Average rate on a 30-year mortgage in the US rises to highest level since July

Is the World Series champions’ plucking of another starting pitcher bad for baseball? Or should other organizations just try harder?New Year's events

Environmentalists are worried about the Trump win. But there is no time to sulk. Every year sees biodiversity plummeting and ecosystems irreversibly trashed. The stakes couldn’t be higher and it is our responsibility to try to figure out what a Trump administration could do for the environment. The answer is: a lot. Trump is a climate sceptic, and that is unlikely to change. But that is not the same as being an environment sceptic. The Republican Party is full of people who are allergic to climate politics but who do care about the actual natural environment. Right now, even in these increasingly turbulent times, there is objectively nothing more important. And given the very public and passionate calls made by the UK’s new Foreign Secretary for the world to come together to repair our relationship with nature, this also presents an opportunity for the UK to build bridges to the new US administration. As a lifelong environmentalist I would far, far prefer a climate sceptic who recognises the importance of nature than a technocratic climate activist for whom a forest is nothing more than a cluster of carbon sticks. Tragically, that is what so much environment politics has been reduced to: carbon counting. Of all the public money channelled into tackling climate change , just a few per cent goes on nature, and then only usually where it is a nature-based solution to climate change. Public funding for purely protecting and restoring nature remains practically non-existent. Only last week I was with pioneering elephant conservationists who were looking for funding. Their pitch was based on the ability of elephants to store carbon, through the manner in which they relate to forests. The conservationists knew that without a carbon angle, they’d be unlikely to get the funding. It’s not just the politics. I am often asked to speak to broadcasters or write articles about “the environment.” But when I press for clarity about the likely discussion, it emerges — every single time — that the discussion is about carbon politics and never about the environment. It is madness. We cannot survive without the world’s forests. But by the time you have finished reading this article, the world will have lost the equivalent of around 450 football pitches worth of tropical forest; forests that are home to 80 per cent of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity, that regulate our water and climate systems and underpin the livelihoods of more than a billion people. When we convert complex ecosystems, we not only lose irreplaceable biodiversity, we lose the free services these systems provide and on which we rely for life. We know this, yet we continue to do damage to the natural world at a rate it cannot possibly sustain. And yet in terms of political priorities, this barely features. In a sane world this would be reversed. Climate change is just one of many symptoms of our abusive relationship with nature. It is the fever. And while we should of course be accelerating the transition to clean and renewable energy, it will be for nothing if we fail nature. There is no solution to climate change, no pathway to “net zero,” without nature. There’s another reason our focus should shift from carbon to nature: the “market” has already decided on a massive energy transition. Each year vastly more money is invested in new clean technology than in fossil fuels. There is a question of speed, but politicians aren’t going to be able to change the fundamentals. In President Trump ’s first term, coal use fell faster than it had in Obama’s term, despite their very different priorities. None of this is true for nature. The market continues to drive environmental destruction because it is blind to the value of nature. It sees value in nature only once it is “cashed-in.” The financial incentive to destroy a forest is roughly 40 times greater than the incentive to protect it. This despite the fact that in the real world we cannot survive without them. We need leadership at the highest levels. And if Trump were to put his bullish, hyperactive energy and impatience into tackling this crisis, there is no limit to the good a Trump administration could do. Imagine if, for example, he took on perhaps the greatest market distortion of all, something conservatives instinctively oppose, and set about reversing the billions in environmentally harmful subsidies dished out annually around the world? We are told the cost of turning the tide on nature destruction globally is around £550 billion a year. That is also roughly how much is spent each year by the top 50 food-producing countries subsidising often highly destructive land use. At this point, there is little to suggest Trump will step up. But the Republicans have a proud history of environmentalism that he could be persuaded to tap into. The environment was Teddy Roosevelt’s overriding passion. He created a network of national parks and monuments to nature that remains unrivalled to this day. Even Richard Nixon is enjoying something of a revival as environmentalists begin to acknowledge that his administration introduced more environmental protection legislation than any of his predecessors. There is nothing more conservative than stewardship, conservation, looking out for future generations, living within our means, making the polluter pay; fundamentally these are conservative values. Or should be. Back to Trump. One of his closest allies today and a person likely to hold considerable sway in the next four years is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a man heralded by Time magazine as a “Hero for the Planet.” Trump the environmentalist? For all our sakes let us hope he surprises us.

Japanese Digital Television Project: An informed choice?Exlservice holdings director Jaynie M. Studenmund sells $160,562 in stockNinety-four-year old Warren Buffett is still investing, but the biggest news he's made this year has actually been his massive stock sales and the rising cash pile at his conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) (NYSE: BRK.B) . But Berkshire hasn't only been selling stocks; it's been buying some too, even if the buys have been in more modest amounts. Are You Missing The Morning Scoop? Wake up with Breakfast news in your inbox every market day. Sign Up For Free » In its recent 13-F filing, Berkshire disclosed a new $550 million stake in Domino's Pizza (NYSE: DPZ) bought in the third quarter. It's an interesting buy, as the pizza chain's shares appear more expensive than the typical Buffett stock. But that's only at first glance. Here's the Buffett-esque case for buying Domino's now. A P/E of what? At first glance, Domino's looks too expensive to be a Buffett pick, at 28 times earnings. That being said, the purchase was likely made at somewhat lower levels, with Domino's valuation bottoming out at just under 25 times earnings during the summer. That's still higher than the typical P/E ratio at which Buffett buys a stock. And while the purchase could have been initiated by one of Buffett's two younger investment managers, Todd Combs and Ted Weschler, both "Todd and Ted" also share Buffett's strict value investing discipline . But it may not be high for Domino's business model Even though Domino's valuation seems high, its asset-light business model has allowed the stock to sustain a high-looking valuation for years. You see, Domino's has a highly franchised business model. In fact, 98.6% of Domino's restaurants are franchises. In that type of model, Domino's takes franchise fees and a small margin selling pizza ingredients and equipment to franchisees. In addition, Domino's outsources all international development to large master franchisees, who manage entire or large parts of overseas markets. Because franchise fees are tied to revenues, not profits, and franchisees need to consistently buy supplies, there is very little "risk" in Domino's earnings stream compared with other companies that bear 100% of their overhead costs. That's why Domino's and other franchise-heavy restaurant businesses tend to trade at high P/E ratios. So while Domino's stock fell to "only" 25 times earnings, that was actually close to a decade-low valuation for the stock: Why Domino's sold off in Q3, and why Berkshire may have pounced The Berkshire buy likely came after Domino's second-quarter earnings release, after which the stock fell about 20% to levels more than 25% below its 52-week high. With the stock down that much and at a historical trough valuation, Buffett or his managers likely smelled opportunity. But that would depend on the reason for the sell-off, and whether or not it was warranted. The big negative on the second quarter release was that Domino's lowered its outlook for international store openings this year, after it became clear its largest master franchisee, Domino's Pizza Enterprises, which operates many several big markets in Europe and Asia, was closing more stores than anticipated. So, while Domino's had initially forecast 1,100 global net openings, it cut that figure to 825-925 for this year. At first glance, that doesn't seem like a big enough deal to warrant such a sell-off. The lower openings target actually reflects increased closings in a couple select geographies, while gross openings continue apace. And Domino's still maintained the same overall 7% revenue and 8% operating profit growth guidance for the year. This was due to the fact that the closed restaurants were low-revenue and under-performing stores to begin with. So, while the headline net openings number is now lower, it shouldn't make for a big difference to this year's results, according to management. Meanwhile, Dominos sees lots of room to grow The growth hiccup mainly happened in the markets of Japan and France, but those aren't the biggest growth opportunities for Domino's. Internationally, Domino's sees the potential for 40,000 restaurants, far higher than the 14,000 it currently has, with major growth opportunities in India and China. Even in the U.S., management sees the potential to continue taking market share. Management sees the company growing same-store sales at 3% over the long term, with 175 new domestic stores to be opened over each of the next few years, adding to that growth. That should be enough to continue taking market share, given the quick serve restaurant (QSR) category is only projected to grow 2%. On the third-quarter call, management said that even after Domino's impressive share gains over the past decade and becoming the largest pizza chain in the U.S., its market share still remained just under 25% of the U.S. pizza market. CEO Russell Weiner noted that in other types of retail categories, the dominant player can be as much as 50% of the market. So, that is where Domino's thinks it can grow. The current adverse retail environment may also be advantageous in accelerating those share gains. The QSR industry is in a slowdown after years of cumulative inflation has pinched consumer budgets. But Domino's generally has a low-cost value product, often delivered within 30 minutes, and its scale gives it an advantage over rivals. These competitive advantages could enable Domino's to take even more share over weaker or more expensive competitors in a soft restaurant market. A quality company at a fair price While not a bargain-priced deep-value investment, Domino's is a high-quality company trading at a fair price. While the stock has appreciated since Berkshire's likely buy, it's still well below its all-time highs, and could make for a strong buy -- even today. Should you invest $1,000 in Domino's Pizza right now? Before you buy stock in Domino's Pizza, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now... and Domino's Pizza wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $829,378 !* Stock Advisor provides investors with an easy-to-follow blueprint for success, including guidance on building a portfolio, regular updates from analysts, and two new stock picks each month. The Stock Advisor service has more than quadrupled the return of S&P 500 since 2002*. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of November 25, 2024 Billy Duberstein and/or his clients have positions in Berkshire Hathaway. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Berkshire Hathaway and Domino's Pizza. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy . Why Does Warren Buffett See Opportunity in This Highly Valued Pizza Giant? was originally published by The Motley FoolWashington, Nov 28 (PTI) An India-American Congressman has called for visa bans and freezing of assets of senior Pakistani officials following reports of an alleged attempt to cover up killings of peaceful protesters in Pakistan. Reportedly, four people were killed and 50 injured in a crackdown by authorities on a protest march by jailed former Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party towards Islamabad demanding his release. Also Read | Donald Trump Cabinet 2.0: US President-Elect Names Kolkata-Born Doctor-Researcher Jay Bhattacharya To Head Health Research Powerhouse. "Horrified by reports of an attempted cover-up of the alleged killings of peaceful protesters by Asim Munir's regime in Pakistan," Indian-American Congressman Ro Khanna said. "The US must impose visa bans and asset freezes on senior officials in the military regime," he said. Also Read | Fake Pregnancy Scam Exposed in Nigeria: Scammers Pose As Medical Professionals, Offer 'Miracle Fertility Treatment' For USD 205; Woman 'Carries' Child For 15 Months. Congresswoman Mikie Sherill said she is deeply concerned by the reports of violence in response to protests in Pakistan. "The Pakistani people deserve a vibrant democracy, including the right to free speech and expression," she said. Last month, Congressman Greg Casar and 60 other members of Congress wrote a letter to US President Joe Biden supporting human rights and democracy in Pakistan and calling for the release of political prisoners including Khan. In a statement, the Carter Centre expressed concern over this week's violence in Islamabad. It urged Pakistani authorities to uphold the right of protesters to assemble and demonstrate peacefully, refrain from using excessive force against the protesters, lift restrictions on mobile and internet services, and reverse the "arbitrary" detentions of thousands of protesters. "Reports that a number of protesters were killed are deeply worrying. Pakistani authorities should conduct a credible and transparent investigation. Pakistan's government should adhere to its international commitments to preserve civil and political rights, which are enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," it said. (This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)

Thursday is a time for turkey, mashed potatoes, dysfunction and confessions. During the holiday the previous eight years, the NFL season tested my ability to enjoy a conversation about the Broncos. No matter how admirable the effort, the topic turned to the quarterback, a character more terrifying than Michael Myers and Pennywise. Emotions were raw. Everyone had their fangs dropped after an avalanche of disappointments. The previous 13 starters varied from underwhelming to awful. It created a buzz kill. So who is ruining Thanksgiving now? The nonBolievers in Bo Nix. I don’t get it. No matter how much life after Peyton Manning has put your guard up, how can you not embrace the rookie? Truth be told, I am over it. This is not about keeping receipts. It is about facts, trying to understand why a faction in the media — national and local — and fans (or perhaps social media trolls) cannot see the truth. All anyone wanted since Peyton was a serviceable leader, someone who could win games, and throw more passes to players in an orange jersey than the other team. Over the past 10 games, Nix has delivered 20 touchdowns — 16 passing, three rushing, one receiving — with two turnovers. According to CBS Sports, the quarterbacks who have matched or bettered that stat line over the past 10 years are Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes. All first-ballot Hall of Famers. Yet, we have those diminishing Nix for his perceived low ceiling, inconsistent footwork and lack of success against man coverage. Still, others insist with a straight face that they would rather have Russell Wilson. What in the actual heck is going on here? Nix is putting up historically great numbers — the best by a rookie since Dak Prescott in 2016 — and a loud faction refuses to recognize it, creating straw arguments that go deeper into the weeds than bees and butterflies. I am not saying you should wear your passion for Nix like a thorny crown. But is it too much to ask for an open mind and common sense? Those reluctant to admit Nix is succeeding are revealing their own ego, making their dislike personal, either for the kid or coach Sean Payton. I believed Nix would work because of Payton’s confidence when he drafted him. Payton told us at the combine that he would be better at identifying a quarterback than most. This stuck with me because the coach’s Hall of Fame legacy hinged on getting this decision right. He had never worked with a rookie, but he had 15 years of offensive dominance in New Orleans that suggested he knew what he wanted his handpicked quarterback to look like. Payton screwed it up the first few weeks, trying to make Nix drink out of a fire hose with endless dropbacks. But after the opening two losses, the two have met in the middle. An appreciation for his athleticism emerged — he runs better than scouts expected — along with his edge. When Nix yelled at Payton on the sideline on Oct. 6 — something the coach appreciated — he showed why he was the starter. Everything since has shown why he is clearly the future. He has been the Broncos’ best player on the field since the end of October. But, but, but, he can’t throw downfield. Really? That’s funny. He has 716 yards, four touchdowns, zero interceptions and a 126.9 rating on passes of 10-plus yards over the past five games, per Fox Sports. This includes multiple darts between the numbers and over layered defenders to Courtland Sutton and Devaughn Vele. But those were off-script, right? Try again. Nix delivered these lasers from the pocket. Listen, he is not perfect. He will have bad games. But do you remember what life looked like with Trevor Siemian, Brock Osweiler, Case Keenum, Joe Flacco and Teddy Bridgewater? Worse, some of the same people who were Druthers for Drew Lock refuse to acknowledge Nix’s development. Make it make sense. Nix boasts four games with a 70% completion rate with at least two touchdown passes and no picks. You know how many Broncos quarterbacks have done that since Peyton? Zero. Lock did it once in 24 games. Wilson twice in 30 starts. When Keenum was missing Demaryius Thomas sprinting open down the sideline, when Flacco looked like he had never seen a blitz, when Brandon Allen couldn’t throw the ball into the wind, when Paxton Lynch was showing up late and leaving early, Broncos Country had fever dreams about the type of stats Nix is compiling. Still, I can’t go on my Twitter timeline or turn on the radio without hearing someone dissing Nix or advocating for Wilson. Yes, Wilson was functional last year, and made terrific plays scribbling outside the lines. But the Broncos stunk in goal-to-goal situations and were awful in the red zone. By the time the Broncos beat the Chiefs last October, Payton had seen enough. He was over the veteran, viewing his style of play as unsustainable because of the lack of timing throws and endless sacks (45 in 15 games). Compare that to Nix, who is on pace for 27. Payton chose to absorb a $53 million dead cap hit this season and $32 million next year to cut Wilson. It was uncommon, but not surprising if you know anything about how that relationship had deteriorated. Would you rather they stayed together for the kids, delaying the divorce until after this season when the quarterbacks available in the draft are Two Men (Shedeur Sanders and Cam Ward) and Four Maybes (Jalen Milroe, Quinn Ewers, Garrett Nussmeier and Carson Beck)? It is OK to take a deep breath, trust your eyes and the numbers and admit Nix is playing well. If you are still tearing him down, the problem is you, not him. Want more Broncos news? Sign up for the Broncos Insider to get all our NFL analysis.

The game was over, the humiliation complete. I ask you, what was Ryan Day doing meandering on the Ohio Stadium field while his emotionally-charged Ohio State players fought with bitter rival Michigan after another gutting loss to the Wolverines ? You want a reason to fire Day? Here it is. It has nothing to do with losing for the fourth consecutive time to Michigan, which is what his eventual demise will be all about. This has to do with unthinkable inaction when his team’s world was falling apart. How else can I say this? GET YOUR TEAM OFF THE FIELD. "I don’t know all the details of it, but I know those guys were looking to put a flag on our field and our guys weren’t going to let that happen," Day said after the game. Here's a novel idea: how about your guys don't "let" Michigan, which can't consistently throw a forward pass to save its football life, suck the oxygen from the biggest game of the season in a critical second half? I don’t care that Michigan’s players wanted to plant that big “M” flag on the block “O” at the 50. Don’t care that you or anyone at Ohio State thinks it’s disrespectful or classless. GET OFF THE FIELD ― before something much uglier than another loss to Michigan unfolds. LEARN TO LOSE: Michigan's Kalel Mullings trolls Ohio State after brawl Sprint into the fray, and scream at your players to get in the locker room. Instead of standing on the field from afar, a dumbfounded look on your face. Because this game, in the words of Day himself, is different. “This game is a war,” Day said earlier this week. “Any time there is a war, there’s consequences and casualties. Then there’s plunder and the rewards that come with it.” How incredibly foretelling. It’s almost as if Day were writing his own coaching tombstone days before it all played out. But instead of singing the school’s alma mater and skulking into the locker room, Day allowed his team of 18-22-year-old men to engage those who won the war — and then began to plunder. This isn’t the toughness and attitude Day proclaimed this team had after it was meticulously built this offseason for this moment. In one mentally long and draining November afternoon, it became a desperation season of throwing $41 million at a problem – $20 million for the roster, $21 million for the coaching staff – and hoping it would go away. A mentally and physically tough team doesn’t get pushed around at home by a one-dimensional, double-digit underdog with no business winning the game — then stay on the field because they don’t want the mean men to plant a flag on their field. Boo-freaking-hoo . There are consequences to losing, and there are casualties. There are winners and there are losers, and they are unmistakable after something like this. Michigan, whose coach is a known NCAA cheat who deleted 52 text messages from another known NCAA cheat when both were caught in a scam to, you know, cheat , is somehow the winner in all of this. Then there’s Day, who owns a near-flawless 47-1 record vs. every team in the Big Ten not named Michigan. And is 1-4 vs. war. You don’t lose at war 75 percent of the time, and get another shot with another loaded team and another $41 million. You get canned. And if there were any doubt about where Day and this team is headed, just look at what played out after Ohio State quarterback Will Howard’s final, futile pass fluttered aimlessly in the cold Columbus afternoon and officially ended Ohio State’s undoing in the biggest game of the season. "I’ll find out exactly what happened, but it’s our field," Day said. "There are some prideful guys that weren’t just going to let that go down.” Memo to Ohio State: you’re not “protecting your house” if it’s post-ass kicking. Get off the field, already. The Game is over. The Big Ten championship is gone. The millions have been spent and blown. The College Football Playoff is still a lock, but who among us thinks this team will shake off yet another Michigan meltdown and win a national title – thereby saving Day's job – by winning four consecutive postseason games? Firing a coach who has won 47 of 48 Big Ten games against teams not named Michigan is insane. It would be like firing Georgia coach Kirby Smart because he can’t beat Alabama. But the noise in the system will begin with another Michigan debacle on the field. When what happened off the field after the loss is just as damaging. The game is over, the humiliation complete. There are consequences and casualties to war. No one understands that better than Ryan Day. Matt Hayes is the senior national college football writer for USA TODAY Sports Network. Follow him on X at @MattHayesCFB .ATLANTA: Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer who won the presidency in the wake of the Watergate scandal and Vietnam War, endured humbling defeat after one tumultuous term and then redefined life after the White House as a global humanitarian, has died. He was 100 years old. The longest-lived American president died on Sunday, more than a year after entering hospice care, at his home in the small town of Plains, Georgia, where he and his wife, Rosalynn, who died at 96 in November 2023, spent most of their lives, The Carter Center said. “Our founder, former US President Jimmy Carter, passed away this afternoon in Plains, Georgia,” the center simply said in posting about Carter’s death on the social media platform X. Businessman, Navy officer, evangelist, politician, negotiator, author, woodworker, citizen of the world — Carter forged a path that still challenges political assumptions and stands out among the 45 men who reached the nation’s highest office. The 39th president leveraged his ambition with a keen intellect, deep religious faith and prodigious work ethic, conducting diplomatic missions into his 80s and building houses for the poor well into his 90s. “My faith demands — this is not optional — my faith demands that I do whatever I can, wherever I am, whenever I can, for as long as I can, with whatever I have to try to make a difference,” Carter once said. A moderate Democrat, Carter entered the 1976 presidential race as a little-known Georgia governor with a broad smile, outspoken Baptist mores and technocratic plans reflecting his education as an engineer. His no-frills campaign depended on public financing, and his promise not to deceive the American people resonated after Richard Nixon’s disgrace and US defeat in southeast Asia. “If I ever lie to you, if I ever make a misleading statement, don’t vote for me. I would not deserve to be your president,” Carter repeated before narrowly beating Republican incumbent Gerald Ford, who had lost popularity pardoning Nixon. Carter governed amid Cold War pressures, turbulent oil markets and social upheaval over racism, women’s rights and America’s global role. His most acclaimed achievement in office was a Mideast peace deal that he brokered by keeping Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at the bargaining table for 13 days in 1978. That Camp David experience inspired the post-presidential center where Carter would establish so much of his legacy. Yet Carter’s electoral coalition splintered under double-digit inflation, gasoline lines and the 444-day hostage crisis in Iran. His bleakest hour came when eight Americans died in a failed hostage rescue in April 1980, helping to ensure his landslide defeat to Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter acknowledged in his 2020 “White House Diary” that he could be “micromanaging” and “excessively autocratic,” complicating dealings with Congress and the federal bureaucracy. He also turned a cold shoulder to Washington’s news media and lobbyists, not fully appreciating their influence on his political fortunes. “It didn’t take us long to realize that the underestimation existed, but by that time we were not able to repair the mistake,” Carter told historians in 1982, suggesting that he had “an inherent incompatibility” with Washington insiders. Carter insisted his overall approach was sound and that he achieved his primary objectives — to “protect our nation’s security and interests peacefully” and “enhance human rights here and abroad” — even if he fell spectacularly short of a second term. Ignominious defeat, though, allowed for renewal. The Carters founded The Carter Center in 1982 as a first-of-its-kind base of operations, asserting themselves as international peacemakers and champions of democracy, public health and human rights. “I was not interested in just building a museum or storing my White House records and memorabilia,” Carter wrote in a memoir published after his 90th birthday. “I wanted a place where we could work.” That work included easing nuclear tensions in North and South Korea, helping to avert a US invasion of Haiti and negotiating ceasefires in Bosnia and Sudan. By 2022, The Carter Center had declared at least 113 elections in Latin America, Asia and Africa to be free or fraudulent. Recently, the center began monitoring US elections as well. Carter’s stubborn self-assuredness and even self-righteousness proved effective once he was unencumbered by the Washington order, sometimes to the point of frustrating his successors. He went “where others are not treading,” he said, to places like Ethiopia, Liberia and North Korea, where he secured the release of an American who had wandered across the border in 2010. “I can say what I like. I can meet whom I want. I can take on projects that please me and reject the ones that don’t,” Carter said. He announced an arms-reduction-for-aid deal with North Korea without clearing the details with Bill Clinton’s White House. He openly criticized President George W. Bush for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He also criticized America’s approach to Israel with his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” And he repeatedly countered US administrations by insisting North Korea should be included in international affairs, a position that most aligned Carter with Republican President Donald Trump. Among the center’s many public health initiatives, Carter vowed to eradicate the guinea worm parasite during his lifetime, and nearly achieved it: Cases dropped from millions in the 1980s to nearly a handful. With hardhats and hammers, the Carters also built homes with Habitat for Humanity. The Nobel committee’s 2002 Peace Prize cites his “untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” Carter should have won it alongside Sadat and Begin in 1978, the chairman added. Carter accepted the recognition saying there was more work to be done. “The world is now, in many ways, a more dangerous place,” he said. “The greater ease of travel and communication has not been matched by equal understanding and mutual respect.” Carter’s globetrotting took him to remote villages where he met little “Jimmy Carters,” so named by admiring parents. But he spent most of his days in the same one-story Plains house — expanded and guarded by Secret Service agents — where they lived before he became governor. He regularly taught Sunday School lessons at Maranatha Baptist Church until his mobility declined and the coronavirus pandemic raged. Those sessions drew visitors from around the world to the small sanctuary where Carter will receive his final send-off after a state funeral at Washington’s National Cathedral. The common assessment that he was a better ex-president than president rankled Carter and his allies. His prolific post-presidency gave him a brand above politics, particularly for Americans too young to witness him in office. But Carter also lived long enough to see biographers and historians reassess his White House years more generously. His record includes the deregulation of key industries, reduction of US dependence on foreign oil, cautious management of the national debt and notable legislation on the environment, education and mental health. He focused on human rights in foreign policy, pressuring dictators to release thousands of political prisoners. He acknowledged America’s historical imperialism, pardoned Vietnam War draft evaders and relinquished control of the Panama Canal. He normalized relations with China. “I am not nominating Jimmy Carter for a place on Mount Rushmore,” Stuart Eizenstat, Carter’s domestic policy director, wrote in a 2018 book. “He was not a great president” but also not the “hapless and weak” caricature voters rejected in 1980, Eizenstat said. Rather, Carter was “good and productive” and “delivered results, many of which were realized only after he left office.” Madeleine Albright, a national security staffer for Carter and Clinton’s secretary of state, wrote in Eizenstat’s forward that Carter was “consequential and successful” and expressed hope that “perceptions will continue to evolve” about his presidency. “Our country was lucky to have him as our leader,” said Albright, who died in 2022. Jonathan Alter, who penned a comprehensive Carter biography published in 2020, said in an interview that Carter should be remembered for “an epic American life” spanning from a humble start in a home with no electricity or indoor plumbing through decades on the world stage across two centuries. “He will likely go down as one of the most misunderstood and underestimated figures in American history,” Alter told The Associated Press. James Earl Carter Jr. was born Oct. 1, 1924, in Plains and spent his early years in nearby Archery. His family was a minority in the mostly Black community, decades before the civil rights movement played out at the dawn of Carter’s political career. Carter, who campaigned as a moderate on race relations but governed more progressively, talked often of the influence of his Black caregivers and playmates but also noted his advantages: His land-owning father sat atop Archery’s tenant-farming system and owned a main street grocery. His mother, Lillian, would become a staple of his political campaigns. Seeking to broaden his world beyond Plains and its population of fewer than 1,000 — then and now — Carter won an appointment to the US Naval Academy, graduating in 1946. That same year he married Rosalynn Smith, another Plains native, a decision he considered more important than any he made as head of state. She shared his desire to see the world, sacrificing college to support his Navy career. Carter climbed in rank to lieutenant, but then his father was diagnosed with cancer, so the submarine officer set aside his ambitions of admiralty and moved the family back to Plains. His decision angered Rosalynn, even as she dived into the peanut business alongside her husband. Carter again failed to talk with his wife before his first run for office — he later called it “inconceivable” not to have consulted her on such major life decisions — but this time, she was on board. “My wife is much more political,” Carter told the AP in 2021. He won a state Senate seat in 1962 but wasn’t long for the General Assembly and its back-slapping, deal-cutting ways. He ran for governor in 1966 — losing to arch-segregationist Lester Maddox — and then immediately focused on the next campaign. Carter had spoken out against church segregation as a Baptist deacon and opposed racist “Dixiecrats” as a state senator. Yet as a local school board leader in the 1950s he had not pushed to end school segregation even after the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision, despite his private support for integration. And in 1970, Carter ran for governor again as the more conservative Democrat against Carl Sanders, a wealthy businessman Carter mocked as “Cufflinks Carl.” Sanders never forgave him for anonymous, race-baiting flyers, which Carter disavowed. Ultimately, Carter won his races by attracting both Black voters and culturally conservative whites. Once in office, he was more direct. “I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over,” he declared in his 1971 inaugural address, setting a new standard for Southern governors that landed him on the cover of Time magazine. His statehouse initiatives included environmental protection, boosting rural education and overhauling antiquated executive branch structures. He proclaimed Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the slain civil rights leader’s home state. And he decided, as he received presidential candidates in 1972, that they were no more talented than he was. In 1974, he ran Democrats’ national campaign arm. Then he declared his own candidacy for 1976. An Atlanta newspaper responded with the headline: “Jimmy Who?” The Carters and a “Peanut Brigade” of family members and Georgia supporters camped out in Iowa and New Hampshire, establishing both states as presidential proving grounds. His first Senate endorsement: a young first-termer from Delaware named Joe Biden. Yet it was Carter’s ability to navigate America’s complex racial and rural politics that cemented the nomination. He swept the Deep South that November, the last Democrat to do so, as many white Southerners shifted to Republicans in response to civil rights initiatives. A self-declared “born-again Christian,” Carter drew snickers by referring to Scripture in a Playboy magazine interview, saying he “had looked on many women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.” The remarks gave Ford a new foothold and television comedians pounced — including NBC’s new “Saturday Night Live” show. But voters weary of cynicism in politics found it endearing. Carter chose Minnesota Sen. Walter “Fritz” Mondale as his running mate on a “Grits and Fritz” ticket. In office, he elevated the vice presidency and the first lady’s office. Mondale’s governing partnership was a model for influential successors Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Biden. Rosalynn Carter was one of the most involved presidential spouses in history, welcomed into Cabinet meetings and huddles with lawmakers and top aides. The Carters presided with uncommon informality: He used his nickname “Jimmy” even when taking the oath of office, carried his own luggage and tried to silence the Marine Band’s “Hail to the Chief.” They bought their clothes off the rack. Carter wore a cardigan for a White House address, urging Americans to conserve energy by turning down their thermostats. Amy, the youngest of four children, attended District of Columbia public school. Washington’s social and media elite scorned their style. But the larger concern was that “he hated politics,” according to Eizenstat, leaving him nowhere to turn politically once economic turmoil and foreign policy challenges took their toll. Carter partially deregulated the airline, railroad and trucking industries and established the departments of Education and Energy, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He designated millions of acres of Alaska as national parks or wildlife refuges. He appointed a then-record number of women and nonwhite people to federal posts. He never had a Supreme Court nomination, but he elevated civil rights attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the nation’s second highest court, positioning her for a promotion in 1993. He appointed Paul Volker, the Federal Reserve chairman whose policies would help the economy boom in the 1980s — after Carter left office. He built on Nixon’s opening with China, and though he tolerated autocrats in Asia, pushed Latin America from dictatorships to democracy. But he couldn’t immediately tame inflation or the related energy crisis. And then came Iran. After he admitted the exiled Shah of Iran to the US for medical treatment, the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun in 1979 by followers of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Negotiations to free the hostages broke down repeatedly ahead of the failed rescue attempt. The same year, Carter signed SALT II, the new strategic arms treaty with Leonid Brezhnev of the Soviet Union, only to pull it back, impose trade sanctions and order a US boycott of the Moscow Olympics after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Hoping to instill optimism, he delivered what the media dubbed his “malaise” speech, although he didn’t use that word. He declared the nation was suffering “a crisis of confidence.” By then, many Americans had lost confidence in the president, not themselves. Carter campaigned sparingly for reelection because of the hostage crisis, instead sending Rosalynn as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy challenged him for the Democratic nomination. Carter famously said he’d “kick his ass,” but was hobbled by Kennedy as Reagan rallied a broad coalition with “make America great again” appeals and asking voters whether they were “better off than you were four years ago.” Reagan further capitalized on Carter’s lecturing tone, eviscerating him in their lone fall debate with the quip: “There you go again.” Carter lost all but six states and Republicans rolled to a new Senate majority. Carter successfully negotiated the hostages’ freedom after the election, but in one final, bitter turn of events, Tehran waited until hours after Carter left office to let them walk free. At 56, Carter returned to Georgia with “no idea what I would do with the rest of my life.” Four decades after launching The Carter Center, he still talked of unfinished business. “I thought when we got into politics we would have resolved everything,” Carter told the AP in 2021. “But it’s turned out to be much more long-lasting and insidious than I had thought it was. I think in general, the world itself is much more divided than in previous years.” Still, he affirmed what he said when he underwent treatment for a cancer diagnosis in his 10th decade of life. “I’m perfectly at ease with whatever comes,” he said in 2015. “I’ve had a wonderful life. I’ve had thousands of friends, I’ve had an exciting, adventurous and gratifying existence.”

Reilly scores 18 as Delaware downs Rider 72-66The Boston Fleet allowed two goals in the final two minutes to fall 3-1 to the Toronto Sceptres to kick off the second Professional Women’s Hockey League’s season Saturday afternoon at Coca-Cola Coliseum in Toronto. The Fleet played for the inaugural PWHL title last season, falling in the final game to Minnesota. In the 2024-25 season opener, the Fleet were outshot 41-19, including 32-7 over the final two periods. Former Northeastern University goaltender Aerin Frankel was superb in stopping 38 of 40 shots. Hannah Miller scored a power-play goal with 1:38 left for the game-winner. Emma Maltais scored into an open net with 12 seconds left to account for the final. Boston took a 1-0 lead at 3:00 of the opening period thanks to a goal by captain Hilary Knight. Megan Keller and Hannah Bilka earned assists.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th US president, has died at 100None

Ousted Syrian leader Assad in Moscow and given asylum, Russian state news agencies sayPDF Solutions (NASDAQ:PDFS) Reaches New 52-Week Low – Should You Sell?Cyber Monday 2024: Date, start time, best early deals and more from this year's online sales