When we launched The Truth Seekers Journal (TSJ), our mission was simple: to restore trust in local journalism by focusing on verified facts, transparency, and the stories that truly shape our community.
Today, I am proud to share that the “pulse” of this journal is stronger than ever. This past week, we reached a significant turning point in our growth. Our page views have tripled, and most importantly, our Returning Visits have grown by over 1,000%. This tells me that TSJ isn’t just a site you stumble upon. It is becoming a trusted resource you rely on.
National Recognition
I am also honored to announce that The Truth Seekers Journal has been awarded a prestigious rural reporting grant from Grist, following a highly competitive national selection process. Grist is a national leader in environmental and justice journalism.
Furthermore, to ensure we maintain the highest ethical standards, we have been formally accepted as members of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), the Online News Association (ONA), the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), and the Atlanta Press Club. These affiliations are our “gold standard” promise to you that our reporting is independent, ethical, and professional.
Expanding Our Expertise
Growth isn’t just about numbers; it’s about the depth of the stories we can tell. I am thrilled to highlight two key pillars of our expanded editorial team:
Dr. Florita Bell Griffin has joined us as a Contributing Writer and Systems Analyst. Dr. Griffin will lead our coverage in the AI, Science, and Technology sectors. Her expertise allows us to move beyond the headlines, providing our readers with deep-dive analysis on how emerging technologies and infrastructure projects impact our local economy and daily lives..
Ted Knorr, our resident historian, continues to bridge the gap between our past and present through his twice-monthly column, “Shadow Ball: Learning More About Negro League History.” Many of you have already engaged with Ted by submitting questions and sharing family stories, making “Shadow Ball” a true cornerstone of our community dialogue.
The Road Ahead
We are no longer just a news site; we are a growing civic institution. Whether we are investigating DeKalb data centers or documenting the rich history of the South, our goal remains the same: to give you the information you need to understand your community and shape your future.
Thank you for being the most important part of this journey. We are just getting started.
Carter Godwin Woodson, known as the Father of Black History, was a pioneering historian, author, journalist, and educator who dedicated his life to documenting and promoting African American history.
By Milton Kirby | Decatur, GA | February 4, 2025
Carter Godwin Woodson, known as the “Father of Black History,” was a pioneering historian, author, journalist, and educator who dedicated his life to documenting and promoting African American history. Born on December 19, 1875, in New Canton, Virginia, Woodson’s work laid the foundation for studying and recognizing Black history in the United States.
A Scholar and Educator
Woodson’s academic career was characterized by tenacity and excellence. He attended Lincoln University in Pennsylvania and Berea College in Kentucky before earning his doctorate from Harvard University, becoming the second African American to do so after W.E.B. Du Bois. He later served as the Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Howard University, where he emphasized the value of Black scholarship. Woodson taught in both public and collegiate settings, trained researchers and staff members, and authored numerous books and articles on Black history. From 1919 to 1920, he also served as the Dean of the School of Liberal Arts and Head of the Graduate Faculty at Howard University.
Courtesy Smithsonian
Founding the Study of Black History
In 1915, Woodson founded the Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH) to promote research and education on Black heritage. He also established the Associated Publishers, a company dedicated to publishing works by and about African Americans. From his home in Washington, D.C.’s Shaw neighborhood, he led ASALH’s initiatives and wrote extensively on Black history, including managing The Journal of Negro History (now The Journal of African American History).
Woodson’s efforts to establish African American history as an essential part of the larger American narrative extended beyond his organizations and publications. His work inspired educators nationwide to incorporate Black history into their curricula, and many sought his advice and resources for classroom use.
The Birth of Black History Month
In 1926, Woodson launched Negro History Week to highlight the contributions of Black Americans. He selected the second week of February to coincide with the birthdays of Frederick Douglass (February 14) and Abraham Lincoln (February 12). Over time, this observance gained nationwide recognition and expanded into Black History Month, which was officially designated by the U.S. government in 1976. President Gerald Ford urged Americans to “seize the opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of Black Americans.”
A Lasting Legacy
Woodson spent the last 28 years of his life in his Washington, D.C., home, where he continued his research and advocacy until his passing on April 3, 1950, at the age of 74. Recognizing his immense contributions, President Barack Obama designated the Carter G. Woodson Home as a National Historic Site in 2016. Located at 1538 Ninth Street NW, this site is preserved by the National Park Service as a testament to his legacy.
The Importance of the Carter G. Woodson Home
Woodson’s historic home functioned as the headquarters for ASALH and played a crucial role in advancing Black history education. From this location, he:
Researched and wrote groundbreaking works on African American history
Managed The Journal of Negro History
Planned the first Negro History Week, which later evolved into Black History Month
Led efforts to promote Black scholarship and education
The Ongoing Celebration of Black History
Today, Black History Month is celebrated in the United States and Canada (February), the United Kingdom (October), and other countries. Each year, ASALH selects a theme for the month, and the 2025 theme, “African Americans and Labor,” highlights Black workers’ contributions to labor movements and industries. Schools, institutions, and organizations continue to honor Woodson’s vision by integrating Black history into their curricula and programs year-round.
Recognizing Woodson’s Impact
Woodson’s dedication to preserving and teaching Black history ensured that African Americans’ achievements would no longer be overlooked. His legacy lives on through the work of ASALH, the continued observance of Black History Month, and the recognition of African American contributions across multiple sectors. Thanks to his efforts, the study of Black history has become an essential part of American education and culture.
As we celebrate Black History Month, we honor Carter G. Woodson’s vision and commitment to historical truth, education, and cultural preservation. His pioneering work remains a cornerstone of African American history and a testament to the power of knowledge in shaping a more inclusive society.
Mentoring and Training
Woodson was a mentor to many up-and-coming historians and scholars, including Alrutheus A. Taylor, Charles H. Wesley, Luther Porter Jackson, Lorenzo Johnston Greene, Rayford W. Logan, Lawrence D. Reddick, and John Hope Franklin. The association’s headquarters—Woodson’s home—served as a training center where these scholars refined their research skills and, in turn, mentored succeeding generations of African American historians. Woodson and ASALH also cultivated important relationships with Black churches, colleges, universities, schools, and community centers nationwide.
DeKalb County invests $1.2 million in a 400-bed emergency shelter on Gresham Road, launching a 90-day stabilization model to address homelessness.
By Milton Kirby | Decatur, GA | February 13, 2026
DeKalb County has committed $1.2 million to launch what leaders call a first-of-its-kind, 400-bed emergency shelter aimed at providing immediate safety and a clear pathway to housing for residents experiencing homelessness.
The new 90-day emergency shelter, located at 2582 Gresham Road, will be operated by Frontline Response, a nonprofit with years of experience serving individuals facing housing instability. County officials say the facility is part of a broader housing strategy centered on dignity, coordination, and long-term solutions.
“This investment reflects our belief that housing stability is fundamental to the health and well-being of our entire community,” said Lorraine Cochran-Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of DeKalb County. “By pairing emergency shelter with comprehensive services and strong partners like Frontline, we are creating real opportunities for people to stabilize, rebuild, and move forward.”
A Three-Phase Model
County leaders describe the shelter as more than a place to sleep. The program follows a coordinated three-phase approach designed to move individuals from crisis to stability.
Outreach and Rescue County outreach teams will engage individuals living in encampments and public spaces. Teams will provide food, immediate assistance, and connections to services. The initiative also supports coordinated cleanups of encampments on public property, with an emphasis on communication and care.
Emergency Shelter with Wraparound Services The 400-bed facility will offer temporary housing along with wraparound services. These include medical and dental care, behavioral and mental health services, substance use support, job readiness training, and access to other critical resources needed for stabilization.
90-Day Stabilization and Transition Support Residents will receive three meals a day, access to showers and laundry facilities, behavioral health services, and intensive case management. The 90-day model is designed to prepare individuals for placement into transitional or long-term housing.
“This shelter is designed to be a bridge, not a destination,” said Dr. Alan Ferguson, DeKalb County’s Chief Housing Officer. “Our goal is to meet immediate needs while actively working toward permanent solutions.”
County officials point to transitional housing efforts such as the 500 Park Place initiative, which helps families move from extended-stay motels into stable housing, as part of that broader continuum of care.
Terry Tucker, Director at Frontline Response, said the goal is to meet people where they are.
“This shelter allows us to provide safety, structure, and services in one place, helping individuals regain stability and take the next steps toward housing and independence,” Tucker said.
The $1.2 million investment was approved by the DeKalb County Board of Commissioners as part of a comprehensive housing strategy that prioritizes affordable housing development, emergency shelter, and transitional housing solutions countywide.
For more information, residents can contact Frontline Response at 404-817-3502.
A federal judge heard testimony on whether the Uncle Nearest receivership should continue, weighing claims of insolvency against arguments that court control has slowed recovery.
By Milton Kirby | Knoxville, TN | February 10, 2026
On a cold Monday morning in February, the future of a nationally watched American whiskey brand was argued not through press releases or filings, but inside a quiet federal courtroom in Knoxville, where tone, preparation, and credibility carried as much weight as any document.
At 10:00 a.m., the question before U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. was deceptively simple: should the court-ordered receivership overseeing Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey continue, or had it outlived its purpose?
What unfolded during several hours of testimony revealed a case less about a single balance sheet and more about control, delay, and whether a receivership meant to stabilize a company had instead become a constraint on its recovery.
A Courtroom Prepared for Conflict
Entry into the courtroom underscored the seriousness of the proceeding. All electronic devices were barred entirely collected in secured bins at the security checkpoint. Even attorneys granted special permission were required to keep phones powered off. The rule was absolute, creating a room focused entirely on testimony, documents, and the judge’s questions.
The courtroom itself had been configured in advance for a document-heavy hearing. Multiple viewing screens lined the walls. Counsel tables formed an L-shaped arrangement, with the receiver and his attorney seated directly before the judge and attorneys for Farm Credit Mid-America positioned against the wall to the receiver’s left.
By 9:15 a.m., Farm Credit’s legal team was the first to arrive, carrying boxes of documents and thick binders that would later populate the screens. Attorneys for Uncle Nearest arrived shortly afterward, carrying only backpacks. As the gallery filled, suited observers took seats on both sides of the aisle, some exchanging brief greetings the attorneys also greeted each other across party lines, suggesting professional familiarity despite opposing positions.
Photo by Milton Kirby – Uncle Nearest Flight
The Case Against the Receivership
Attorneys for Uncle Nearest opened by challenging the effectiveness of the receivership itself. They argued that the company’s financial decline coincided not with internal mismanagement, but with the filing of Farm Credit’s lawsuit in July 2025 and the subsequent appointment of a receiver the following month.
Central to that argument was market data. Counsel pointed to Nielsen reporting showing that Uncle Nearest outperformed the broader spirits market from January through July 2025. After the lawsuit was announced and the receivership imposed, they argued, the brand underperformed the market through January 2026—by double-digit percentages, in some months approaching 27 percent.
The receiver, Phillip G. Young Jr., was called as the first witness. Under questioning, he maintained that Uncle Nearest was cash-flow negative, insolvent, and unable to meet obligations as they became due. He testified that his mandate was not to grow the business but to stabilize it, preserve lender interests, and explore a potential sale.
Attorneys for Uncle Nearest countered that stabilization had come at the cost of operational paralysis. They argued that decision-making which once took minutes began to stretch into weeks after the receiver’s appointment, undermining sales execution and marketing strategy.
Operational Friction Under Oath
That theme was reinforced by testimony from Katherine Jerkins, the company’s Chief Business Officer. Jerkins testified that prior to the receivership, management decisions including promotions and pricing could be made in as little as 20 minutes. Afterward, decisions requiring receiver approval could take up to 30 days.
She pointed specifically to Limited Time Offers, a sales tool she described as critical to the brand’s momentum. According to her testimony, delays in approval rendered those programs ineffective, contributing to declining sales.
Independent third-party witnesses echoed concerns about disruption. Daniel Romano of Romano Beverage, a major distributor, testified that his company had sold the first case of Uncle Nearest whiskey and maintained a long-standing relationship with the brand. He emphasized the importance of founder Fawn Weaver’s personal presence, testifying that events featuring Weaver routinely sold out and that she remained central to the brand’s identity.
Anthony Severini, CFO of Global Genesis, testified that his firm continued processing Uncle Nearest payroll prior to the receivership based on trust in management and extended payment terms. He testified that after the receiver’s appointment, he was instructed that prior obligations would be stayed, with assurances only for future payroll. Severini further testified that he was not informed of the company’s cash-flow problems until January 2026.
Data, Doubt, and Credibility
The hearing also turned on competing interpretations of financial data. Kevin Laurin of NewPoint Advisors testified regarding documents submitted to the receiver but struggled under questioning to clearly explain how those materials captured the company’s financial condition.
Economist David Ozgo, president of Advocacy Analytics, testified in support of the Nielsen data relied upon by Uncle Nearest. Ozgo described Nielsen as a reliable industry benchmark covering roughly 40 percent of the spirits market, primarily national brands. While conceding that independent sellers were underrepresented, he testified that volume trends among large and small sellers generally move together. Under cross-examination, Ozgo acknowledged that he was compensated for his testimony.
At several points during testimony, Judge Atchley leaned forward in his chair, closely tracking witness responses and attorney questioning.
The Founder Takes the Stand
Photo by Milton Kirby – Uncle Nearest Street View
The final witness for Uncle Nearest was founder and CEO Fawn Weaver. Early in her testimony, Judge Atchley admonished Weaver for addressing the court directly, instructing her to wait for questions and respond only through counsel.
Weaver testified that management had begun cutting expenses prior to the receivership, reducing costs by approximately 40 percent. She further testified that the company paid $7.5 million in debt service to Farm Credit during 2025 before the receiver’s appointment.
Weaver described herself as the public face of the brand, testifying that her travel was frequently offset by paid speaking engagements and appearances. She asserted that the company’s consumer base is uniquely loyal, recounting that after the receivership was confirmed, she urged supporters on social media to purchase remaining inventory—and that they did.
She testified that with control returned, she could reengage that base and restore momentum. Weaver asked the court to return operational control to management while leaving the receiver in an oversight role, stating that consumers “still believe in me” and that she could rebuild the company.
Sidebar | Who Testified — and Why It Mattered
Phillip G. Young Jr. — Court-Appointed Receiver Young testified that Uncle Nearest was insolvent, cash-flow negative, and unable to meet financial obligations as they became due. He emphasized that his mandate was not to grow the business but to stabilize it, preserve lender interests, and explore a potential sale—framing the receivership as protective rather than operational.
Katherine Jerkins — Chief Business Officer, Uncle Nearest Jerkins testified that decision-making slowed sharply after the receiver’s appointment. She said actions that once took minutes could take weeks, weakening sales execution. Her testimony focused on the disruption of Limited Time Offers, which she described as key to prior growth.
Daniel Romano — Romano Beverage (Chicago) Romano testified that his company sold the first case of Uncle Nearest whiskey and has maintained a long-standing distributor relationship. He emphasized founder Fawn Weaver’s role as the face of the brand, stating that events featuring Weaver routinely sold out.
Anthony Severini — CFO, Global Genesis Severini testified that his firm continued processing payroll before the receivership based on trust in management and extended payment terms. He stated that after the receiver’s appointment, prior obligations were stayed, assurances applied only to future payroll, and that he was not informed of cash-flow problems until January 2026.
Kevin Laurin — NewPoint Advisors Corporation Laurin testified about financial documents prepared for the receiver. Under questioning, he struggled to clearly explain how certain materials reflected the company’s financial condition, drawing scrutiny to the data relied upon during the receivership.
David Ozgo — President, Advocacy Analytics Ozgo testified that Nielsen market data used by Uncle Nearest was valid and widely relied upon in the spirits industry. He stated that the brand outperformed the market prior to the receivership. Under cross-examination, he acknowledged being compensated for his testimony and that Nielsen does not fully capture independent sellers.
Fawn Weaver — Founder and CEO, Uncle Nearest Weaver testified that management reduced expenses by roughly 40 percent before the receiver’s appointment and that $7.5 million in debt service was paid in 2025. She argued that her leadership and consumer loyalty are central to the brand’s success and asked the court to return control to management with the receiver in an oversight role.
No Ruling Yet
After hearing testimony, Judge Atchley offered an opportunity for additional evidence, then made clear that all existing orders would remain in effect. He directed the parties to submit briefs outlining what they believed should happen next and stated that he would rule after reviewing those submissions.
The hearing ended without a decision but not without signals. What the court ultimately decides may turn less on any single metric than on whether continued control by a receiver is stabilizing Uncle Nearest or quietly constraining the very recovery it was meant to protect.
Truth Seekers Journal thrives because of readers like you. Join us in sustaining independent voices.
By Florita Bell Griffin, Ph.D. | Houston, TX | February 9, 2026
Control is often mistaken for stability. When systems behave predictably, when rules are clear, and when outcomes can be enforced, it feels as though risk has been reduced. Control offers reassurance. It creates the impression that uncertainty has been managed. Yet control and stability are not the same thing.
Control narrows possibility. Stability absorbs variation. Systems that rely heavily on control may appear orderly, but they often become brittle. They perform well under expected conditions while struggling when reality deviates. Over time, what felt safe begins to feel fragile.
This distinction becomes visible after people have lived through enough disruptions to recognize patterns. They have seen tightly controlled systems fail suddenly. They have watched rules multiply as exceptions increase. They understand that control does not eliminate uncertainty. It merely postpones its appearance.
Early in a system’s life, control can be effective. Scope is limited. Conditions are known. Decisions are centralized. As systems grow, however, complexity increases. Dependencies multiply. External forces exert pressure. Control mechanisms that once worked begin to strain. More rules are added. More monitoring is introduced. More enforcement is required. The system becomes harder to manage precisely because it is being managed too tightly.
Consider an organization that responds to inconsistency by adding layers of approval. Processes become standardized. Authority is clarified. Deviations are reduced. Initially, performance improves. Errors decline. Yet over time, decision-making slows. People stop exercising judgment. When unexpected situations arise, the organization struggles to respond because adaptation has been trained out of the system. Control has replaced learning.
The same pattern appears in technology. Systems designed to minimize error often rely on rigid constraints. Inputs are tightly validated. Outputs are strictly governed. Behavior is limited to predefined pathways. Under normal conditions, the system performs reliably. Under novel conditions, it fails abruptly. Control has reduced variability, but it has also reduced resilience.
People with experience recognize this tension instinctively. They have learned that safety does not come from eliminating uncertainty, but from being able to respond to it. They understand that systems must be able to bend without breaking. Control that prevents deviation may look strong, but it often hides weakness.
Control also changes how responsibility is distributed. In highly controlled systems, accountability shifts upward. Decisions are made by those who design the rules rather than those closest to the situation. Over time, this disconnect grows. People stop feeling responsible for outcomes because they no longer feel empowered to influence them. Compliance replaces ownership.
This dynamic creates a false sense of security. Metrics improve. Variance decreases. Reports look clean. Yet the system’s capacity to absorb surprise diminishes. When disruption arrives, it overwhelms structures that have been optimized for predictability rather than adaptability.
Consider a public system that enforces strict eligibility criteria to ensure fairness. Rules are clear. Decisions are consistent. Processing is efficient. Yet individuals with complex circumstances fall through gaps. Exceptions are difficult to accommodate. Appeals are slow. The system appears fair, but it struggles to respond humanely to reality. Control has simplified administration while complicating lived experience.
Control feels safer because it creates clarity. It reduces ambiguity. It promises order. What it cannot do is prepare a system for conditions it has never encountered. Stability requires something different. It requires the ability to integrate new information, revise assumptions, and respond proportionally to change.
Systems that achieve stability do so by maintaining internal coherence rather than external enforcement. They preserve context. They allow for judgment. They recognize that variation carries information. Instead of suppressing deviation, they learn from it. Stability emerges from alignment, not constraint.
This distinction matters as systems become increasingly automated. Automated control scales easily. Rules can be enforced instantly and uniformly. Yet automation also amplifies brittleness. When systems operate at speed without interpretive capacity, errors propagate quickly. Control becomes amplification rather than protection.
People who sense this are often labeled cautious or resistant. In reality, they are responding to experience. They have seen control mechanisms fail quietly before collapsing dramatically. They understand that systems designed only to prevent deviation eventually lose the ability to respond intelligently.
Stability requires continuity across change. It depends on the system’s ability to remember why rules exist, not just enforce them. It relies on preserving relationships between intent, action, and outcome. Control alone cannot do this.
When systems mistake control for safety, they optimize for the wrong condition. They reduce visible risk while increasing hidden vulnerability. They feel secure until they are tested. When they are tested, they fail in ways that surprise those who trusted them most.
True safety comes from systems that remain intelligible as they evolve. Systems that can explain their own behavior. Systems that can adapt without losing coherence. These systems may appear less controlled on the surface, but they endure because they remain aligned with reality.
Control will always have a role. It defines boundaries. It establishes norms. It protects against known threats. Stability, however, emerges from something deeper. It arises when systems are designed to carry meaning forward as conditions change.
When control is mistaken for safety, systems grow rigid. When stability is designed intentionally, systems remain alive.
Seattle Seahawks defeat the New England Patriots 29–13 in Super Bowl LX, powered by defense, record field goals, and Kenneth Walker III’s MVP performance.
By Milton Kirby | San Francisco, CA | February 8, 2026
Super Bowl LX is officially in the books, and it will be remembered as a night when defense, discipline, and patience ruled the NFL’s biggest stage.
The Seattle Seahawks defeated the New England Patriots 29–13 at Levi’s Stadium in Super Bowl LX, played during the venue’s 12th year of hosting NFL games, capturing the franchise’s second Super Bowl championship—12 years after its first.
Seattle entered the game as the favorites and played like it methodical, relentless, and mistake-free. Remarkably, the Seahawks finished the entire postseason without committing a single turnover, a rare feat that defined their championship run.
A Historic Night for Seattle Leadership and Defense
Head coach Mike McDonald, just 38 years old, became the third youngest head coach in NFL history to win a Super Bowl. His defensive game plan was executed to near perfection by Seattle’s dominant front four, nicknamed “The Dark Side,” which controlled the line of scrimmage from opening kickoff to final whistle.
Through nearly three full quarters, neither team reached the end zone. Seattle’s defense forced punts, stalled drives, and kept New England quarterback Drake Maye under constant pressure.
Field Goals First, Touchdowns Later
Seattle kicker Jason Myers, a veteran in his 11th NFL season, carried the scoring early. Myers drilled five field goals an all-time Super Bowl record accounting for 15 points and keeping the scoreboard moving while both offenses searched for rhythm.
It wasn’t until early in the fourth quarter that the game’s first touchdown was scored. QuarterbackSam Darnold found tight end A.J. Barner on a 16-yard strike, pushing Seattle ahead 19–0 and effectively breaking the game open.
Kenneth Walker III Earns Super Bowl MVP
Seattle running back Kenneth Walker III was named Super Bowl LX MVP after a physical, punishing performance that controlled the tempo of the game.
Walker finished with:
27 rushing attempts
135 rushing yards
2 receptions
26 receiving yards
Though he did not score a touchdown, his ability to extend drives and wear down New England’s defense proved decisive. Walker became the first running back to win Super Bowl MVP since Terrell Davis in Super Bowl XXXII.
Patriots’ Rise Comes Up Short
For New England, in their 12th appearance in a Super Bowl, the loss marked a painful ending to an otherwise remarkable season. In his second NFL year, Drake Maye led the Patriots to a 14–3 regular-season record and their return to the Super Bowl, attempting to become the youngest quarterback ever to win one.
Seattle’s defense, however, ensured that history would wait.
Twelve Years Later, History Repeats
The victory carried special meaning for Seattle. Twelve years earlier, the Seahawks captured their first Super Bowl title in Super Bowl XLVIII with a dominant win over Denver. That championship helped cement the franchise’s identity and gave rise to the “12s,” Seattle’s famously loud and loyal fan base.
On Sunday night, twelve years later, the Seahawks added a second Lombardi Trophy to their legacy.
As confetti fell at Levi’s Stadium, one truth was undeniable: Super Bowl LX belonged to Seattle built on defense, patience, and a team that waited 12 years to finish the story.
By the Numbers
Final Score: Seahawks 29, Patriots 13
Total Points: 42
Total Yards by Seahawks 335
Rushing 135
Passing 202
Youngest Super Bowl–Winning Coach: Mike McDonald (38)
Super Bowl LX: The Business of the Big Game
Estimated Host City Revenue (San Francisco Bay Area):
Hotels & Lodging: $180M–$220M
Restaurants & Food: $140M–$160M
Transportation: $40M–$60M
Public & Tax Revenue: $16M
The Cost of 30 Seconds of Airtime:
Average ad price: $8 million
Cost per second: $266,666
Total campaign investment (ads + marketing): $15M–$20M
Player Bonuses:
Winning team: $178,000 per player
Losing team: $103,000 per player
Truth Seekers Journal thrives because of readers like you. Join us in sustaining independent voices.
The Council for Quality Growth names ATL Airport CIDs Executive Director Gerald McDowell as 2026 Chair, setting transportation and mobility priorities for metro Atlanta’s future.
By Milton Kirby | Atlanta, GA | February 8, 2026
The Council for Quality Growth has announced its 2026 Board of Directors and officers, naming Gerald McDowell as Chairman as the organization enters its 41st year advocating for balanced, responsible growth across metro Atlanta.
The 2026 Board was ratified during the Council’s 40th Annual Meeting & Legislative Reception, held December 18, 2025, at the Cherokee Town Club. More than 350 members, state legislators, and local elected officials attended the event, which also marked four decades of the Council’s influence on regional growth policy.
Council President-Elect Marci Collier Overstreet delivered welcome remarks on behalf of the City of Atlanta, while State Representative Matthew Gambill addressed attendees and presented a proclamation from Governor Brian Kemp recognizing the Council’s milestone. A second proclamation, from Mayor Andre Dickens, was also presented honoring the organization’s four decades of work promoting sustainable development.
The annual meeting also highlighted the Council’s achievements in 2025 under outgoing Chair Clyde Higgs, President and CEO of the Atlanta BeltLine. During Higgs’ tenure, the Council reached record membership and program participation and secured several notable regional policy wins, including work related to the City of Atlanta’s Tree Protection Ordinance, Forsyth County impact fees, and Cobb County stormwater utility fees.
McDowell, the Executive Director of the ATL Airport Community Improvement Districts, becomes the Council’s 39th Chairman. He has served on the Council’s Board since 2017 and joined its Executive Committee in 2022. At the Board’s first meeting of the year on January 23, McDowell outlined strategic priorities centered on transportation, mobility, and the intersection of public policy and private investment.
“Georgia is a leader in emerging mobility technology,” McDowell said, emphasizing the need for candid conversations about transit performance and the range of solutions available as metro Atlanta communities pursue high-capacity transportation options. He noted that the Council is uniquely positioned to bring together public officials and private mobility providers to help shape the region’s future.
Since 2015, McDowell has led ATL Airport CIDs through a period of expansion and innovation, including the relaunch of the Shift commuter services program supporting more than 157,000 workers, pilot projects in micro-transit and automated transit, and extensive infrastructure, landscaping, and public safety improvements across the 15.7-square-mile district. His work has focused heavily on partnerships with local governments, transportation agencies, and private stakeholders.
“Gerald brings a thoughtful and steady leadership style that will benefit the Council as we head into 2026,” said Michael Paris, President and CEO of the Council. “He understands the Council’s role and is focused on positioning the organization to effectively serve its members and the broader region.”
The Council also announced its 2026 officers: Rob Garcia of Pinnacle Financial Partners as Vice Chair, Ellen Smith of Parker Poe as Treasurer, and Audra Cunningham of Acre Consultants as Secretary. Higgs will remain in leadership as Immediate Past Chair. The full 2026 Board will include 96 voting members and two appointed seats.
Six new directors were elected to begin two-year terms in 2026: Lisa Exley of Volkert, Inc.; Ben Hefner of DCCM; Michael Hightower of The Collaborative Firm, LLC; Greg Mullin of AECOM; Anthony Rodriguez of the South Forsyth County CID; and Jue Wang of T. Dallas Smith & Company. As it begins its 41st year, the Council for Quality Growth says it will continue focusing on advocacy, education, and policy engagement aimed at strengthening metro Atlanta’s economic competitiveness while addressing infrastructure demands and quality-of-life challenges.
A federal judge will hear arguments Monday over whether Uncle Nearest’s court-ordered receivership should continue, be narrowed, or end, reshaping the future of the Tennessee whiskey brand.
By Milton Kirby | Knoxville, TN | February 7, 2026
A federal judge in Knoxville will hear arguments Monday morning that could determine whether Uncle Nearest, one of Tennessee’s most prominent spirits brands, remains under court control or begins the process of reclaiming its operations.
The 10:00 a.m. hearing before U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. comes after a flurry of emergency filings challenging the receivership imposed last fall at the request of lender Farm Credit Mid-America. At issue is whether the extraordinary remedy—placing the company under the control of a court-appointed receiver—still serves its intended purpose.
Attorneys for Uncle Nearest, its founders Fawn and Keith Weaver, and their affiliated entity Grant Sidney Inc. argue that it does not.
In court papers, the founders contend the receivership was meant to stabilize a business facing uncertainty not to drain value from a company they say remains solvent and capable of meeting its obligations. They argue that after roughly five months under receiver control, more than $2 million has been spent on professional fees, while sales have declined and brand momentum has slowed.
The founders assert that the receiver has found no evidence of fraud by current management and has produced limited financial reporting, while failing to pursue claims tied to a former chief financial officer who allegedly admitted misconduct before the receivership began. They further argue that retail sales declines followed the receiver’s appointment and diverged from broader whiskey industry trends.
Central to the dispute is insolvency. The Weavers argue that both federal and Tennessee law rely on a balance-sheet test comparing assets to liabilities and maintain that Uncle Nearest’s assets exceed its debts. They cite distillery property, tens of thousands of barrels of aging whiskey, domestic and international real estate holdings, and the underlying brand itself, which they say was valued near $1 billion prior to the receivership.
The receiver and the lender both argue that conditions justifying the receivership still exist.
Receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. has told the court that Uncle Nearest remains financially unstable, cannot meet obligations without continued lender advances, and may carry debt exceeding the realizable value of its assets. He attributes declining sales to industry headwinds and distributor disruption, not receivership decisions, and says incomplete company records have slowed his ability to reach firm conclusions.
Farm Credit Mid-America supports that position, warning that lifting the receivership prematurely could expose collateral to risk and undermine creditor protections.
Judge Atchley is not being asked to resolve those underlying disputes Monday. Instead, the hearing will focus on whether the receivership should continue as structured, be narrowed, or be terminated altogether.
The decision could reshape the future of Uncle Nearest—either keeping the company in a holding pattern under court supervision or allowing its founders to attempt a recovery while litigation continues.
What to Watch at Monday’s Hearing
1. Solvency vs. Stability The judge will weigh competing narratives: whether Uncle Nearest is balance-sheet solvent, as the founders claim, or operationally unstable, as the receiver contends.
2. Cost of the Receivership Expect scrutiny of professional fees, burn rate, and whether the receivership is preserving or eroding enterprise value.
3. Sales Decline Evidence Both sides cite sales data. The court may probe whether declines are tied to market conditions or changes implemented after the receiver took control.
4. Scope of Court Control The judge could leave the receivership intact, limit it to financial monitoring, or return day-to-day operations to company leadership.
5. What Happens Next While Monday’s ruling won’t end the case, it may determine who controls Uncle Nearest’s future during the months ahead.
President Donald Trump calls for mandatory voter ID, proof of citizenship, and limits on mail voting, escalating debate over federal authority, election integrity, and constitutional limits.
By Sam Stevenson | Washington, DC | February 6, 2026
Key takeaways
Voting Rules: Trump demands mandatory voter ID, proof of U.S. citizenship, and a near-total ban on mail-in ballots, except for illness, disability, military service, or travel.
Federal Oversight: He suggests nationalizing key election rules to standardize voting across states, aiming to prevent inconsistent or vulnerable practices.
Political Impact: The plan intensifies Trump’s long-running campaign to question U.S. election integrity, sparking debate over state control vs. presidential influence.
President Donald Trump is seeking to redefine the rules of American voting, unveiling a trio of requirements he says are necessary to restore public confidence in U.S. elections.
In a new Truth Social post, Trump declared that America’s elections are “rigged, stolen, and a laughingstock,” and urged Republicans to unite behind what he calls the Save America Act—a plan that would dramatically tighten access to the ballot box.
Why It Matters
Trump’s proposals align with his broader push to shift election authority toward federal standards despite constitutional limits and recent court rulings curbing such efforts.
What To Know
In the Truth Social post, Trump listed three demands:
Mandatory voter ID for every voter.
Proof of U.S. citizenship to register.
A near‑total prohibition on mail‑in ballots, limited only to cases of illness, disability, military service, or travel.
Taken together, the package would represent one of the most sweeping overhauls of federal election administration in modern history.
It also marks the latest escalation in Trump’s long-running campaign to cast doubt on U.S. election integrity—an effort that has shaped both Republican politics and congressional debates since his first term.
Trump’s demands come as he increasingly calls for greater federal authority over how states conduct their elections.
In a recent interview on The Dan Bongino Show, he floated the idea of nationalizing key election rules, arguing that standardized federal oversight would prevent what he sees as inconsistent or vulnerable state practices.
The proposal triggered immediate pushback from critics, who warned it would undercut state control and inject unprecedented presidential influence into the electoral system.
Trump previously signed an executive order directing federal agencies and the Election Assistance Commission to require documentary proof of citizenship for the federal voter registration form and to enforce election day ballot receipt deadlines— moves now facing multiple legal setbacks.
Federal judges blocked key parts of that order, including attempts to require proof of citizenship for the federal voter registration form and for military voters, citing constitutional separation of powers and the limits of presidential authority over election procedures.
In Congress, Republicans introduced the Make Elections Great Again Act to set national baselines for voter ID, citizenship verification, mail-ballot deadlines, paper ballots, and limits on ballot collection, while separately pushing the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act to mandate proof of citizenship to register.
What People Are Saying
Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday: “Does Donald Trump need a copy of the Constitution? What he’s saying is outlandishly illegal.”
Republican Representative Don Bacon wrote on X: “I opposed nationalizing elections when Speaker Pelosi wanted major changes to elections in all 50 states. I’ll oppose this now as well. I work w/the NE Gov & Unicameral to ensure we have secure elections where every citizen’s vote counts. This is what the Constitution calls for.”
Lawyer Bradley P. Moss told Newsweek: “There is no legal basis for the President to nationalize elections. The Constitution specifically delegates that authority to the states. Congress can pass laws to modify how states administer elections, and they have done that several times in our history with things such as the Voting Rights Act and the NVRA, but the states still actually run the elections.”
What Happens Next
Trump and Republican allies are expected to continue pressing Congress to advance federal election bills like the SAVE Act and the MEGA Act. Democrats will likely oppose them, and constitutional challenges are set to proceed in federal courts.
DeKalb County opens a new Teen Tech Center in Scottdale, offering teens hands-on access to coding, 3D printing, music production, and digital media programs.
By Milton Kirby | Scottdale, GA | February 6, 2026
DeKalb County will celebrate the grand opening of its new Teen Tech Center on Thursday morning with a ribbon-cutting ceremony at the Hamilton Recreation Center in Scottdale.
The center, operated by DeKalb County Recreation, Parks & Cultural Affairs, is designed to give local teens hands-on access to modern technology and creative tools that support academic success, career exploration, and digital literacy.
Located at 3262 Chapel Street, the Teen Tech Center offers programming in coding, 3D printing, music production, podcasting, and digital media creation. County officials say the goal is to provide young people with practical skills that connect creativity with future career pathways.
“This center gives teens a platform to create, innovate, and express themselves,” said Paige Singer, Interim Parks Director. “Whether they’re producing music, launching a podcast, or bringing ideas to life through coding and 3D printing, the Teen Tech Center empowers young people to turn creativity into opportunity.”
The ribbon-cutting ceremony is scheduled for Thursday, February 19, at 10 a.m. It will include remarks from county leadership, Parks and Recreation officials, and community partners involved in the project.
Following the ceremony, attendees will be able to tour the new Teen Tech Center, view live demonstrations of its equipment and programs, and learn more about upcoming opportunities available to DeKalb County teens.
County leaders say the Teen Tech Center reflects a broader effort to expand access to STEM education and digital skills, particularly for youth who may not otherwise have exposure to advanced technology tools.
What to Know About the Teen Tech Center
Location: Hamilton Recreation Center, 3262 Chapel St., Scottdale
Programs: Coding, 3D printing, music production, podcasting, digital media
Who It Serves: DeKalb County teens
Opening Event: Thursday, February 19, 2026, at 10 a.m.
MARTA will allow Breeze fare balance transfers May 2 through Oct. 30, 2026, as the agency transitions to its new Better Breeze fare payment system.
By Milton Kirby | Atlanta, GA | February 3, 2026
The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority will allow riders to transfer unused fare balances as it transitions from the current Breeze fare system to the new, upgraded Better Breeze platform this spring.
MARTA announced that remaining balances from registered Breeze accounts may be transferred to new, registered Better Breeze accounts between May 2 and Oct. 30, 2026, after the current system is officially shut off. Riders are still encouraged to spend down stored fare before May 2, when existing Breeze fare media will no longer function.
The agency is in the process of modernizing its entire fare payment infrastructure, including faregates, fareboxes, ticket vending machines, and fare media. From March 28 through May 2, both the old and new Breeze systems will operate simultaneously. During this overlap period, customers may continue using existing fare, purchase new fare media, create Better Breeze accounts, or use the new tap-to-pay feature with a bank card or mobile wallet.
After May 2, current Breeze cards and tickets will not be compatible with the Better Breeze system. MARTA said balance transfers will be reserved for customers who, due to riding habits or circumstances, are unable to use their stored fare before the cutoff date.
“MARTA understands that some of our customers have large amounts of fare stored on their accounts and will not be able to use that balance by May 2 when the current Breeze system is turned off,” said Jonathan Hunt, MARTA’s interim general manager and CEO. “We will work with each individual to ensure their money is safely moved to a new Breeze account, so they are able to continue riding MARTA when it meets their needs.”
MARTA plans to release detailed instructions for balance transfers in early March. That same month, the agency will stop selling current Breeze fare products according to the following schedule:
30-day passes: March 1, 2026
20- and 10-trip passes: March 15, 2026
1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 7-day passes: March 22, 2026
1- and 2-trip passes: March 28, 2026
Additional information about the Better Breeze system and upcoming changes is available at MARTA’s official website.
By Florita Bell Griffin, Ph.D | Houston, TX | February 2, 2026
Intelligent systems increasingly shape how decisions are made, services are delivered, and information is interpreted. They operate quietly in the background of everyday life, accelerating processes and producing outcomes that appear efficient, consistent, and rational. From recommendation engines to automated decision systems, from workplace platforms to public services, these technologies now mediate much of daily experience. For many people, they function well enough to feel familiar and even helpful. For others, something feels harder to grasp. The difference is rarely intelligence or adaptability. It is experience.
People who have lived through multiple waves of technological change tend to recognize patterns that are less visible to those encountering intelligent systems for the first time. They have watched tools evolve into platforms, platforms become infrastructures, and infrastructures quietly reshape behavior. They recognize when speed begins to replace understanding, when efficiency displaces judgment, and when systems continue functioning while becoming harder to explain. This is not nostalgia or resistance to innovation. It is pattern recognition formed through time and exposure to how systems behave once they scale.
Experience changes how intelligent systems are understood because it provides context across transitions. Those who have watched systems grow, automate, and optimize know that improvement rarely arrives without tradeoffs. They have seen organizations become faster while becoming less responsive, platforms grow more capable while becoming harder to question, and institutions optimize performance while drifting from their original purpose. These shifts are rarely dramatic at first. They appear as small changes in process, tone, or explanation. Over time, they accumulate. Experience allows people to sense that accumulation before it becomes visible in outcomes or failures.
Much public discussion about technology focuses on capability: what systems can do, how quickly they operate, and how broadly they scale. Far less attention is paid to how systems hold together as they change. As automation increases, explanations thin. Decisions arrive without narrative. Processes update without context. For people with experience, this creates a specific kind of disorientation. Systems still work, but they no longer explain themselves in ways that align with lived understanding. The gap is subtle, but it is felt.
This gap is where many everyday frustrations originate. People feel rushed without feeling supported. They are asked to comply with processes they no longer recognize. They receive outcomes without clarity about how those outcomes were produced. Even when metrics suggest improvement, something feels off. These reactions are often mischaracterized as discomfort with technology or an inability to keep up. In reality, they reflect a loss of continuity between past understanding and present operation.
The patterns behind this loss do not appear all at once. They surface in different forms, often separately at first. Speed creates the impression of progress even when direction is unclear. Optimization improves performance while eroding meaning. Compliance replaces alignment as systems scale. Control feels safe until it produces fragility. Systems grow quiet right before they break. Each of these dynamics shows up in ordinary settings: at work, in public services, in education, in healthcare, and across digital platforms people rely on every day. None of them require technical expertise to recognize. They require experience.
What experience provides is not cynicism, but calibration. It alters how people interpret signals. It teaches them to notice when silence replaces feedback, when efficiency replaces care, and when rules substitute for understanding. It allows them to distinguish between systems that are improving and systems that are merely accelerating. This perspective does not come from rejecting technology. It comes from living with it long enough to see how intentions shift as systems optimize and scale.
The articles that follow explore these dynamics one at a time, not as abstract theories, but as recognizable features of modern systems. Each piece examines a single pattern in depth, tracing how it emerges, why it feels familiar, and what it reveals about the way intelligent systems evolve. Together, they form a broader examination of how understanding changes as systems grow more automated, more efficient, and more opaque.
This work matters because intelligent systems increasingly influence decisions that affect people’s lives, often without offering visibility into how those decisions are made. Understanding how these systems behave over time is no longer a technical concern reserved for specialists. It is a civic and personal one. People do not need to know how to build these systems to feel their effects. They do need language to interpret what they are experiencing and to recognize when surface improvement masks deeper misalignment.
Experience plays a central role in that interpretation. It equips people to ask better questions, to notice when systems stop explaining themselves, and to recognize when progress is measured narrowly while meaning thins. It reveals when systems optimize for performance at the expense of coherence and when efficiency replaces purpose. These insights are rarely taught. They are accumulated.
In an age defined by intelligent systems, understanding no longer comes only from learning how a system works at a moment in time. It comes from recognizing how systems change, what they preserve, and what they leave behind. Experience supplies that perspective. It allows people to remain oriented even as interfaces shift, rules update, and automation expands.
Experience does not make people anti-technology. It makes them attentive to structure, intent, and consequence. It sharpens awareness of how systems behave when speed, scale, and optimization outpace explanation. In a world increasingly shaped by intelligent systems, that awareness is not a liability. It is a form of literacy.
