Day: December 23, 2024

23 Dec, 2024
Sanchita Sinha
Thanks For Reading!

source

It is the responsibility of an entrepreneurial leader, whether in the public or private sector of the economy, to strengthen the social safety net by making genuine efforts to curb poverty and inequality.
Let me narrate a recent personal experience in order to provide an appropriate context. Before I continue, let me ask the question: why “Price Control?” My answer is that, micro-decisions add up to macro outcomes and macro conditions influence micro-decisions.
Now my experience. I decided to put out one of my books into the market for sale. The price was a “legal” minimum, just a little bit above the equilibrium price. The feedback I got was very instructive. Several people that wanted to buy the book pleaded that the price be lowered. What this development has thrown up is the obvious symptom of the disturbing challenges in the Nigerian marketplace.
How then do we achieve equitable outcomes for the consumer in view of this current unstable relationship between demand, supply and price? How can leaders join hands to guarantee affordable prices in this marketplace characterised by run-off inflation, hunger, worsening economic instability and unemployment?
As we all know, price and quantity move in the same direction. This movement results in a demand shift. This outcome is expected because changes in one variable, affect other variables.
Should government make a pronouncement by way of price control? This definitely will not be effective because for a price to be binding on producers, it must be higher than the equilibrium price.
So what is the way forward? The basic concepts of economics are: the management of needs, wants, demands, supply and of course, the market. There is no market without consumer needs. Ability and willingness to buy to satisfy needs or the satisfying object of demand, is affordability or adequacy of purchasing power. Demand curve is the graphic representation of the relationship between price and quantity demanded of a particular product or service. Intrinsic value is ratio of perceived benefits versus the price paid.
Smart leaders drive their businesses to thrive and not just for survival. Power strategy or the art of strategic planning, building trust and loyalty within your team as well as ensuring growth with customer partners, make it mandatory for leaders to navigate challenges by realistically responding to what is happening now (what is in front of you) and taking necessary pragmatic next steps.
All-embracing customer satisfaction has a direct impact on customer loyalty. An increase in customer satisfaction will deliver growth of customer loyalty and definitely, a thriving business. Value-adding relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty is a pair of concepts with the proven deliverables of recommendation by customers and their patronage.
Customer satisfaction is the major determinant that impacts development of long-term relationship between providers and customers. People call it, lifetime value-delivering partnership. Thoroughly satisfied customers will, everything being equal, purchase goods and services than those who are not satisfied.
Business strategists have recommended that the success of an organization should be defined and measured by internal metrics of customers’ key outcomes. The point is that, we should drive value for the business through the Customer Value Dashboard. In other words, sustainable success should be determined by the success of customers interacting with organizations’ products and services delivered (to the organizations). That is, patronage revenues and inflows. Let us then ask ourselves, are leaders, in a robust manner, solving customers’ problems? Are customers getting the outcomes desired?
Warren Buffet, one of the most successful investors in the world with a net worth of over a hundred billion dollars, pointed out that leaders of organizations should ask themselves from time to time whether the lives of their customers are “being bettered”.
Leaders can surely work with affordable margins and still compete on the cost of money. Prevailing economic situations should not make organizations push back on enviable customer experience. With the determination to delight customers, leaders should fall back on their organizations’ strengths and capabilities.
I hereby make a passionate call to business leaders to put in stellar efforts to achieve equitable outcomes for customers. Leaders should provide the enablement for customers to achieve their want-satisfying capability and benefits for consuming their organizations’ goods and services.
As I mentioned earlier, enhancing customer satisfaction is crucial for business success and enduring sustainability. Leaders must make customers feel valued and satisfied. We can realistically connect with customers’ needs in a systemic way. Let us be “at home” with their realities of life.
For example, few years ago, the Mutual Benefits team created an insurance empowerment product for tomato sellers in Oyingbo market (Lagos State, Nigeria). With an affordable premium, Mutual Benefits provided the enablement for basic medical needs and at the same time, the traders could buy additional baskets of tomatoes to further enlarge their business.
Even in business to business (B2B) interactions, leaders can widen their views of the customers’ activities for more affordable upsell. This will definitely deliver additional value to the customers or clients.
At these challenging times, personal touch is needed in interactions. Personalize conversations. Be accountable, respectful, empathetic and trustworthy. Honour promises and keeps rebuilding value-adding relationships.
Let me conclude with that power of customer satisfaction and loyalty. It is that capacity to provide the sum of tangible and intangible benefits as well as equitable price. It is the combination of service plus additional service and price.
READ ALSO: Reintroduce commodity price control board
Get real-time news updates from Tribune Online! Follow us on WhatsApp for breaking news, exclusive stories and interviews, and much more.
Join our WhatsApp Channel now
© 2023 Tribune Online – an online publication of African Newspapers of Nigeria Plc. All rights reserved
Login to your account below


Remember Me

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.



– Select Visibility –PublicPrivate
© 2023 Tribune Online – an online publication of African Newspapers of Nigeria Plc. All rights reserved

source

You are viewing your 1 free article this month. Login to read more articles.
The Hachette Book Group v Internet Archive case has come to a close after the Second Circuit – one of the United States Courts of Appeals – found that “controlled digital learning” infringes on copyright law.
The court ruled that, as well as lacking legal authority, this also harms authors and publishers.
The legal result was announced after the Internet Archive declined to file a cert petition with the US Supreme Court by the deadline. Plaintiffs included Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons and Penguin Random House.
The Association of American Publishers (AAP), which funded the action, praised the outcome for setting a precedent for other cases, such as those concerning the use of content by AI companies.
The primary focus of the case was the Internet Archive’s (IA) unlicensed, worldwide distribution platform, known as the “Open Library”, which allowed users to borrow scanned print books without the consent of authors or publishers, and without compensation.
The organisation claimed that, it or its partner libraries, could make and distribute unlicensed digital copies if they kept a copy of the print edition for each digital “borrow”. It also encouraged libraries to stop licensing e-books and use its platform.
The court added: “If authors and creators knew that their original works could be copied and disseminated for free, there would be little motivation to produce new works. And a dearth of creativity would undoubtedly negatively impact the public.”
The court concluded that digitising physical copies of written work is not transformative, adding: “The Copyright Act protects authors’ works in whatever format they are produced.”
The organisation is bound by a permanent injunction and must “substantially” compensate AAP.
Maria A Pallante, president and c.e.o. of the AAP, added: “After five years of litigation, we are thrilled to see this important case rest with the decisive opinion of the Second Circuit, which leaves no room for arguments that ‘controlled digital lending’ is anything more than infringement, whether performed by commercial or noncommercial actors, or aimed at authorship that is creative or factual in nature.
“As the court recognised, the public interest – and the progress of art and science that is the mandate of the US Constitution’s copyright clause – is served best when authors and their publisher licensees can decide the terms on which they make their works available.”

source

National Assembly Majority Leader Kimai Ichung’wah. PHOTO: KIMANIICHUNGWAH/X
Speaking in Muhoroni, Ichung’wah emphasized the importance of cleansing the house spiritually and preventing such events from recurring.
“I will speak to Speaker Moses Wetang’ula to explore how we can collaborate with religious leaders to sanctify the house after what transpired in June,” Ichung’wah said.
“We pray that such incidents may never happen again in the history of our country.”
Ichung’wah revealed that several church leaders have already requested these prayers, highlighting a shared concern for national healing and unity.
Reflecting on the Gen Z-led anti-tax bill protests earlier this year, the Majority Leader criticized some church leaders for veering into politics instead of fulfilling their spiritual roles.
“At that time, many of our church leaders abandoned their duty to guide us in a godly manner. They became more political than the politicians,” he remarked.
Ichung’wah also called on parents to take greater responsibility in guiding their children, condemning the language and behaviour exhibited during the protests.
“As parents, we must set good examples for our children. The chaos we saw involving our youth this year was a failure not only of parenting but also of the church,” he said.
“Some of the words those children used against leaders and even their parents are unimaginable for those of us who grew up in earlier generations.”
Ichung’wah urged collective effort from families, religious institutions, and society at large to prevent a recurrence of such incidents, emphasising   the need for moral and spiritual rejuvenation.
Want to send us a story? SMS to 25170 or WhatsApp 0743570000 or Submit on Citizen Digital or email wananchi@royalmedia.co.ke


No comments yet.
© 2024 Citizen Digital. All rights reserved.

source

Since launching 12 years ago, Bankless Times has brought unbiased news and leading comparison in the crypto & financial markets. Our articles and guides are based on high quality, fact checked research with our readers best interests at heart, and we seek to apply our vigorous journalistic standards to all of our efforts.
BanklessTimes.com is dedicated to helping customers learn more about trading, investing and the future of finance. We accept commission from some of the providers on our site, and this may affect where they are positioned on our lists. This affiliate advertising model allows us to continue providing content to our readers for free. Our reviews are not influenced by this and are impartial. You can find out more about our business model here.
TapSwap, one of the top Telegram ecosystem players, hopes to launch the much-anticipated airdrop in January next year. So, will the TAPS token crash as other popular Telegram cryptocurrencies like Hamster Kombat (HMSTR), Dogs (DOGS), and Catizen (CATI)?
TapSwap, a leading tap-to-earn game on Telegram, has disappointed many players as the developers have delayed its airdrop or the token generation event. It was initially set to start trading in July last year, and then the developers promised to have it listed in the third quarter.
Well, the fourth quarter is ending, with the developers promising that it will happen in January. As such, based on the previous failed promises, there are reasons to doubt whether the token generation event will happen in January.
The developers have justified the delayed listing event to the need to have a good ecosystem that will provide the TAPS token with a good utility. In a recent post, the developers noted that they were working on a gaming platform that will give it more use in the long term. They aim to ensure that the token will be used to pay for tournaments and prize pools.
As you may already know, TapSwap's next big step is launching a gaming platform designed to bring real value to the soon-to-be-listed $TAPS token.$TAPS will play a central role in this new ecosystem — serving as your ticket into tournaments and the foundation of prize pools. As…
The developers have also justified the token listing delay to the need to have strong partnerships with other big players in the crypto industry. This includes exchanges like Binance, Coinbase, and OKX. 
A key concern among Tapswap’s developers is that most tap-to-earn tokens crash after their airdrop. As shown below, tokens like Notcoin, Hamster Kombat, Catizen, and JetTon Games have plunged by double digits in the last 30 days. 
Most of these tokens are down by over 70% from their all-time highs, with only a handful of holders being in profit. Just 15% of Notcoin holders are profitable and 0.92% of Hamster Kombat are profitable. Also, just 0.16% of Dogs and 0.65% of CATI holders are profitable.
Therefore, it makes sense for Tapswap developers to maintain their patience and build the ecosystem before the airdrop.
However, the reality, is that many Tapswap players do so because they want to convert their coins into cash. Most are not interested in the ecosystem growth and the upcoming gaming platform.
This explains why the CATI, HMSTR, and DOGS tokens crashed after the airdrop. Most of the holders used the listing opportunity to sell their tokens. For example, Hamster Kombat, which had over 300 million users now has 3.8 million HMSTR token holders. Catizen now has just 1.4 million tokens. 
The same trend happens among other “to earn” platforms in the crypto industry like move-to-earn networks like Sweatcoin and StepN. Therefore, there is a likelihood that the TAPS taken will crash after the airdop.
Since launching in 2012, Bankless Times is dedicated to bringing you the latest news and informational content within the alternative finance industry. Our news coverage spans the whole crypto-sphere so you’ll always stay up to date — be it on cryptocurrencies, NFTs, ICOs, Fintech, or Blockchain.

source

New York’s Board of Regents approved a Department of Education funding request for climate education.
The board is putting more than $536,000 aside for climate change education and materials.
New Jersey is the only state mandating climate change be taught in all subject areas. Connecticut teaches it as well, but primarily in science.
Emily Fano, director of climate resilience education programs with the National Wildlife Federation, described how climate change can be taught across multiple subject areas.
“There are so many ways climate can be integrated into math class, graphing greenhouse gas emissions for example,” said Fano. “Social studies, you can talk about social movements like the youth climate movement that has grown by leaps and bounds all over the world.”
She added that health classes could teach the health impacts of air pollution and poor air quality.
The funding allotment faces no opposition, and a Yale University report finds 81% of New York adults feel climate change should be taught in schools. This is higher than the national average of 75%.
If the funding’s approved, climate change will be taught in New York schools starting in the 2026-2027 school year.
But, climate education has faced an uphill battle.
A bill establishing a course on climate change in elementary and secondary schools garnered widespread support. But, it failed in the state legislature.
Fano said along with a new climate education bill, more work must be done to make this a reality.
“We’ll continue working with the state education department and our partners to make sure that our students are going to get the climate education they need and deserve,” said Fano. “So, we will continue working on this issue regardless, but we really hope the Governor understands the urgency of this request.”
While this funding request provides a framework for training current educators about how to teach climate change, Fano said she wants this training for people studying to be teachers.
An Education Week Research Center poll finds 18% of teachers don’t address climate change because they feel out of their element discussing it.
Have all the Finger Lakes news from Finger Lakes News Radio delivered to your email every morning for FREE!  Sign up by clicking here
© Copyright 2024, Finger Lakes Daily News by FLX Local Media. All Rights Reserved.

source

Lama Aria Drolma’s Transformative Journey from Fashion Runways to Spiritual Retreats  The New Indian Express
source

The Supreme Court
The results of a new Gallup poll offer alarming evidence of a serious erosion of confidence in the American judicial system. And if that was not enough of a signal, a survey done by Monmouth University delivered more bad news for people concerned about the rule of law in this country.
It found that almost a quarter of the American public would not be “bothered at all” if the president suspended some “laws and constitutional provisions.” Another quarter would only be bothered “a little.”
Reading these results, I was reminded of the quote from the Pogo comic: “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”
As commentators from Alexander Hamilton to the present have said, the rule of law can only survive if the people have faith that it is applied impartially and equally and that everyone will follow the rules, even when it is inconvenient for them to do so. Faith — that is the right word.
Hamilton understood this.
In Federalist 78, he predicted that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” The judiciary, he argued, would “have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The quality of that judgment, he continued, “may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of public justice and public security.”
In Federalist 22, Hamilton noted that unless people have faith in judges and respect their judgments, “laws are a dead letter.”
Four years ago, the National Judicial Council, echoing Hamilton, offered advice for people new to the bench. “As a judge,” it said, “you have no ability to enforce the decisions you make. … If you sentence someone to jail, you have no power to make certain that sentence is carried out.”
That is why the council described the power of courts as “fragile” and concluded that the rule of law depends on the willingness of “good people” to “follow the law because that is what good people do.”
The new surveys highlight that fragility and document a dramatic loss of faith in the courts and the rule of law among “good people” in the United States. Let’s start with Gallup.
It summarizes its major findings: “Americans’ confidence in their nation’s judicial system and courts dropped to a record-low 35% in 2024. The result further sets the U.S. apart from other wealthy nations, where a majority, on average, still expresses trust in an institution that relies largely on the public’s confidence to protect its authority and independence.”

“Since 2020,” Gallup continues, “confidence in the courts … has seen a sharp decline — 24 percentage points.” In fact, the only nations that have seen anything close to such a precipitous decline are “Myanmar (from 2018 to 2022) overlapping the return to military rule in 2021, Venezuela (2012-2016) amid deep economic and political turmoil, and Syria (2009-2013) in the runup to and early years of civil war, and others that have experienced their own kinds of disorder in the past two decades.”
That’s some company for a nation supposedly steeped in the traditions Hamilton initiated.
The bad news does not end there. Gallup reports: "The judiciary stands out for losing more U.S. public confidence than many other U.S. institutions experienced between 2020 and 2024.”
Things don’t look much better in the Monmouth survey. It found stark partisan divides in what respondents would think if the president disregarded the “laws and constitutional provisions to go after political enemies.” Just over one-third of Republicans said, “It wouldn’t bother them at all if Trump suspended some laws and constitutional provisions to go after political enemies, while an additional 34% said it would only bother them ‘a little’ if the incoming president took such a step.”
But, as The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake notes, it isn’t only Republicans who have these views. Trump-leaning independents have also shifted significantly. “Overall, the percentage of independents who say they would be bothered a lot if Trump targeted his enemies has dropped from 68 percent in June, to 60 percent in October, to 55 percent today.”
These results are partially attributable to the fact that the question Monmouth asked named Donald Trump as the person who might suspend the law.
An Ipsos poll done last spring did not refer to Trump when it asked whether “a strong president … should be allowed to rule without too much interference from courts and Congress.” Even so, 52 percent of Republicans said yes.
The Gallup results help explain why many Americans would be okay with presidential departures from the rule of law. If people aren’t confident in courts or have lost faith in the judgments they make, it is hardly surprising that they might be open to such defiance.
Why does the United States find itself in this grim situation?
Many factors could be cited, including questionable ethical judgments by Supreme Court Justices, unpopular judicial decisions, and partisan attacks on courts and judges.
But here, I’d like to suggest that the judiciary has not helped itself in the way it goes about its business. Take the nation’s highest court.
As the journalist Kevin Drumm puts it, “The Supreme Court has always been political, but … it [has never] been so nakedly political.” Drumm is right to say, “They barely even bother trying to hide it.”
In the lower courts, similar things are happening. For example, Alma Cohen of Harvard Law School has shown that “the judges’ political affiliations, inferred from the party of the appointing president, can be used as a predictive tool for decision outcomes in 92% of the circuit court decisions studied.”
And do you think it is an accident that Republican litigants have beat a path to Amarillo, Texas, to get their cases heard by federal District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer calls the MAGA movement’s “favorite judge”? Judge shopping is hardly one-sided. For years, liberals tried to get cases heard in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was notorious for the leftward tilt of its decisions.
The American public has gotten the message. More than six in 10 now say that “politics, not law” explains Supreme Court decisions.
Finally, why should anyone respect the court or its justices when they don’t display respect for each other in their written opinions? Just read what Justice Samuel Alito said about the justices who had decided Roe v Wade, which he called “egregiously wrong from the start.”
He accused them of “usurp[ing] the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people.” Or recall Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s suggestion that the court is putting its survival in peril by making decisions that “are just political acts."
Ultimately, we cannot snap our fingers and restore public confidence in courts and faith in the rule of law. But we can call on judges at every level of the court system to stop digging the hole any deeper.
The new polling results should be a wake-up call and a reminder that unless they behave in ways that inspire, rather than undermine, belief in the fairness of their rulings, “good people” may conclude that the rule of law is a hoax. And that is a stepping-stone to authoritarianism.
Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
The results of a new Gallup poll offer alarming evidence of a serious erosion of confidence in the American judicial system. And if that was not enough of a signal, a survey done by Monmouth University delivered more bad news for people concerned about the rule of law in this country.
It found that almost a quarter of the American public would not be “bothered at all” if the president suspended some “laws and constitutional provisions.” Another quarter would only be bothered “a little.”
Reading these results, I was reminded of the quote from the Pogo comic: “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”
As commentators from Alexander Hamilton to the present have said, the rule of law can only survive if the people have faith that it is applied impartially and equally and that everyone will follow the rules, even when it is inconvenient for them to do so. Faith — that is the right word.
Hamilton understood this.
In Federalist 78, he predicted that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” The judiciary, he argued, would “have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The quality of that judgment, he continued, “may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of public justice and public security.”
In Federalist 22, Hamilton noted that unless people have faith in judges and respect their judgments, “laws are a dead letter.”
Four years ago, the National Judicial Council, echoing Hamilton, offered advice for people new to the bench. “As a judge,” it said, “you have no ability to enforce the decisions you make. … If you sentence someone to jail, you have no power to make certain that sentence is carried out.”
That is why the council described the power of courts as “fragile” and concluded that the rule of law depends on the willingness of “good people” to “follow the law because that is what good people do.”
The new surveys highlight that fragility and document a dramatic loss of faith in the courts and the rule of law among “good people” in the United States. Let’s start with Gallup.
It summarizes its major findings: “Americans’ confidence in their nation’s judicial system and courts dropped to a record-low 35% in 2024. The result further sets the U.S. apart from other wealthy nations, where a majority, on average, still expresses trust in an institution that relies largely on the public’s confidence to protect its authority and independence.”

“Since 2020,” Gallup continues, “confidence in the courts … has seen a sharp decline — 24 percentage points.” In fact, the only nations that have seen anything close to such a precipitous decline are “Myanmar (from 2018 to 2022) overlapping the return to military rule in 2021, Venezuela (2012-2016) amid deep economic and political turmoil, and Syria (2009-2013) in the runup to and early years of civil war, and others that have experienced their own kinds of disorder in the past two decades.”
That’s some company for a nation supposedly steeped in the traditions Hamilton initiated.
The bad news does not end there. Gallup reports: "The judiciary stands out for losing more U.S. public confidence than many other U.S. institutions experienced between 2020 and 2024.”
Things don’t look much better in the Monmouth survey. It found stark partisan divides in what respondents would think if the president disregarded the “laws and constitutional provisions to go after political enemies.” Just over one-third of Republicans said, “It wouldn’t bother them at all if Trump suspended some laws and constitutional provisions to go after political enemies, while an additional 34% said it would only bother them ‘a little’ if the incoming president took such a step.”
But, as The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake notes, it isn’t only Republicans who have these views. Trump-leaning independents have also shifted significantly. “Overall, the percentage of independents who say they would be bothered a lot if Trump targeted his enemies has dropped from 68 percent in June, to 60 percent in October, to 55 percent today.”
These results are partially attributable to the fact that the question Monmouth asked named Donald Trump as the person who might suspend the law.
An Ipsos poll done last spring did not refer to Trump when it asked whether “a strong president … should be allowed to rule without too much interference from courts and Congress.” Even so, 52 percent of Republicans said yes.
The Gallup results help explain why many Americans would be okay with presidential departures from the rule of law. If people aren’t confident in courts or have lost faith in the judgments they make, it is hardly surprising that they might be open to such defiance.
Why does the United States find itself in this grim situation?
Many factors could be cited, including questionable ethical judgments by Supreme Court Justices, unpopular judicial decisions, and partisan attacks on courts and judges.
But here, I’d like to suggest that the judiciary has not helped itself in the way it goes about its business. Take the nation’s highest court.
As the journalist Kevin Drumm puts it, “The Supreme Court has always been political, but … it [has never] been so nakedly political.” Drumm is right to say, “They barely even bother trying to hide it.”
In the lower courts, similar things are happening. For example, Alma Cohen of Harvard Law School has shown that “the judges’ political affiliations, inferred from the party of the appointing president, can be used as a predictive tool for decision outcomes in 92% of the circuit court decisions studied.”
And do you think it is an accident that Republican litigants have beat a path to Amarillo, Texas, to get their cases heard by federal District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer calls the MAGA movement’s “favorite judge”? Judge shopping is hardly one-sided. For years, liberals tried to get cases heard in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was notorious for the leftward tilt of its decisions.
The American public has gotten the message. More than six in 10 now say that “politics, not law” explains Supreme Court decisions.
Finally, why should anyone respect the court or its justices when they don’t display respect for each other in their written opinions? Just read what Justice Samuel Alito said about the justices who had decided Roe v Wade, which he called “egregiously wrong from the start.”
He accused them of “usurp[ing] the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people.” Or recall Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s suggestion that the court is putting its survival in peril by making decisions that “are just political acts."
Ultimately, we cannot snap our fingers and restore public confidence in courts and faith in the rule of law. But we can call on judges at every level of the court system to stop digging the hole any deeper.
The new polling results should be a wake-up call and a reminder that unless they behave in ways that inspire, rather than undermine, belief in the fairness of their rulings, “good people” may conclude that the rule of law is a hoax. And that is a stepping-stone to authoritarianism.
Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
People walk through debris caused by Israeli attack in Khan Yunis, Gaza.
In a shocking development last week, Amnesty International effectively exonerated Israel of genocide.
This was easy to miss, and not just because of the recent crush of news. Amnesty’s report, titled “‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza,” buried the lede, as journalists say. And most of the media coverage reflected that.
The New York Times’ headline read: “Amnesty International Accuses Israel of Genocide in Gaza.” The Los Angeles Times’ was similar: “Amnesty International says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.”
Before I get to Amnesty’s overlooked acquittal of Israel, it’s worth noting that calling its report unfair would be a profound understatement. Here’s the first sentence: “On 7 October 2023, Israel embarked on a military offensive on the occupied Gaza Strip … of unprecedented magnitude, scale and duration.”
In other words, the story of the Israel-Gaza war, as far as the storied human rights group is concerned, begins not with Hamas’ unprecedented terrorist attack on civilians that day, which included rapes, kidnappings and other forms of staggering, premeditated barbarity. Rather, it begins with Israel’s response to Hamas’ aggression. Hamas, by the way, is an organization that was literally founded on the principle of genocidal eradication of Israel.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This is a bit like beginning a report on America’s “genocide” in Japan by stating, “On April 18, 1942, the United States embarked on a military offensive on the Japanese nation of unprecedented magnitude … ” — leaving out, until some 50 pages later, that whole Pearl Harbor thing.
None of this is to say that the Israel-Gaza war hasn’t been horrific. Nor is it to say that Israel deserves no criticism for its conduct of the war — even if I think most of the criticisms are exaggerated, often for ideological reasons.
But the Genocide Convention of 1948 is very clear about what constitutes actual or attempted genocide: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
The idea that Israel is dedicated to genocide of the Palestinians has been routinely bandied about for decades at the United Nations and by anti-Israel governments and organizations. But the Palestinian population has grown more than eightfold since Israel’s founding, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, and the population of the Gaza Strip has increased 600% since 1960.
One of the most important words in the U.N.’s definition of genocide is “intent.” And if Israel, which even its enemies characterize as supremely competent and lethal, intends genocide, it’s really, really, bad at it. Indeed, if genocide were the goal, you would think Israel would stop dropping leaflets warning civilians to evacuate areas it’s about to attack or sending Palestinians caravans of aid.

Which brings us back to Amnesty International’s exoneration. On page 101 of its 296-page report, the authors acknowledge that the question of intent is a huge problem for those who accuse Israel of genocide. But they go on to reject “an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence … that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.”
If Israel were actually trying to eliminate the Palestinians as a people, I think it would be obvious and easy for Amnesty and others to prove. But the point is that the report essentially concedes that Israel isn’t committing genocide under prevailing interpretations of international law.
Imagine if a prosecutor noted during a murder trial that under the existing statutes and case law, the defendant was not guilty. That might be considered an important concession.
As Commentary’s Seth Mandel writes, “So Amnesty International dissents from international law. That’s fine. Just be up-front about it: Amnesty is not accusing Israel of ‘genocide,’ it is accusing Israel of a different crime which Amnesty has named ‘genocide,’ just so it could use that word.”
It would be one thing if Amnesty issued a report calling for a more capacious definition of genocide under international law. I’d be open to such a recommendation. The existing definition still has the taint of the Soviet Union’s meddling to ensure it didn’t cover its crimes in Ukraine. A better, fairer definition of genocide wouldn’t be bad news for Israel, but it would for Russia and China.
Amnesty didn’t want a discussion about the proper definition of genocide, though. It wanted headlines alleging that Israel committed the crime — and it got them.
(Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.)
Donald Trump's obsession with crowds could be turned against him.
Monti is a professor of sociology at Saint Louis University.

How might Americans’ willingness to act out in public be put to better use than the destructive mess some of us want to make on behalf of Donald Trump and the rest of us hope to avoid?
My answer to this question builds on Trump’s obsession with crowds and how they could accomplish the very thing he has for so long managed to avoid: accountability for the crimes he has long committed against many individual Americans and more recently against the whole of the American people.
In thinking out loud about how to punish him, I can see how a prison sentence would inspire his supporters to come out even more strongly to support his claims about rigged elections and corrupt courts.
Be that as it may, for however long he occupies a prominent spot on the public stage, the rest of us must worry about the best way to avoid the violence he inspires others to do in his name and figure out how to hold him accountable for crimes he has committed.
Trump wasn’t the first person with aspirations to become autocrat-in-chief and there will be others in the future. None will be as consequential or memorable as Trump — not because of what he set out to do but because of the dramatic way he failed and then slunk out of Washington on the day Joe Biden was inaugurated.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The late historian Hugh Davis Graham pointed out more than a half-century ago that the central paradox in American history was the odd juxtaposition of popular unrest with the stability of important social and political institutions. Americans have been unrestful for a long time.
But how did Americans come to use crowds and civil unrest this way?
The answer to this question is even more surprising but would probably please Trump because he could blame it all on foreigners.
It was the Greeks’ fault.
Not the modern ones. The ones that Aristotle and Plato lived among and whose writings on politics still inform the way we govern ourselves today.
The origins of the unexpected union of popular unrest and institutional stability go back thousands of years. They can be traced to the ancient cities of Greece and the way Greeks made room for crowds in their social and political routines.
The ancient Greeks were aware of the destructive potential of crowds. Their cities, not unlike our own, could be difficult to manage and their people tough to keep in line. That is why Greek leaders found ways for crowds to come together in public and express their views on matters of common concern.

Of particular interest to us would be the trials of Greek elites accused of violating their city’s laws or committing other kinds of serious offenses. The accused in these cases had more social standing, power and wealth than the hundreds and sometimes thousands of people who were invited to render an opinion in public about the offending party’s guilt or innocence.
Everyday people, many of whom might not have had legal standing as “citizens” in their city, were asked to weigh in on these matters. Greek crowds were invited to make loud declarations about official misconduct and public insults to people’s sensibilities.
The other thing these trials accomplished was to provide a public rebuke for the highest and mightiest citizens of the city who learned they could be held accountable for serious violations of the law and breaches of the public’s trust.
Slaves might be killed for their misdeeds, because they had nothing to give up except their life. But wealthy and powerful people could lose their property, be expelled from the city or, most importantly perhaps, be publicly shamed.
I’ll be returning to this idea shortly.
The Greeks’ public deliberations would have looked rowdy, but they more closely resembled a big public arbitration. The idea was for people to argue out loud about what should be done and gradually reach some middle ground about what fair punishment looked like.
Everyone could walk away satisfied that justice had been served. Public order was restored. The community could move on.
People with money, power and social prestige — being more equal than everyone else — eventually figured out how to limit their accountability to the people they sought to rule. This change took a long time to happen. It is not the only reason why people with less standing in cities took to acting out in public without the permission of city leaders. But it was a big one.
Modern crowds, less easily constrained than the ones ancient Greek leaders organized, became more threatening to city leaders. Threatening or not, large numbers of less privileged people learned how to defend themselves when their rights were being ignored and their status as full-fledged members of the city was questioned. Like their better-off neighbors, the masses asserted the privilege to break important rules and customs and get away with it.
Which brings us back to Donald Trump.
Trump is already expected to give up a lot of money because of his sexual assault conviction. Should a judge eventually decide he needs to be locked up for another crime he committed, putting him in a jail cell or confining him to his shrinking New City condo or Mar-a-Lago estate would certainly be an option.
If we were back in ancient Greece, however, judges would turn the decision about what to do with Trump over to several hundred or thousands of his fellow Americans. They would let “the people” come up with a punishment, one that might not fit the crime but would certainly be appropriate for the criminal.
The problem, of course, is that our courts don’t ask the public what punishment should be handed down. But we could imagine what the result would look like if they did.
A great many of Trump’s detractors would want to lock him up. His supporters would want him to get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Facing each other on the streets of New York or wherever his sentence was being handed down, these two crowds might be inclined to fight it out.
Trump would love that. Most of the rest of us probably wouldn’t.
If we take a page from the Greeks’ handbook on crowds, however, there’s a good chance we could avoid a nasty public fight. The courts could fashion a punishment that tortures Trump, just like the Greeks might have done, by shaming him in public.
Make Trump work off his sentence in soup kitchens and homeless shelters, helping disabled people and wounded veterans, and assisting immigrants to resettle and find jobs.
In serving some of the very people he’s spoken against most nastily and gone out of his way to continually insult, it wouldn’t matter if he was faking it and didn’t change his attitude towards such people. It only matters that he would be held publicly accountable for his crimes and the rest of us have a chance to watch his public act of contrition.
I think it’s a punishment the ancient Greeks would have understood and the rest of us could live with.
Most importantly, perhaps, it’s a punishment that would deny Trump the chance to declare himself the martyr he muses about being when he isn’t comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln or God.
Donald Trump is a convicted felon but is still eligible to serve as president.
Gross is a clinical associate professor of law at the University of Wisconsin Law School and director of the school’s Public Defender Project.

What can a felon do? Become president of the United States.
What can’t a felon do? That’s quite the list.
Ever since Donald Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records back in May — something that hasn’t changed despite the fact he has managed to have his sentencing postponed until after the election — people have asked me, a law professor, whether a convicted felon can be elected president of the United States. So let me break it down.
The Constitution lists only three requirements to hold the office of president: The person must be a natural-born citizen, be at least 35 years old and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. The natural-born citizen requirement was put in place to prevent a member of a European monarchy from emigrating to the United States and acquiring enough influence to become president. The age and residency requirements had a similar goal: to prevent the children of influential politicians who spent time outside the United States from getting elected solely on name recognition.
While the drafters of our Constitution envisioned the possibility that a president would commit “high crimes and misdemeanors” in office and created the mechanism of impeachment to remove that person from office, they never conceived of the need to point out the obvious: that someone already convicted of high crimes would be an exceptionally poor choice to be president.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
When Alexander Hamilton publicly confessed to an extramarital affair with a married woman, the consensus was that his private infidelity made him unsuitable to hold public office. Fast forward almost 250 years: Trump, a man who served as president and wants his old job back, has been convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up an extramarital affair.
What do they have in common? Like Trump, Hamilton made what could be regarded as hush-money payments to cover up his affair. But unlike Trump, Hamilton chose to reveal the affair to convince his political opponents that he hadn’t falsified records while serving as the secretary of the treasury.
Hamilton’s reputation suffered greatly, and his presidential ambitions were squashed, but he was never charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. The drafters of our Constitution regarded his poor moral judgment enough to disqualify him.

Meanwhile, Congress and state legislatures have routinely imposed far-reaching“collateral consequences of conviction” on people convicted of crimes. They are barred from employment, housing, public benefits, educational opportunities and even participation in our democracy.
These sanctions are imposed automatically upon conviction in addition to whatever sentence a judge might impose. They reflect a moral judgment that people who commit crimes have placed themselves in a separate class of citizens who can be legally discriminated against.
With that in mind, consider such consequences in Florida, where Trump resides. He would be potentially disqualified from a wide range of jobs, including some of the ones he has previously held: He could be denied a license to run a hotel or restaurant, to operate as a real estate broker and even to sell lottery tickets.
Consider as well the contradiction between all the various responsibilities of the president of the United States and all the jobs that convicted felons are deemed too irresponsible to have.
Perhaps the most absurd result of another Trump presidency would be that the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, who possesses the power to use nuclear weapons, would be barred by federal and state law from owning a firearm.
Along similar lines, the president is the head of federal law enforcement with pardoning power. Yet he doesn’t meet the minimum qualifications to be a law enforcement officer in Florida because he was convicted of a crime involving a false statement. And he would likely be barred from serving on Florida’s parole commission.
On the diplomacy front, the president can negotiate a ceasefire between warring factions such as Russia and Ukraine, but Trump’s conviction would likely bar him from serving as a court-appointed mediator in his home state.
There are other elements of irony in the ways a felon president cannot participate in some basic processes of government: Trump would not be able to lobby Congress or even serve as a presidential elector.
He also would have the power to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship. Setting aside the fact that such an order would be blatantly unconstitutional, it is worth noting that his felony convictions for falsifying business records are crimes of “moral turpitude,” a category of crimes that would bar him from becoming a citizen if he wasn’t born in the United States.
One study estimates that there are over 27,000 rules that bar people convicted of crimes from holding professional licenses. A report by the Heritage Foundation found that many of these barriers to employment are counterproductive and actually increase rates of recidivism.
But if there is one collateral consequence of a felony conviction that makes perfect sense is that you shouldn’t be eligible to serve as president of the United States. Even if your sentencing has been delayed until after the election. The fact that this is not even a talking point one month before the election is beyond belief.
Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Across the country, the earliest deadlines to register to vote before the Nov. 5 presidential election have passed — including in two swing states, Arizona and Georgia. That hard deadline will have a decisive impact on who can vote this fall.
In contrast, there are dozens of ongoing lawsuits — almost entirely from Republicans and groups allied with former President Donald Trump — that have been filed since late summer and contest how battleground states have maintained their voter rolls and register voters.
But with less than one month before Election Day, most of the registration-centered litigation appears unlikely to impact voters this fall. That’s because most of the suits are ongoing in state and federal court, where most judges are averse to last-minute rulings — especially once voting is underway.
The notable exceptions are Arizona’s new proof of citizenship requirement to register for its state and local elections — which was upheld by the Supreme Court — and, possibly, a Georgia effort to mass-challenge registrations (which counties havebegun to reject).
On the other hand, this swarm of lawsuits has given Trump campaigners a prop to sow myths about illegal voters — even if their claims are never evaluated.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This split-screen reality exists because the court of legal option — which has rules of evidence and standards of proof — is not the same as the court of public opinion, where the First Amendment protects political speech, regardless of its veracity.
Nonetheless, in recent weeks most of the voter roll litigation has seen little action. Many officials who have been sued have not responded — delaying the process. Few evidentiary hearings have been scheduled. And some suits have been withdrawn for reasons that do not surprise legal experts — including conservative Republicans who investigated and reported on Trump’s 2020 claims and found “Biden’s victory is easily explained.”
“When you look at what is likely to take place in 2024 if it is a close election, the report ‘Lost, Not Stolen’ is really a handy reference guide,” said Ben Ginsberg, legal counsel for the George W. Bush and Mitt Romney presidential campaigns. “[It] looks at all 64 cases that were filed in 2020, which are similar to the issues that have already been raised in the pre-election litigation for this year. And what we concluded is that the charges that were brought by Donald Trump and his supporters, all 64 cases, lost because of a lack of evidence — not because there were procedural deficiencies in the cases.”

A Georgia lawsuit by two Trump activists in metro Atlanta is a telling example of a suit that collided with an established federal law — and, after initial bluster, was withdrawn.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 instructs states how to maintain voter rolls and expands registration. It also bars removing a registered voter within 90 days of an election. The Trump activists sued one day before that cutoff. Their lawsuit began: “Fulton County does not maintain, nor does it even attempt to maintain, accurate voter rolls.”
That claim is false. Nonetheless, the suit wanted a federal court to order Atlanta officials to disregard the NVRA’s purge deadline if their allies challenged tens of thousands of voter registrations — as was done in 2022’s general election. On Sept. 16, the activists withdrew their suitwithout citing a reason.
Election analysts have reported that there are more than 100 lawsuits across America that target different steps in the process. According to Democracy Docket — a voting rights news platform that tracks election litigation — more than a dozen suits challenging the NVRA have been filed in 2024’s seven battleground states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).
Almost all challenge technical aspects of the NVRA. For example, they allege:
Most of these claims have not been factually evaluated. And there are yet more voter-list-centered lawsuits. However, a large number of partisan suits does not mean there are massive problems. Indeed, on Oct. 7, the Supreme Court declined to hear a Pennsylvania suit challenging a White House directive to expand registration.
As registration closes in many states, it appears that most of this Republican litigation will not impact voters. Rather, experts say its goal is to “sow doubts” if Trump loses.
“What’s important in 2024 is to beware of the rhetoric,” Ginsberg said. “A campaign and party that loses a close election is going to find reasons to file cases.”
Correction 10/15/24: Democracy Docket was previously referenced as run by Democratic Party lawyers. They are a voting rights news platform founded by attorney Marc Elias that tracks election litigation.

source

Loading …
Claim a welcome bonus of 100,000 Gold Coins and 2 Sweeps Coins. 350+ unique slots and social casino games. Generous on-going promotions. T&Cs apply, 18+
Real Prize Casino only came online in 2024, but it’s already trending among sweepstakes casino players. One reason is its welcome bonus of 625,000 GC and 125 SC, which is entirely free. Plus there are 1250 VIP Points as part of the welcome offer too.
I received the bonus without entering a Real Prize Casino promo code when I signed up. The entire process was smooth, and I’ll explain it in this guide. Also, Real Prize Casino gave me other exciting offers, including the daily bonus and Real Wheel. Continue reading as I break down everything about the promotions available at the sweepstakes casino.
At Real Prize Casino, new users get off to a flying start. The platform has 625,000 Gold Coins and 125 Sweepstakes Coins up for grabs in a no deposit package. To get this bonus, all I had to do was register an account. Then, I verified my phone number, and that was it.
Clearly, the process is straightforward, and I appreciate the fact that I didn’t have to use any Real Prize sweepstakes casino promo codes. Plus, the platform didn’t require an initial purchase.
Moving on, I also found a 100% match up welcome bonus for new players. This offer will give you extra Gold Coins on your first purchase, and it also doesn’t demand any Real Prize Casino promo codes. That said, always keep in mind that purchases are entirely optional on the platform.
How long did it take me to claim the sign up bonus at Real Prize Casino? Well, it was less than a minute. The site really does work that quickly, and you can confirm when you follow the steps below:
As you can confirm, there’s no call for a Real Prize Casino bonus code. Once you finish the six steps, you’ll find up to 625,000 GC and 125 SC in your Real Prize Casino balance. To throw some light on step three, the sweepstakes gaming site is unavailable in Idaho, Michigan, Nevada, and Washington. So, if you’re in any of these US States, you can’t claim and use the welcome bonus.
I don’t know about you, but I always want to make the most of my bonuses at social casinos. With the Real Prize Casino, things are no different. Having used the welcome offer during my Real Prize Casino review, I can point to the best ways to use the free Coins. In that view, here are five tips I recommend following:
The phone number verification is a must to receive the welcome bonus at Real Prize Casino. However, the number goes beyond the promotion. It stays tied to your account for as long as it’s active.
As such, I don’t believe it’s wise to add just any number when prompted. By any, I mean maybe a secondary line, that of your friend, or the likes. Ensure it’s your phone number and one that you use regularly.
Whenever your account requires any verification or sort, Real Prize will still send a code to your number. Besides, you’ll likely receive promotional updates, which can help you score more GCs and SCs.
At Real Prize Casino, the standard turnaround time for ID verification is 24 to 48 hours. However, in some cases, it may take up to 14 days. During my research, I came across a few instances of players who got the welcome bonus and completed the needed playthrough and minimum SC for redemption. Due to late verification, they had to wait over two weeks to get their prize.
Of course, you won’t want that to happen to you. Hence, after claiming your Real Prize Casino no deposit bonus, I suggest you apply for verification immediately. The 625,000 GC and 125 SC won’t expire, so you can always use them. Once you’re cleared by the KYC team, you can then play with your bonus, knowing that prize redemption will be much faster when it’s time.
You’ll agree the 2 SC from the welcome bonus isn’t a lot. It becomes even more apparent when you realize you need a minimum of 45 eligible SC for gift card redemption and 100 for a cash prize. With this, my approach was to chase after more offers that reward Sweepstakes Coins.
If you can get hold of a Real Prize Casino bonus code for it, that’s perfect. Otherwise, don’t overlook the mail-in option — it’s a perfect opportunity to score more SCs for free. For this, I simply had to submit a handwritten note to the Real Prize official address in Oregon.
Once the platform received it, they added the SCs to my account. However, note that the note type and content must specifically follow the instructions in the casino’s promotional play rules. So, check out the page when you visit the site.
I’m putting this out in case you consider going for the first purchase bonus. While at it, ensure you’re using a payment method that has the same name as in your Real Prize Casino account. The platform straight-up prohibits players from doing such.
Based on my findings, users who use a payment method not in their name won’t get the match bonus. That’s only the tiniest bit. The casino might also suspend your account, which means you lose access to the initial free bonus.
If your payment method clearly has your name, everything will go smoothly, and you’ll get the extra coins. That said, remember purchases are entirely optional.
My last tip still revolves around purchasing. You can get the 100% match bonus on any package — Real Prize Casino doesn’t limit it to a specific one. As a result, it’s important to verify that you selected the right package you want.
I confirmed via the casino’s T&Cs that GC purchases are nonrefundable. So, if you go for the wrong package, there’s no way to reverse things and get a different one.
It’s fine to have inquiries about using promotions at an online casino if you’re new. I’m aware of this, so I’ve curated the popular questions about Real Prize Casino bonuses. Check them out below, along with straightforward answers:
The welcome bonus for Real Prize Casino is 625,000 GC and 125 SC. You get it for free after signing up, without any Real Prize Casino promo codes or an initial purchase.
Yes, Real Prize may be a new social casino that only launched in 2024, but all its bonuses are legit. You can claim many without needing to make any initial purchases since the site follows sweepstakes rules.
You don’t need free spins to play games at Real Prize Casino. That’s because the Gold Coins and Sweepstakes Coins on the platform do the same job. However, free spins promo codes may be available from time to time.
Yes, Real Prize Casino has 350+ slots and games, and you can play all of them with the welcome bonus you receive.
You’ll get the 100% match up bonus instantly once you complete your first purchase as a new Real Prize Casino player. The platform will release the purchased coins and the extra once payment is confirmed. However, note that making purchases is entirely optional.
Real Prize has other top-notch bonuses you’ll want to check out. The offers aren’t many, though, and there’s no VIP or loyalty program available yet. However, I perfectly understand it’s because the casino is still very new.
Give Real Prize some time, and it’ll surely roll out some of the Sweeps Cash no deposit promo code offers, among other promotions. That said, check out the existing exciting promotions I got while playing on the website:

To keep it real, I was really impressed by the welcome offer at Real Prize Casino. With 625,000 Gold Coins and 125 Sweeps Coins plus 1250 VIP Points up for grabs, there’s no debate about the quality of the bonus. It’s perfect if you want a free no deposit bonus for sweepstakes gaming.
Furthermore, Real Prize Casino has a 100% match promo for new players who make a first purchase. That means you’ll get double the GC for any package you go for. I also commend the high percentage of this offer but note that purchases are entirely optional.
With Real Prize Casino, you won’t face any challenges in claiming promotions. To get the welcome bonus, I simply signed up and verified my phone number. The free coins were added to my account immediately. I didn’t need to enter any Real Prize Casino bonus code.
For the first purchase promo, the experience was similar. I got the coins instantly after making the payment. This was my choice, though, as no purchase is necessary to play at the sweepstakes casino.
Talking about playing, I used the bonus coins to spin several slot reels. I enjoyed Big Bass Splash since I’m a big fan of Pragmatic Play. However, my best experience was with Raging Zeus, as I managed to score more GCs during the free spins round.
Real Prize Casino requires a minimum of 45 SC for gift card redemption and 100 for cash. So, my welcome bonus Sweepstakes Coins was not enough. I had to get more from additional promotions. It took some time, but I eventually met the threshold.
The good thing is that the social casino only has a 1x playthrough. So, by simply playing with my SC once, I could submit a redemption request. For the gift card, I got my prize in a little over a day, which is quite convenient. However, the cash prize took more than three days.
Considering how straightforward Real Prize Casino is, it shouldn’t be any surprise that there are no major pitfalls to worry about. I can only advise you to enter a phone number you own and not that of someone else. If you’re going to consider the first purchase bonus, also ensure the payment method is in your name.
Likewise, when it’s time to redeem — cash specifically — only provide bank details for your account. If you submit that of anyone else, Real Prize Casino will decline the request.
Whether you have a Real Prize Casino promo code or not, you can enjoy a top-notch bonus on the site. I highly rate the 625,000 Gold Coins + 125 SC Free + 1250 VIP Points available on sign up for two reasons. First, the bonus quantity is worthwhile, and second, it’s super easy to claim. So, if you’re considering using the sweepstakes casino, I can only say go ahead. Get the bonus and enjoy your favorite games and 350+ slots.
From my point of view, Real Prize Casino has performed really impressively for a new platform. Its promotions are hefty, with 625,000 GC and 125 SC available for free after registration. With the daily bonus and wheel, you can land more coins on a regular basis. Plus, the opportunity to receive special Real Prize Casino promo codes from social media makes things even more interesting. As such, Real Prize gets a thumbs-up from me. I recommend it for any US social casino player looking for top-rated bonuses.
At the moment, Real Prize Casino doesn’t have an installable application. However, you won’t need one, as you can claim all bonuses via the mobile site on your smartphone.
You can claim your Real Prize welcome bonus by simply registering an account and verifying your phone number. This will all take no more than a minute.
Real Prize Casino bonus codes work like any other promo code. If you have one, simply visit the website, enter the code in the provided space, and redeem. You’ll receive the bonus attached to it.
Yes, Real Prize Casino has good bonuses. These include the welcome bonus of 625,000 GC and 125 SC and the daily bonus of 10,000 GC and 0.3 SC. You won’t need any Real Prize Casino promo code to claim them.

source

The Delaware Lottery offers several draw games for those aiming to win big. Here’s a look at Sunday, Dec. 22, 2024 results for each game:
Day: 6-4-9
Night: 6-6-9
Check Play 3 payouts and previous drawings here.
Day: 5-3-2-0
Night: 2-7-6-6
Check Play 4 payouts and previous drawings here.
05-09-12-14-25-27
Check Multi-Win Lotto payouts and previous drawings here.
04-07-37-43-47, Lucky Ball: 08
Check Lucky For Life payouts and previous drawings here.
Day: 0-1-9-5-6
Night: 7-6-7-5-7
Check Play 5 payouts and previous drawings here.
Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results
Check previous winning numbers and payouts at Delaware Lottery.
Fortunately for First State residents, the Delaware Lottery allows winners remain anonymous. Unlike many other states that require a prize be over a certain jackpot, Delawareans can remain anonymous no matter how much, or how little, they win.
Tickets are valid for up to one year past the drawing date for drawing game prizes or within one year of the announced end of sales for Instant Games, according to delottery.com.
Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.
This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Delaware Online digital operations manager. You can send feedback using this form.

source