Archive by Author

NASA calls ‘mystery' rocket crash on moon highly unusual

NASA said a rocket of unknown national origin that crashed into the moon earlier this year produced a double crater on the surface, an unexpected feat.

The agency’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which collects data on the moon, spotted two craters after the “mystery rocket body” collided with the moon on March 4, NASA said recently.

It created an eastern crater about 19.5 yards in diameter and a western crater about 17.5 yards in diameter. 

The agency said the double crater might indicate that the rocket had a large mass on each end of it. A rocket that has used up its fuel usually will just have its mass on the end with the motor, with the other side being an empty fuel tank. 

The rocket’s origin is uncertain, but the double crater that it produced might reveal its identity, according to the release. 

A rocket body hitting the moon has not created a double crater before, the release states. 

The Houston Chronicle reported Thursday that no space-exploring country has claimed the rocket as their own so far.

Source: TEST FEED1

NATO and Biden must now act on their promises

This week’s NATO Madrid Conference was one of the organization’s most consequential in decades. After Turkey at last lifted its veto on Swedish entry to NATO, the alliance formally invited both Sweden and Finland to join its ranks. Member states agreed to increase the NATO Rapid Response force roughly eightfold, from 40,000 land, air and sea personnel to some 300,000. Finally, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced that the alliance will increase to as much as brigade levels some portion of the forces stationed in its eastern members. 

These steps are, of course, a reaction to Russia’s war in Ukraine and the threat that Moscow poses to what is best described as NATO’s eastern front.

The increase in the size of the Rapid Response Force is surely to be welcomed. Yet it reflects only commitments by member states. How long they will take to realize those commitments is an entirely different matter. Unfortunately, NATO has a sorry record when it comes to getting member states to act on their promises. As early as 1952, during the height of the Cold War, member states agreed in Lisbon to increase their forces significantly; this never happened. Indeed, far too many NATO members have yet to meet their nearly decade-old commitment to increase their defense spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product.

Moreover, the expanded force is only a response force. Until this week’s NATO decision, of the 40,000 troops in the force, only half comprised what the organization terms the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF). Moreover, according to NATO, an even smaller force would be “ready to move within two to three days.” It is not at all clear whether, and to what extent, NATO as an organization and its individual member states will commit units and personnel to increase this vanguard to the brigade levels that Stoltenberg described.

Sweden and Finland’s entry to NATO, by virtue of their geographic proximity to Russia and to the vulnerable Baltic states, naturally will constitute a de facto increase in forces that can respond immediately to a Russian threat. Indeed, both countries already contribute to NATO’s Response Force. Nevertheless, their actual membership in the alliance can take place only when the parliaments of all member states ratify the decisions of their respective governments.

Hopefully, the United Senate will do so in July. But not all of its sister parliaments are likely to move as quickly. In particular, the Turkish parliament still might pose a problem. It is worth recalling that in 2003, the Bush administration requested that Turkey permit the 4th Infantry Division to transit through its territory to attack Iraq from the north. The parliament refused to authorize that movement and none took place. Until ratification of Swedish and Finnish membership is complete, the words attributed to New York Yankees catcher (and sometime philosopher) Yogi Berra will apply: “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

In the meantime — and even when Sweden and Finland do join NATO, as no doubt they ultimately will — the alliance in general and Washington in particular must ensure that the deterrent on the eastern flank is truly credible. To that end, President Biden announced on Wednesday that the United States would establish a permanent headquarters for the Army’s V Corps in Poznan, Poland, together with a field support battalion. This move would represent the first permanent U.S. military presence on NATO’s eastern front. 

Biden also promised that Washington would deploy more forces to the Baltic states, although he offered no details. At a minimum, the United States should take steps immediately to permanently station an armored battalion in each of the three Baltic states. It could do so even before the Army’s V Corps expanded headquarters is established. V Corps already has a rotational forward headquarters unit in Poznan that could coordinate the activities of the battalions in the Baltic states.

Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin demanded that NATO withdraw all forces that it deployed to the territories of its member states after 1997. With his forces having broken all norms of peaceful behavior and committed what clearly are an ongoing series of war crimes, Putin has no standing to demand where and in what ways NATO should deploy forces on the territories of its members. 

NATO has promised the right things this week, as has President Biden. Both should act quickly to convert their commitments into reality.

Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was under secretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy under secretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Study shows sharks aren't deterred by urban beaches, upping risk of human encounters

A study conducted at the University of Miami shows that sharks are attracted to urban areas, promoting interactions between sharks and humans.

“We predicted sharks would exhibit avoidance behaviors of areas close to Miami,” the study, titled “Urban Sharks: Residency patterns of marine top predators in relation to a coastal metropolis,” reads. “However, we did not find empirical support for these predictions.”

Instead, researchers found that the ocean predators are “urban adapters,” meaning that while they spend much of their time in natural waters, they are comfortable approaching areas populated by humans.

“Modeling also revealed that an unmeasured spatial variable was driving considerable shark residency in areas exposed to high urbanization,” wrote researchers.

The study examined the space use of 14 great hammerheads, 13 bull sharks and 25 nurse sharks, all of which showed a similar level of comfort with urbanized beaches.

The authors of the study hypothesize that factors like food provision, including the discarding of fish carcasses, might be at play in shark attraction to urbanized areas.

This behavior differs from most land predators, which generally stay far away from urban areas due to things like chemicals, light and noise pollution.

“Few studies have investigated the movements of ocean predators in relation to urbanization, but since other studies have shown that land predators are urban avoiders, we expected sharks to be too,” said UM Shark Research and Conservation Program Director Neil Hammerschlag, the lead author of the study. “We were surprised to find that the sharks we tracked spent so much time near the lights and sounds of the busy city, often close to shore, no matter the time of day.”

Hammerschlag said that sharks are “at risk of exposure to toxic pollutants as well as fishing” by spending so much time close to shore, as well as that there could be some risk of negative human-shark encounters.

The study identified areas of the Miami shore that people may want to avoid in case of encounters with sharks.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump leads Biden in hypothetical 2024 matchup: poll

Former President Trump has an early edge over President Biden in a hypothetical 2024 rematch, according to a new Emerson College poll. 

The national survey shows Trump leading Biden 44 percent to 39 percent in a head-to-head matchup, while another 12 percent of voters say they plan to vote for someone else. 

Trump’s support has held firm since May, when the same poll found him notching 44 percent support in a 2024 race against Biden. But Biden’s support has waned, somewhat, since then, dropping from 42 percent in May to 39 percent in late June. 

Of course, whether a rematch of the 2020 presidential race materializes in 2024 remains an open question.

While Biden has said that he plans to seek a second term in the White House, some Democrats have begun questioning whether he should actually do so. 

Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly hinted at a potential 2024 run, though he hasn’t yet committed himself to another campaign and some Republicans remain skeptical that he will actually move forward with a comeback bid.

If he does ultimately decide to run, however, Trump would be the early favorite to win the GOP presidential nod. Fifty-five percent of voters say they would support Trump in the 2024 Republican primary, while 20 percent would back Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a rising star within the party who has been floated as a potential presidential contender.

No other Republican scores double-digit support in a hypothetical primary matchup. Former Vice President Mike Pence notches 9 percent, while every other prospective candidate in the poll fails to clear even 5 percent support. 

On the Democratic side, 64 percent of voters say that Biden should be the party’s 2024 nominee, while 36 percent say he should not be.

Of course, the first primaries and caucuses of the 2024 election cycle are still a year-and-a-half away, and few Democrats have positioned themselves for potential White House runs in the way that several Republicans have.

The Emerson College national poll surveyed 1,271 registered voters nationwide from June 28-29. It has a credibility interval – similar to a margin of error – of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

DC gun owners sue, say Supreme Court ruling makes Metro concealed ban unconstitutional

Four District of Columbia-area gun owners on Thursday filed a lawsuit against D.C. and Police Chief Robert J. Contee III, arguing that the ban on carrying firearms on the Metro is unconstitutional, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s recent New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision.

“The regulation at issue in this case, runs afoul of the Second Amendment because it lacks any historical justification, is arbitrary and capricious, and unnecessarily impinges on the core right of self-protection,” wrote the four plaintiffs in their suit.

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen opinion reads that “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” in order to implement a restriction on carrying firearms.

Plaintiffs Gregory T. Angelo, Tyler Yzaguirre, Robert M. Miller and Cameron M. Erickson, all of whom say they regularly use the Metro and have concealed carry permits, said that “Public transportation vehicles and stations, essentially the D.C. Metro, share few, if any, characteristics” with other locations designated as “sensitive areas” by the District.

The District of Columbia does not allow firearms in schools, government buildings, medical offices, businesses that serve alcohol or polling places where voting is taking place, designating these areas as “sensitive” due to a higher risk of public shooting than other places.

The lawsuit says that transportation methods like the Metro system should not be included on this list, arguing that “They are not landmarks or symbols of our nation which would be inviting to terrorists or active killers.”

The Hill has reached out to District of Columbia Attorney General Karl A. Racine for comment on the lawsuit.

Source: TEST FEED1

The issue that trumps them all

As the July 4 holiday approaches, Americans can be forgiven for taking a break from today’s incendiary politics of partisan hatred and performative outrage. But it’s also the right occasion for citizens to think about their duty to reinforce the rules that make our democracy work.

Polls show rampant inflation is the voters’ top concern in this midterm election year. But it won’t be the most important issue on the ballot.

More consequential than soaring prices, crime, climate change or any other pressing national problem is the resilience of our constitutional framework for self-government. If it cracks under pressure from political extremists, we can kiss our liberties and democracy goodbye.

Illiberal ideas and crackbrain conspiracy theories flourish across the political spectrum. But only one political party is colluding with a rogue ex-president’s plot to tear down our constitutional system. The Republican Party’s surrender to MAGA delusions and fanaticism is the biggest threat to our republic, trumping all other election issues.

Last week’s Supreme Court rulings on abortion and guns also underscored the GOP’s win-at-all-costs determination to use the federal government’s least democratic branch to impose rightwing dogma on the country.

Thanks to the meticulous work of the House Jan. 6 Select Committee, we know that top Trump administration and campaign officials told their boss he had lost the 2020 election. He schemed to nullify the people’s verdict anyway, cynically asking one of them, “What do I have to lose?”

So, a lame-duck President Trump unleashed a violent mob on Congress and tried to corrupt GOP state election officials in charge of counting the votes. Those who refused to help Trump “find” votes nobody cast have been subjected to harassment and death threats and face challenges from Trump-backed candidates eager to do his bidding in future elections.  

“To steal an election in the United States of America is to steal her democracy,” J. Michael Luttig, a former federal judge and prominent conservative, told the Jan. 6 committee. He added, “…as a political matter of fact only the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war.”

That’s true, but most Republicans either support Trump’s treachery or are too craven to call out his flagrant lies. America has only two governing parties, and when one of them ceases to respect and abide by the nation’s fundamental laws, that’s more important for voters to know than where the parties stand on the price of gas or border security.       

Obviously, Democrats must address the voters’ everyday struggles in the midterm elections. But President Biden and his party would be derelict in their duty if they failed to warn U.S. voters of what could happen if Republicans mesmerized by MAGA extremism take over Congress.

For starters, it would give fresh impetus to the Trump coup. So far this year, more than 100 GOP primary winners have supported Trump’s fraudulent claims of election fraud. 

This fall, Democrats should keep the spotlight on Trump’s co-conspirators — 139 GOP representatives and eight senators who, only hours after MAGA thugs trashed the Capitol, violated their oaths to defend the Constitution by refusing to certify Biden’s decisive presidential victory.

They should be bombarded by images of the Jan. 6 riot as well as the damning testimony from Republicans who tried to dissuade Trump from disrupting the peaceful transfer of power. Individual donors and companies that contribute to their campaigns should be named and shamed.

Every GOP candidate should be pressed to answer a simple question: Do you believe Joe Biden is the legitimately elected president of the United States? Those who decline to answer will look evasive; those who endorse Trump’s “Big Lie” will confirm the charge of extremism. Maybe that won’t matter in safe red places, but it could matter in swing districts and states where GOP candidates need to win suburban independent and moderate voters.

By striking down Roe v. Wade, the most ideologically strident Supreme Court in memory gave Republican-controlled states a green light to deprive America’s women of their right to an abortion.

The court’s gun rights absolutism is increasingly out of step with mainstream opinion. According to a recent Morning Consult/Politico poll, more than two in three voters – including 44 percent of Republicans – support stricter gun control laws.

It was heartening to see 15 Senate Republicans join Democrats last week in passing a modest gun safety bill. Even so, they’re being roasted as “RINOs” by the MAGA mob, and the overwhelming majority of congressional Republicans – seemingly unfazed by the racist massacre of Black grocery shoppers in Buffalo and the horrendous murder of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde – won’t support even these minimal steps to stem the carnage.  

Other examples of MAGA extremism abound. As if the political atmosphere isn’t already sufficiently charged with incitements to violence, Republican Senate candidate Eric Greitens recently released a grotesque ad in which he brandishes a shotgun for “RINO hunting.”

Then there’s Texas, where Republicans are acting out like adolescents on a junior high playground. The state GOP recently adopted a new platform that refers to Biden as “acting president,” slams gays and calls for Texas to hold a referendum on seceding from the union — again.

Republicans justify their anti-democratic extremism as necessary to “save” America from Democrats, Socialists, globalists, pedophiles, immigrants, transgender athletes and other phantom menaces.

But as Luttig tesitified, it’s MAGA fanaticism that poses the real and present danger to our republic. This fall and beyond, Democrats must remind voters that only they have the power to stop it.

Will Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).

Source: TEST FEED1

Have presidents’ parenting experiences shaped Supreme Court decisions?

Presidents and first ladies aren’t immune from the joys, sorrows and unexpected events surrounding parenthood. What about the parenting experiences of presidents who appointed Supreme Court justices whose votes decided cases related to childbearing? 

John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic president, nominated Justices Byron White and Arthur Goldberg to the high tribunal. Contraception and abortion weren’t on the political agenda when JFK ran for office in 1960 or during his truncated presidency. JFK and his wife Jacqueline, at ages 43 and 31, respectively, when they entered the White House, were in their prime family-raising years. They remain the only first couple to have a child between the election and inauguration, John Jr., born in late November 1960. They wanted a large brood, but Mrs. Kennedy suffered a miscarriage and a stillbirth prior to their daughter Caroline’s 1957 arrival. The president and first lady rejoiced when Jackie became pregnant in 1963 but were devastated when their premature son, Patrick, died barely two days after his birth.

Whether the Kennedys agreed with their religion’s prohibition against artificial birth control and abortion is unknown, but JFK’s two nominees to the Supreme Court, neither of whom was Catholic, both voted in 1965 to strike down Connecticut’s ban on contraception even for married couples. White, however, was one of only two justices who dissented from 1973’s Roe v. Wade decision establishing a right to abortion.

Infamously, JFK had a relationship with White House intern, Mimi Beardsley, who reports that they had “unprotected” sexual encounters. When she thought she might be pregnant, a presidential enabler reportedly began abortion arrangements, despite its illegality. The false pregnancy alarm spared the college student from having to proceed with the plan.

Ronald Reagan and his first wife, Jane Wyman, had a biological daughter and an adopted son, but lost a premature baby, which reportedly strained their union. They divorced in 1949. The premarital pregnancy of Nancy Davis prompted Reagan’s second marriage three years later. As California governor, he signed a 1967 bill liberalizing access to abortion. But, by his 1980 election to the presidency, Reagan was a staunch “pro-lifer” and appointed what he thought were four fellow conservatives to the nation’s highest court. 

Reagan was right about Justice Antonin Scalia, a devout Catholic and father of nine, and Justice William Rehnquist, whom he promoted to chief justice. Both went to their graves as determined anti-abortion advocates. (Rehnquist, a Richard Nixon appointee to associate justice, had dissented with White in Roe.) But Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman on the court and thus its only member to have experienced pregnancy, when the tribunal decided Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, joined with the fourth Reagan appointee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic, to uphold some Pennsylvania restrictions on abortion but affirm the core of Roe.  

Both President Bushes had complex histories involving offspring. George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara experienced the tragic loss of their 3-year-old daughter Robin to leukemia in 1953. Her death was one of the first childhood memories of her older brother, George W. Bush. Barbara eventually gave birth to three more sons and a daughter. When young George was a high-schooler, his mother suffered a miscarriage. With the elder Bush on the road, it fell to “W.” to accompany Barbara Bush to the hospital and carry the deceased fetus (contained in a jar) to nurses. He later reported thinking, “There was a human life, a little brother or sister.” The trauma caused him to discuss with his mother whether she should attempt future pregnancies.

When George W. married Laura Welch, an only child, she hoped to have a passel of children, like the large family her husband hailed from, but the young couple experienced fertility issues that ran in Laura’s family and decided to adopt. As they began working with an adoption agency, the Bushes discovered they were expecting twins. While president, George W. Bush, a staunch “pro-lifer,” signed an executive order limiting stem-cell research to fetal lines that already existed. He also welcomed to the White House “snowflake babies” produced from frozen embryos donated by parents who have completed their families through in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Ironically for their two appointing presidents, two current justices — Clarence Thomas (appointed by Bush 41) and Samuel Alito (named by Bush 43) — have created uncertainty about pregnancy issues with their leadership of the majority that struck down Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Will women who have miscarriages need to prove that they didn’t abort their fetuses? Will in vitro fertilization be allowed and, if so, will couples have the option of destroying their fertilized eggs? 

George H.W. Bush, whose father, Connecticut Sen. Prescott Bush, supported birth control, might have been more comfortable with the moderate approach to abortion that his appointee, Justice David Souter, took in the Casey case, when he joined O’Connor and Kennedy to uphold Roe but allow some state limitations. Conversely, George W. Bush’s firsthand experiences may have prepared him to accept Alito’s more extreme majority opinion in Dobbs.

The Clintons and Obamas also had trouble conceiving. Bill and Hillary had made an appointment with a fertility expert when they discovered their pregnancy with daughter Chelsea. After a miscarriage, Barack and Michelle underwent fertility treatments that led to the birth of their first daughter, Malia. Another round of IVF produced their second baby girl, Sasha. As staunch liberals who believe in a woman’s right to control her reproductive health care, the 42nd and 44th presidents nominated four “pro-choice” members of the Supreme Court — Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The latter three will go down in constitutional history for their fiery dissent from overturning the right to abortion.

Donald Trump, the father of five children by three wives, was for abortion before he was against it. By his 2016 run for the GOP presidential nomination, he proclaimed that women who have abortions should be “punished.” But he quickly retracted the statement and declined to answer whether he had faced abortion personally during his days as a Manhattan libertine. His trio of “pro-life” Supreme Court choices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — sealed the majority vote needed to abolish the national right to abortion.

Supreme Court nominees since the Roe decision have been chosen, in part, based on their perceived positions on abortion. In this new Dobbs era, it might be time to ask all presidential aspirants how personal experiences may have shaped their political views of reproductive rights.

Barbara A. Perry is Presidential Studies director and Gerald L. Baliles Professor at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. She was the 1994-95 Supreme Court Fellow. Follow her on Twitter @BarbaraPerryUVA.

Source: TEST FEED1

Uvalde victim family members demand probe details: 'Nobody's giving us any answers'

Family members of the victims of the May 24 shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, confronted their mayor at a city council meeting on Thursday, calling for details on an ongoing investigation of the incident.

“Nobody’s giving us any answers, it’s been over a month, you have no idea how frustrating that is. We’re sitting here, just listening to empty words,” said the sister of Irma Garcia, one of the two teachers killed in the shooting at Robb Elementary School alongside 19 fourth graders.

Mayor Dan McLaughlin told family members and other members of the Uvalde community that he was unable to share details due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, which is being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Texas Rangers, a section of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

The Texas Department of Public Safety and Uvalde County District Attorney Christina Mitchell Busbee asked officials last month to keep information confidential until the probe is completed.

The families of shooting victims and survivors criticized McLaughlin for his statement and urged officials to work harder to obtain information that can be shared with the public.

“Show your face. Answer our questions, now,” said Tina Quintanilla-Taylor, the mother of a survivor of the shooting, directed at those in charge of the investigation.

Meeting attendees considered recalling Busbee because of her withholding of information on the investigation, displaying frustration toward all the officials involved with the probe.

McLaughlin offered to resign in response to criticism at the meeting, saying: “I’m not a quitter. But if this community feels like I haven’t done a good job as mayor and they want me to resign, I’d be happy to.”

Notably absent from the meeting was school district police chief and City Council member Pete Arredondo, who has been criticized for the police response to the shooting.

Source: TEST FEED1

Kansas City hospital system resumes Plan B distribution after temporary halt amid abortion ban

Saint Luke’s Health System, a large health care group based in Kansas City, Mo., resumed distribution of Plan B emergency contraceptives this week after a pause due to confusion over the state’s newly implemented abortion ban.

“Following further internal review, Saint Luke’s will now resume providing emergency contraceptives, under new protocols, at all Missouri-based Saint Luke’s hospitals and clinics,” the hospital system wrote in a statement, adding that it will “closely monitor legal developments regarding Missouri’s trigger law.”

The state of Missouri passed the “Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act” in 2019, limiting abortion to “cases of medical emergency.”

Missouri Revisor of Statutes section 188.017 specifies that any person who “knowingly performs or induces an abortion of an unborn child” will be guilty of a felony but that a woman “upon whom an abortion is performed or induced” will not be prosecuted.

The act was officially implemented by the Show Me State’s Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R) on June 24, shortly following the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court decision.

“This opinion immediately restores Missouri’s deeply rooted history and proud tradition of respecting, protecting and promoting the life of the unborn,” wrote Schmitt in his release.

Schmitt cited the state’s Supreme Court’s recent Rodgers v. Danforth decision to bolster his implementation of the abortion law, where the members of the Court determined that “unborn children have all the qualities and attributes of adult human persons differing only in age and maturity.”

Saint Luke’s Health System contended in its statement that “the ambiguity of the law, and the uncertainty even among state officials about what this law prohibits, continues to cause grave concern and will require careful monitoring.”

“This is especially true because the penalty for violation of the statute includes the criminal prosecution of health care providers whose sole focus is to provide medically necessary care for their patients,” the statement read.

Source: TEST FEED1