Develop Resilience in Leadership

In addition to innovation and strategic planning, resilience is a vital trait for effective leadership. CEO consulting services can help global CEOs develop the skills needed to navigate uncertainty and adversity. By fostering a mindset focused on adaptability and problem-solving, leaders can guide their organizations through challenging times. This resilience not only strengthens the CEO’s leadership but also instills confidence in their teams, reinforcing a culture of perseverance and commitment.

Final Thoughts: The Value of CEO Consulting Services

CEO consulting services play a pivotal role in fostering leadership excellence and driving innovation in today’s dynamic business environment. By leveraging expert insights and support, global CEOs can enhance their effectiveness, nurture a culture of collaboration, and implement strategies that lead to long-term growth. As organizations face complex challenges, these consulting services remain a vital asset, empowering CEOs to lead with vision and purpose. Invest in hiring a global CEO for consulting services and tap optimum benefits from their expert services. It will benefit individual leaders and transform organizations, setting the stage for future success.

[mach10automotive]

Revving Up Success: A Comprehensive Car Dealer Marketing Plan for Used Car Sales in 2024

In the ever-evolving automotive industry, car dealerships must adapt to changing consumer preferences and market dynamics. The year 2024 brings new challenges and opportunities for used car sales, and a well-crafted marketing plan is essential to stay competitive and thrive in this environment. In this blog post, we'll outline a comprehensive car dealer marketing plan tailored to the unique demands of the used car market in 2024.

Embrace Digital Transformation:

In 2024, the digital landscape continues to dominate consumer behavior. To succeed, car dealerships must embrace digital transformation wholeheartedly. Here are some key strategies:

a. Develop a User-Friendly Website: Ensure your website is mobile-responsive, easy to navigate, and offers an engaging user experience. Provide comprehensive information about your used car inventory, including high-quality images, detailed specifications, and pricing.

b. Invest in SEO and Content Marketing: Optimize your website for search engines to improve organic visibility. Create valuable content such as blog posts, buying guides, and informative videos to establish your dealership as an authority in the industry.

c. Utilize Paid Advertising: Implement pay-per-click (PPC) advertising campaigns on platforms like Google Ads and social media channels. These targeted ads can help you reach potential buyers actively searching for used cars.

d. Leverage Social Media: Maintain a strong presence on popular social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Engage with your audience through regular posts, stories, and interactive content.

e. Email Marketing: Create personalized email campaigns to nurture leads and keep past customers informed about new arrivals, promotions, and service offerings.

Implement Data-Driven Marketing:

Data is the driving force behind effective marketing strategies in 2024. Utilize customer relationship management (CRM) software to collect and analyze customer data for more personalized and efficient marketing efforts. Some key data-driven tactics include:

a. Customer Segmentation: Divide your customer base into segments based on demographics, behavior, and preferences. Tailor your marketing messages to each segment for better engagement.

b. Predictive Analytics: Use predictive models to anticipate customer needs and behaviors. This can help you target potential buyers with the right offers at the right time.

c. Retargeting Campaigns: Implement retargeting ads to remind website visitors about your used car inventory. These ads can appear on various online platforms to keep your dealership top-of-mind.

Showcase Transparency and Trustworthiness:

In 2024, consumers prioritize trust and transparency when making purchasing decisions. Building a reputation as a trustworthy dealership is crucial. Here's how to achieve it:

a. Vehicle History Reports: Provide comprehensive vehicle history reports for all your used cars. This transparency instills confidence in potential buyers and reduces their hesitation.

b. Certified Pre-Owned Programs: Consider offering certified pre-owned (CPO) programs backed by manufacturer warranties. CPO vehicles are perceived as more reliable, attracting quality-conscious buyers.

c. Customer Reviews and Testimonials: Encourage satisfied customers to leave reviews on platforms like Google, Yelp, and your website. Positive reviews build credibility and attract new buyers.

d. Clear Pricing: Be upfront about pricing, including any fees or additional costs. Avoid hidden charges to maintain trust with your customers.

Emphasize Customer Experience:

A positive customer experience can set your dealership apart from the competition. In 2024, prioritize these aspects of the car-buying journey:

a. Professional Staff: Ensure your sales and service teams are knowledgeable, courteous, and well-trained to provide excellent customer service.

b. Virtual Showrooms: Offer virtual showroom tours or 360-degree views of your used cars online, allowing customers to explore your inventory from the comfort of their homes.

c. Online Financing Options: Provide convenient online financing applications and approvals to streamline the purchase process.

d. Post-Sale Support: Offer post-sale services like maintenance packages, warranty extensions, and easy scheduling for vehicle servicing.

Leverage Emerging Technologies:

Innovations in technology continue to reshape the automotive industry. Stay ahead of the curve by adopting these technologies:

a. Augmented Reality (AR): Implement AR apps that allow customers to visualize how a used car would look in their driveway or garage.

b. Virtual Reality (VR): Create immersive virtual test drive experiences, enabling potential buyers to explore your inventory without visiting the dealership physically.

c. Chatbots and AI: Use AI-driven chatbots to answer customer inquiries and provide assistance 24/7 on your website and social media channels.

d. Electric and Hybrid Vehicles: As electric and hybrid vehicles gain popularity, consider expanding your used car inventory to include these eco-friendly options.

Sustainability Initiatives:

Sustainability is a growing concern for consumers in 2024. Consider implementing sustainability initiatives within your dealership, such as:

a. Eco-Friendly Practices: Reduce your dealership's carbon footprint through energy-efficient lighting, recycling programs, and eco-friendly building materials.

b. Green Vehicle Options: Promote fuel-efficient and low-emission used cars in your inventory.

c. Green Certifications: Obtain certifications or affiliations that demonstrate your commitment to sustainability, such as membership in the Green Dealership Program.

Conclusion:

To thrive in the dynamic used car market of 2024, car dealership marketing strategies must embrace digital transformation, data-driven marketing, transparency, and exceptional customer experiences. Leveraging emerging technologies and sustainability initiatives can set you apart from the competition and position your dealership for success in the years to come. By following this comprehensive marketing plan, you can navigate the challenges and seize the opportunities that lie ahead in the used car sales industry.

[simply-ivanka]

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The DOGE Plan to Reform Government

Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, we’ll reverse a decades long executive power grab.

By Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy

Wall Street Journal

November 20, 2024

Our nation was founded on the basic idea that the people we elect run the government. That isn’t how America functions today. Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year. Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.

This is antidemocratic and antithetical to the Founders’ vision. It imposes massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity to solve the problem. On Nov. 5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it.

President Trump has asked the two of us to lead a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut the federal government down to size. The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have abetted it for too long. That’s why we’re doing things differently. We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.

We are assisting the Trump transition team to identify and hire a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America. This team will work in the new administration closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws. Our North Star for reform will be the U.S. Constitution, with a focus on two critical Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden’s tenure.

In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), the justices held that agencies can’t impose regulations dealing with major economic or policy questions unless Congress specifically authorizes them to do so. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the court overturned the Chevron doctrine and held that federal courts should no longer defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law or their own rulemaking authority. Together, these cases suggest that a plethora of current federal regulations exceed the authority Congress has granted under the law.

DOGE will work with legal experts embedded in government agencies, aided by advanced technology, to apply these rulings to federal regulations enacted by such agencies. DOGE will present this list of regulations to President Trump, who can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission. This would liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress and stimulate the U.S. economy.

When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics will allege executive overreach. In fact, it will be correcting the executive overreach of thousands of regulations promulgated by administrative fiat that were never authorized by Congress. The president owes lawmaking deference to Congress, not to bureaucrats deep within federal agencies. The use of executive orders to substitute for lawmaking by adding burdensome new rules is a constitutional affront, but the use of executive orders to roll back regulations that wrongly bypassed Congress is legitimate and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court’s recent mandates. And after those regulations are fully rescinded, a future president couldn’t simply flip the switch and revive them but would instead have to ask Congress to do so.

A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy. DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited. Employees whose positions are eliminated deserve to be treated with respect, and DOGE’s goal is to help support their transition into the private sector. The president can use existing laws to give them incentives for early retirement and to make voluntary severance payments to facilitate a graceful exit.

Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil-service protections stop the president or even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the statute allows for “reductions in force” that don’t target specific employees. The statute further empowers the president to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service.” That power is broad. Previous presidents have used it to amend the civil service rules by executive order, and the Supreme Court has held—in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they weren’t constrained by the Administrative Procedures Act when they did so. With this authority, Mr. Trump can implement any number of “rules governing the competitive service” that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.

Finally, we are focused on delivering cost savings for taxpayers. Skeptics question how much federal spending DOGE can tame through executive action alone. They point to the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which stops the president from ceasing expenditures authorized by Congress. Mr. Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question. But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.

The federal government’s procurement process is also badly broken. Many federal contracts have gone unexamined for years. Large-scale audits conducted during a temporary suspension of payments would yield significant savings. The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit, suggesting that the agency’s leadership has little idea how its annual budget of more than $800 billion is spent. Critics claim that we can’t meaningfully close the federal deficit without taking aim at entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which require Congress to shrink. But this deflects attention from the sheer magnitude of waste, fraud and abuse that nearly all taxpayers wish to end—and that DOGE aims to address by identifying pinpoint executive actions that would result in immediate savings for taxpayers.

With a decisive electoral mandate and a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, DOGE has a historic opportunity for structural reductions in the federal government. We are prepared for the onslaught from entrenched interests in Washington. We expect to prevail. Now is the moment for decisive action. Our top goal for DOGE is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026—the expiration date we have set for our project. There is no better birthday gift to our nation on its 250th anniversary than to deliver a federal government that would make our Founders proud.

[txttletale]

how do ml's reconcile with lenin going for a bigbrainhaver hierarchy which just so happened to place him at the tippy top? most of the things he's quoted for writing make a kind of sense in that longwinded academic philosopher way, but, like, russia went from having a revolution against monarchy to having a monarchy, essentially, and what folks do tends to align with their desires, yeah? wouldn't that make everything he said, idk, suspicious?

we reconcile with this because none of this is even remotely true. lenin did not 'happen to be placed at the tippy top' but was in fact elected by the soviets, who worked in a very simple electoral system by which workers and peasants would elect representatives to their local soviet, who as well as administering local services would also elect members to higher bodies. the quote unquote bigbrainhaver hierarchy system in question was as follows:

The sovereign body is in every case the Congress of Soviets. Each county sends its delegates. These are elected indirectly by the town and county Soviets which vote in proportion to population, following the ratio observed throughout, by which the voters in the town have five times the voting strength of the inhabitants of the villages, an advantage which may, as we saw, be in reality three to one. The Congress meets, as a rule, once a year, for about ten days. It is not, in the real sense of the word, the legislative body. It debates policy broadly, and passes resolutions which lay down the general principles to be followed in legislation. The atmosphere of its sittings is that of a great public demonstration. The Union Congress, for example, which has some fifteen hundred members, meets in the Moscow Opera House. The stage is occupied by the leaders and the heads of the administration, and speeches are apt to be big oratorical efforts. The real legislative body is the so-called Central Executive Committee (known as the C. I. K. and pronounced "tseek") . It meets more frequently than the Congress to which it is responsible-in the case of the Union, at least three times in the year-passes the Budget, receives the reports of the Commissars (ministers), and discusses international policy. It, in its turn, elects two standing bodies: (1) The Presidium of twenty-one members, which has the right to legislate in the intervals between the sittings of the superior assemblies, and also transacts some administrative work. (2) The Council of Peoples' Commissars. These correspond roughly to the Ministers or Secretaries of State in democratic countries and are the chiefs of the administration. Meeting as a Council, they have larger powers than any Cabinet, for they may pass emergency legislation and issue decrees which have all the force of legislation. Save in cases of urgency, however, their decrees and drafts of legislation must be ratified by the Executive Committee (C.I.K.). In another respect they differ from the European conception of a Minister. Each Commissar is in reality the chairman of a small board of colleagues, who are his advisers. These advisory boards, or collegia, meet very frequently (it may even be daily) to discuss current business, and any member of a board has the right to appeal to the whole Council of Commissars against a decision of the Commissar.

—H.N. Brailsford, How The Soviets Work (1927)

you might notice that the congresses of soviets were not directly elected -- this is because they were elected by local soviets, who were directly elected, in a process that many people have given first hand accounts of:

I have, while working in the Soviet Union, participated in an election. I, too, had a right to vote, as I was a working member of the community, and nationality and citizenship are no bar to electoral rights. The procedure was extremely simple. A general meeting of all the workers in our organisation was called by the trade union committee, candidates were discussed, and a vote was taken by show of hands. Anybody present had the right to propose a candidate, and the one who was elected was not personally a member of the Party. In considering the claims of the candidates their past activities were discussed, they themselves had to answer questions as to their qualifications, anybody could express an opinion, for or against them, and the basis of all the discussion was: What justification had the candidates to represent their comrades on the local Soviet. As far as the elections in the villages were concerned, these took place at open village meetings, all peasants of voting age, other than those who employed labour, having the right to vote and to stand for election. As in the towns, any organisation or individual could put forward candidates, anyone could ask the candidate questions, and anybody could support or oppose the candidature. It is usual for the Communist Party to put forward a candidate, trade unions and other organisations can also do so, and there is nothing to prevent the Party’s candidate from not being elected, if he has not sufficient prestige among the voters. In the towns the “ electoral district ” has hitherto consisted of a factory, or a group of small factories sufficient to form a constituency. But there was one section of the town population which has always had to vote geographically, since they did not work together in one organisation. This was the housewives. As a result, the housewives met separately in each district, had their own constituencies, and elected their own representatives to the Soviet. Here, too, vital interest has always been shown in the personality of every candidate. Why should this woman be elected ? What right had she to represent her fellow housewives on the local Soviet ? In the district next to my own at the last election the housewife who was elected was well known as an organiser of a communal dining-room in the district. This was the kind of person that the housewives wanted to represent them on the Soviet. Another candidate, a Communist, proposed by the local organisation of the Party, was turned down in her favour.

[...]

The election of delegates to the local Soviet is not the only function of voters in the Soviet Union. It is not a question here of various parties presenting candidates to the electorate, each with his own policy to offer. The Soviet electorate has to select a personality from its midst to represent it, and instruct this person in the policy which is to be followed when elected. At a Soviet election meeting, therefore, as much or more time may be spent on discussion of the instructions to the delegate as is spent on discussing the personality of the candidates. At the last election to the Soviets, in which I personally participated, we must have spent three or four times as much time on the working out of instructions as we did on the selection of our candidate. About three weeks before the election was to take place the trade union secretary in every department of our organisation was told by the committee that it was time to start to prepare our instructions to the delegate. Every worker was asked to make suggestions concerning policy which he felt should be brought to the notice of the new personnel of the Moscow Soviet. As a result, about forty proposals concerning the general government of Moscow were handed in from a group of about twenty people. We then held a meeting in our department at which we discussed the proposals, and adopted some and rejected others. We then handed our list of pro¬ posals to a commission, appointed by the trade union committee, and representing all the workers in our organisation. This Commission co-ordinated the pro¬ posals received, placed them in order according to the various departments of the Soviet, and this co-ordinated list was read at the election meeting itself, again discussed, and adopted in its final form.

—Pat Sloan, Soviet Democracy (1937)

Between the elections of 1931 and 1934, no less than 18 per cent of the city deputies and 37 per cent of village deputies were recalled, of whom only a relatively small number — 4 per cent of the total — were charged with serious abuse of power. The chief reasons for recall were inactivity — 37 per cent — and inefficiency — 21 per cent. If these figures indicate certain lacks in the quality of elected officials, they show considerable activity of the people in improving government. The electorate of the Peasants' Gazette, for example, consisted of some 1,500 employees, entitled to elect one deputy to the Moscow city soviet and two to the ward soviet. For more than a month before the election every department of the newspaper held meetings discussing both candidates and instructions. Forty-three suggested candidates and some 1,400 proposals for the work of the incoming government resulted from these meetings, which also elected committees to boil down and classify the instructions. These committees issued a special four-page newspaper for the 1,500 voters; it contained brief biographies of the forty-three candidates, an analysis of their capacities by the Communist Party organization of the Peasants' Gazette, and the "nakaz," or list of "people's instructions," classified by subject and the branch of government which they concerned. At the final election meeting of the Peasants* Gazette there was literally more than 100 per cent attendance, since some of the staff who for reasons of absence or illness had not been listed as prospective voters returned from sanatoria or from distant assignments to vote. The instructions issued by the electorate in this manner — 1,400 from the Peasants' Gazette and tens of thousands from Moscow citizens — became the first business of the incoming government.

—Anna Louise Strong, The New Soviet Constitution (1937)

does this mean that the soviet project was some utopian perfect system? no. there were flaws in the system like any other. it disenfranchised the rural peasantry (although not, i would like to add, to any extent greater or even equivalent to the extent to which the US electoral system disenfranchises the urban working class) -- the various tiers of indirect selection created a divide between the average worker and the highest tier of the executive -- and various elements of this fledgling system would calcify and bureaucratise over time in ways that obstructed worker's democracy. but saying that it was 'a monarchy' is founded in absolutely nothing except the most hysterical anticommunist propaganda and tedious orwellian liberal truisms.

even brailsford, in an account overall critical of the soviet system, had to admit:

Speaking broadly, the various organs of the system, from the Council of Commissars of the Union down to the sub-committees of a town Soviet, are handling the same problems. Whether one sits in the Kremlin at a meeting of the most august body of the whole Union, the "C.I.K.," or round a table in Vladimir with the working men who constitute its County Executive Committee, one hears exactly the same problems discussed. How, be-fore June arrives, shall we manage to reduce prices by ten percent? What growth can we show in the number of our spindles, or factories, and in the number of workers employed? When and how shall we make our final assault on the last relics of illiteracy? Or when shall we have room in our schools, even in the remotest village, for every child? Was it by good luck or good guidance that the number of typhus cases has dropped in a year by half? And, finally, how can we hasten the raising of clover seed, so that the peasants who, at last, thanks to our propaganda, are clamoring for it, may not be disappointed?

—H.N. Brailsford, How The Soviets Work (1927)

genuinely, i think you should take a moment and think about where you learned about the soviet union. have you read any serious historical work on the topic, even from non-communist or anti-communist sources? because even imperialist propagandists have to make a pretence at engaging with actual facts on the ground, something which you haven't done at all -- and yet you speak with astounding confidence. i recommend you read some serious books instead of animal farm and reflect on why you believe the things you believe and how you know the things you think you know.

[coochiequeens]

Men 60 and over are purchasing g babies through surrogacy yet the average life span of men in England is 78.8 years. What plans do they have in place if they die before the babies are legally adults?

By Sanchez Manning 14 September 2024

Almost 300 men aged over 50 have applied to become the legal father of a surrogate child over the past five years – and 43 of them are over 60, new figures reveal.

And a total of 95 single men applied to become a parent, reflecting a growing trend in men, especially older men, having babies alone with the help of surrogates.

Since the law changed in 2019 to give single people the same surrogacy rights as couple, there have been 2,162 applications from intended parents in England. 

A total of 293 would-be fathers are over 50, both solo and in couples, according to figures released following a Freedom of Information Act application from The Mail on Sunday.

Older women turning to surrogacy has already sparked debate, with high-profile figures such as Naomi Campbell using a surrogate to have children in their 50s.

And in June, a 72-year-old man was granted permission in Scotland to become the legal father of a three-year-old boy, born to a surrogate, despite the death of his wife.

Commenting on the new figures from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, fertility and family law expert Louisa Ghevaert said: ‘The numbers of single men and men over 50 applying for parental orders reflects wider trends in solo and later-life parenting that are set to continue.’

She added that the numbers also reflected ‘the fact there’s no legal upper age limit for a parental order’.

However, the latest disclosure has caused anger among some campaigners. Helen Gibson, of Surrogacy Concern, said: ‘We are appalled to see such high numbers of single men and older men pursuing surrogacy, often abroad and in commercial arrangements which are banned in the UK. This is a worrying trend in which mothers are erased from the lives of their children.’

But Alan White, of Surrogacy UK, said: ‘As a society, perhaps we’re more used to considering maternal instinct than we are paternal instinct, but the desire to become a parent can be strong whether you’re a man or a woman.’

The UK ranks as one of the worst countries to bring up twins and triplets, a shocking report has revealed.

Research from the Twins Trust found parents of such children are at least £20,000 worse off in the first year after birth, compared with those who have had two babies in succession.

In a ranking of developed nations that looked at financial help such as maternity pay, mental health support and childcare provision, the UK came 23rd out of 27.

Shauna Leven, chief executive of the Twins Trust, said: ‘This report lays bare the grim reality facing families with multiples – the financial burden, mental health toll and lack of support.’

The charity is calling on the Government to change maternity pay so it is paid per baby instead of per mother.

[blorger]

I don't think I'm saying anything earth-shatteringly new when I state that the inner workings of the Ministry of Magic aren't exactly expanded upon in the hp books. it's safe to say that Rowling herself probably didn't think too deeply about the executive, judiciary and legislative powers of the magical government since the information we do have is scant and often contradictory; nevertheless, I have attempted to compile all the relevant facts disclosed in the books.

When researching the subject, I have not used any external material (i.e. Pottermore, JKR interviews, facts gleaned from post-7th book canon) because, having been written ex post facto, they are by nature unreliable. In the time inbetween writing the original books and the disclosure of post-canon details, jkr had time to do some revisionism and fill in existing gaps (the existence of which she may have been alerted to by others) and I'm not interested in any of jkr's attempts to rewrite history, regardless of the subject.

That said, I give you

The Definitive HP Law Compendium

a) THE MINISTRY

Our most exhaustive documentation on how the Ministry of Magic is structured comes by courtesy of the ministry elevators, which helpfully list all departments floor by floor.

on level 1: Minister of Magic and Support Staff (Umbridge's offices in DH are located here)

on level 2: Department of Magical Law Enforcement (henceforth shortened to DMLE), which includes the Improper Use of Magic offices, Auror Headquarters and the Wizengamot Administrative Services.

although not specified by the lift, this is also where the Misuse of Muggle Artefacts office (where Arthur Weasley works) is located, which tells us that the lift's announcements are not necessarily exhaustive.

on level 3: Department of Magical Accidents and Catastrophes composed of the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad, Obliviator Headquarters and Muggle-worthy Excuse Committee

on level 4: Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures which includes of the Beast, Being and Spirit Divisions, the Goblin liaison Office and the Pest Advisory Bureau.

on level 5: Department for International Magical Cooperation including the International Magical Trading Standards body, the International Magical Office of Law, and the British chapter of the International Confederation of Wizards (also referred to as the "International Confederation of Warlocks")

on level 6: Department of Magical Transport which includes the Floo Network Authority, Broom Regulatory Control, the Portkey Office and the Apparition Test Center (considering that Hogwarts student seem to take their apparition test at school, this is likely where adult wizards take and/or retake their tests)

on level 7: Department of Magical Games and Sports, which includes the British and Irish quidditch League (is magical Ireland not divided? unclear), the Headquarters of the Official Gobstones Club and, bizarrely, the Ludicrous Patents office (I'd be inclined to think this is a sports-related patent office if it wasn't the only one mentioned in the books)

on level 8 is the atrium, which Harry describes as a "very long and splendid hall" with many gilded fireplaces on both sides (left is for arrivals and right is for departures). This is also where the Fountain of Magical Brethren and the security desk are located. At the end of the hall, golden gates lead to a smaller room where the lifts (at least 20 in number) are.

on level 9: Department of Mysteries and beyond

The lift stops here but we know from OotP that there's at least one more floor that is only accessible by stairs from level 9 (which also brings up the question: are the upper floors also connected by stairs or is it an either/or scenario?). On this additional floor is Courtroom 10, which is supposedly no longer in use as of OotP but was still being used in the immediate aftermath of the first wizarding war. The courtroom's name implies the presence of at least 9 other courtrooms and, though their location is unclear, they do not seem to be located on this floor.

b) KNOWN GOVERNING BODIES

Going purely off of the only two law-adjacent departments mentioned by the ministry lifts, there's both an international and a state law department (on level 5 and 2 respectively) but seemingly no distinction between civil and criminal law.

Besides what described above by the lift, level 2 also appears to be where some offences are judged, as Harry's trial in OotP was originally scheduled to take place here, right inside the office of the head of the DMLE.

We know that, during Harry's time, the DMLE is headed by Amelia Bones, who gets quietly offed between OotP and HBP. She is succeeded by the imperiused Pius Thicknesse (who goes on to become minister of magic during the second war), who is in turn succeeded by noted Death Eater Corban Yaxley.

We further know that, prior to Amelia's tenure (though it's unknown if directly preceding), the department used to be headed by Barty Crouch sr., who later went on to head the office for International Magical Cooperation (where he was Percy Weasley's boss). This is implied to be a lateral career move at best since Sirius describes Crouch in GoF as being "shunted sideways".

The International Federation of Warlocks (part of the Office for International Cooperation) seems to be a legislative body of sorts, as we'll see later that it originated many of the laws mentioned in the books. We know that it was established prior to the advent of the Statue of Secrecy (and the subsequent creation of the Ministry of Magic) because professor Binns mentions they convened in 1289 in one of his lectures, implying that its existence precedes that date.

The books make no mention of the presence of a parliament in the wizarding world, not even in a Chamber of Lords-type fashion.

[note that Dumbledore seems to have had high positions in both the International Federation, where he was Supreme Mugwump, and the Wizengamot, where he was Chief Warlock. It's unknown what either of these titles entail]

Moving on to the judiciary branch, we know of the existence of the Wizengamot. It's described as "the wizard high court", which (to me) implies the presence of a lower court. The Council of Magical Law may be the lower court's name, as it may be the court presiding the trials Harry witnesses in Dumbledore's pensieve

(from PoA)

As we'll see later, the postwar trials of Igor Karkaroff and Ludo Bagman, and the joint trial of Rabastan Lestrange, Rodolphus Lestrange, Bellatrix Lestrange and Barty Crouch jr are described quite differently from Harry's trial before the Wizengamot, which is what led me to believe that they were presided by two different courts.

The magical world doesn't appear to have an appellate court although, if jkr modeled the wizarding judiciary after the ones present in British Law, the Wizengamot may be modeled after the Crown Court and thus also serve an appellate function.

Finally, the books make no mention of barristers, solicitors or any other type of lawyer. The trials we witness are not presided by judges but by government officials and there is no indication that the Wizengamot members (who serve the function of a jury) have any type of legal training.

The defendants in the trials we happen to witness don't appear to have counsel of any type. Dumbledore acts as a defense lawyer of sorts for Harry in OotP but he announces himself as a "witness for the defence". Seeing that Dumbledore appears to be a living exception to all magical laws and customs, this doesn't actually tell us much.

The government officials acting in the function of the prosecution and the judge both do exhibit some knowledge of wizarding laws, as does Dumbledore (who was at one point chief Warlock) although, since Dumbledore is Dumbledore and therefore omniscient, this may not be indicative of any skill requirement for the position he held.

c) KNOWN LAWS

1.1 legal documents referenced in the books (in tentatively chronological order)

the Statute of Secrecy, decreed by the International Confederation of Warlocks in 1689

unnamed law decreed by the Warlocks' Convention of 1709: it outlaws dragon Breeding (as per Ron in PS)

The Decree for the Reasonble Restriction of Underage Sorcery (1875), which partly states in clause seven that "magic may be used before Muggles in exceptional circumstances, and as those exceptional circumstances include situations that threaten the life of the wizard or witch himself, or witches, wizards, or Muggles present at the time of the..." (as quoted by Dumbledore in OotP)

unnamed law punishing the use of Unforgivables

unnamed law delineating the purposes and limitations of the Trace

the Wizengamot charter of rights (mentioned on OotP): it partly states that an accused has the right to present defence witnesses (as stated by Dumbledore in OotP)

law fifteen B "any attack by a magical creature who is deemed to have near-human intelligence, and therefore considered responsible for its actions..." (as incompletely quoted by Dolores Umbridge in OotP)

the Decree for Justifiable Confiscation, which gives the ministry power to confiscate the contents of a will. It was created to stop wizards from passing on dark artefacts (as mentioned in DH)

unnamed law written by Arthur Weasley regarding the possible legality of flying cars/ enchanted muggle vehicles (as mentioned in CoS)*

unnamed document establishing an embargo on flying carpets, implied to have been drafted by Arthur Weasley (from GoF)*

Arthur Weasley's Muggle Protection Act (proposed legislation c.a. 1992, unknown contents, unknown if put into law)*

the International Ban on Dueling, implied to be an international agreement, Transylvanians haven't signed it as of summer 1994 (from GoF)

*: it's unclear how Arthur Weasley, who is not a lawyer, an elected official or a member of the only known legislative body in the books (the International federation of wizards), is able to both draft and propose legislation

1.2 educational decrees

I am including these because they are treated like laws. They are pushed for by a minister and they need to "pass", presumably through a parliament of sorts, in order to be enacted. Prior to the events of OotP there seem to have been 21 educational decrees, the contents of which we are unaware of. The ones added in book 5 by the Fudge administration (with the help of Dolores Umbridge) are as follows:

n.22 "in the event of the current headmaster being unable to provide a candidate for a teaching post, the Ministry should select an appropriate person"

n.23, creates the new position of "Hogwarts high inquisitor"

n.24:

n25:

n.26 "teachers are hereby banned from giving students any information that is not strictly related to the subjects they are paid to teach"

n.27 "any student found in possession of the magazine The Quibbler will be expelled"

n.28 "Dolores Jane Umbridge (High Inquisitor) has replaced Albus Dumbledore as Head of Hogwarts School of Wichcraft and Wizardry"

n.29: never enacted, concerning the use of physical punishment at Hogwarts

unnamed order for the expulsion of peeves, possibly part of decree 29, also never enacted

d) HARRY'S TRIAL

In OotP, Harry is tried for underage magic following his use of the Patronus enchantment to protect both himself and his cousin Dudley from dementors.

This is Harry's second infraction of the Decree for the Reasonble Restriction of Underage Sorcery and he is being made an example of for political reasons since, in recently claiming that Voldemort had returned, he made an enemy out of the Fudge administration. It's therefore unclear if the Decree has a two strikes and you're out policy or if Harry's prosecution is just caused by the Ministry's desire to throw the book at him. By the time Harry receives the letter informing him of this upcoming trial, he'd supposedly performed underage magic outside of Hogwarts thrice but only received a written warning once (in Cos, when said magic was actually performed by Dobby). When Harry blew up his aunt Marge in PoA, Fudge himself dismissed the event as a non-issue, claiming:

The circumstances in this case being Sirius's escape from Azkaban and his presumed intention to target Harry. Of course, Harry's notoriety may have also played a factor.

Despite being a minor, Harry doesn't seem to be allowed an escort as Arthur Weasley is unable to enter the courtroom. Harry goes in alone (as does every other defendant we meet); it also appears that the trial is closed to the public.

Harry's trial is described as a "disciplinary hearing", both before it was supposed to take place in front of the Wizengamot and after:

and

Despite this, the hearing is presided by the Minister of Magic himself, (Cornelius Fudge). A Wizengamot trial seems to be, by nature, a criminal trial and Dumbledore, in his defense of Harry, implies it is highly unusual for disciplinary hearings to be tried as such. Indeed, before the trial was moved from Amelia Bones's office to Courtroom 10, the judgement of the head of DMLE was deemed to be sufficent.

The Wizengamot members act as a jury of sort, they are described to be:

The Wizengamot appears to have elders; we are introduced to only two - Griselda Marchbanks and Tiberius Ogden - so it's unclear how many there are and, furthermore, we are never informed of their function.

Wizengamot proceedings require the presence of interrogators. In Harry's trial they are Cornelius Fudge (Minister of Magic), Amelia Bones (Head of the DMLE) and Dolores Umbridge (Senior Undersecretary to the Minister).

For some reason, Percy Weasley acts as court scribe despite it not being his job title. It's unclear wether this is an extraordinary case or if stenographers really don't exist in the magical world. (also, why do they even need stenographers when wizards have quick quotes quills?)

Dumbledore describes himself as a witness for the defense, even if he takes on a role that seems more similar to that of a defense attorney. Mrs Figg is also described as a witness but, unlike Dumbledore, she was not allowed to enter the court by herself and required an escort in order to join the proceedings (Percy Weasley).

For some reason, Dumbledore was informed of the trial's change of location, which implies he was also aware of the time and location of the original hearing. At no point in time does Harry retain his services (he is in fact surprised to see Dumbledore there) despite the fact that Dumbledore speaks for Harry throughout.

Interestingly, though the trial also serves to determine wether Harry is going to be expelled from Hogwarts, Dumbledore's judgement in his role as Headmaster is not required. The Ministry, it appears, can decide to expel students without the approval of the school's headmaster (can the headmaster expel students without ministry approval? unclear).

The proceedings seem to be very formal, as Harry is being interrogated with yes and no questions and is given no time for elucidations. Despite this, Dumbledore is allowed to have multiple very informal conversations with the minister of magic himself and at no point does he use court lingo, in complete opposition to how Umbridge, an interrogator, is treated.

Harry observes that, in order to speak, she has to lean forward, at which point the Minister states

This is the only time in all of the books that this happens. The other interrogator, head of DMLE Amelia Bones, appears to speak whenever she pleases, as she interrupts Harry mid-sentence and addresses the Minister like a peer.

It's quite likely that Dumbledore was allowed free rein on account if his status and fame and his presence likely threw a wrench in what were otherwise going to be very strict bureaucratic proceedings.

Finally, Wizengamot rulings are made by show of hands and it doesn't look like they need to be initiated by the person heading the proceedings. For Harry's trial, it's Amelia Bones that calls onto the jury's decision and not Fudge.

e) OTHER TRIALS

The first trial we see in the books happens at least six months after the first wizarding war, since that's the time it took for Alastor Moody to track down the defendant, Igor Karkaroff.

What Harry witnesses (by wading through Dumbledore's pensieve memories) is not, however, Karkaroff's sentencing but a follow-up hearing to determine wether he is in possession of information that may lead to the capture of more Death Eaters. Karkaroff is taken from Azkaban in order to do so and he is accompanied/carried by dementors.

The case takes place in open court, as Harry sees that "rows and rows of witches and wizards were seated around every wall on what seemed to be benches rising in levels"; these proceedings, in stark difference to Harry's, are open to the public (possible proof n.1 that this is not taking place in front of the Wizengamot but in a different court).

At this moment in time, Dumbledore could very well be chief warlock of the wizengamot (we don't know when he was instated) but he sits among the spectators (possible proof n.2 ). Despite being a member of the public, Dumbledore is seen interrupting proceedings without permission (to defend Snape, whom Karkaroff implicates). Because it's Dumbledore doing it, it's again unclear wether this is permitted or if the court is making an exception for him.

This first trial is, like all the trials Harry witnesses indirectly, presided by Barty Crouch sr., who at this point in time heads the DMLE. (possible proof n.3, maybe all wizengamot trials are presided by the minister and all council trials are headed by the DMLE chief?)

The Second trial Harry sees in Dumbledore's memories is that of Ludo Bagman (for passing information to Rockwood, whom Karkaroff implicated in the first memory). Dumbledore is once again not there in any official capacity and is sitting among the public; the proceedings are implied to take place at a later date, as Harry remarks that Crouch's appearance has changed.

We join Ludo in his trial's sentencing phase and indeed Harry notices the presence of a jury, which is not described as having the monogrammed plum robes of Wizengamot members (possible proof n.4 although, since the events take place in GoF and Harry's trial occurs in OotP, jkr may have simply done an oopsie).

This trial seems to be more informal, as the crowd appears to behave quite rowdily (with no intervention) and a member of the jury waylays the proceedings in order to compliment Ludo's flying at his most recent Quidditch match. This is most likely because of both public sentiment and the perceived innocence of the defendant.

Notably, Ludo's trial is the only one that we know for sure was attended by the press, as Harry notices a young Rita Skeeter sitting near Dumbledore.

The final trial witnessed by Harry appears to once again be a sentencing, that of Barty Crouch jr, Bellatrix Lestrange and the brothers Rodolphus and Rabastan Lestrange (who were seemingly all tried together and received a single sentence). Harry once again remarks that Crouch Sr's looks have changed, helping us determine that time has passed between the memories. This sentencing is once again done through show of hands by a jury (who, again, is not described as wearing Wizengamot robes) and Dumbledore is still sitting among the public.

Despite it being another sentencing, it appears that the defendants were already being detained in Azkaban as they are accompanied by six dementors, unlike Ludo Bagman, though this may be due to the difference in the severity of their actions; Bagman was seemingly a free man when he entered the courtroom as he'd participated in a quidditch match not one week before.

It's during his trial that the Council of Magical Law is mentioned by name (the only time in the books). Since all three of the pensieve trials share multiple similarities - way more than they do with Harry's- this, together with the evidence shown above, leads me to conclude that

1 All three trials take place before the same court

2 the Council of Magical Law is not necessarily another the name for the Wizengamot and therefore

3 there's at least two different courts codified in the magical law system

Of course, these discrepancies may very well be oopsies on jkr's part. Although Dumbledore's role as chief Warlock can be ascertained as early as PS (thanks to the header on Harry's acceptance letter), the Wizengamot doesn't get mentioned by name until OotP. Furthermore, the pensieve trials and Harry's take place in different books which means jkr may have added on to the concept in the interim.

f) CONCLUSION

There is none, I have nothing else to say. Class is dismissed, I need to go have a lie-down.

[mariacallous]

On 2 February 2022, the Russian navy was to begin an exercise in Irish waters. The Irish government had pleaded with the Kremlin not to go ahead, but in vain. Only when Irish fishermen intervened did the Kremlin decide to abandon the exercise. Any day now, Russian warships will return to Irish waters for another exercise, and the Dublin government can’t count on Irish fishermen to once again solve its predicament. Now that the neutral country needs to defend itself and its waters, it can only hope and plead.

‘Defence Forces “hyper aware” as Russian navy expected to conduct drills,’ the Irish Examiner reported on 17 September. The Irish Defence Forces are still hyper aware, for the Russian navy can arrive in Ireland’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) at any time. After a few embarrassing mishaps in the Black Sea at the hands of Ukraine, it is trying to prove its worth. Earlier this month, Russia conducted the massive Ocean 2024 exercise with the navy of China’s People’s Liberation Army and People’s Liberation Army air force. The mostly Russian exercise involved 400 warships, submarines and support vessels, more than 120 naval aircraft and more than 90,000 personnel.

Ireland’s waters weren’t part of Ocean 2024, but in recent years the Russian navy has shown considerable interest in Ireland. In May last year, for example, several Russian navy ships entered Ireland’s EEZ south of the country  –  and stayed put. ‘[The situation] is carefully monitored by Ireland and by others and that is an ongoing scenario where people track what’s happening within international waters and, indeed, within the Irish exclusive economic zone, which is quite large in itself,’ Tanaiste (Foreign Minister) Micheal Martin said after the ships arrived, adding that ‘I don’t see it as a threat, but it’s something we are very conscious of and we keep a very close eye on.’ It was not the first time Russian naval and merchant ships had mysteriously parked themselves off Ireland’s southern coast, which just happens to be home to an extraordinary concentration of undersea internet cables.

Indeed, some time in late 2021 or early 2022 the Russian navy decided to conduct an exercise in the EEZ. The exercise was to begin on 3 February 2022. The Irish government sought to prevent it from happening by pleading with the Kremlin and calling the exercise ‘unwelcome and unwanted’, but to no avail. Russia’s ambassador to Ireland, Yuri Filatov, declared that ‘there is nothing to be disturbed, concerned, or anguished about and I have extensively explained that to our Irish colleagues’.

The Irish government was powerless to make the exercise go away. In late January, it issued a statement advising Irish fishermen that the exercise would begin on 3 February and that vessels should be aware of ‘serious safety risks’ in the area and avoid entering it. Russia had indicated the exercises would involve naval artillery and rocket launches, the advisory explained. The fishermen were outraged. ‘This is the livelihoods of fishermen and fishing families all around the coastline here,’ Patrick Murphy, the chief executive of the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation, told RTE radio. ‘It’s our waters. Can you imagine if the Russians were applying to go onto the mainland of Ireland to go launching rockets, how far would they get with that?’

The fishermen took action. ‘Our boats will be going out to that area on the first of February to go fishing,’ Murphy told Politico on 25 January. ‘When one boat needs to return to port, another will head out so there is a continuous presence on the water. If that is in proximity to where the exercise is going, we are expecting that the Russian naval services abide by the anti-collision regulations.’ It was a clever move. By fielding a constant presence of fishing boats in the planned exercise waters, the fishermen would prevent the Russian navy from carrying out the exercise. The Kremlin backed down. Now the Irish fishermen’s showdown with the Kremlin is headed for the big screen: well-deserved fame for the West’s most unexpected national security strategists.

The Irish government can’t count on Murphy and his men to bail it out once again. Russia is prepared, and fishermen should not have to improvise national-security fixes. The Irish government is on its own, and that means having to face off the Russian navy and other prospective intruders with the means of the Irish Defence Forces. That’s a total of two army brigades, an army training centre, 17 aircraft (including helicopters) and six patrol vessels, some of which seem to be regularly in poor repair.

It’s not much with which to deter an intruder, even one merely wanting to frighten Ireland by loitering on top of the undersea cables connecting the world. No wonder Irish ministers firmly declare that the Irish Defence Forces are ‘hyper aware’ and that the government is ‘keeping a close eye’ on potential intruders: the country can do little more than be hyper aware.

Indeed, Ireland – which was so skillfully on trend during globalisation’s exuberant years and has so richly capitalised on globalised business – has thoroughly failed to spot the deteriorating situation around it. Other European countries are beefing up their armed forces, which, for the most part, were far larger than the Irish Defence Forces to begin with. Sweden and Finland, for so long neutral and then militarily non-aligned, have joined NATO. Neutral Ireland, by contrast, seems frozen in globalisation time – and even if it decided to shore up its defence now, this wouldn’t yield results any time soon.

That makes the many companies that have set up their European headquarters in Ireland (and depend on undersea cables to do business) highly vulnerable. Will they start leaving the island? We can’t know. What’s clear is that Ireland, a nation that bet everything on globalisation, is riding straight into a security dilemma.

[thatonepoliticalstudent]

Trumps executive orders signed today:

Please keep in mind executive orders are laws that still need to be voted on by the other members in congress to pass. They are not final and can be overturned in the future.

11 immigration orders - declared the southern border under national emergency, redefining birth right citizenship, clarified the militaries importance to border security, suspending refugee resettlement, ending asylum seekers from other countries, restarting title 42, ending catch and release agreement with Mexico.

Pardons for 1,500 January 6th attackers. (they are to be release tonight).

75-day extension to the tiktok ban - tiktok must divest from bytedance within that time range.

Rolling back every executive order biden has signed.

Withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.

Declared a national energy emergency - allowing for more oil drilling.

Mandated that there are only two genders; male or female. federal tax payer dollars cannot be used to pay for transition services.

Ended all DEI policies in the white house.

Hiring freeze for all federal government and mandated that all federal workers must return to the office in-person work.

Created “DOGE” as an advisory committee of the federal government.

Changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” and Denali to “Mount McKinley”.

All flags must be flown at full-staff for future inaugurations.

Source: Aaron Parnas

This is the first day and if this is a preview of whats to come, the next few years will be busy.

[lboogie1906]

Sergeant Major James Ermine Huger, Sr. (January 4, 1915 - October 14, 2016) was born in Tampa. He earned his high school diploma and AA at Bethune-Cookman College. He attended West Virginia State College where he received his BS. He earned his MS from the University of Michigan. He served as the business manager of the school for more than 40 years.

He was drafted into the Marine Corps becoming one of the first African American Marines. He served as a Montford Point Marine and trained at the Montford Point facility at Camp Lejeune. He was promoted until he reached the highest rank as a non-commissioned officer: Sergeant Major.

Mrs. Bethune asked him to run the United Negro College Fund in DC. He was a member of the Stewart Memorial United Methodist Church and served as Charge Lay Leader. He was appointed to the Urban Renewal Advisory Board for the City of Daytona Beach. He became the city’s first African American elected official when he was elected city commissioner. He was the first African American to serve on the Volusia County Council and served as chairman. He served as the city’s community development director.

He served as a Trustee Emeritus on the Bethune-Cookman University Board of Associate Trustees, Associate Trustee of Halifax Health, President of the Board of Stewart Marchman Center, Board Member of The Rape Crisis Center, and Board Member of Florida Health Care. Huger participated in numerous other organizations including the Daytona Beach International Speedway Checkered Flag Committee, The Association for Retarded Citizens, The Division of Blind Services, The Florida League of Cities, NAACP, Governor’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Committee, HOPE House, the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, The Elks, the American Teachers’ Association, Daytona Beach Chamber of Commerce, and the Florida Committee of 100. He was the executive director for Alpha Phi Alpha. He is credited with integrating Daytona Beach’s municipal golf course and contributed to The Halifax Associates Membership Handbook and the Disaster Preparedness Guidebook for Community Development Professionals. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #alphaphialpha

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Don Moynihan at The UnPopulist (10.06.2024):

A standard step in the authoritarian playbook is to secure power by taking control of the bureaucracy, especially the national security components of the state. Former President Donald Trump tried to do this at the end of his administration and has made this plan absolutely central to his second-term vision. When Trump left office, the threats to democracy posed by Schedule F—his plan to reclassify hundreds of thousands of federal employees into political appointees he could fire at will—seemed remote. That is no longer true now that he has a viable chance of being reelected. A chief lesson that Trump and his supporters learned was that they failed because they were unable to treat federal employees like contestants on The Apprentice, to be fired at Trump’s whims. In a second term, they have a plan to fix this problem that even if implemented haphazardly could generate extraordinary damage to the quality of American government and the stability of our democracy. As Robert Shea, a public management expert who served in the George W. Bush administration, noted, Schedule F would create “an army of suck-ups.”

What is Schedule F?

Schedule F is an executive order that was signed by Trump, rescinded by President Joe Biden at the start of his administration, and which Trump has promised to resurrect (The “F” part is a reference to different classes of political appointees; there is already a Schedule A-E). Schedule F gives the president the power to reclassify career civil servants who have some sort of policy advisory aspect to their job into political appointees.

What does this mean? There are basically two classes of workers in government: career civil servants who work in government for the long-haul and are selected based on a non-political process, and political appointees. The first can only be fired for cause, i.e., poor performance or violating rules. The second are selected by the president and serve at his or her pleasure. In other words, political appointees can be pushed out for any reason the president deems worthy. From the perspective of career officials, under Schedule F they could be involuntarily reassigned from career status to at-will, providing them with much less job security. These leading advocates for Schedule F during Trump’s term—who proposed that at least 50,000 officials could be reclassified just as a first step—include James Sherk, who joined the administration from the Heritage Foundation and now works for the America First Policy Institute; Russ Vought, the former Heritage Foundation official who ran the Office of Management and Budget for Trump and now leads the Center for Renewing America; and Paul Dans, the Trump official who led Project 2025. With support from the Heritage Foundation and the Conservative Partnership Institute, all have been involved in planning for a second Trump term in which Schedule F would feature prominently.

The vague nature of the policy means that the upper limit of the order would be to convert hundreds of thousands of officials. There are about 2.1 million civil servants, and about 4,000 political appointee slots. So, converting tens of thousands, or maybe a few hundred thousand officials, into appointee slots might not seem like a big deal. But the U.S. is already an outlier when it comes to the number of political appointees relative to other countries, and the power those appointees hold, which tend to be the top leadership roles in government. Other countries do not embrace the degree of politicization the U.S. already has because research shows that more politicized systems are less effective in governing: they are associated with less stability, lower performance, and lower responsiveness to the public.

There is not a pressing need for more appointees; Trump never came close to filling his 4,000 slots, and had an extraordinary degree of turnover among those he did appoint. Instead, the function of Schedule F is to politicize more and more of the government and to force federal officials to worry that they will lose their job if they uphold their oath to the Constitution in the face of Trump’s demands.

[...]

Undermining Democratic Accountability

For Trump and his advisors, the purpose of Schedule F is to avoid accountability, not to embrace it. If he wins, Trump would be ineligible to run for office again, and so there is no electoral incentive to temper his actions in his second term. (He may ignore such constitutional constraints, of course, at which point Schedule F would be even more explicitly serving authoritarian ends.) His complaints during his presidency about the operation of the administrative state were usually not about responsiveness to specific policy goals, but frequently that they would not facilitate illegal behavior. In The New Yorker, Jonathan Blitzer reported that a former senior official in the Trump administration told him, “Inside the White House ... Trump was constantly enraged that his Cabinet wouldn’t break the law for him.”

Trump’s first impeachment offers a Rosetta Stone for the democratic risks that Schedule F would bring. That proceeding featured Trump seeking to use his public office of the president, and taxpayer dollars, for partisan and corrupt political purposes. The means of doing so—withholding aid to Ukraine in the hope of gaining dirt about his political opponent—was both illegal (violating the Impoundment Act) and unconstitutional. Trump political appointees were informed of this by career officials at the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget. But they were ignored as the former covered up the illegal action and invented a secret legal rationale to justify it. When the scandal was exposed, Trump forbade his appointees from testifying before Congress. Most of what was learned about the illegal actions and cover-up came from career officials. After the impeachment, Trump punished those officials to the greatest degree, removing them from their positions, blocking promotions, or demoting them. With Schedule F, he simply would have fired them, as he did at an unprecedented rate with inspectors general, the officials who are explicitly tasked with providing accountability within agencies. Few if any would have had the courage to testify and expose Trump’s illegal behaviors. Remarkably, the Project 2025 training videos are actually instructing future Republican political appointees about how to evade accountability by excluding career staff from meetings and avoiding paper trails. Take Tom Jones, a Republican opposition researcher who runs the American Accountability Foundation, an ironically named organization given that its head is seeking to subvert formal mechanisms of accountability. “You’re probably better off going down to the canteen, getting a cup of coffee, talking it through and making the decision, as opposed to sending him an email and creating a thread that Accountable.US or one of those other groups is going to come back and seek.” Jones has already been scouring the social media posts of career officials, creating an enemies list of those who have expressed views hostile to Trump and should be fired via Schedule F if he returns to office.

Don Moynihan wrote in The UnPopulist that Donald Trump (and Project 2025)’s deranged Schedule F policy will wreck the civil services and turn it into a political spoils system.

[aimeedaisies]

Great Western Railway celebrates The Princess Royal’s lifetime of dedicated service by naming train in her honour

Great Western Railway has named a train after HRH The Princess Royal in recognition of her support for more than 300 charities, organisations and military regiments in the UK and overseas.

Representatives from a host of those organisations joined guests at London Paddington on Thursday 2nd May as Intercity Express Train 800024 was named in honour of Her Royal Highness.

Her Royal Highness was joined at London Paddington by husband Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence, a member of the GWR Advisory Board.

After the unveiling, The Princess Royal was introduced to guests including the Secretary of State for Transport, Mark Harper MP, former Prime Minister Theresa May and Transport for London Commissioner Andrew Lord.

Mark Hopwood, Great Western Railway Managing Director, said: “Naming trains has been a tradition on the railway, and especially on the Great Western Railway, since the earliest days of train travel.”

“Today GWR proudly continues this tradition, recognising and celebrating inspirational individuals who have shaped the communities and the nation. Her Royal Highness has dedicated a large part of her working life to official engagements and visits and we are delighted to recognise this immense contribution by carrying her name on the side of this Intercity Express Train.”

Transport Secretary, Rt Hon Mark Harper MP, said: “I’m delighted to see one of GWR’s trains named after Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal in recognition of her remarkable commitment to public service.

“Her Royal Highness has made a significant contribution to so many important charities, events and public services so it gives me great pride to celebrate this through one of the greatest traditions on our railways.”

Inspired by the heritage of GWR’s King George V locomotive, two sides of a coin appear on the side of GWR’s named Intercity Express Trains.

With the Coat of Arms of the GWR on one side of coin, the other will include an illustration of The Princess competing at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. Seated on the Queen’s horse, Goodwill, Her Royal Highness was taking part in the equestrian three-day event – the first member of the Royal Family to feature in the Olympics.

HRH went on to play a part in London’s successful bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games and today brings insight and experience to her role as a British member of the International Olympic Committee, as well as being President of the British Olympic Association.

Annamarie Phelps CBE, Vice-Chairman of the British Olympic Association, said: “HRH The Princess Royal is synonymous with British Olympic sport and the British Olympic Association. Having competed as an Olympian, she also holds the unique record of being an IOC member, having led an international sport federation and, of course, being the mother to another Olympian, Zara Tindall. We are delighted to join her today to celebrate the naming of this train in her honour.”

The Princess has been President of Save the Children UK since 1970, visiting projects in many countries including China, Cambodia, Botswana, Madagascar and The Philippines.

Gemma Sherrington, Interim Chief Executive of Save the Children, said: “We are delighted that Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal is being honoured by Great Western Railway for her lifelong charitable commitments. The Princess Royal has supported the work of Save the Children for over 50 years and as our Patron has worked tirelessly to support us, visiting teams in the UK and around the world and regularly meeting with our inspirational fundraisers and volunteers.

“We continue to be incredibly grateful for The Princess Royal’s support to help us continue to deliver lasting change for children and their families in the UK and across the globe.”

HRH has been closely involved with the creation of several charities, including The Princess Royal’s Trust for Carers (now Carers Trust), Transaid and Riders for Health, and has been Patron of the Motor Neurone Disease Association since 2008.

Tanya Curry, chief executive of the MND Association, said, “HRH The Princess Royal has offered steadfast support to the MND Association for more than 16 years and is a remarkable advocate for people with motor neurone disease, a terminal illness which affects more than 5000 people in the UK at any one time.

“We are incredibly grateful to Her Royal Highness for her unwavering dedication throughout her time as Royal Patron of the MND Association, and we are delighted her commitment to charitable causes is being recognised in this way.”

[todaysdocument]

The Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional on June 26, 2013. 

In U.S. v Windsor, SCOTUS held that the federal government could not discriminate against same-sex couples. 

Record Group 267: Records of the Supreme Court of the United States Series: Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files

Transcription: 

[Stamped: " FILE COPY "]

(Bench Opinion)                 OCTOBER TERM, 2012            1  [Handwritten and circled " 1"  in upper right-hand corner]

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 12-307.  Argued March 27, 2013---Decided June 26, 2013

The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in

2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor.

Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviv-

ing spouses, but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal Defense

of Marriage Act (DOMA), which amended the Dictionary Act---a

law providing rules of construction for over 1,000 federal laws and

the whole realm of federal regulations-to define "marriage" and

"spouse" as excluding same-sex partners. Windsor paid $363,053 in

estate taxes and sought a refund, which the Internal Revenue Service

denied. Windsor brought this refund suit, contending that DOMA vi-

olates the principles of equal protection incorporated in the Fifth

Amendment. While the suit was pending, the Attorney General notified

the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Department

of Justice would no longer defend §3's constitutionality. In re-

sponse, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of

Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend §3's

constitutionality. The District Court permitted the intervention. On

the merits, the court ruled against the United States, finding §3 un-

constitutional and ordering the Treasury to refund Windsor's tax

with interest. The Second Circuit affirmed. The United States has

not complied with the judgment.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case.

This case clearly presented a concrete disagreement between oppos-

ing parties that was suitable for judicial resolution in the District

Court, but the Executive's decision not to defend §3's constitutionali-

[page 2]

2                  UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

Syllabus

ty in court while continuing to deny refunds and assess deficiencies

introduces a complication. Given the Government's concession, ami-

cus contends, once the District Court ordered the refund, the case

should have ended and the appeal been dismissed. But this argu-

ment elides the distinction between Article Ill's jurisdictional re-

quirements and the prudential limits on its exercise, which are "es-

sentially matters of judicial self-governance." Warth v. Seldin, 422

U. S. 490, 500. Here, the United States retains a stake sufficient to

support Article III jurisdiction on appeal and in this Court. The re-

fund it was ordered to pay Windsor is "a real and immediate econom-

ic injury," Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U. S.

587, 599, even if the Executive disagrees with §3 of DOMA. Wind-

sor's ongoing claim for funds that the United States refuses to pay

thus establishes a controversy sufficient for Article III jurisdiction.

Cf. INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919.

Prudential considerations, however, demand that there be "con-

crete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon

which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult consti-

tutional questions." Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204. Unlike Article

III requirements---which must be satisfied by the parties before judi-

cial consideration is appropriate---prudential factors that counsel

against hearing this case are subject to "countervailing considera-

tions [that] may outweigh the concerns underlying the usual reluc-

tance to exert judicial power." Warth, supra, at 500-501. One such

consideration is the extent to which adversarial presentation of the

issues is ensured by the participation of amici curiae prepared to de-

fend with vigor the legislative act's constitutionality. See Chadha,

supra, at 940. Here, BLAG's substantial adversarial argument for

§3's constitutionality satisfies prudential concerns that otherwise

might counsel against hearing an appeal from a decision with which

the principal parties agree. This conclusion does not mean that it is

appropriate for the Executive as a routine exercise to challenge stat-

utes in court instead of making the case to Congress for amendment

or repeal. But this case is not routine, and BLAG's capable defense

ensures that the prudential issues do not cloud the merits question,

which is of immediate importance to the Federal Government and to

hundreds of thousands of persons. Pp. 5-13.

2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of

persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13--26.

(a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of mar-

riage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the

separate States. Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate

the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, but

DOMA, with a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statues and

[NEW PAGE]

Cite as: 570 U.S._ (2013)           3

Syllabus

the whole realm of federal regulations, has a far greater reach. Its

operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New

York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. Assessing the

validity of that intervention requires discussing the historical and

traditional extent of state power and authority over marriage.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.

Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, "regulation of domestic relations" is "an area

that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the

States," Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. The significance of state

responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to

the Nation's beginning; for "when the Constitution was adopted the

common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband

and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,"

Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383-384. Marriage laws

may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each

State.

DOMA rejects this long-established precept. The State's decision

to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a

dignity and status of immense import. But the Federal Government

uses the state-defined class for the opposite purpose---to impose re-

strictions and disabilities. The question is whether the resulting injury

and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty

protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as

alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the

same class the State seeks to protect. New York's actions were a

proper exercise of its sovereign authority. They reflect both the

community's considered perspective on the historical roots of the in-

stitution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning

of equality. Pp. 13--20.

(b) By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect,

DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles ap-

plicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution's guarantee of

equality "must at the very least mean that a bare congressional de-

sire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot" justify disparate

treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413

U. S. 528, 534-535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles.

Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting

state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples of

the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of

their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose

and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state

law. DOMA's avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a

disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter

into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority

[page 3]

4           UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

Syllabus

of the States.

DOMA's history of enactment and its own text demonstrate that

interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, conferred

by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than

an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. BLAG's

arguments are just as candid about the congressional purpose.

DOMA's operation in practice confirms this purpose. It frustrates

New York's objective of eliminating inequality by writing inequality

into the entire United States Code.

DOMA's principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of

state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples

married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights

and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes

within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as mar-

ried for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of

federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic

personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and

protect. Pp. 20-26.

699 F. 3d 169, affirmed.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG,

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a

dissenting opinion. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which

THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined as to Part I.

ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to

Parts II and III.

[NEW PAGE]

Cite as: 570 U. S. _ (2013)          1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington,

D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 12-307

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. EDITH SCHLAIN

WINDSOR, IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF THEA CLARA SPYER, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

[June 26, 2013]

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Two women then resident in New York were married

in a lawful ceremony in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Edith

Windsor and Thea Spyer returned to their home in New

York City. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire

estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the estate tax

exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from

doing so, however, by a federal law, the Defense of Mar-

riage Act, which excludes a same-sex partner from the

definition of "spouse" as that term is used in federal stat-

utes. Windsor paid the taxes but filed suit to challenge

the constitutionality of this provision. The United States

District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that this

portion of the statute is unconstitutional and ordered the

United States to pay Windsor a refund. This Court granted

certiorari and now affirms the judgment in Windsor's

favor.

I

In 1996, as some States were beginning to consider the

concept of same-sex marriage, see, e.g., Baehr v. Lewin, 74

[moontyger]

Amid a deluge of executive actions, the Trump administration has directed federal health agencies to pauseexternal communications, such as regular scientific reports, updates to websites and health advisories, according to sources within the agencies.

The initial orders were delivered Tuesday to staff at agencies inside the US Department of Health and Human Services, including to officials at the US Food and Drug Administration, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health, according to the Washington Post, which first reported the story.

The direction came without warning and with little guidance as to what exactly it covered, according to sources inside the affected agencies who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to share the information.

In a follow-up memo obtained by CNN on Wednesday, Acting Health Secretary Dr. Dorothy Fink provided additional details, including that the directive would be in effect through February 1.

The memo told health agency employees to have all documents and communications - including regulations, guidance, notices, social media, websites and press releases - reviewed and approved by a presidential appointee before issuing them. It also directed employees not to participate in any public speaking engagements without approval, and to coordinate with presidential appointees before issuing official correspondence to members of Congress or governors.

“As the new Administration considers its plan for managing the federal policy and public communications processes, it is important that the President’s appointees and designees have the opportunity to review and approve any regulations, guidance documents, and other public documents and communications (including social media),” Fink said in the memo.

The directive also told employees to notify higher-ups of any documents or communications that should be exempt either because they’re required by law or because they’re critical for health, safety or other reasons. Already Wednesday morning, the FDA sent out a communication about a safety warning added to the multiple sclerosis drug glatiramer acetate, which goes by brand names including Copaxone, for a “rare but serious allergic reaction.”

A source familiar with the directive said that while it wasn’t entirely unheard of for an incoming administration to ask for a pause to review information before it’s publicly released, the scope of the order appeared to be unusual. Another said there were no similar restrictions on communications issued at the beginning of the last two administrations, and said employees were fearful about their jobs.

America’s health agencies, including the CDC, FDA and the NIH, routinely release information on food recalls, drug and medical device approvals, as well as updates on evolving public health threats including natural disasters and infectious diseases. Many of the agencies have been closely tracking and reporting new information on the H5N1 bird flu outbreak, which is spreading in the nation’s poultry flocks and dairy cattle and among people who work with those animals.

“Not a day goes by when CDC isn’t tracking a potential threat to our health,” Dr. Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and former acting director of the CDC said in a statement. “Right now they are letting us know about bird flu in cows, birds, and people. Every time there is an outbreak involving a food, they let us know how to avoid getting sick. They let us know where diseases are occurring around the world that could affect our health here or if we travel. Cutting off communications from CDC puts our health at risk and prevents our doctors, nurses, and public health leaders in our communities from doing their jobs. I urge the administration to quickly lift the pause.”

[jcmarchi]

Impact and innovation of AI in energy use with James Chalmers

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/impact-and-innovation-of-ai-in-energy-use-with-james-chalmers/

Impact and innovation of AI in energy use with James Chalmers

In the very first episode of our monhtly Explainable AI podcas, hosts Paul Anthony Claxton and Rohan Hall sat down with James Chalmers, Chief Revenue Officer of Novo Power, to discuss one of the most pressing issues in AI today: energy consumption and its environmental impact.

Together, they explored how AI’s rapid expansion is placing significant demands on global power infrastructures and what leaders in the tech industry are doing to address this.

The conversation covered various important topics, from the unique power demands of generative AI models to potential solutions like neuromorphic computing and waste heat recapture. If you’re interested in how AI shapes business and global energy policies, this episode is a must-listen.

Why this conversation matters for the future of AI

The rise of AI, especially generative models, isn’t just advancing technology; it’s consuming power at an unprecedented rate. Understanding these impacts is crucial for AI enthusiasts who want to see AI development continue sustainably and ethically.

As James explains, AI’s current reliance on massive datasets and intensive computational power has given it the fastest-growing energy footprint of any technology in history. For those working in AI, understanding how to manage these demands can be a significant asset in building future-forward solutions.

Main takeaways

AI’s power consumption problem: Generative AI models, which require vast amounts of energy for training and generation, consume ten times more power than traditional search engines.

Waste heat utilization: Nearly all power in data centers is lost as waste heat. Solutions like those at Novo Power are exploring how to recycle this energy.

Neuromorphic computing: This emerging technology, inspired by human neural networks, promises more energy-efficient AI processing.

Shift to responsible use: AI can help businesses address inefficiencies, but organizations need to integrate AI where it truly supports business goals rather than simply following trends.

Educational imperative: For AI to reach its potential without causing environmental strain, a broader understanding of its capabilities, impacts, and sustainable use is essential.

Meet James Chalmers

James Chalmers is a seasoned executive and strategist with extensive international experience guiding ventures through fundraising, product development, commercialization, and growth.

As the Founder and Managing Partner at BaseCamp, he has reshaped traditional engagement models between startups, service providers, and investors, emphasizing a unique approach to creating long-term value through differentiation.

Rather than merely enhancing existing processes, James champions transformative strategies that set companies apart, strongly emphasizing sustainable development.

Numerous accolades validate his work, including recognition from Forbes and Inc. Magazine as a leader of one of the Fastest-Growing and Most Innovative Companies, as well as B Corporation’s Best for The World and MedTech World’s Best Consultancy Services.

He’s also a LinkedIn ‘Top Voice’ on Product Development, Entrepreneurship, and Sustainable Development, reflecting his ability to drive substantial and sustainable growth through innovation and sound business fundamentals.

At BaseCamp, James applies his executive expertise to provide hands-on advisory services in fundraising, product development, commercialization, and executive strategy.

His commitment extends beyond addressing immediate business challenges; he prioritizes building competency and capacity within each startup he advises. Focused on sustainability, his work is dedicated to supporting companies that address one or more of the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals through AI, DeepTech, or Platform Technologies.

About the hosts:

Paul Anthony Claxton – Q1 Velocity Venture Capital | LinkedIn

www.paulclaxton.io – am a Managing General Partner at Q1 Velocity Venture Capital… · Experience: Q1 Velocity Venture Capital · Education: Harvard Extension School · Location: Beverly Hills · 500+ connections on LinkedIn. View Paul Anthony Claxton’s profile on LinkedIn, a professional community of 1 billion members.

Rohan Hall – Code Genie AI | LinkedIn

Are you ready to transform your business using the power of AI? With over 30 years of… · Experience: Code Genie AI · Location: Los Angeles Metropolitan Area · 500+ connections on LinkedIn. View Rohan Hall’s profile on LinkedIn, a professional community of 1 billion members.

Like what you see? Then check out tonnes more.

From exclusive content by industry experts and an ever-increasing bank of real world use cases, to 80+ deep-dive summit presentations, our membership plans are packed with awesome AI resources.

Subscribe now