Connect with us

Politics

Climate Change or Chains? AG Sunday Politics

Published

on

Climate Change or Climate Chains?

chains
Blog Action Day was October 15, I am sure many people participated in posting. In fact over 13,331 posts were written. I did not.

Al Gore said Global Warming is the biggest economic disaster to face our nation in this generation. Is it?  If he believes that why does he stand to gain the most economically?

Eco Fads feed on our fears:
1)    Acid rain
2)    Ozone layers
3)    Polar Bears
4)    The Ice Age
5)    Global Warming
6)    You are an environmentalist is you carry bottle water, now you are one if you don’t carry one.
7)    In the 70’s World Population was a concern

The solutions proposed to “fix it”, will force huge international government control over our lives to control our environment.

The Media

The media has warned about impending climate doom since 1912. Only they can’t decide if mankind will die from warming or cooling.

In the last 15 years there has not been global warming, but an actual global cooling so the name has now been changed to Global Climate Control.

The United States has spent over 4 Billion dollars in Research for Climate Change.  Reported in Discover in 1998, scientist and environmentalist Stephen Schneider explained,

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Stand Up

Lord Christopher Monckton, former Policy Director for Margaret Thatcher…

…spoke on October 14th at Bethel College in St. Paul, MN in which he issued a dire warning regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty.

This treaty which is scheduled to be signed by our President will do 3 horrific things:

1) A world government will be created.
2) Transfer of wealth to 3rd world countries called Climate Debt
3) Enforcement of the treaty

Freedom or Tyranny

America has always been a light standing on a hill, a beacon shinning Freedom throughout the world.  Science is facts, not assumptions. The more dire the threat the more people are willing to give up their freedoms.

Bottom line there is no consensus that we have influenced the earths temperature.  It is a theory, a theory that has changed over the last 100 years.  Yet based on this theory, laws are about to passed that will take away our individual liberties both in  our homes and our workplaces.

So this is why I don’t believe or support global warming… cooling… or climate chains. It is ideology not science.

Written by Missy Caulk, Associate Broker at Keller Williams Ann Arbor. Missy is the author of Ann Arbor Real Estate Talk and Blog Ann Arbor, and is also the Director for the Ann Arbor Area Board of Realtors and Member of MLS and Grievance Committee's.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
30 Comments

30 Comments

  1. Joe Loomer

    October 18, 2009 at 10:56 am

    …. Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize – and beat out a Polish nurse who saved over 2,500 Jewish children from the Warsaw Ghetto. Preposterous.

    Navy Chief, Navy Pride

    • Thomas Johnson

      October 18, 2009 at 11:30 am

      Not to mention the award to Arafat, a terrorist.

  2. Stephanie Edwards-Musa

    October 18, 2009 at 11:11 am

    In the name of Climate Change people are against any kind of positive change that is common sense. Should we put Billions of dollars in to it? Probably not.

    But for the simple fact that some do not believe in Climate Change they do not want accept better options. That does not make sense either. The subject has been blown way out of proportion to the point that most people are on one end of the spectrum or the other. No where in between, close minded and can not even discuss a topic without bringing climate change in to the picture. For example methane gases from landfills. More people would rather argue that it doesn’t matter than to realize that trash does us absolutely no good in a huge pile.

    With politics and climate change taken completely out of the picture and look past the controversy rarely do people argue about it. I think its ridiculous that politics had made this such an awful topic.

  3. Thomas Johnson

    October 18, 2009 at 11:29 am

    Climate change is merely a leftist subterfuge to take from the productive capitalist societies and transfer to the developing societies, most of which are lead by oppressive dictators. Idia is the notable exception. The advanced societies have done the heavy technological lifting and now the runners-up seek to confiscate our wealth under the banner of climate change. If climate change were really the threat to us all that is portrayed, the developed nations would have forced the big polluters such as China and India to comply with our emissions standards. If the world is in such desperate peril from carbon emissions, we should force compliance at all costs to include the military option – if our situation is as desperate as Al Gore (10,000 sqft homestead carbon footprint) says. If you are in a boat and someone is putting holes in it, you stop them at all costs, right?

  4. Stephanie Edwards-Musa

    October 18, 2009 at 11:44 am

    So you suggest not only adding to our environmental/economic debt the strict control of emissions but to pay to FORCE them to respond? Sounds kind of like the recent Iraq/Afghanistan war, Socialism/Communism/Distatorship in the name of climate change.

    Something tells me that wouldn’t go over very well.

    You see Thomas, as the United States of America we have the opportunity to lead by example. But that won’t happen because as you mention why should we care because it isn’t real.

    It goes so much further than Climate Change. We have appx. 100 years of coal left to supply the world for power. With the 3rd world countries aspiring to have the ‘American’ lifestyle we can probably reduce that to 70 as their coal usage is rising so dramatically.

    So how about we put the money to EDUCATE people for other careers such as trash to biofuel, or solar installation. Maybe even how to work at a hydro power plant.

    But then again, it doesn’t matter as you mention right? Who cares. It’s ONLY climate change. Forget every single other factor and is affected by the topic because in the name of emissions we shouldn’t care.

  5. Eric Hempler

    October 18, 2009 at 11:47 am

    I’ve always questioned our influence. I look at this way…How much of the world is land, and how much of that land do we occupy and of the land we occupy how much of it has pollution contributors? Seems like a very small percentage…so how exactly are we affecting things?

  6. Greg Cooper

    October 18, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    As it’s been said repeatedly…..we have NO WAY of knowing that the cap and trade proposals will even fix what is supposedly wrong. So of course the sensible alternitive is to put millions of people out of work in the meantime. Yes…we all agree we should take care of the mother ship. No we should not destroy lives because of questionable science…even by members of O’Bama’s own admin.

  7. Stephanie Edwards-Musa

    October 18, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    Thomas, that’s exactly what I am talking about. The only thing you mention is Al Gore and Climate Change.

    Forget about everything else directly affected by the topic. Like the fact that we only have about 100 years of coal left to support the world and with 3rd world countries aspiring to have the American lifestyle we can significantly reduce that number.

    Instead of Americans realizing that we can lead by example and putting the money to EDUCATE people on other related careers and talk about Al Gore’s huge house or the peace prize.

    No, the better idea is to go to war and FORCE people to believe a certain way? Seriously.

  8. Missy Caulk

    October 18, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    Stephanie, thanks for commenting…I knew you would. You have always been a great example to me in publishing green posts. I have learned a lot. What is medium ground? I downsized my car, bought the right light bulbs (even though I hate them), get appliances that are Energy efficient and recycle.
    But, I do it because to me it is the right thing to do, not because I have to.
    The theory of whatever is the current issue….is just that a theory…and definately not a reason to sign a treaty or tax the heck out of us. You mentioned Al Gores big house which as you know uses more electricity than hundreds a people use in a life time. (Sorry I don’t have the stat in front of me.) But, isn’t he the one pushing this..doesn’t he have the most to gain financially?

    I really don’t care about the Peace Prize, IMO very few given it have deserved it…maybe Mother Theresa.

  9. Stephanie Edwards-Musa

    October 18, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    Missy, Agreed. We should spend the money wisely for reasons that make sense. I would rather spend billions to send kids to college for free than to force other countries grow and react a certain way.

    While Al Gore gets the attention for all of this he needs to be taken out of the equation/argument completely. He can not ‘save the world’. In the end its about making common sense decisions that work for each individual person. My comments were not intended to bash your post but to agree with it for the most part. I do believe that climate change is affected by us for the most part, not that we are solely the cause, but otherwise…I agree with everything. It’s about the medium ground. And yes, peace prize is worthless. 🙂

  10. ines

    October 18, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    whether or not we believe in Global Warming, theory of Evolution or Obama as a good choice for the recipient of the noble peace prize, it is obvious that there needs to me some sort of modification in out consumption methods. I’m pro-green, but against all kids of extremist action. I think each individual person has the ability to make a difference in our environment, no matter how small the change is – same applies to helping cancer research causes, child trafficking issues and any WORLD ISSUE that depends on human’s participation. (but then again, I’m an ideologist)

  11. Barb dragotta

    October 18, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    When subbing for a local science teacher, I witnessed a simplified ‘Scientific process’ by way of: What do I know–What do I want to find–What steps do I need to use to complete the process. Found this to be a great few days in the classroom [especially as I am Art & English / Speech-Drama trained]–this was an experience of ‘actuals’ not ‘theories’. If this is demanded of our Students, how much more so should it be demanded of those who create, delineate, generate, and downright ‘force’ laws / Bills on all of us. George Carlin had a great shtick on this involving dinosaurs eons, & man’s-inflated opinion of self. We have always ‘re-cycled’ in our home & have also added the ‘twisted’ bulbs, corrected roof / window / door items–to lower our energy Bills [mainly]. If in the process these steps help others live a ‘better life’ then fine / I just do NOT believe. Perhaps, someone should notify ELF and like groups that burning tires, autos, New Home construction—Not such a Good idea in the PR Department. Glad you posted this, Missy; very interesting comments too. It is always refreshing to read that others ‘out there in the land of Professionals’ share like thoughts.

  12. Missy Caulk

    October 18, 2009 at 5:18 pm

    Ines, Absolutely agree, each of us INDIVIDUALLY can make a difference. That’s the point…not the government forcing new laws and taxes on us. We all have different groups that we are passionate about and can freely give our time, money and conservation too.

    Barb, excellent…we grow from each other. I’m always up for a good debate as long as it doesn’t turn personal. I know this is not a popular opinion but it is mine and glad you agree.
    Thanks for sharing.

  13. Bruce Lemieux

    October 18, 2009 at 6:21 pm

    I would agree with Ines that our consumptive lifestyle in this country is not sustainable. We are far to wasteful with our energy and natural resources to continue as we have. I’ll probably be labeled as a radical, berry-eating, guitar-strumming, left-wing liberal, but I do believe that it’s governments job to force a change. Missy – you expect too much out of your neighbors to make the same smart choices that you make.

    Look at the use of energy in our country. Putting global warming aside, our addiction to cheap oil has us mired in the middle east — the most dysfunctional part of our planet. A school in my area put out a flag for every one of our fallen servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. At first, you see a group of flags. Turn the corner and there’s more. Keep driving and there were more and more. At the end, there was a single sign indicating what each of the 5,100+ flags represent. When you see these flags you can appreciate how big this number is. In addition to the trillion dollars that we’ve spent/borrowed over there, this is a huge price that few of us appreciate. If it weren’t for our dependence on oil, we would not have been over there.

    Drive through Appalachia and see entire mountaintops leveled from coal mining so that metro DC (my area) has the power that it needs. This comes at a very high cost to the local people and environment just because we need more and more power.

    As a society, we make Herculean efforts to protect and increase our current energy sources. Yet when have we ever taken real steps to use energy in a smart way? We haven’t because we don’t want to endure the pain, inconvenience and cost that comes with making the change. I can only think of two times in my lifetime when the country was focused on conservation – during the 70s oil embargo and when gas recently hit $4/gal. Any other time it’s been “filler up”.

    So what do we do? I think that energy should be a lot more expensive as it is in Europe. It should be taxed to reflect its true cost. Make it more expensive and then we’ll all have a strong financial incentive to be less wasteful and to seek out more sustainable sources.

    To believe that our current habits don’t have a significant impact on our environment and climate is a bit far-fetched to me. Regardless, long before the East Coast gets swamped by rising tides, our country will be bankrupt if we don’t radically change our energy policy.

    I would rant more, but my vegan burger is getting cold, and my pet spotted owl can only go to sleep if I turn off the computer and put on some rain-forest inspired new age music.

  14. Missy Caulk

    October 18, 2009 at 10:47 pm

    Hi Bruce, interesting you should mention Appalachia as I did my Social Work internship there. The biggest destroyer there was Johnson War of Poverty, but that is another topic for another day.

    America must become Energy sufficient and efficient for many reasons and get our dependency off terriorist regimes. We need to unlock the Governments ban on off shore drilling and allow the states to move forward with drilling. We need to expand the use of hydrogen cars and let loose the entrepreneurs to innovate with clean energy, home grown solutions.

    Enjoy that vegan burger, never tried one myself.

  15. Dan Pangburn

    October 19, 2009 at 7:58 am

    Hydrogen is a dead end. It must be released from something else. It requires more energy to release it than you can get back when you use it. Eventually cars will be plug-in diesel hybrids and the electricity (all of the energy that humanity will need for millions of years) will come from nuclear fission breeder reactors.

  16. Ken Brand

    October 19, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    Real estate often gives me a headache. All the in’s and out’s.

    Global warming give me a migraine. Who and what to believe. I know this. We should conserve energy and avoid waste and personally polluting. I don’t think government is the answer, it’s us ALL doing our little part. You don’t have to be a tree hugger, what ever that is, but individually consider what we consume and what we waste.

    I’m more concerned that one day, China will wrap all 10 of it’s fingers around fossil fuels throat, then we’re in deep do-do. I’m in favor of incenting alternative fuel generation…pronto. Let the rest of the world have oil, we need dylithium crystals, or wind/wave and who knows what power.

    I forget who said it, “It’s better to remain silent than to open your mouth and prove you’re an idiot”, but, I think I should have listened to them before writing this comment.

  17. James Wheelock

    October 20, 2009 at 3:36 am

    I don’t see how anyone can argue whether or not the world is experiencing a change in climate. However, I do think it is fair to ask the question as to whether or not it is humans that are causing it. Now after all of the reading I have done I still cannot decide what side of the fence I am on when it comes to that question, but I don’t think that we need to answer it.

    I personally am very confused as to why we need to have a huge brandable catastrophe to make the decision that we all would be better off without pollution. This is the bigger question in my book. Why must we see our very near demise to care about air quality? If you look at the growing (as a percentage) respiratory health issues that are being seen in larger cities how can you not see a need to do something. We are beyond a doubt polluting our world at a rate beyond what the ecosystems can clean up. This is why we need to make advances in alternative energy sources.

  18. BawldGuy

    October 20, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    The arrogance of Man is peaking in our time. Control climate? What sorta colossal ego does that take to even contemplate longer than it takes to laugh at the endless punch lines available?

    Geez, only a century ’till we’re outa coal? Whatever will we do? (guy wringing hands in background) Gimme a break people. I like Stephanie’s idea — more clearly stated as taking the pseudo logic generated by the terminally stupid concept of PC, out of the equation.

    I wonder where nuclear technology will be in the next 20 years, much less 100? What if horses were thought to have been dying out at the turn of the 20th century? Would we have developed the cult of the horse, using PC crappola, or would we have developed the automobile and air travel?

    Take PC bullying out of the equation, and the world doesn’t need coal in the next 10-20 years ever again. Global warming has recently morphed into ‘Climate Change’ cuz the undeniable facts had begun to pull their collective pants down. When it comes to that subject, my favorite factoid is the two ‘scientists’ who had a best seller 30 years ago about the ‘coming ice age’ who’re now at the forefront of the ‘global warming crisis’.

    It’s all a crock.

  19. Missy Caulk

    October 20, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    Well Baldguy, why don’t you tell us how you really feel? Of course we can’t change the climate…only one Person I know can, and He sits in the heavens and laughs. Psalms 2:4.

  20. Missy Caulk

    October 20, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    Ken, I know how you feel, it is a bit overwhelming…AND your comment is great. Windmills are a great use of energy. Lots of testing on that going on in Michigan.

  21. Dan Pangburn

    October 21, 2009 at 5:52 am

    All of the global average temperatures for the entire 20th century and until the present are readily calculated with no consideration whatsoever of changes to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas. The method uses only the time-integral of sunspot count and 32-year long up trends and down trends that have an amplitude of 0.45 C and are probably related to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Data sources, a graph that overlays the measured and calculated temperatures from 1880 to 2008 and a detailed description of the method are in a new paper at https://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . The standard deviation of the difference between concurrent calculated and measured average global temperatures is 0.064 C. There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no human caused climate change) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide. Invoking Cap and Trade would be an egregious mistake that would have no effect on climate but would further cripple the economy.

  22. Missy Caulk

    October 21, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    Dan, thank you for the link and the graphs.

    The Waxman-Markey bill would kill jobs, increase fuel costs and be very expensive for American consumers. We would also be importing more foreign oil.
    Time to open up our own natural resources and not be foreign oil dependent.
    Add to that the International Offsets provision and it will be the largest transfer of wealth our country has seen.
    According to the EPA, over 1.4 Trillion sent overseas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

The House Judiciary antitrust investigation holds big techs’ feet to the fire

(POLITICS) CEOs of Alphabet, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon set to testify in House Judiciary Committee antitrust investigation hearing today.

Published

on

house investigation

The House Judiciary Committee is closing in on the end of a year-long investigation into tech giants Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon, to evaluate possible antitrust abuses. CEOs from all four companies were set to testify on Monday, July 27, 2020. The hearing has been pushed back to Wednesday, July 29, to allow members of Congress to pay respects to civil rights leader Representative John Lewis (D-GA) who died of pancreatic cancer on July 17.

Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and Sundar Pichai of Alphabet (Google’s parent company) have all agreed to testify. This will be Bezos’ first time in front of Congress, whereas all the others have testified before on different matters. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was invited to testify by Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), but is expected to not attend.

The Antitrust Subcommittee began the investigation in June 2019. Each business has been the subject of scrutiny for their roles in dominating their respective industries and playing an outsized role in market competition for smaller businesses. The Committee is interested in evaluating current antitrust laws and whether they apply to, or should be updated for, these mega corporations. They have already heard testimonies from smaller companies like Sonos and Tile about these companies’ alleged monopolistic practices.

The focus of the investigation for Apple is on the App Store, and whether it has implemented policies that are harmful for app developers. Google has a tight hold on the online advertising market. Amazon – which during a five-week period early in the pandemic saw an increase in value equivalent to the total value of Walmart, the world’s largest firm – has been criticized for its treatment of brands that sell on its e-commerce platform. Facebook is being investigated for its acquisition practices, cornering the social media market with purchases like Instagram.

Amazon is expected to face additional scrutiny for its treatment of warehouse workers during the pandemic. Facebook and YouTube (a subsidiary of Google) have been the subject of regular criticism about monitoring hate speech on their platforms, and their treatment of the workers responsible for doing so (Facebook in particular).

The hearing is set to occur virtually in order to adhere to social distancing guidelines. Watch the hearing live at 12:00 p.m. EST Wednesday, July 29 on the House Judiciary Committee’s YouTube channel. Please do note the hilarious irony of streaming a Congressional antitrust hearing on YouTube, which is owned by Google, which is owned by Alphabet, which is testifying at said hearing. God Bless America.

Continue Reading

Politics

Additional unemployment benefits outside of the CARES Act

(POLITICS) Unemployment is at an all time high in the United States and individuals need to be aware of reapplying for additional benefits.

Published

on

unemployment broke

June saw some additional jobs in the US and unemployment fell as of early July, but CNBC advised pausing on any celebration just yet, saying that “The employment crisis is still worse than any time since the Great Depression, the country’s worst economic downturn in its industrial history.”

The unemployment statistics in our country right now are really scary – especially for individuals and families that see a looming deadline of July 31 for the supplemental $600/week provided by the Federal Government through the CARES Act put in place in March. There are discussions on extending these benefits as many families have not been able to replace their incomes or find new employment opportunities, but it doesn’t seem like anything has been finalized there yet. Congress is in the middle of a variety of options:

  • Discontinue the additional $600/week but allow those on unemployment to continue to file and receive their state benefits (usually up to 26 weeks or possibly extended up to 39 weeks by The CARES act)
  • Send out additional stimulus checks (Congress is currently exploring a $X Trillion stimulus package)
  • Extend the additional funding (on top of the weekly amount allotted by state) but cut it from $600 to $200
  • It’s also been put on the table in the House of Representatives “The Heroes Act” to extend the additional $600/week until January 2021 ($3 trillion).

There are some additional benefits that are available (different than the funds by the CARES Act), but you may have to reapply for them. So, make sure to check your state’s unemployment pages and your filing status. Some states do not require you to reapply and you can continue on with extended benefits.

According to CNBC, “The additional aid expires after the end of the year. (This is a different program than the one paying an extra $600 a week through July 31.) For some reason, the [Department of Labor] has taken the position that people have to file for the additional PEUC benefits,” said Michele Evermore, a senior policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project.”

No doubt that this can cause additional stress and uncertainty especially when you have questions about your filing and are unable to get through to someone on the phone. With the way that the unemployment cycle is setup, technically July 25 is considered the last date for that cycle (and July 26 for New York), so be sure to check and see what the next steps are for you if you are currently filing.

Continue Reading

Politics

How will pausing the reopening of states impact the recovery of the economy?

(POLITICS) The resurgence of COVID-19 has left Americans with a lot of questions about our nation’s economic future. That ambiguity is seemingly a feature, not a bug.

Published

on

COVID-19 reopening economy

The rest of the world watched as the United States dramatically reopened “the economy” last month. Now, it seems we’ve changed our minds about that.

The White House has repeatedly said that it will be up to individual states to form their own pandemic response plans moving forward. But letting local governments devise their own solutions has produced large gaps in their preparedness, as well as profound confusion around the best practices for balancing the country’s public and economic health.

California, which represents the largest economy in the US and the fifth largest in the world, was one of the first states to put serious quarantine restrictions in place. The decision to relax those orders only came after anti-lockdown protestors demanded that Governor Gavin Newsom reopen the state’s beaches, businesses and churches. Newsom may now regret this capitulation as California just called for a second round of statewide lockdowns.

Other state legislators are slowly following their lead, as the threat is becoming very dire in some places. Florida, for instance, is now a global hotspot for COVID-19 and Miami is being called “the new Wuhan”. The state is also currently struggling against another wave of unemployment, partly because their economy is heavily dependent on summer tourism (which has persisted despite the spike in cases, but not nearly at pre-pandemic levels).

Florida, California and Texas are altogether responsible for 20 percent of all new COVID-19 cases globally.

Every state is fighting two battles here. Coronavirus relief efforts in the US are still seriously underfunded, and most health organizations here lack the resources to effectively test and treat their communities. But the problems that have emerged for workers and small business owners, like evictions and layoffs, have also been devastating in their own right.

In essence, the United States reopened in an effort to curb the nation’s financial freefall and ballooning unemployment. Economists predicted at the beginning of July that reopening would allow the US to avoid a recession, and all would go smoothly. These projections likely did not account for a spike in cases that would halt this economic rebound.

That’s not to say the circumstances here haven’t improved at all over the past months; currently there is no acute shortage of ventilators, and doctors have had some time to refine their strategies for treating the virus. Overall, the national unemployment rate is slightly declining, while working from home is going so well for companies like Twitter and Facebook that they will be permanently switching much of their staff to remote work.

By comparison, though, New Zealand took the pandemic much more seriously than the US did, and they are objectively in a better position now in all respects. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern cracked down hard and early, closing the country’s borders completely, and instituting rent freezes nationwide. As a result they have virtually eradicated COVID-19 within their borders. A report from S&P Global also expects New Zealand’s economy to recover quickly compared to the rest of the world.

While this tradeoff seems like a zero sum game – as if we have to pick either our health, or our wealth – it is not. In fact, we could very well end up with neither if our lawmakers don’t proceed with caution.

Continue Reading

Our Great Partners

The
American Genius
news neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list for news sent straight to your email inbox.

Emerging Stories

Get The American Genius
neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to get business and tech updates, breaking stories, and more!