 |
|
|
|||||
All Swedish schools and pre-schools will have to make plans to keep unauthorised people off their premises, the government said on Wednesday, as the country tries to come to terms with the worst school shooting in its history last week. Ten people were shot dead at the Campus Risbergska school in Orebro, before the suspected perpetrator – identified by a Reuters source and Swedish media as Rickard Andersson, a 35-year-old Swedish recluse – turned a weapon on himself. The attack has raised questions about whether security at Sweden’s schools needs to be improved. Unlike in many other countries, schools are generally seen as semi-public spaces and rarely have any controls on who can come and go. Minister of Education Johan Pehrson told a news conference that all schools and pre-schools would have to have a plan for how to keep unauthorised people out. “For example, it could involveentry registry, controls and a locking system with locked doors,” he said, but added that it was up to individual schools to work out what worked best for them. The Campus Risbergska shooter entered the school with a hunting rifle and two shotguns in what witnesses have described as a “guitar-shaped box” before he started to shoot. Marwa, who declined to give her full name, survived the attack and helped tend to a fellow student, but said she didn’t think she would go back to the school to finish her nursing training. “I really don’t think so,” she told Reuters. “They need to do something. It’s really strange that a person can just walk in with weapons like that without anyone noticing.” The government will also speed up legislation that would make it easier for schools to install surveillance cameras without seeking permission, and let personnel search bags. Sweden’s right-wing government also said last week it would seek to tighten gun laws as the attacker appeared to have used several of his own licensed rifles. Johan Ahlander, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
Amid his dramatic reshaping of the federal government, President Donald Trump’s latest high-profile dismissal could become among his most consequential. On Feb. 7, Trump fired Colleen Shogan from her role as Archivist of the United States, the head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and government official responsible for overseeing the preservationboth physical and digitaland promulgation of government records. Shogans dismissal marks the first time that a sitting president has fired the nations archivist since the position was established in the 1930s. This evening, President Trump fired me. No cause or reason was cited, Shogan said in a statement on her LinkedIn at the time. It has been an honor serving as the 11th Archivist of the United States. I have zero regrets – I absolutely did my best every day for the National Archives and the American people. The dismissal wasn’t exactly unexpected. The New York Times reports that Trump had grown to despise the agency for its role in alerting the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2022 to his alleged misappropriation and mishandling of classified documents at his Florida estate of Mar-a-Lago following his first term in officea case a federal judge dismissed in July of last year. (His ire extended to Shogan despite her not assuming the Archivist post until 2023, months after the agency alerted the DOJ.) And Shogan wont be the last NARA official to get the axe: The president has reportedly in recent months drawn up a list of staff to fire in retaliation for their role in the classified documents investigation, according to Rolling Stone. (Shogan, NARA, and the White House did not respond to Fast Companys requests for comment.) Trumps revenge tour appears to be expanding to every corner of the federal government. But unlike some of Trumps other high-profile firings, the dismissal of Shogan also has the potential to dramatically undermine the scaffolding of American democracy. NARA does more than just collect, digitize, and maintain government records. As an independent agency within the executive branch, its responsible for, among other things, administering the Electoral College process by providing the official instructions for how the states transmit electors votes to Congress; overseeing the process of ratifying new Constitutional amendments; managing the document classification system and, in turn, the delicate balance between public transparency and national security; and publicizing the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, the two documents that codify rules and chronicle the daily goings-on, respectively, of the federal government. If the U.S. Constitution is the core operating system of the U.S. government, the Archivist of the United States and NARA are the maintainers of the systems foundational codebase of legal and historical documents. In a democracy, you need an apolitical, independent actor whose job is to do essential things like record, certify, and provide access [to documents] for public inspection, says Dominic Byrd-McDevitt, the director of community engagement at the Digital Public Library of America. Thats the reason the archivist administers things like the Electoral College and constitutional amendment process: In order for these processes to have legitimacy, NARA is required by law to certify certificates of ascertainment and ratification documents and make them available to the public for viewing. NARAs critical role in controlling the official documents that are the lifeblood of American governance requires that the agency remain a neutral steward of the governments entire legal and regulatory regime. The statute regarding the office of the Archivist of the United States stipulates that the position be appointed without regard to political affiliations and solely on the basis of the professional qualifications required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the office of Archivist. But archivists and historians are already bracing for Trump to install political loyalists at the agency who will bend to his will. (Much as hes done elsewhere.) A partisan archivist could lead to biased (or outright malicious) decision-making when it comes to document access, preservation, and release; delay or block access to records in compliance with the President Records Act to protect political interests; or even, at the very worst, facilitate meddling with the Electoral College or federal regulations in the service of maintaining power. Its not so hard, in this context, to imagine a world where someone deliberately destroys official records in order to obstruct an investigation into potentially illegal government activities. And which recent president has tried to interfere with the Electoral College, destroy documents, and wipe out government regulations wholesale? All of these factors not only create a precedent for future political exploitation by subsequent administrations, but threaten to undermine the U.S. governments historical integrity and democratic accountability. Bureaucracies maintain their institutional legitimacy by consistently applying rules, regulations, and procedures, and injecting potential political malfeasance into the organization tasked with maintaining those rules means corrupting the very mechanisms that define the shape and scope of American governance. Indeed, Trump already appears to have broken the law in his firing of Shogan. In a letter addressed to Trump regarding Shogans dismissal published on Feb. 10, the American Historical Association (AHA), the oldest professional organization for historians in the United States, noted that the president was legally compelled to, in the words of Title 44 of the U.S. Code, communicate the reasons for any such removal to each House of the Congress. Whether Trump decides to actually do so may signal whats ahead of the agency. The American Historical Association awaits the White Houses compliance with the law by informing Congress of the reasons for Dr. Shogans dismissal, wrote AHA executive director James Grossman. Democracy rests on the rule of law. And the history of the United States rests on unfettered access to the archival record. Without additional action from Trump, Deputy Archivist (and career NARA staffer) William Bosanko will now execute the Shogans responsibilities, a temporary reprieve for those concerned about the institutions integrity. But with Secretary of State Marco Rubio rumored to be assuming control of the agency as its acting head (a move that Byrd-McDevitt points out would be illegal) and the rest of the chaos currently roiling the federal government, it is unlikely that NARA and its workforce will emerge unscathed. As it happens, Byrd-McDevitt held the title of Digital Content Specialist at NARA from 2011 to 2019. I worked there: They are civil servants doing their jobs, he says. That shouldnt put a target on their back.
Category:
E-Commerce
Some Black consumers may be breaking up with Target this February. It all started late last month, when the retailer announced that it was ending its diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The move drew widespread rebuke from social justice organizers, including New Birth Missionary Baptist Church Pastor Dr. Jamal Bryant. Although Target said one set of its racial-equity initiatives had already been scheduled to conclude, the timing was notable: The move came just days after the White House called for a federal DEI ban, and as several other companies took similar actions. Beyond renaming its supplier diversity team now called supplier engagement and ending diversity-focused surveys, Target hasnt said what the change will mean for the many Black entrepreneurs who sell everything from coffee to sunscreen on its shelves. The webpage for the retailers Black Beyond Measure initiative, which highlights dozens of Black-founded brands and connects business owners to a program designed to democratize access to retail education, remains active. But Targets critics, including Minneapolis-based civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, view the move as a surrender to the new presidential administrations attack on equity programs. In a news conference outside Targets Minnesota headquarters on Jan. 30, 2025, Armstrong called for a nationwide boycott of the store to begin on the first day of Black History Month. While many social media users posted in support of the boycott, some Black founders whose brands are stocked by Target and there are dozens of them have been more conflicted. Tabitha Brown, whose products can be found in various aisles, from books to cooking appliances, asked customers to reconsider boycotting Target. Withholding their dollars, Brown insisted, will hurt Black businesses far more than the corporations that sell their products. This request for restraint garnered a mixed response on social media. Some Black consumers accused Black business owners of selling out the very racial community that contributed to their success. So, why would a Black business owner ask consumers to patronize a retailer that signaled it doesnt care about Black customers? And how did something as mundane as where people buy toilet paper and shampoo become a litmus test for racial consciousness in the first place? Black consumers and the fight for dignity The marketplace has long been a battleground where Black Americans have sought to assert their citizenship. Most of the nations biggest household brands didnt begin to take African American consumers seriously until after World War II. Before that shift, advertisements and product packaging were more likely to feature degrading Black caricatures to appeal to white shoppers, than to address Black consumers directly. This segregated commercial landscape reinforced the belief among some community members that Black people would not be taken seriously as citizens until they were taken seriously as consumers. They would need to vote with their dollars, patronizing only those brands and retailers that respected them. In my research on marketing campaigns aimed at Black women, Ive examined how the struggle for consumer citizenship complicated the dynamic between Black entrepreneurs and consumers. On the one hand, businesses have long leveraged Black ownership as a unique selling proposition in and of itself, urging shoppers to view Black brand loyalty as a path to collective racial progress. Unlike their larger competitors, Black entrepreneurs relied on their racial community to stay afloat. Patronizing African American businesses could therefore be framed as a racial duty. Conversely, as African American advertising pioneers made clear, recognition from big brands was a political victory of sorts because it signaled that Black dollars were just as valuable as anyone elses. Competing for Black dollars Corporate attention to Black consumers ebbs and flows in a cycle that is especially noticeable in the beauty and personal care industry. In seasons of limited competition for African American customers, entrepreneurs typically thrive, even while they struggle to meet the capital demands of a growing brand. Their success, however, beckons larger corporations, which then seek to capitalize on consumer niches they previously ignored. Two common approaches that mass market brands pursue to compete for Black dollars include acquiring smaller, established Black brands and developing their own niche products. Large corporations deployed both strategies during a period of intense expansion into the beauty market of the 1980s. Black owners tried to stave off their competition by creating a special emblem that alerted shoppers to their authenticity. Then, as now, social justice organizations, such as Rev. Jesse Jacksons Operation PUSH, also initiated boycotts and urged Black consumers not to choose lipstick over liberation. Nevertheless, many Black entrepreneurs sold their brands, and by 1986 nearly half of the Black hair care market was no longer Black-owned. A linked fate Parsing winners and losers within the world of Black enterprise is as difficult now as it was in earlier periods. African American business owners often possess a cultural consciousness that distinguishes their brands, even when they cant match the resources of larger competitors. And as they figure out how to survive an uneven playing field, Black entrepreneurs sometimes face accusations of betraying their racial community. In a market governed by the law of supply and demand, Black consumers benefit from increased competition. Yet, racial loyalty sometimes asks that they eschew these benefits for the sake of keeping Black dollars in Black hands. Four years ago, when Target launched its Black Beyond Measure funding initiative, it seemed that the retailer had struck a rare balance in supporting Black brands and their customers. In addition to curating a collection of products to lure shoppers, Target used the campaign as an opportunity to position entrepreneurs to flourish well beyond Black History Month. Now, as Black consumers and business owners weigh varying responses to the retailers decision to reverse their commitment to DEI values, one question endures: Do Black dollars matter? Timeka N. Tounsel is an associate professor of Black studies in communication at the University of Washington. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||