ego777

Jubilation. Joy. Relief. Wonder. Pick your word for it — emotions, each and all of them felt by the masses, came pouring out as the clock struck zero inside Memorial Stadium. The Nebraska football program’s long eight-year bowl drought finally came to an end on a 50-degree November afternoon in downtown Lincoln. That achievement is worth celebrating on its own, but the way Nebraska got it done — dominating, rather than eking over the line against an opponent it knows well — made the accomplishment that much sweeter. Nebraska never trailed in a 44-25 win over Wisconsin on Saturday, securing the program’s first bowl game since the 2016 season. The victory also snapped a 10-game losing streak to the Badgers, and the four-game losing skid which NU entered the day with. For a Nebraska (6-5, 3-5 Big Ten) senior class which had never made the postseason before, their level of play on the field matched the seriousness of the opportunity in front of them. Particularly on the offensive side of the ball, improvements from last week’s loss to USC were evident. Offensive coordinator Dana Holgorsen, calling his second game as a member of the Nebraska coaching staff, dialed up a blistering six-play, 55-yard touchdown drive to start the game. A 45-yard kickoff return from freshman Jacory Barney Jr. set Nebraska up on the drive, with junior Heinrich Haarberg scoring the 5-yard run to secure NU’s early 7-0 lead. Having parted ways with its offensive coordinator during the week, Wisconsin, (5-6, 3-5) showed no ill effects from that shakeup as it immediately responded with a scoring drive of its own. Helped by a key missed tackle near midfield, Wisconsin found the end zone on a 4-yard passing score from Braedyn Locke to Bryson Green. After the initial scoring drive, Wisconsin took three of its next four possessions into Nebraska territory but came away with just three points from those chances. A Janiran Bonner fumble deep inside Nebraska territory set up Wisconsin with a prime scoring opportunity, but a three-and-out and delay of game penalty contributed to a 34-yard field goal sailing wide. The Badgers pushed across a 33-yard kick later in the half but also missed a second field goal from 41 yards out, a miss which resulted in a 10-play drive netting zero points. Not all of Nebraska’s first-half drives were perfect — the Huskers punted twice and fumbled once — but when things clicked, Wisconsin could do little to slow down the surging Nebraska offense. Nebraska utilized its quick passing game during its second touchdown drive, with a 27-yard gain from Emmett Johnson on a screen pass quickly being followed by a 21-yard Barney gain on a touch pass in the backfield. Running back Dante Dowdell capped off the eight-play, 80-yard touchdown drive with a 12-yard rushing score in which Jahmal Banks and Nate Boerkircher sealed the edge with a pair of punishing blocks. Nebraska also took advantage of Wisconsin’s field goal miscues by scoring touchdowns immediately following both misses. An efficient drive just prior to the halftime break ended with a toe-tap catch from Banks in the back of the end zone, a 5-yard passing score from Dylan Raiola which extended Nebraska’s lead to 21-10. Taking the ball with just 17 seconds left in the half, Wisconsin could’ve kneeled out the clock but instead opted to give running back Tawee Walker a first down carry. NU’s Nash Hutmacher made Wisconsin regret that decision by jarring the ball loose for a Bager turnover. One completion later and Nebraska brought kicker John Hohl onto the field for a 37-yard try, one he dispatched to give the Huskers a 14-point halftime lead. The 24 first-half points scored by Nebraska marked the team’s second-most all season, and the most since NU’s win over Colorado in September. The Huskers came out firing after the halftime break, too, forcing a Wisconsin three-and-out prior to putting together a scoring drive of its own. While the Nebraska drive stalled out prior to the end zone, a 45-yard Hohl field goal gave the Huskers a three-score advantage, 27-10 in their favor. Unable to trust its kicker in a similar situation, Wisconsin instead opted to keep its offense on the field for a fourth down outside the NU red zone. Walker’s carry up the middle was stuffed by the Blackshirts, resulting in a turnover on downs midway through the third quarter. When Nebraska turned that opportunity into a touchdown of its own, the game just about escaped Wisconsin’s reach. Another well-executed scoring drive, this time a seven-play march down the field which took three-plus minutes, ended in a Dowdell 3-yard touchdown run. As Nebraska’s lead reached 34-10, it marked the most points NU has scored against a Big Ten foe under head coach Matt Rhule. Wisconsin did fire back with a touchdown drive late in the third quarter and another midway through the fourth quarter. A third made field from Hohl helped keep Nebraska’s lead safe to the end, though. Nebraska can take away many positives from its win over Wisconsin, with the all-around performance of Johnson at running back and its much-improved offense taking center stage. Most important of all was the fact that Saturday’s win meant six on the season, a mark Nebraska fans hadn’t celebrated since the 2016 season. That major season milestone now secured, Nebraska’s regular season will come to a close during a Black Friday matchup against the Iowa Hawkeyes. Get local news delivered to your inbox!(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Colin Gordon , University of Iowa (THE CONVERSATION) Donald Trump has picked former football player Scott Turner to lead the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. While not much is known about Turner’s positions as he awaits confirmation by the Senate, Trump’s selection draws attention to the incoming administration’s housing policies. Those policies, evident in both the first Trump presidency and in comments made during the campaign, suggest an abiding faith in the private sector and local government. And they are likely to include deregulation and tax breaks for investment in distressed areas. They also show a disdain for federal fair housing programs. These programs, Trump said on the campaign trail in 2020 , are “bringing who knows into your suburbs, so your communities will be unsafe and your housing values will go down.” ‘Inharmonious neighbors’ In his September 2024 debate with Kamala Harris, Trump responded to a question on immigration by amplifying the discredited rumor that Haitian immigrants in Ohio were “eating the pets of the people that live there.” “This is what’s happening in our country,” he added, “and it’s a shame.” As a historian of public policy focused on urban inequality, I am struck by the similarity between Trump’s diatribe and the beliefs that instituted racial segregation in housing a century ago. Trump’s false claim echoes the long-standing anxieties of white homeowners regarding immigration in general and African American migration specifically. Both cases pit the interests of one set of residents against those of another. First, there are the established, overwhelmingly white , residents – in Trump’s lingo, “the people that live there.” Then come the unwanted new arrivals whose sudden presence in American neighborhoods is seen as a menace to public health, welfare and property values. Historically, the threats posed by “inharmonious” neighbors – as real estate agents and later federal housing agencies put it – have focused on immigrants and African Americans. The surge in immigration to the U.S. at the end of the 19th century animated a notoriously nativist response from local governments and realty groups. It included early efforts at land-use zoning aimed at establishing economically and racially exclusive residential districts in cities. And it involved the first stirrings of white flight to the suburbs, especially in the rapidly urbanizing Northeast and Midwest. Patchwork apartheid But it was the Great Migration of African Americans in the first decades of the 20th century, coupled with the urban residential boom of the 1920s , that galvanized the peculiarly American alchemy of race and property. During this period, many cities, beginning with Baltimore in 1910 , experimented with explicitly racial zoning that designated neighborhoods for solely white or Black occupancy. The Supreme Court struck these laws down in 1917 on the grounds that it invaded “the civil right to acquire, enjoy and use property.” With the option of legally codified racial zoning closed, as I detail in my book, “ Patchwork Apartheid ,” the white reaction to the Great Migration turned to the private and piecemeal action of developers, real estate agents and homeowners. The centerpiece was the widespread use of private contracts designed to prevent those “not wholly of the Caucasian race” from owning or occupying homes in “protected” neighborhoods. This private resistance to integrated neighborhoods was occurring as new housing starts ballooned after the war, from 240,000 a year in 1920 to almost 1 million in 1925. These restrictions took a variety of forms. Suburban developers commonly imposed prohibitions on African American occupancy or ownership of new construction, especially in the rapidly growing cities of the Midwest . Existing residents of older neighborhoods facing racial transition in places such as Chicago and St. Louis would also impose racial covenants by petition. In all these settings, as I detail in my book, racial restrictions were routinely attached to individual home sales by buyers, sellers or real estate agents. They hoped to ward off what white realty interests routinely referred to as “invasion” or “encroachment.” The result was a sort of patchwork apartheid. It was crafted nationwide but stitched together parcel by parcel, block by block, subdivision by subdivision. Stark racial segregation My work on St. Louis has uncovered almost 2,000 racially restrictive agreements imposed between 1900 and 1950. By 1950, this patchwork of private restriction encompassed nearly two-thirds of the St. Louis region’s residential properties. Their core logic was that occupancy by inharmonious neighbors constituted a “nuisance” use of property. Before 1920, private property restrictions commonly included a general nuisance provision barring commercial uses, often listing trades offensive to the senses, such as a slaughterhouse or a junkyard, or to one’s morals, such as a tavern. In response to the Great Migration, white realty firms in St. Louis and elsewhere simply appended “colored” occupancy to their list of nuisances. For example, the uniform agreement used by the St. Louis Real Estate Exchange banned two classes of buyers or renters: “any slaughterhouse, junkshop, or rag-picking establishment” and “a Negro or Negroes.” In the St. Louis subdivision of Cleveland Heights, a long list of proscribed nuisances was capped with the provision that no lot could “in any way or manner” be “occupied by any persons other than those of the Caucasian Race.” Some restrictions elided racial categories and nuisances by restricting sales to residents considered simply “objectionable” or “undesirable.” A common clause found in most Midwestern settings barred any “race or nationality other than those for whom the premises are intended.” Such private restrictions were ruled an unenforceable violation of equal protection by the Supreme Court in 1948. And they were prohibited outright by the Fair Housing Act two decades later. But the damage – stark racial segregation and a yawning racial wealth gap – was done. And the core assumptions about race and property lived on in the policies of private realty, lending and appraisal. ‘Your communities will be unsafe’ Trump’s debate outburst, in this respect, reflected a racial politics shaped as much by his real estate background as his political aspirations. Trump inherited a property portfolio from his father that was already deeply committed to racial segregation and discrimination against African American tenants. Beginning in the 1970s, his family’s New York realty practice was notorious, and routinely sued , for violations of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, meant to check private discrimination in private realty. As president, Trump continued to erode the notion of fair housing for all. In 2020, he jettisoned an Obama-era rule requiring that cities receiving federal housing funds affirmatively address local discrimination and segregation. “ The suburb destruction ,” he promised at the time, “will end with us.” Trump housing 2.0 Turner, as the next HUD secretary, is poised to pick up where the first Trump administration left off. Consider the housing agenda of Project 2025 , the Heritage Foundation’s sweeping blueprint for the second Trump administration. Penned by Ben Carson , Trump’s first HUD secretary, it proposes a radical retreat from federal “overreach” that would include gutting anti-discrimination provisions in federal programs and deferring to localities on zoning. It would also bar noncitizens from public housing and reverse “all actions taken by the Biden Administration to advance progressive ideology.” At the time of Trump’s Springfield, Ohio, comments, the apocryphal specter of pet-eating immigrants seemed but one more oddity in a campaign punctuated with them. But it was more than that. It was the preamble to a new chapter in the U.S.’s long history of discriminatory neighborhood “restriction” or “protection.” This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/trumps-next-hud-secretary-would-have-a-lot-to-do-to-address-the-history-of-racist-housing-policy-and-trumps-own-comments-and-history-suggest-thats-unlikely-240646 . Licenced as Creative Commons - attribution, no derivatives.

It’s a daunting reality for Democrats: Republican Donald Trump's support has grown broadly since he last sought the presidency. In his defeat of Democrat Kamala Harris , Trump won a bigger percentage of the vote in each one of the 50 states, and Washington, D.C., than he did four years ago. He won more actual votes than in 2020 in 40 states, according to an Associated Press analysis. Certainly, Harris’ more than 7 million vote decline from President Joe Biden’s 2020 total was a factor in her loss, especially in swing-state metropolitan areas that have been the party’s winning electoral strongholds. But, despite national turnout that was lower than in the high-enthusiasm 2020 election, Trump received 2.5 million more votes than he did four years ago. He swept the seven most competitive states to win a convincing Electoral College victory, becoming the first Republican nominee in 20 years to win a majority of the popular vote. Trump cut into places where Harris needed to overperform to win a close election. Now Democrats are weighing how to regain traction ahead of the midterm elections in two years, when control of Congress will again be up for grabs and dozens of governors elected. There were some notable pieces to how Trump's victory came together: Though Trump improved across the map, his gains were particularly noteworthy in urban counties home to the cities of Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia, electoral engines that stalled for Harris in industrial swing states Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Harris fell more than 50,000 votes — and 5 percentage points — short of Biden's total in Wayne County, Michigan, which makes up the lion's share of the Detroit metro area. She was almost 36,000 votes off Biden's mark in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, and about 1,000 short in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. It wasn't only Harris' shortfall that helped Trump carry the states, a trio that Democrats had collectively carried in six of the seven previous elections before Nov. 5. Trump added to his 2020 totals in all three metro counties, netting more than 24,000 votes in Wayne County, more than 11,000 in Philadelphia County and almost 4,000 in Milwaukee County. It’s not yet possible to determine whether Harris fell short of Biden’s performance because Biden voters stayed home or switched their vote to Trump — or how some combination of the two produced the rightward drift evident in each of these states. Harris advertised heavily and campaigned regularly in each, and made Milwaukee County her first stop as a candidate with a rally in July. These swings alone were not the difference in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, but her weaker performance than Biden across the three metros helped Trump, who held on to big 2020 margins in the three states' broad rural areas and improved or held steady in populous suburbs. Trump's team and outside groups supporting him knew from their data that he was making inroads with Black voters, particularly Black men younger than 50, more concentrated in these urban areas that have been key to Democratic victories. When James Blair, Trump's political director, saw results coming in from Philadelphia on election night, he knew Trump had cut into the more predominantly Black precincts, a gain that would echo in Wayne and Milwaukee counties. “The data made clear there was an opportunity there,” Blair said. AP VoteCast, a nationwide survey of more than 120,000 voters, found Trump won a larger share of Black and Latino voters than he did in 2020, and most notably among men under age 45. Democrats won Senate races in Michigan and Wisconsin but lost in Pennsylvania. In 2026, they will be defending governorships in all three states and a Senate seat in Michigan. Despite the burst of enthusiasm Harris' candidacy created among the Democratic base when she entered the race in July, she ended up receiving fewer votes than Biden in three of the seven states where she campaigned almost exclusively. In Arizona, she received about 90,000 fewer votes than Biden. She received about 67,000 fewer in Michigan and 39,000 fewer in Pennsylvania. In four others — Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin — Harris won more votes than Biden did. But Trump's support grew by more — in some states, significantly more. That dynamic is glaring in Georgia, where Harris received almost 73,000 more votes than Biden did when he very narrowly carried the state. But Trump added more than 200,000 to his 2020 total, en route to winning Georgia by roughly 2 percentage points. In Wisconsin, Trump's team reacted to slippage it saw in GOP-leaning counties in suburban Milwaukee by targeting once-Democratic-leaning, working-class areas, where Trump made notable gains. In the three largest suburban Milwaukee counties — Ozaukee, Washington and Waukesha — which have formed the backbone of GOP victories for decades, Harris performed better than Biden did in 2020. She also gained more votes than Trump gained over 2020, though he still won the counties. That made Trump's focus on Rock County, a blue-collar area in south central Wisconsin, critical. Trump received 3,084 more votes in Rock County, home of the former automotive manufacturing city of Janesville, than he did in 2020, while Harris underperformed Biden's 2020 total by seven votes. That helped Trump offset Harris' improvement in Milwaukee's suburbs. The focus speaks to the strength Trump has had and continued to grow with middle-income, non-college educated voters, the Trump campaign's senior data analyst Tim Saler said. “If you're going to have to lean into working-class voters, they are particularly strong in Wisconsin,” Saler said. “We saw huge shifts from 2020 to 2024 in our favor.” Of the seven most competitive states, Arizona saw the smallest increase in the number of votes cast in the presidential contest — slightly more than 4,000 votes, in a state with more than 3.3 million ballots cast. That was despite nearly 30 campaign visits to Arizona by Trump, Harris and their running mates and more than $432 million spent on advertising by the campaigns and allied outside groups, according to the ad-monitoring firm AdImpact. Arizona, alone of the seven swing states, saw Harris fall short of Biden across small, midsize and large counties. In the other six states, she was able to hold on in at least one of these categories. Even more telling, it is also the only swing state where Trump improved his margin in every single county. While turnout in Maricopa County, Arizona's most populous as the home to Phoenix, dipped slightly from 2020 — by 14,199 votes, a tiny change in a county where more than 2 million people voted — Trump gained almost 56,000 more votes than four years ago. Meanwhile, Harris fell more than 60,000 votes short of Biden's total, contributing to a shift significant enough to swing the county and state to Trump, who lost Arizona by fewer than 11,000 votes in 2020. The biggest leaps to the right weren't taking place exclusively among Republican-leaning counties, but also among the most Democratic-leaning counties in the states. Michigan's Wayne County swung 9 points toward Trump, tying the more Republican-leaning Antrim County for the largest movement in the state. AP VoteCast found that voters were most likely to say the economy was the most important issue facing the country in 2024, followed by immigration. Trump supporters were more motivated by economic issues and immigration than Harris', the survey showed. “It’s still all about the economy," said North Carolina Democratic strategist Morgan Jackson, a senior adviser to Democrat Josh Stein, who won North Carolina’s governorship on Nov. 5 as Trump also carried the state. “Democrats have to embrace an economic message that actually works for real people and talk about it in the kind of terms that people get, rather than giving them a dissertation of economic policy,” he said. Governor’s elections in 2026 give Democrats a chance to test their understanding and messaging on the issue, said Democratic pollster Margie Omero, whose firm has advised Wisconsin’s Democratic Gov. Tony Evers in the past and winning Arizona Senate candidate Ruben Gallego this year. “So there’s an opportunity to really make sure people, who governors have a connection to, are feeling some specificity and clarity with the Democratic economic message,” Omero said.The arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued by the International Criminal Court is an embarrassment to our government, as well as to his. The United States is the overly indulgent ally that ought to have stayed his heavy hand in Gaza. For the moment, that’s all there will be to this. Netanyahu isn’t going to jail in The Hague, or anywhere else. Israel and the U.S. are two of the most prominent nations that refuse to join the ICC, which issued the arrest warrants last week, charging him and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, with war crimes and crimes against humanity. The other outlier nations include Russia, China and India. Such company we keep. The U.S. and Russia were two of the four victorious powers that tried Nazi henchmen at Nuremberg, convicted 19 and hanged 12 of them. The creation of the ICC was the world’s collective voice saying, “Never again.” But no legalism is any better than the will to enforce it. There are 124 member nations in the ICC, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada and 13 of our other NATO allies. All are bound by the rules to arrest anyone sought by the ICC who comes their way. Not all have always honored that obligation. Nonetheless, the warrant effectively limits Netanyahu’s travel to nations like the U.S. and others that signify they won’t honor the warrant. Netanyahu is welcome in Hungary, an ICC member ruled by the autocrat Victor Orban, who called the ICC’s decision “shameful.” Germany has implied strongly that it wouldn’t honor the warrant, either. The political fallout may be the most consequential effect. The warrants that accuse Netanyahu and Gallant of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza will strengthen the voices of Israel’s critics abroad. Next time, there may be more than 19 votes when Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont tries to cut off supplies of particular weapons to Israel. The warrants will also have the perverse, if predictable, effect of strengthening Netanyahu’s position at home. He most likely would have lost an election had one been held already because he has refused to take responsibility or hold an accounting for the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas terror attack that started the war. Many Israelis are irate that he has put finishing it on his terms ahead of bringing home however many hostages still remain alive. He expects more Israelis to rally behind him because of the new pressure from the ICC. It’s likely more than coincidence that the Knesset, with his support, has chosen this moment to take another step toward dictatorship by banning all government communications with the widely respected newspaper Haaretz, and blacklisting it from any government advertising. Israel and its U.S. supporters have objected, reasonably, that world reaction to the Hamas terror assault and the ensuing war has been heavily biased against Israel. The 1,200 people whom Hamas slaughtered, including children and the elderly, had not even been buried when American campuses saw pro-Hamas rallies and heard chants of “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea.” Much of it, to tell the truth, reflected open antisemitism — but not all. It is not antisemitic to expect Israel, a nation founded in the aftermath of the Holocaust, to respect human life more than Hamas ever will. It is not antisemitic to believe that Israel should have retaliated with fewer if any of the U.S.-made 2,000-pound bombs that have reduced much of Gaza to a wasteland. It is not antisemitic to say that Israel’s goal of pursuing the war to Hamas’ entire destruction is unattainable. It is not antisemitic to criticize Israel for impeding deliveries of essential food and medical supplies to the 2.3 million civilians in Gaza, who are just as much the hostages of Hamas as the Israeli captives are. Palestinian officials put the current death toll at more than 44,000. They do not distinguish between Hamas guerillas and innocent men, women and children. Two days after the Hamas atrocity, Defense Minister Gallant — whom Netanyahu recently fired — announced a “complete siege on the Gaza Strip.” “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and acting accordingly,” Gallant said. Gallant virtually guaranteed his indictment with that statement. The specific charges against him and Netanyahu include “the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.” The ICC also issued a warrant for Hamas’ military leader, Muhammed Deif, whom the Israelis claimed to have killed. Without proof of his death, the warrant is necessary. It also counters Netanyahu’s claim that his own warrant is antisemitic. Netanyahu’s statement was especially gross because he called it a “modern Dreyfus trial,” comparing himself to the French Army Captain Alfred Dreyfus, who was framed for treason and sent to Devil’s Island in French Guiana in1894. The Dreyfus Affair, as it was known, brought out so much flagrant antisemitism that it inspired Theordore Herzl , a journalist who covered the trial, to found the Zionist movement that led to the establishment of the state of Israel. Dreyfus was eventually exonerated because he was innocent. Netanyahu is not. The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board consists of Opinion Editor Steve Bousquet, Deputy Opinion Editor Dan Sweeney, editorial writers Pat Beall and Martin Dyckman, and Editor-in-Chief Julie Anderson. To contact us, email at letters@sun-sentinel.com .

NoneNone

The biggest shake-up in the advertising agency landscape in decades is on the cards as Omnicom closes in on a deal to acquire IPG. Omnicom is reportedly in advanced talks to buy IPG / The Drum Omnicom is in advanced talks to buy its fellow New York-based holding company IPG in a deal that would create the world’s largest advertising agency business. The Wall Street Journal first reported the news on Sunday and the official announcement could come as soon as this week. Although reported as a merger, the proposed deal is, in essence, a takeover of IPG (valued at $10.9bn at the close of trading on Friday) by its larger competitor (Omnicom was worth $20.2bn at Friday’s close). The combined group would have net revenue of more than $20bn. This would make it the biggest advertising holding company in the world in revenue terms, shifting the balance of power to the US from Europe, where London-based WPP and Paris-based Publicis Groupe have been battling for supremacy. Just last week, Publicis was touting the news that it was finally about to usurp WPP and become the biggest holding company by the end of 2024. Omnicom’s flagship agencies include BBDO, DDB, TBWA, OMD and PHD while IPG counts McCann, FCB, MullenLowe and IPG Mediabrands among its marquee shops. While Omnicom reported 6.5% organic growth year-over-year in its Q3 figures , IPG’s revenues have been flat, and it is selling off the digital agencies Huge (already gone) and R/GA (on the way – unless this deal offers a buzzer-beater reprieve) in order to improve its balance sheet . “I don’t think there will be too much surprise IPG is being sold given both its operational and share price performance and recent sales of agencies,” wrote the analyst Ian Whittaker. Haven’t we seen this movie before? Omnicom was close to a similarly transformative deal a decade ago when it agreed to a stunning $35bn mega-merger with Publicis Groupe. Announced in 2013 with a celebratory photo call between then-Publicis chief executive Maurice Levy and Omnicom counterpart John Wren in front of the Arc De Triomphe, the so-called “merger of equals” ultimately descended into a power struggle for control, and the deal collapsed in May 2014. Advertisement It’s a cautionary tale that while the Omnicom-IPG merger could be announced in principle as soon as Monday, replete with the customary shot of Wren shaking hands with IPG boss Philippe Krakowsky, there will still be much to unpack before any agreement becomes official. What hurdles could stand in the way? As the breakdown of the Publicis Omnicom merger demonstrated, deals of this scale are not straightforward to complete no matter the initial willingness of the parties involved. Holding companies are rife with internal politics, with individual agency brands effectively competing with each other for self-preservation as their behemoth parent companies are squeezed by budget-cutting clients or encroaching tech giants. This has given rise over the last decade to the age of holding company reinvention or – to put it less euphemistically – rationalization. At IPG, this has most recently manifested itself in R/GA being put up for sale and Huge being offloaded to private equity firm AEA Investors last week. Advertisement Omnicom and IPG will no longer merely need to work out how to get their own houses in order, but each other’s. Inevitably this will mean settling issues such as the conflicts of interest that will inevitably arise from their agencies sharing clients in the same categories. Perhaps, though, this is where having one larger partner will make the process easier than the always fanciful notion that a “merger of equals” could be achievable à la the doomed Publicis Omnicom Group. Both firms being headquartered in the same city may help with the practical challenges that any such merger presents (people, offices, culture etc), but the US dominance may add to the deal’s difficulty. As Whittaker says: “Don’t assume this deal will get regulatory approval ... the Republicans view the advertising/agency industry not as a friend and the new administration [looks] as though it will continue, or accelerate, the Biden’s administration actions.” How will rivals react? Having gone to the trouble of recruiting Snoop Dogg to celebrate becoming the holding company top dog, the team at Publicis Groupe will not be thrilled at such news dropping this hot only a matter of days later. Until this point, the industry-leading growth of the Arthur Sadoun-led firm had undoubtedly been the holding company story of the year. Expect Publicis now to push the narrative that it has grown to outstrip its competition without having to buy any of them. Catch up on the most important stories of the day, curated by our editorial team. Stay up to date with a curated digest of the most important marketing stories and expert insights from our global team. Learn how to pitch to our editors and get published on The Drum. Curiously, a report did surface on the financial blog Betaville last week suggesting Publicis was lining up a bid for IPG though that rumor was ultimately unsubstantiated. Will this trigger a wave of consolidation across the marcomms space? Many eyes will turn to WPP, likely dethroned either by Publicis, this new entity or both as the world’s biggest holding company after years at the top, in expectation of a response. But perhaps some of the most interesting activity will be a rung down from the super-sized holdcos. As The Drum columnist and Green Square partner Barry Dudley puts it: “The Vivendi break up feels like one can become four, as an undervalued group spins itself out. While Omnicom and IPG coming together is more 1 + 1 equals 1.75.”The Ravens looked better defensively last week, but now Roquan Smith's injury is a concern

Forteza kicks six field goals to lift Laval to 22-17 win over Laurier in Vanier Cup

By Noam N. Levey, KFF Health News Worried that President-elect Donald Trump will curtail federal efforts to take on the nation’s medical debt problem, patient and consumer advocates are looking to states to help people who can’t afford their medical bills or pay down their debts. “The election simply shifts our focus,” said Eva Stahl, who oversees public policy at Undue Medical Debt, a nonprofit that has worked closely with the Biden administration and state leaders on medical debt. “States are going to be the epicenter of policy change to mitigate the harms of medical debt.” New state initiatives may not be enough to protect Americans from medical debt if the incoming Trump administration and congressional Republicans move forward with plans to scale back federal aid that has helped millions gain health insurance or reduce the cost of their plans in recent years. Comprehensive health coverage that limits patients’ out-of-pocket costs remains the best defense against medical debt. But in the face of federal retrenchment, advocates are eyeing new initiatives in state legislatures to keep medical bills off people’s credit reports, a consumer protection that can boost credit scores and make it easier to buy a car, rent an apartment, or even get a job. Several states are looking to strengthen oversight of medical credit cards and other financial products that can leave patients paying high interest rates on top of their medical debt. Related Articles Some states are also exploring new ways to compel hospitals to bolster financial aid programs to help their patients avoid sinking into debt. “There’s an enormous amount that states can do,” said Elisabeth Benjamin, who leads health care initiatives at the nonprofit Community Service Society of New York. “Look at what’s happened here.” New York state has enacted several laws in recent years to rein in hospital debt collections and to expand financial aid for patients, often with support from both Democrats and Republicans in the legislature. “It doesn’t matter the party. No one likes medical debt,” Benjamin said. Other states that have enacted protections in recent years include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. Many measures picked up bipartisan support. President Joe Biden’s administration has proved to be an ally in state efforts to control health care debt. Such debt burdens 100 million people in the United States, a KFF Health News investigation found . Led by Biden appointee Rohit Chopra, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has made medical debt a priority , going after aggressive collectors and exposing problematic practices across the medical debt industry. Earlier this year, the agency proposed landmark regulations to remove medical bills from consumer credit scores. The White House also championed legislation to boost access to government-subsidized health insurance and to cap out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors, both key bulwarks against medical debt. Trump hasn’t indicated whether his administration will move ahead with the CFPB credit reporting rule, which was slated to be finalized early next year. Congressional Republicans, who will control the House and Senate next year, have blasted the proposal as regulatory overreach that will compromise the value of credit reports. And Elon Musk, the billionaire whom Trump has tapped to lead his initiative to shrink government, last week called for the elimination of the watchdog agency . “Delete CFPB,” Musk posted on X. If the CFPB withdraws the proposed regulation, states could enact their own rules, following the lead of Colorado, New York, and other states that have passed credit reporting bans since 2023. Advocates in Massachusetts are pushing the legislature there to take up a ban when it reconvenes in January. “There are a lot of different levers that states have to take on medical debt,” said April Kuehnhoff, a senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, which has helped lead national efforts to expand debt protections for patients. Kuehnhoff said she expects more states to crack down on medical credit card providers and other companies that lend money to patients to pay off medical bills, sometimes at double-digit interest rates. Under the Biden administration, the CFPB has been investigating patient financing companies amid warnings that many people may not understand that signing up for a medical credit card such as CareCredit or enrolling in a payment plan through a financial services company can pile on more debt. If the CFPB efforts stall under Trump, states could follow the lead of California, New York, and Illinois, which have all tightened rules governing patient lending in recent years. Consumer advocates say states are also likely to continue expanding efforts to get hospitals to provide more financial assistance to reduce or eliminate bills for low- and middle-income patients, a key protection that can keep people from slipping into debt. Hospitals historically have not made this aid readily available, prompting states such as California, Colorado, and Washington to set stronger standards to ensure more patients get help with bills they can’t afford. This year, North Carolina also won approval from the Biden administration to withhold federal funding from hospitals in the state unless they agreed to expand financial assistance. In Georgia, where state government is entirely in Republican control, officials have been discussing new measures to get hospitals to provide more assistance to patients. “When we talk about hospitals putting profits over patients, we get lots of nodding in the legislature from Democrats and Republicans,” said Liz Coyle, executive director of Georgia Watch, a consumer advocacy nonprofit. Many advocates caution, however, that state efforts to bolster patient protections will be critically undermined if the Trump administration cuts federal funding for health insurance programs such as Medicaid and the insurance marketplaces established through the Affordable Care Act. Trump and congressional Republicans have signaled their intent to roll back federal subsidies passed under Biden that make health plans purchased on ACA marketplaces more affordable. That could hike annual premiums by hundreds or even thousands of dollars for many enrollees, according to estimates by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank. And during Trump’s first term, he backed efforts in Republican-led states to restrict enrollment in their Medicaid safety net programs through rules that would require people to work in order to receive benefits. GOP state leaders in Idaho, Louisiana, and other states have expressed a desire to renew such efforts. “That’s all a recipe for more medical debt,” said Stahl, of Undue Medical Debt. Jessica Altman, who heads the Covered California insurance marketplace, warned that federal cuts will imperil initiatives in her state that have limited copays and deductibles and curtailed debt for many state residents. “States like California that have invested in critical affordable programs for our residents will face tough decisions,” she said. ©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.None

Boston College puts it all together in 41-21 victory over North Carolina, winning a place in a bowl gameSHOPPERS are racing to Aldi to snap up their huge Grinch teddies for Christmas. The supermarket is selling large £12.99 plushies, and they are flying off shelves ahead of December 25. 6 Aldi is selling a large Grinch teddy ahead of Christmas Credit: Facebook/Cheryl Louise Alexander 6 Shoppers have been sharing the teddies they have picked up for £12.99 Credit: Facebook/Cheryl Louise Alexander Many bargain hunters have shared how they got up at the crack of dawn to make sure they managed to get one for their families. One shopper uploaded a photo to Facebook saying: “Got our giant Grinch teddy from Aldi today. £12.99. “Managed to get it before the household woke up. My 2yo is happy.” Another wrote: “Got to Aldi this morning to get the grinch my kids so happy with him More on the Grinch BAH HUMBUG Savers warned about 'Grinch' cuts to 200 savings accounts - are you affected? CHRISTMAS STEAL B&M is selling Grinch Squishmallows & shoppers ‘need’ them for stockings “£12.99 don't miss out.” And a third commented: “Literally queued up this morning before it opened to get mine.” The “soft and cuddly” Grinch is approximately 90cm tall and you can choose from two designs, with one Grinch wearing a Christmas hat. The Aldi website states: “An excellent gift choice for a loved one who loves Grinch! Cuddle up this Christmas with this Grinch Soft Toy.” Most read in Fabulous BUDGET BRIDE I tried out Shein wedding dresses - the cheapest was £40, but a £116 gown won CHEERS! I tried UK's first trending drink delivery service - it's perfect for Xmas nights SNAP IT UP I make five figures a month & splash cash on surgery & business class flights FOOD FOR THOUGHT People are only just realising they’ve been making beans on toast wrong The furry green icon - played by Jim Carrey in the 2000 hit movie - has become a staple beloved character over the years, for both kids and adults alike. And it seems he has taken over the high street this year too. Shoppers race to Primark as brand new Christmas Grinch collection has launched in stores with matching items for the whole family B&M is selling Grinch Squishmallows and shoppers say they ‘need’ them for stocking fillers. Primark has also launched some new festive cafes themed on the beloved character. The retailer has partnered with Dr Seuss to create a Grinch’s green lair with a limited-edition menu at six Primark cafe locations across the UK. 6 Many people have snapped up the Aldi Grinch teddies for their kids Credit: Facebook/Cheryl Louise Alexander 6 B&M is selling Squishmallows themed on The Grinch for £18.99 Credit: Facebook 6 Primark has launched Grinch cafes in a number of its stores Credit: Primark 6 Primark is selling Grinch-themed Christmas pjs for the whole family Credit: Instagram/Primark Primark’s Grinch Cafes are sure to be a hit with fans of the furry character, with everything from green waffles and shakes to get in the anti-Christmas spirit. The Grinch cafe is open in Primark’s stores in Birmingham , Manchester Trafford, Manchester Market Street, Cardiff , Braehead and Edinburgh until the end of December. After tucking into themed drinks and food, shoppers can then check out Primark’s new Grinch-inspired range. This follows McDonald's bringing out Grinch Happy Meals . A history of The Grinch THE Grinch is a character created by Dr. Seuss and first appeared in the 1957 children's book, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas! The story features the Grinch, a solitary, grumpy creature who lives in a cave atop Mount Crumpit. Disliking the Christmas cheer of the nearby Whos in Whoville, the Grinch decides to "steal" Christmas by taking their decorations, gifts, and feasts. He u ltimately learns the true meaning of Christmas when the Whos celebrate despite their losses, prompting his heart to grow three sizes. The live-action adaptation starring Jim Carrey was released on November 17, 2000 and is a Christmas classic today.Former Charger, Trump Vet Now Tapped to Run HUD, Has History in San Diego’s BackcountryKim Norton honors 13 residents with Mayor’s Medal of Honor

China arms sales experience slight growth globally as challenges remainEditorial Comment: Chevrons owe cricket lovers a good series

"Are you guys chefs or something?" It’s a question Oliver Poilevey, Marcos Ascencio and Alex Martinez get asked a lot when they tailgate at Chicago Bears’ home games.After Trump's Project 2025 denials, he is tapping its authors and influencers for key roles