Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Crazy investors are partying like it’s 1999. But I’d buy this FTSE 100 stock today! I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Image source: Getty Images Cliffdarcy has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. See all posts by Cliff D’Arcy I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. There’s been a lot of market madness going on recently. Euphoric day-traders have been piling into volatile and beaten-down stocks, hoping to make a quick buck. But serious investors should hunt out bargains in the FTSE 100.Everybody HertzOne of the most bizarre trades I’ve seen in 34 years as an investor is happening in America. Day-traders – fuelled by commission-free trading – have piled into the stock of car-rental firm Hertz.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…In the past two weeks, Hertz stock has been on a roller-coaster ride, plunging as low as $0.56 and soaring as high as $5.53. At the current price of $1.40, Hertz’s equity is worth just $200m. That’s a tiny valuation for a market leader in any field, especially for a household name that has been renting out cars since 1918.Why the boom, when Hertz is bust?There’s one problem with this trading frenzy: Hertz filed for bankruptcy protection in a US court on 22 May. This buys the company time to negotiate with its creditors and restructure nearly $19bn of debt.I suspect that Hertz’s stock volatility has been driven by frenzied day-traders and algorithmic trading. But one thing is clear: with Hertz bankrupt and its corporate bonds trading at large discounts to par values, the stock is worthless.In US corporate history, hundreds of major companies have gone bankrupt, later to emerge phoenix-like with reduced debt burdens. But when lenders and bondholders take haircuts or swap debt for equity, shareholders get completely wiped out. That’s kind of how bankruptcy works.This FTSE 100 firm should prosper post- pandemicAlthough Hertz was the #1 name in car rentals, this didn’t prevent it from going bust. When highly leveraged companies try and fail to raise fresh capital from shareholders, bondholders and lenders, then bankruptcy is often inevitable.Which brings me to the UK market. A number of FTSE 100 businesses hit equally hard by coronavirus have successfully raised capital from their shareholders. Take FTSE 100 firm Whitbread (LSE: WTB), owner of the hugely popular Premier Inn budget-hotel chain.Following the sale of its Costa coffee chain for £3.9bn in 2018, Whitbread became financially stronger than many rivals. Even so, when faced with a crisis, investment bankers tell clients to ‘go early and go big’ when raising capital.Whitbread did just that, raising £1bn to shore up its balance sheet (and buy distressed assets from weakened rivals). The firm also has access to £2.4bn of undrawn credit lines, giving it the financial firepower to survive and thrive after Covid-19.With Whitbread’s revenues down 99% during this crisis, we can’t value this FTSE 100 share using fundamentals such as earnings per share and dividend yield. However, when life returns to normal (or some form of post-Covid normality), resilient and well-managed companies will bounce back. FTSE 100 stalwart Whitbread will be there, ready to gain market share and take a bigger slice of consumer spending.As for Whitbread’s shares, they have ranged widely in 2019/20. Over the 12 months, they traded as high as 4,462p (on 16 December 2019). During the depths of the market crash, they plunged to just 1,551p on 19 March – a ‘once in a lifetime’ FTSE 100 buying opportunity?At Monday’s closing price of 2,354p, Whitbread shares languish at nearly half (53%) their 2020 high. That 47% discount is too high for a £4.8bn FTSE 100 survivor. I’d buy at this price. Cliff D’Arcy | Tuesday, 23rd June, 2020 | More on: WTB Enter Your Email Address “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this.
After the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in 2012, Harvard historian Caroline Light felt compelled to explore the roots of the American right to self-defense, which has helped turned the United States into a country with more guns than people.In her new book, “Stand Your Ground: A History of America’s Love Affair with Lethal Self-Defense,” Light traces the development of the notion of self-defense from English common law to contemporary stand-your-ground laws. The Gazette sat down with Light to talk about her book, the rise of armed citizenship, and the idea that the right to self-defense has traditionally been wielded by the most privileged against the most vulnerable. GAZETTE: In your book, you trace the history of the American right to self-defense to before the foundation of the United States. Where does this notion come from?LIGHT: I traced the legal theory and ideology of lethal self-defense back to English common law principles, which are foundational to what would eventually become the United States legal system. But self-defense had serious limitations in the English context. People in the United States forget that originally English common law doctrine held a “duty to retreat” that meant that you were obligated to retreat in the face of an attack. The one exception was enunciated in a 1604 court case involving an intrusion of agents of the king into a man’s private dwelling. These are the origins of the Castle Doctrine, which says that you do not have the duty to retreat when you’re in your home because “a man’s home is his castle.” This doctrine originated as an exemption to the duty to retreat, but in the United States it turned into a very expansive set of notions about who is allowed to fight back lethally against whom. The ideology of lethal self-defense is very selective in the U.S., even if we claim to be gender-blind and race-blind. When people in the U.S. said, “A man’s home is his castle,” what they actually meant was, “A white, property-owning man’s home is his castle,” and he’s allowed to fight back.GAZETTE: How did the notion of self-defense that emerged in the 17th century as a privilege for white men who owned property, as you argue, evolve over the centuries?LIGHT: When we look back into the roots of self-defense laws in the United States, we also see that they’re tethered to colonialism, legalized slavery, and the legal doctrine of coverture, which meant that married women couldn’t own any property because their rights were literally “covered” by their husbands. All of these different principles of exclusion were embedded in what would become the United States’ legal system. And as I traced them through time, even as laws started becoming more inclusive, self-defense laws were adjudicated chiefly to protect white men and their property. That took off in the post-Reconstruction era, late in the 19th century, when we see court cases in several states where white men are allowed to fight back lethally even when they aren’t in their home. We don’t see anything like that happening for African-Americans because in the wake of the Civil War, black codes and vagrancy laws, etc., restricted black freedom and access to full citizenship. And most black codes prohibited African-Americans from possessing weapons for self-defense. Similarly, women couldn’t defend themselves against violence from their husbands. I argue that lethal self-defense has been legalized for the most privileged even if, rhetorically, we celebrate self-defense as something universal to all citizens.GAZETTE: What is the turning point at which the “duty to retreat” from threat becomes what you call a “selective right to kill”?LIGHT: The pivotal moment coincides with the end of Reconstruction in the 1870s. There are two crucial court cases, one in Ohio and one in Indiana, in which the state courts decide not to obligate white men to retreat in the face of danger even if they’re outside their homes. This coincided with the moment the federal government withdrew federal forces from the South, which meant it withdrew protections for newly freed people. This was done in the interest of protecting white property, especially given the end of slavery. This legal shift accompanied an effort by whites to retain a claim to what had been their property, to maintain control over formerly enslaved people. The 13th Amendment carried a loophole by which white Southerners could continue enslaving African-Americans under the guise of incarceration for criminal behavior. For instance, vagrancy laws could be used to keep African-Americans in prison. All of these things are part of a larger constellation in which self-defense laws were mobilized selectively in the interest of white property.GAZETTE: How would you describe the legacy of this belief system in today’s American society?LIGHT: Lethal self-defense, in many ways, has become naturalized as a universal civil right. What that means is that many Americans see it as their right to carry a lethal weapon in the interest of self-defense. I tracked the transition from the late 20th-century focus on hunting to what we see today, which is an urgent accumulation of firearms for self-defense. On top of that, stand-your-ground laws have spread to over half the states, declaring that you can “stand your ground” against an attack wherever you may be, even outside your home. But as we’ve seen with cases like Trayvon Martin’s, these laws are not adjudicated in a way that entitles everybody to protect themselves from what they perceive to be a reasonable threat.GAZETTE: You said that the killing of Trayvon Martin inspired you to write this book. How so?LIGHT: That moment was crucial for many Americans. Trayvon’s death and his killer’s ability to walk free were an awakening to the prevalence of racial violence in our supposedly color-blind society. And even though many people would say that the Trayvon Martin case had nothing to do with stand-your-ground laws, it still resonates in terms of how the jury was instructed to consider George Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence. Stand-your-ground laws provide an exemption from criminal prosecution for people who use lethal self-defense in response to a reasonable threat, and that’s what the jury acted on. They believed that it was reasonable for Zimmerman to fear for his life when he saw an unarmed black teenager. I think that speaks volumes to the pernicious injustice of stand-your-ground laws.GAZETTE: In your book, you call stand-your-ground laws part of the “Do-It-Yourself Security Citizenship” movement. Could you tell us what this means?LIGHT: “Do-It-Yourself Security Citizenship” is the idea that an individual can and will be heroically prepared to fight in defense of himself and other innocent lives around him. It’s a seductive narrative for many people. And gun ownership, this notion that you must be prepared to kill or be killed, is at the center of “Do-It-Yourself Security Citizenship.” Whether you have a gun or not, the core idea is that no one is going to protect you, the government won’t protect you, and law enforcement won’t protect you. So as a good citizen, you need to take your safety and security into your own hands. The National Rifle Association [NRA] plays a powerful role in distributing and naturalizing this knowledge, making it seem like an emblem of patriotism to accumulate and carry weapons. Gun ownership is no longer about hunting or recreation; it’s about an urgent necessity to protect yourself from danger and to participate in armed citizenship, which the NRA characterizes as the ideal of American patriotism. Their message is that when you protect yourself, you make everybody safer. I’m not saying that it’s wrong to protect yourself, but I’m asking people to be more self-critical about the way in which “Do-It-Yourself Security Citizenship” is based on anxiety and fear about criminal strangers, including the perception of black masculinity as a threat in and of itself.GAZETTE: Would you say that the notion of the right to self-defense is part of the DNA of the country? If so, how do you think it will evolve?LIGHT: Yes, in a way, it’s in our DNA, but we have our own particular genetic mutations. As the duty to retreat and the Castle Doctrine were transported to what would become the United States, they changed due to the influence of our specific economy, our ideal of Manifest Destiny, the legacy of slavery, and also our willful amnesia around the ways in which the violence of slavery has not been left in the past at all. It is in many ways built into our DNA, but does that mean we can’t change it? I remain hopeful that we may become more critical about armed citizenship and its impact on public safety. It’s going to take all of us to rethink and question DIY Security Citizenship as the emblem of patriotism.
Bingham’s Restaurant has opened up more sections and added more tables for indoors and outdoors seating. Restaurants and bars are not able to sell alcohol after 10 p.m. and must continue to follow all COVID-19 guidelines. KINGSLEY, Pa. (WBNG) — Starting Monday, restaurants and bars can increase indoor capacity to 50 percent. Dave Scarpetta, owner of Bingham’s Restaurant, says he’s excited to be able to seat more customers inside. Scarpetta also mentioned the restaurant is shifting their focus on how to keep their customers seated outside warm with colder weather around the corner. Before expanding capacity, restaurants will have to complete a self-certification process ensuring they will be following all health safety guidelines. “I’m sure the whole staff is happy because they have the chance to seat more people, to accommodate more of our dedicated customers,” Scarpetta said.
Published on March 5, 2015 at 12:13 am Contact Jon: [email protected] | @jmettus As Kailah Kempney lines up at midfield, two of her teammates crowd the circle around her.They flash hand signals to one another and yell out different colors, signaling where each player is and what each one is going to do.Kempney listens to her teammates, analyzes the stick her opponent is using and where the referee has placed the ball. She adjusts her grip and decides where she’s going to try to place the ball.“It really comes down to right before the whistle and sometimes it’s too late to even change anything,” Kempney said.Kempney has been the sole person on the draw for Syracuse this year and her 9.83 draw controls per game rank third in the country. Maryland faceoff specialist Taylor Cummings, the reigning Tewaaraton Award winner, will test Kempney’s success when No. 5 Syracuse (5-1, 1-1 Atlantic Coast) takes on the No. 1 Terrapins (4-0) on Saturday at noon in a rematch of last year’s national championship game.AdvertisementThis is placeholder textLast year, the Orange fell to the Terrapins three times, including a 15-12 loss in the title game, as Maryland averaged 4.3 more draw controls per game than SU with Cummings primarily on the draw.“Win the draw, win the game — most of the time,” SU attack Devon Collins said. “Sometimes teams prove that wrong, but it’s very rare that a team comes up with less draw controls and still wins the game.”SU’s draw control group starts every practice the same way. Kempney, attacks Riley Donahue and Kayla Treanor and midfielder Erica Bodt arrive 15 minutes early to work with assistant coach Katie Rowan.They do “quicks,” a drill where they turn their wrists over quickly with a stick in their hands simulating a quick draw, for about two minutes. After that come high tosses to work on their verticals, then take draws against each other.In addition to the extra practice, she’s even used baseball resistance exercises to strengthen her wrists, Collins said.“It’s definitely one of the most important parts of the game,” Kempney said. “But everyone has their position and their job to fulfill.”Kempney’s go-to move is a self-draw because it’s a 50-50 battle. In a critical game situation, odds are she’ll try to win the draw herself, Kempney said.Otherwise, she’ll send it in the direction of one of her teammates, which can lead to a multi-player scramble for the ball.“I think the biggest thing is communication,” SU midfielder Kelly Cross said, “and … that one of us ends up with the ball, but it’s all working together to make that happen.”Against taller opponents like Cummings, it can be hard to get a self-draw that pops straight up in the air. She tries to swat it down for her teammates or box out her opponent, but it doesn’t always work.“She’s just so confident,” Kempney said. “She knows she’s going to win it. Not having the greatest games against her the last couple years definitely ruins my confidence.”After the national championship game, Kempney went home and practiced draws, primarily self-draws, with her younger sister Braelie, who takes draws in high school. All the while, she had the final game in the back of her mind.Coming into the season, Kempney made one of her biggest goals clear: beat Maryland. But she’ll have to start with beating Cummings, or whomever Maryland puts in the circle, on the draw.“It’s definitely going to come down to draw controls,” Kempney said. “I think that’ll determine where the game will go.” Comments Facebook Twitter Google+