Datasets:
Recag
/
C4_41

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
text
stringlengths
12
102k
Among the firms are Stanley Black & Decker, Colgate-Palmolive and Campbell Soup.
Companies with high levels of short-term debt have been getting hit especially hard during the recent stock market sell-off and thus could present great buying opportunities later, according to Goldman Sachs strategists.
Overnight borrowing rates have been surging lately, hitting the highest level since 2009, or just as the financial crisis-era bear market was hitting its low point. The three-month overnight borrowing cost, known as the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, has risen to about 2.3 percent.
As short-term rates have risen, companies with floating-rate bond debt amounting to more than 5 percent of total debt have underperformed the S&P 500 by 3.2 percentage points.
Investors should keep an eye on these companies, Goldman advised. The rise in the Libor rate should subside, just as it did during a surge in 2016, providing an opportunity, the firm said.
"These stocks should struggle if borrowing costs continue to climb, but may present a tactical value opportunity for investors who expect a reversion in spreads," strategist Ben Snider said in note to clients.
Among the companies most affected by the rise in rates: Stanley Black & Decker, which has 27 percent of floating rate debt as compared with total debt; Vulcan Materials (26 percent), Campbell Soup (23 percent), Colgate-Palmolive (21 percent), Martin Marietta (20 percent) and Textron (17 percent).
More broadly speaking, Snider pointed out that small-cap stocks in general tend to carry more floating rate debt, making the sector an attractive bet for a rebound.
However, over the long haul Goldman still recommends investors focus on companies with strong balance sheets and lower levels of debt. The Federal Reserve has indicated it will continue to raise its benchmark interest rate over the next couple of years, pressuring companies that have relied on low debt costs to finance operations.
"Apart from the dislocation in short-term rates, the macro landscape is growing increasingly unfavorable for highly levered companies," Snider wrote. "As the cycle matures, borrow costs should continue to rise and earnings power should soften, exacerbating leverage ratios and weakening both interest coverage and the ability to issue new debt."
Goldman also recommends bond investors focus on companies with investment-grade credit rather than high-yield, or junk.
The party has arrived — for $130 off its original price.
A rugged, waterproof Bluetooth speaker is basically a summer requirement. Oh, your speaker can't be dunked in the pool and still work afterward? That is so 2017.
Okay, we'll admit that it's hard to find one that's not a total piece of junk and still affordable — but we tracked one down, and found it on sale for lower than its Black Friday price. Meet the Ultimate Ears Megaboom: Regularly $249.99 you can snag it for $119.99 today. What.
Whether you're in a close-quarters backyard or need to fill a giant warehouse with tunes, the Megaboom and its 360-degree speakers have got every freakin' inch of the party covered. Enjoy 100 foot wireless range, recharge via USB, and get a whopping 20-hour battery life. Plus, with the "Party Up" feature, you and friends can connect over 50 Ultimate Ears speakers simultaneously for sound that will literally shake the ground. Note: Grumpy elderly neighbors will not be thrilled.
As for the whole waterproof thing — yes, it really works.
If you're not convinced at this point, we don't know what to tell you. Maybe you just hate fun. Get the blue one for $130 off at just $119.99 here.
SWANSEA are preparing to fight off interest from Anzhi Makhachkala in Spanish striker Michu.
With the transfer window in Russia not closing until this evening, reports suggested that Anzhi could be set to make a move for the 27-year-old.
Anzhi currently sit at the foot of the Russian Premier League, and while Suleyman Kerimov famously changed his philosophy and sold off many of his big name stars earlier this season, it is thought that the billionaire hoped Michu could revive the clubs fortunes somewhat.
Indeed it was thought that Anzhi would approach Swansea with a £6m offer as the transfer window drew to a close.
However, Garry Monk insists Swansea are not even contemplating letting the player leave the Liberty Stadium.
He said: "Michu is the type of player who will attract interest and he is a good player, but he needs to get himself fit and that's got to be his first priority.
"We're not a selling club."
We're not a selling club.
Michu is yet to make a long-awaited return from ankle surgery earlier in the season.
The former Rayo Vallecano player was expected to play last week, but struggled in training.
At the time Monk said: "It's not been quick and it's disappointing for him because he's so close.
"It's not because he's breaking down and physically he's at a good level and the injury has healed, it's just that last little bit of pain.
"He doesn't need more surgery. He's at a good level (of fitness), it's not about going back to the start."
And it now seems almost certain that Michu's return will come for Swansea, and not in Russia, despite Anzhi's wishes to the contrary.
Barack Obama talks a great progressive game. But his record so far shows he has a proven ability to mix charisma with deference to the establishment.
Obama was calling because he was bothered that I had written a few blog posts questioning positions he’d taken that appeared to belie his progressive image, most prominently his vote for a corporate-written “reform” of class-action lawsuits, his refusal to frontally challenge the Iraq War after running as an antiwar candidate and his vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. One by one, Obama methodically answered each criticism. And when the call ended with his telling me he was committed to working with progressives, I was perplexed. Obama certainly talks a great game–but then, so have many false prophets over the years. I requested a formal interview, and to my surprise, Obama readily agreed. By the end of a day in Washington with him, I had the answers to two key questions: What can progressives expect from Barack Obama, and what does he really aspire to be?
I first met the Illinois senator in his Capitol Hill office, where he introduced me to his staff, all of whom seemed totally at ease with him. Unlike in many Congressional offices, there was no overuse of the words “senator” or “yes, sir.” In separate conversations I had with many staffers, he was referred to as just “Barack.” I was given a packet documenting Obama’s accomplishments since his 2004 election, and it was hard not to be simultaneously impressed and underwhelmed. Given that he’s one of the most junior members of the Senate, his successful efforts to secure additional funding for veterans’ medical care and energy development in Illinois are no small feats. But considering that he’s one of the most famous politicians in America, the accomplishments are fairly mundane.
In a speech later that day, this theme came out again as he told the audience, “Remember, I’ve got a lot of clout–I went from 99th to 98th in seniority this year.” His sarcastic point has some merit–but only some. After all, legislation is just one measure of success. Another is how big an impact a politician has on the public debate. Most members of Congress have to scratch and claw to get attention even on pressing issues. Obama, by contrast, can put whatever’s on his mind on the front page of major newspapers. Does he want a public image as a low-key legislative technocrat with a nice packet of accomplishments? Or does he want to be someone who uses the Senate platform to move the national political debate?
Obama carefully answered the question about how he wants to define himself: “The amount of publicity I have received…means that I’ve got to be more sensitive in some ways to not step on my colleagues.” For those who see him as a bold challenger of the system, this may be disappointing. After all, it oozes deference to the Senate clubbiness that has killed many a populist cause. And Obama has defended that club from outside pressure not only in his rhetoric but in his actions. For instance, last year he posted a long article on the blog Daily Kos criticizing attacks against lawmakers who voted for right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts–even though Obama himself voted against Roberts. And in January Obama publicly criticized a fledgling effort to filibuster nominee Samuel Alito. Obama actually voted for the filibuster, but his statements helped take the steam out of that effort.
True, Obama did show a rare flash of defiance when he unsuccessfully pushed legislation this year to create an Office of Public Integrity, which would have enforced anti-corruption laws. But that kind of power-challenging move, which was met with strong resistance from both parties, was an exception. At the same time that he was ruffling feathers with that bill, he was one of the many Democratic senators who fled from Russell Feingold’s motion to censure Bush over the White House’s refusal to seek court orders for domestic wiretapping. Though polls showed that roughly half of Americans supported censure, it was shunned by the Senate club as too confrontational, and Obama seemed to agree.
That’s the key word in trying to figure out Obama: He seems like everything to everybody, which is not necessarily his fault. Much of the media coverage of Obama has been personality focused, as the story of the son of a Kenyan and a Kansan, the third African-American senator since Reconstruction. Because the media have not looked as closely at his political positions, Obama has taken on the quality of a blank screen on which people can project whatever they like. But he hasn’t discouraged this. A masterful politician, Obama has a Bill Clinton-esque talent for maximizing that screen and appearing comfortable in almost any setting. And, like Clinton, Obama has an impressive control of the issues and a mesmerizing ability to connect with people.
By almost all measures, Obama has been a solid liberal, both in his early career as a community organizer and then as a local politician. In the Illinois State Senate he supported increased funding for healthcare and education and wrote bills to publicly finance judicial campaigns and create a state earned-income tax credit. His charisma, intellect and ability to build bipartisan coalitions were evident early in his career, fueling progressives’ high hopes for him. In the US Senate, for the most part he has stuck with his party on key votes when so-called moderates didn’t. For example, Obama voted against the corporate-written Central American Free Trade Agreement. And he was particularly outspoken after Hurricane Katrina, leading the charge among lawmakers demanding answers about the government’s failure to protect New Orleans.
But while Obama has a solid liberal record, many believe there is a difference between a liberal and a true progressive. For example, his signature legislation today is his “healthcare for hybrids” proposal, which would give away hundreds of millions to auto companies to relieve them of some of the costs of paying for retirees’ healthcare. In exchange, the companies would produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. The goals are unassailable, but the policy reflects the liberal carrot of appeasing a powerful industry rather than the progressive stick of forcing that industry to shape up by simply mandating higher fuel-efficiency standards.
The occasions when Obama has broken with his party indicate similar inclinations. Just one month into his term, the former civil rights lawyer defied the Democrats and voted for the class-action “reform” bill. Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop “frivolous” lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill’s real objective was to protect corporate abusers. A few weeks later, though he voted against the credit-card-industry-written bankruptcy bill, Obama also voted against an amendment that would have capped credit-card interest rates at a whopping 30 percent (he defends his vote by claiming the amendment was poorly written).
Then there is the Iraq War. Obama says that during his 2004 election campaign he “loudly and vigorously” opposed the war. As The New Yorker noted, “many had been drawn initially by Obama’s early opposition to the invasion.” But “when his speech at the antiwar rally in 2002 was quietly removed from his campaign Web site,” the magazine reported, “activists found that to be an ominous sign”–one that foreshadowed Obama’s first months in the Senate. Indeed, through much of 2005, Obama said little about Iraq, displaying a noticeable deference to Washington’s bipartisan foreign policy elite, which had pushed the war. One of Obama’s first votes as a senator was to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her integral role in pushing the now-debunked propaganda about Iraq’s WMD.
At the end of a long day, we sat down in Obama’s Capitol Hill office. It was time to talk specifics, so I asked him to explain his “healthcare for hybrids” auto-industry proposal. Why not simply push to strengthen fuel-efficiency mandates?
Shifting back to how he sees himself in the Senate, Obama seemed to amend his previous statement about what kind of leadership progressives can expect from him. “I am agnostic in terms of the models that solve these problems,” he said. “If the only way to solve a problem is structural, institutional change, then I will be for structural, institutional change. If I think we can achieve those same goals within the existing institutions, then I am going to try to do that, because I think it’s going to be easier to do and less disruptive and less costly and less painful…. I think everybody in this country should have basic healthcare. And what I’m trying to figure out is how to get from here to there.” He went on to tell me about his support for other structural changes such as public financing of elections, forcing broadcasters to offer free airtime for candidates, adding strong labor protections to trade pacts and major efforts to create a more just tax system.
Obama is telling the truth–he’s not opposed to structural changes at all. However, he appears to be interested in fighting only for those changes that fit within the existing boundaries of what’s considered mainstream in Washington, instead of using his platform to redefine those boundaries. This posture comes even as polls consistently show that Washington’s definition of mainstream is divorced from the rest of the country’s (for example, politicians’ refusal to debate the war even as polls show that Americans want the troops home).
Obama’s deference to these boundaries was hammered home to me when our discussion touched on the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Obama said the progressive champion was “magnificent.” He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a “gadfly,” in a tone laced with contempt for the senator who, for instance, almost single-handedly prevented passage of the bankruptcy bill for years over the objections of both parties. This clarified Obama’s support for the Hamilton Project, an organization formed by Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to fight back against growing populist outrage within the party. And I understood why Beltway publications and think tanks have heaped praise on Obama and want him to run for President. It’s because he has shown a rare ability to mix charisma and deference to the establishment.
I continued my efforts to increase access and lower the cost of quality health care by cosponsoring a bipartisan bill to repeal the burdensome Health Insurance Tax created by the Affordable Care Act.
Access to quality health care is vital to the health and wellness of South and West Texans. This burdensome tax hurts individuals, seniors, families and employers. I’m glad to help repeal the Health Insurance Tax and will continue to find ways to lower the costs of quality healthcare for my constituents.
“The Texas Retailers Association is very supportive this legislation. The Health Insurance Tax (HIT) disproportionately affects small retailers, which can least afford it. We support legislation to permanently repeal the HIT and also the two-year delay,” said George Kelemen, President and CEO, Texas Retailers Association.
“Quality, affordable healthcare is critically important to the restaurant and hospitality industry, our employees, and the communities we serve. Imposing a tax on healthcare premiums creates a disincentive for those who currently enrolled in healthcare plans that will be subject to the tax. On behalf of the restaurant and hospitality industry, we appreciate the leadership of Congressman Marchant, Congressman Hurd, and Senator Cruz to advance this bipartisan issue and we fully support this legislation,” said Richie Jackson, CEO, Texas Restaurant Association.
The multi-billion dollar annual tax on health insurance was suspended by Congress in 2019 but is scheduled to be reinstated by 2020. This onerous tax adds an increase in premium costs ranging from $150 to nearly $500, and over 20 percent of this falls on Medicare Advantage and Part D plans that are vital for our seniors. Additionally, this tax could cost Texas over 14,000 jobs by 2023, resulting in a decline in our state’s GDP by up to $2.5 billion over a decade.
A mock Israeli checkpoint set up during a past “Israeli Apartheid Week” at the University of California, Los Angeles campus. Photo: AMCHA Initiative.
About six months after Andrew Pessin posted — on his Facebook profile — a defense of Israel during its 2014 war against Hamas, the once popular Connecticut College philosophy professor was subjected to an academic smear campaign.
The school paper published articles defaming him. The administration hosted condemnations of Pessin from across the campus community on the school’s website, and tolerated other antisemitic activities that only worsened the climate for Jews and Israel supporters. Pessin received death threats, and, in the spring of 2015, took a medical leave of absence. The Connecticut College administration offered no meaningful protection or support to Pessin, and never issued any apology for its role in his abuse.
The Pessin affair was part of a growing trend of anti-Israel hostility on US campuses, but at least his story has a somewhat happy ending. Pessin resumed teaching last Fall after an extended paid sabbatical, and — together with a colleague — convinced the school to establish a Jewish Studies program.
Moreover, he has edited a new book with Fordham University’s Doron Ben-Atar on the general campus trend: Anti-Zionism on Campus: The University, Free Speech, and BDS.
Ben-Atar, who is part of Fordham’s American Studies program, protested at a faculty meeting about the 2013 passing of a resolution calling for a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) effort targeting Israel, only to find himself soon being investigated for unspecified charges, resulting in a Kafkaesque campaign of intimidation and vilification. This new volume of essays, by faculty and students who have confronted anti-Israelism on their campuses, documents and analyzes how this movement masks an underlying antisemitism that creates a hostile environment for Jews while undermining free speech and civility.
Q: Your book catalogues the many underhanded tactics used to promote the anti-Israel agenda on college campuses, which should help Israel advocates prepare for what awaits them. Did your personal ordeal inspire you to create a potential resource for campus Israel advocates? Or did you have the idea for such a book even before what happened to you?
Pessin: I had been observing the general campus scene for some time, but passively; like many professors, I preferred to spend my time teaching and doing my research, rather than get involved in the mess. And so, when I read about Doron’s affair at Fordham, being persecuted for standing up for Israel, I simply thought, “That’s terrible,” then clicked on the next story. It was only six months later, when I began to receive hundreds of emails of support from around the world, that I realized how important it is to hear from people off campus. So I wrote to him, belatedly, to offer my support — and he wrote back immediately to suggest we collect narratives from faculty members who have been on the receiving end of anti-Israel nastiness on their campuses. Though the book evolved from there — we include several more analytical essays, as well as some narratives from students — that’s how it was born.
Q: What would you say is the principal message of the book?
Q: What factors did you consider when selecting the different contributors for this collection of essays?
Pessin: When we put out the original “calls for papers” we were shocked at the response. Within weeks we had some thirty faculty members who wanted to share their stories, of being targeted for standing up for Israel, or even for just not hating Israel. The problem is that pervasive. Most of these stories happen entirely under the radar, either on smaller campuses or in such a way that the media doesn’t pick them. We tried to select the most compelling stories, the most representative stories, the ones that could teach people something. There were several we wanted to include but could not because legal procedures were in place that precluded their contributing. There was one who opted out because he didn’t want to relive what was a devastating personal experience.
Q: What types of campus activity and speech, if any, should be suppressed (regardless of which side benefits), and under what principles? What, for example, is your view on the lawsuit against Fordham for refusing to allow a chapter of SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] to form?
Pessin: That’s a good question. We all believe in free speech. We all are opposed to hate speech. But does opposition to hate speech mean you may censor or restrict or punish hate speech? What about speech that consists of slander and defamation and demonization? The traditional norms of the academy suggest we should err on the side of the freedom, to hear all sides, even the evil sides. So nothing should be “suppressed,” not even the most hateful, slanderous speech.
But of course it should be answered. Lies should be countered, motives should be exposed, and while the simple label “antisemitic” can be abused (as can labels such as “racist” or “Islamophobic”), you shouldn’t hesitate to explain and defend exactly how and why you take some particular speech or action to be antisemitic. As for Fordham, while I deeply respect the courage of that decision, I’m not sure in the end it was the right decision. Perhaps they should let the group form, but then closely observe its activities (as they observe all student groups) to be sure it operates within appropriate academic and community norms.
Q: Some anti-Israel activists argue that they are widely suppressed on campuses, and routinely maligned in the press and by organized Jewish and pro-Israel groups. What would you say in response?
Pessin: They do like to claim there is a “Palestine exception” [depriving Palestinian advocates of their free speech on campus]. And in the past few years Jewish and pro-Israel groups, both on and off campus, have gotten more vocal as they begin to take the anti-Israel movement more seriously as a genuine threat to Jewish students and to the academy in general. Indeed, we hope our book, by documenting the problem, will help inform and thus contribute to that response. The problem is that anti-Israel activists take nearly every criticism, every objection, every argument against them to be “censorship” and “suppression,” rather than recognize these as academically appropriate responses to them. What they essentially want is unlimited freedom of speech to slander and defame Israel and pro-Israel faculty and students, while rejecting the freedom of speech of others to respond to them.
Q: Your sobering introduction highlights how the campus “debate” has become so extreme as to shut down any meaningful discussion in favor of assertions that, “Israel and Zionism are…illegitimate, incorrigible abominations” as you describe it. How should pro-Israel activists counter this strategy when those espousing it have no interest in reasonable or balanced discussion?
Pessin: You’ve put your finger on a central point. The anti-Israel attack on the academy as a whole is reflected most clearly in (a) the personal attacks on pro-Israel individuals documented in the book and (b) the utter rejection of the pro-Israel voice via campus disruptions, the relentless calls to boycott, and the rejection of “normalization” (i.e. refusal to have any dialogue with pro-Israel voices). They couldn’t be more explicit in their aims: the Israeli perspective, including the intimate connection between the Jewish perspective in general and the Israeli perspective, is simply not to be permitted on campus. They object to the “Palestine exception” while explicitly and actively advocating for and executing the “Israel exception” to free speech. The best response, I think, is to repeatedly and vocally point this out, and thus promote and defend our book’s principal message: that whatever you may think about the conflict over there, the anti-Israel movement over here is profoundly antithetical to the academic and moral norms of the campus environment.
Q: Because on nearly every campus Jews and Israel supporters are severely outnumbered, their disadvantaged position arguably mirrors that of Israel’s in global forums. Yet Israel — thanks to its technology, security intelligence, and many other assets — has managed to reduce the impact of international boycotts, lopsided UN votes, and other fora where attempts to punish or isolate Israel used to succeed far more. Is there any similar set of assets that Jews and Israel supporters on campus can leverage to start turning the tide in their favor?
Pessin: That’s a great way of putting the question. It highlights what is simultaneously both an asset and a liability on campus: the many smart, talented, Jewish faculty and students on many campuses. The significant majority are generally supportive of Israel, but for many reasons they tend not to be vocal on campus, while the small minority who are Israel-haters tend to be very vocal. What’s necessary is to give that majority the courage to stand up, speak up, and be heard — and denounce the anti-academic antisemitism that largely characterizes the anti-Israel movement. We hope our book will help in that regard, by letting potential advocates know they are not alone.
Anti-Zionism on Campus comes out on April 1.
Nearly sixty asylum seekers detained at the Campsfield House detention centre, in Oxfordshire, went on hunger strike last week in protest at the brutal treatment they have suffered and their looming deportations.
The strike was initiated by 13 Kurdish asylum seekers and was then joined by others at the site. Many are being threatened with deportation to Iraq.
There has been an ongoing campaign to close Campsfield as people are treated and kept in conditions like animals.
Reports were published last month detailing the mistreatment of detainees including alleged physical and verbal abuse.
In June this year two Palestinians and one Afghan man escaped.
The police have described them as “low risk” which begs the question – why were these people being held in the first place?
The detainees called off their strike on Sunday 17 August after being visited by representatives from the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees. They have pledged to continue the campaign against forcible deportations to Iraq.
This month three men who had been held in detention died in separate circumstances.
Husain Ali was killed or committed suicide after being deported from the Easington removal centre to Iraq on 7 August.
Another Iraqi man known only as Mohammad died last week of cancer only a few weeks after being released from a detention centre.
Nader Arabic was an Iranian asylum seeker who had been left in limbo since his arrival in Britain during 2003.
He was found hanged in a park in Manchester.
A veteran county employee is named to clerk's post for the Ventura County Board of Supervisors.
A new chief deputy clerk of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors has been appointed after a national search.
Rosa Gonzalez, 40, of Oxnard, will fill the position immediately, county officials announced this week.
She succeeds Brian Palmer, who was promoted to a new position in the information technology department for the county.
Gonzalez was promoted from her position as assistant chief deputy. She has worked in the clerk’s office for more than 10 years.
Among other duties Gonzalez is responsible for ensuring that a full record of the proceedings of the Board of Supervisors is kept for regular and special meetings. She will continue to serve as a community liaison in the office of County Executive Officer Mike Powers.
Josette Stewart and Devonte Simon are two teen entrepreneurs that Tony Coats has helped to coach and encourage to take part in pop-up events throughout the city. Coats snagged the top $5,000 prize at the 2018 Accelerate: Citizens Make Change civic pitch event. His idea was to give young entrepreneurs opportunities to sell products out of under-utilized storefronts and vacant lots in the inner city.
CLEVELAND, Ohio - People with visions of creating positive change in Cleveland will pitch their ideas at the fifth annual Accelerate: Citizens Make Change next month.
Individuals and teams will present 28 ideas that touch nearly everyone in Northeast Ohio. The event is open to the public to hear projects that leverage the arts to improve neighborhood connections, and that address issues involving refugees, youth, and people who are homeless. Some ideas use website, podcast and blockchain technology. Presenters range from teenagers to retirees and represent a diversity of backgrounds and experiences.
The winning pitch receives $5,000 and the five runners-up each get $2,000. The event begins at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 27 at the Global Center for Health Innovation. It’s presented by the Cleveland Leadership Center in partnership with Citizens Bank.
Tory Coats snagged last year’s top prize for his idea of giving young entrepreneurs opportunities to sell products out of under-utilized storefronts and vacant lots in the inner city. Since then, he’s helped teen entrepreneurs develop their ideas and sell products at various pop-up events throughout the city. And he’s bringing teen entrepreneurs to sell items at the 2019 Accelerate event.
“Accelerate opened me up to different resources in the community and allowed me to cultivate a network of caring people who want to support teen entrepreneurs,” said Coats, 41, who is the director of Career Readiness at Boys & Girls Clubs of Cleveland. Later this month, he plans to travel to Honduras in efforts to launch a teen entrepreneurship cultural exchange program.
Tory Coats says Accelerate 2018 helped him continue to help teen entrepreneurs. Coats, far right, won the Accelerate: Citizens Make Change civic pitch event last year. Since that time he’s continued to help teen entrepreneurs shape and act on their ideas with pop-up events throughout the city.
Visit www.cleveleads.org/Accelerate for details about 2019 participants and their ideas. Check out this year’s presenters.
At the event, panels of prominent community leaders will judge preliminary competitions and select one finalist in each of six categories: Authentic Cleveland Experiences (a new category this year), Community Change, Economic and Workforce Development, Educating for Tomorrow, Health & Wellness, and Quality of Life.
The six finalists will make their pitches, and the audience will vote on their phones to select the winner. Last year, nearly 500 people were in the audience.