Share:
Top ISIS leader killed by US air strike
A top ISIS leader was killed by a U.S. air strike in northwest Syria on Tuesday, the military announced.
The strike outside of Jindayris killed Maher al-Agal, the leader of ISIS in Syria and one of the top five leaders of the terrorist group, U.S. Central Command said in a statement.
Al-Agal was responsible for pursuing the development of ISIS networks outside of Iraq and Syria.
In addition, a senior ISIS official “closely associated” with Maher was seriously injured during the strike, the statement said without identifying the individual. An initial review of the strike indicated that there were no civilian casualties.
Col. Joe Buccino, a CENTCOM spokesperson, said the strike “reaffirms CENTCOM’s steadfast commitment to the region and the enduring defeat of ISIS.”
“The removal of these ISIS leaders will disrupt the terrorist organization’s ability to further plot and carry out global attacks,” ISIS said.
The strike is the latest the U.S. has carried out in northwest Syria targeting leaders of terrorist groups.
In late June, Abu Hamzah al Yemeni, a senior leader of al Qaeda-linked Hurras al-Din, was killed by a strike in the northwestern province of Idlib.
Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, a senior leader of ISIS, was killed after he blew himself up during a U.S. air raid targeting him.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Live coverage: Jan. 6 panel turns to alleged link between Trump tweet, extremists
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol will turn its focus this week to former President Trump’s campaign to rally protesters to Washington, pointing to one tweet in particular as a pivotal moment in the violent effort to overturn his election defeat.
“Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Trump tweeted Dec. 19, 2020.
That message, the investigators contend, acted as a shrewd battle cry to the far-right extremist groups and other supporters who were wrongly convinced the election had been “stolen” and viewed Jan. 6, 2021 — when Congress met to certify Joe Biden’s victory — as their last best chance to keep Trump in power.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Watch live: NASA shares the first images from the Webb Space Telescope
NASA on Tuesday will share a number of new images from the James Webb Space Telescope.
The telescope, a project of NASA with the European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency, is the largest of its kind ever, and is expected to provide new insights about our universe.
The presentation is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. ET.
Watch the live video above.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Western governments confront China-Russia security threats — but US business won’t
The United States and NATO are striving to halt Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggressive campaign to reintegrate former Soviet-dominated nations under Moscow’s control.
After encouraging Georgia and Ukraine to seek NATO membership, the West did nothing to stop Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Ruling out direct intervention in Russia’s most recent aggression, the West has increased its weapons flow to Ukraine — but not with the potency, volume or speed needed to halt Russia’s continuing conquest of Ukrainian territory, let alone reverse it. The Biden administration fears the arms could generate Putin’s “escalation” beyond the war crimes and genocide his troops already are commiting. They also concede Russian control of Ukraine’s airspace and the international waters of the Black Sea.
On June 29, NATO published a new Strategic Concept that implicitly acknowledges its decades-long failure to confront an increasingly aggressive and anti-Western Russia.
But the NATO document expanded its strategic vision significantly beyond Russia by identifying dangers from outside the European continent: “The threats we face are global and interconnected. Authoritarian actors challenge our interests, values and democratic way of life. … The People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values.”
While not explicitly mentioning the February China-Russia joint statement that effectively declared a new cold war against the West and support for each other’s respective ambitions against Taiwan and Ukraine, NATO observed: “The deepening strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules-based international order run counter to our values and interests.”
NATO noted the multi-dimensional nature of the threat posed by China, often in collaboration with “malign actors” such as Russia: “The PRC’s malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target Allies and harm Alliance security. The PRC seeks to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, and strategic materials and supply chains …[and to] … interfere with our government services. … It uses its economic leverage to create strategic dependencies and enhance its influence. It strives to subvert the rules-based international order, including in the space, cyber and maritime domains.”
NATO also noted China’s growing capabilities and worrisome intentions in the realm of nuclear weapons, a threat that Putin has brandished in his war against Ukraine: “The PRC is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal and is developing increasingly sophisticated delivery systems, without increasing transparency or engaging in good faith in arms control or risk reduction.”
Yet, just as Western governments belatedly recognize the comprehensive security challenge from Moscow and Beijing, some senior U.S. business and policy leaders lament the deterioration in U.S.-China relations resulting from the West’s recent pushback and urge a return to failed policies of “dialogue” and engagement.
Last week, in a Wall Street Journal article, Maurice Greenberg explained the group’s concerns and proposed remedies. They amount to a recycling of all the worn shibboleths on U.S.-China relations that have proved so disastrously wrong during more than four decades of engagement.
The article notes that the business and policy men and women “have experience in China and share the view that we would be better served by having a more constructive relationship with China.” But, for almost half a century since Richard Nixon’s opening to Beijing, the “constructive relationship” built up by people experienced in China has led us precisely to the dangerous point that now worries them.
They assert, “We are confident that like-minded people in China would embrace the opportunity to work together to find solutions.” But “like-minded” Chinese come in two forms. Chinese leader Xi Jinping and members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) surely would support a return to the policies that have well-served Beijing’s interests and seriously disadvantaged America’s regional and global position.
Those Chinese who might share the Americans’ aspiration for a reciprocal, transparent and peaceful relationship — in contrast to the CCP’s anti-Western worldview — soon would find themselves in serious official disfavor, with career-ending punishment that includes incarceration or worse.
The group’s opinion piece claims, “The U.S. and China have a long history of collaboration dating to before World War II.” But that cooperation predates the creation of the People’s Republic of China. Since the communist regime came to power in 1949, it has fought the United States in the Korean and Vietnam wars; engaged in anti-Western “wars of national liberation”; proliferated weapons of mass destruction to North Korea, Pakistan and Mideast countries; supported North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs and provocations; and aided anti-Western regimes around the world.
One member of the dissident group experienced firsthand Beijing’s hostility to America and the West. William Cohen, former Defense Secretary in the Clinton administration, visited Beijing in 1997. He was greeted with a headline in China’s English-language newspaper: “U.S. Greatest Threat to World Peace!”
The business group rues the loss of bilateral channels for official communications and the “exchange of ideas,” which it sees as the cause of Sino-U.S. frictions: “After these channels were eliminated during the Trump administration, our differences increased, as did the level of mistrust.”
President Trump did seek an end to China’s egregiously unfair and dishonest trade practices about which earlier administrations had complained but never seriously confronted. Faithful implementation of the Phase 1 deal his administration negotiated would have put China on the path to economic, and potentially political, reform long hoped for in the West.
Then the pandemic struck from China and the international landscape changed. Trade reform was relegated to a back seat, and the possibility of political change in China returned to a distant dream. Trump denied he had been “duped” by Xi, but no longer admired or trusted him.
Meanwhile, his national security and foreign policy team accelerated its clear-eyed approach to China’s manifold security and human rights challenges. Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered speeches detailing the existential campaign Beijing has waged against the West.
Trump’s deputy national security adviser, Matt Pottinger, and his bosses, John Bolton and Robert O’Brien, and other officials crafted and implemented policies that rejected China’s lawless claims in the South and East China seas. They highlighted unprecedented support for Taiwan’s security and democracy, consistent with both the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and Nixon’s 1994 book that declared Taiwan “permanently separated politically” from China. Other Western governments also began fundamental reassessments of their indulgent approach toward China
The Biden administration, to Beijing’s unpleasant surprise, has retained and even expanded the core of the Trump team’s China and Taiwan policies. The business and policy communities likewise should shed their fears about defending America’s values and interests.
Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He served in the Pentagon when Vladimir Putin invaded Georgia and was involved in Department of Defense discussions about the U.S. response. Follow him on Twitter @BoscoJosephA.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
News consumption takes nosedive to start 2022, data shows
More Americans are tuning out of the news coverage in 2022 than those at the beginning of last year, according to a new report.
Reader and viewer engagement with news content across all platforms declined significantly in the first half of 2022, Axios reported this week, citing data from NewsWhip Apptopia, SimilarWeb, and Nielsen ratings.
Social media traction of news articles, specifically, is down 50 percent from last year, the analysis found, while news media app sessions are down 16 percent and unique visitors to the top five news sites in the country are down 18 percent collectively.
In terms of cable news viewership, ratings among the three major networks, Fox News, CNN and MSNBC primetime audience is down a total of 19 percent, the outlet noted. While Fox’s primetime ratings have trended upward 12 percent since last year, the data show CNN and MSNBC down 47 percent and 33 percent each.
Most notably, news consumption through social media among Americans has dipped to pre-pandemic levels, Axios reported. Interactions on social media for news articles have dropped 42 percent this year compared to the first half of 2019, before the pandemic began and the 2020 presidential election was in full swing.
The numbers suggest that news-consuming Americans have grown weary amid the 24-hour news cycle that has included serious topics in recent months, including the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and the buildup to the 2022 midterm elections and the 2024 presidential election.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Watch live: Senate Judiciary holds hearing on legal issues after overturning of Roe v. Wade
The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Tuesday on the legal consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Roe v. Wade.
The event is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. ET.
Watch the video above.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Watch live: White House COVID-19 Response Team holds briefing
The White House COVID-19 Response Team along with other public health officials on Tuesday morning are slated to hold a press briefing.
The event is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. ET.
Watch the live video above.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Is 2022 the death knell for congressional reform?
Those of us who have been working to goad Congress to reform itself got some bad news recently. Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) lost in his primary, thanks to Illinois’ Democrats redistricting him.
Davis is the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration (CHA) and also served on the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress (SCMC). In short, he is a person who has had a key role in the various efforts to upgrade Congress to meet the demands of the 21st century. But come January 2023, Davis will no longer be there.
Who will take his place is unclear. Davis was one of only three GOP members on the nine-member CHA. Presumably, Republicans will have the majority and more seats, but it remains to be seen whether any of them will be institutionalists willing to lean into the hard work of improving the House’s dated structures, processes and technology for serving the people.
The loss of Davis comes atop two additional pieces of bad news.
First, the select committee is due to expire at the end of this year. For the past three years, it has been grinding out bipartisan proposals and partnering with the CHA to get them enacted. To date, the SCMC has passed 142 recommendations, 33 of which have been fully implemented and 24 of which are nearly completed. Admirably, many of these reforms aim to reduce the gratuitous hyperpartisanship among members and to further professionalize staffing. Nonetheless, there are no signs the House leadership will call a vote to extend the life of the SCMC.
Second, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) is leaving the House. He is running for the seat of Sen. Rob Portman, who is retiring. Ryan has chaired the chamber’s subcommittee on legislative branch appropriations (SLBA) for years. He understands the value of congressional reform and has used the subcommittee’s power of the purse and authority to issue directives in reports to nudge reforms. Indeed, it was during Ryan’s time with the committee that struck down the silly, anachronistic rule that supposedly forbade the Congressional Research Service (CRS) from sharing its reports publicly. Again, whether someone who cares about congressional reform will replace Ryan remains to be seen. Certainly, the odds look long as the GOP has a bad habit of thinking that starving the legislative branch pleases the public.
All three of these venues — CHA, SCMC, and SLBA — were key to the congressional reform effort. The SCMC created ideas for reform, the CHA used its jurisdictional authority to enact them and House legislative branch appropriators helped supply funds that were needed. Six months from now, all three of these engines of reform might be idle.
Which would be a real shame. Congress desperately needs to upgrade its capacity and operations. Too much work that should get done does not get done.
The chambers have not overhauled themselves since the early 1970s. Back then, legislators on both sides of the aisle felt that presidents had too often usurped legislative powers and that the only way for the first branch of government to restore its power was to go big. So they enacted a congressional budget act, bulked up the corps of experts working in the legislative branch support agencies (CRS, the Government Accountability Office, etc.) and changed various internal rules and structures.
But those were the days when legislators took real pride in being legislators. There were more elected officials who understood that they had an interest in guarding Congress’ powers, and in having the national legislature be the strongest branch of government.
This is why the news of the departure of Davis and Ryan and the demise of the select committee is so dispiriting. These were the rare birds who cared enough about the Constitution and the health of representative government to work across the aisle.
Certainly, legislators can demand that the next Speaker of the House reestablish the select committee or some variation thereof. They also can fight to see that reformers are named to the CHA and SLBA. Their leverage for achieving these objectives is to withhold their votes in the selection of the Speaker. This is the way former Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) got the SCMC created.
But will there be sufficient legislators with the desire and courage to make those demands? Let us all hope so. Because if nobody is tasked with reforming Congress then the job will not get done.
Kevin R. Kosar (@kevinrkosar) is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the coeditor of “Congress Overwhelmed: Congressional Capacity and Prospects for Reform“ (University of Chicago Press, 2020).
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
To restore trust in science, make it accessible; here's how
American trust in medical science is waning. Less than a third of adults — just 29 percent — report having “a great deal of trust” in medical researchers, according to a report from the Pew Charitable Trust. For most of our careers, but accelerating during the COVID pandemic, there has been a worrisome gap between those of us who conduct research and the public.
It’s time for both researchers and research funders to rethink and strengthen how they engage the communities around them — and to work closely with those communities to articulate research in a more meaningful way.
Presenting research in arcane and overly technical ways that are nearly impenetrable to people without advanced training and a dictionary to decipher the jargon is harmful to building positive relationships between researchers, the public, and policymakers.
Did you ever stop to ask yourself why? Does it really need to be so complex? And should researchers, particularly those who are publicly funded, have some sort of obligation to share their findings with the public in easier ways?
While science can be complex, dissemination doesn’t have to be.
Plain language does not necessarily diminish rigor; instead, it can facilitate engagement and further learning. Overly technical language, on the other hand, excludes participation. People simply tune it out. It can also reinforce dominant narratives that privilege scientific knowledge over other forms of knowing and learning, which further separates science from the public. The further apart we are, the greater the space for misunderstanding.
Both of us have been among a small, but rapidly growing and vibrant subset of researchers who recognize the harms of the academy and the need for community leadership in research. Typically called community-based participatory research, this approach has been supported to some extent by the National Institutes of Health and other research funders, but remains a tiny fraction of research conducted in the United States.
One feature that stands out from our experience is that working directly with community members or stakeholders on the science can help create co-learning opportunities and the development of lasting relationships built on trust and mutual understanding. This happens because community-researcher collaborations require that each party spend a lot of time learning to communicate in the language of the other. However, it can’t and won’t happen if we researchers stay within the walls of the university.
We need to get out into the community and learn about local priorities and identify shared interests. We also know that it doesn’t happen overnight and it’s not easy. Relationships by nature require time and effort. They generally involve give and take, discomfort, and sometimes hurt feelings along the way. The benefits are the learning that happens as we grow together.
For example, we have been working in partnership with communities on the study of traffic-related air pollution for more than a decade. While the science of air pollution and its impact on the body are indeed complex, we have worked closely with community leaders and residents across all phases of the research process. This has resulted in broad participation and the development of meaningful air filtration interventions, as well as the development of culturally relevant health communication materials.
Our community partners have stuck with us for years, listening and participating in discussions about collecting, processing, analyzing, and interpreting data. Over the course of time, we have all had to compromise and learn from each other. The public and social issues we are working to address are pressing and vitally important. Research is one important tool that can make real change; however, it is challenging, time-consuming and uncertain. Even impressive research efforts usually do not fully resolve an issue we are trying to tackle.
We worry about the low level of public trust in medical science and research, as well as the lack of opportunities for participation in research given the amount of public tax dollars invested in this area. This public trust issue calls into question whether our current model of research funding is the most effective approach.
Organizations fund academic institutions and expect them to have the capacity to involve the public, despite the gulf between the public and those of us embedded in the academic research enterprise. How do we solve this?
- Expand community involvement in research decision-making and agenda-setting at the federal level through the re-establishment of the NIH Director’s Council of Public Representatives.
- Establish greater research accountability by disseminating research findings well beyond academic journals in simple, clear language through funding guidelines that require research findings be communicated to the public and translated into action.
These changes can ensure that research is responsive to community priorities, involves community partners, and effectively communicates important findings to the audience that needs them.
Linda Sprague Martinez is associate professor at the School of Social Work and co-director of the Clinical and Translational Science Institute’s Community Engagement Program, Boston University.
Doug Brugge is professor and chair of the Department of Public Health Sciences Health Net, Inc., and endowed chair in Community Medicine, UConn Health.
Source: TEST FEED1