Tag Archives : Build House

Why are populations of alpine bees declining?

Efforts to protect at-risk bumble bee populations are not new, as declining numbers have been reported in several states.

However, new research out of Webster University in Missouri points to climate change as a likely cause for lower rates of bumble bees in alpine regions, or high elevation areas above timberlines. 

Writing in the journal Global Change Biology, researchers investigated “whether bumble bee responses generate mismatches with floral resources, and whether these mismatches in turn promote community disruption and potential species replacement.”

Bees are essential to both humans and the environment as their work contributes directly to food security. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, one third of the world’s food production depends on bees. 

The alpine study began in 2012 and experts assessed bee population data from three peaks in the Rocky Mountains. Researchers also analyzed data on the species collected over 60 years, and found the bees have a low tolerance for warming temperatures. 

As the earth warms, bees from lower elevations thrive and could potentially displace these vulnerable organisms. This phenomenon would lead to extinction of the alpine bee in the near future. 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

“We predict the local extinction of species in areas where the alpine bees can‘t migrate further upslope, where the weather is cooler and the growing season still remains short,” said study co-author Nicole Miller-Struttmann, an associate professor of biology at Webster University in a statement. 

“They are not responding to the temperature changes fast enough because they are stuck in an evolutionary trap.”

Warmer spring temperatures also mean earlier flowering of the bees’ preferred resources, authors explained. These temperature range-stable alpine bees might fall behind range-expanding bees when it comes to pollinating, due to a mismatch in timing of these seasonal events. 

In addition, because alpine regions are typically cold, summer flower growing seasons are short, while the alpine bees likely adapted to this shorter time by limiting their foraging activity and reproductive phase. Now that longer, warmer seasons are more common, the bees miss out on flowers at later times, researchers explained. 

In contrast, lower elevation bees are more flexible with their schedules as they’re accustomed to warmer weather, meaning they can exploit these missed resources.

“Results suggest that conversion of historic habitats for cold-adapted alpine bumble bee species into refugia for more heat-tolerant congeners is disrupting bumble bee communities at high elevations,” authors wrote, although precise mechanisms behind these shifts remain unknown.

The evolutionary history of alpine bees means they’re only able to collect nectar and pollen during a short window — which is the same normal growing season in high elevations recorded half a century ago. 

“As the climate warms and becomes more variable, organisms specialized to past conditions are declining, be it bumble bees or penguins,” said co-author Candace Galen, professor emerita at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

“We are losing biodiversity at a rapid clip, and with it the ecological services including pollination services that enrich and sustain our lives.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

FTC drops Zuckerberg from lawsuit over virtual reality company purchase

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) entered an agreement with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday to drop him from an ongoing antitrust lawsuit attempting to block the company’s purchase of a virtual reality company.

A joint court filing stipulates that Zuckerberg will not purchase the company, Within Unlimited, as an individual or through any entity controlled by Zuckerberg in exchange for being removed as a defendant in the suit.

The lawsuit, filed by the FTC late last month, accuses Meta of a years-long “campaign to conquer VR” that began as early as March 2014, when then-Facebook acquired headset-maker Oculus VR.

Facebook, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, rebranded itself as Meta last year as the company sought to refocus its efforts on the so-called metaverse and virtual reality industry.

The suit targets Meta’s attempt to buy Within Unlimited, a virtual reality developer that designed fitness app Supernatural. The app enables users to participate in workout sessions set to music from prominent artists while in a virtual reality environment that mimics destinations across the globe.

The FTC alleges Meta “is trying to buy its way to the top” rather than competing on the merits, but Meta has contested the accusations as being “based on ideology and speculation, not evidence.”

“The idea that this acquisition would lead to anticompetitive outcomes in a dynamic space with as much entry and growth as online and connected fitness is simply not credible,” Meta said in a statement when the suit was filed. “By attacking this deal in a 3-2 vote, the FTC is sending a chilling message to anyone who wishes to innovate in VR.”

The three Democratic FTC commissioners voted to sue Meta over its acquisition of Within Unlimited, while the two Republican commissioners voted against the move.

FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan has taken aim at Big Tech since assuming the post in June 2021, and the lawsuit has been one of her most prominent moves atop the commission.

Meta, which remains a defendant in the suit, declined to comment on the latest filing. The FTC did not immediately return a request for comment.

The tech giant’s change in focus comes as the company faces hurdles in its social media business. 

Apple rolled out a privacy feature allowing users to block their data from being tracked across apps and websites, creating further roadblocks for Facebook’s targeted advertising business as it also faces stiff competition from TikTok and the threat of a recession.

Meta’s overall revenue dropped to $28.8 billion in the quarter ending in June, and its Facebook platform reported its first-ever user loss at the end of 2021.

Facebook’s rebrand to Meta in October also came as the company faced increased scrutiny following whistleblower Frances Haugen’s leaking of internal company documents.

Source: TEST FEED1

Iran’s ‘state’ terrorism and an American policy of deterrence

History tells us that ignoring a pattern of escalating aggression — a failure to deter — courts disaster. We appear to be on that path with Iran.

For many years, the foreign policy establishment believed Tehran would only target the U.S. homeland in case of war. This theory collapsed in 2011 when the FBI foiled an Iranian plot to kill the then Saudi Arabia ambassador to the U.S. in an attempt that, if successful, would assuredly have produced mass casualties. The willingness to inflict mass casualties has remained a common theme in Iranian “state” terrorism. In 2018, a failed Iranian scheme to bomb a dissident gathering in Paris would have killed hundreds, including former U.S. officials. While the perpetrators were arrested, tried, and convicted in European courts, no serious action was taken against Tehran.

Recently, the FBI thwarted an attempted kidnapping and murder of Iranian American activist Masih Alinejad in Brooklyn, intervened to stop an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps murder plot against former National Security Advisor John Bolton, and disrupted a plan to assassinate former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. There are multiple threats against other American citizens and former U.S. officials, including former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper.

Salman Rushdie, who is under threat of execution from Iran after the publication of The Satanic Verses, was stabbed repeatedly while speaking in New York this month. The attacker made no secret of his devotion to the Supreme Leader and had been in direct contact with members of the IRGC on social media. Iranian state media loudly applauded the murderous assault.

Iran’s systematic targeting of Americans has grown to an unprecedented level. A recent Washington Institute for Near East Policy study of Iran-related assassinations, abductions, and surveillance operations targeting American and Western interests found at least 105 cases since 1979. A majority of these operations occurred in the past decade. There is no comparable example of another country targeting Americans on American soil. To be clear, this activity isn’t that of an individual terrorist, terrorist group, or a state sponsor of terrorism. This is the action of a “terror state.” While we firmly believe targeting American citizens constitutes an act of war, we ponder how many Americans must be targeted or killed for naysayers to admit such aggression constitutes an act of war. Is it two, five, ten, 100?

We see responses to Iranian terror are similar in nature and fecklessness. Compromised Iranian operatives are prosecuted by law enforcement, sanctions are sometimes levied against Iranian interests (with no financial assets in the West), and policymakers issue press statements claiming that a “successful attack” will be met with “serious consequences.” Little to no consequences guarantees Iran’s continued planning of such attacks. Without consequences, Iranian “state” terror continues, its pace dictated by Tehran’s resources and the ability of Western governments to frustrate operations.

Historically, U.S. terror policy has been bolder. In 1993, President Clinton authorized an attack on Iraqi intelligence as a “firm and commensurate” response to Iraq’s attempt to assassinate former President George Bush. Yet, a military response against Iran is routinely condemned by some who argue that any such military operation will escalate into a conventional conflict. These same voices often describe those who disagree with this position as war mongers, stifling a long-overdue policy debate.

The consequences of the current approach reinforce Tehran’s belief that it can act with impunity and undercut U.S. credibility. If Washington won’t respond to “state” terrorist actions constituting an act of war on its homeland and missile attacks on countries that are home to thousands of U.S. citizens, allies and partners inevitably will question Washington’s reliability. A failure to respond to these acts of war makes more of these acts of war more likely and hence war more likely.

Great risk comes from a policy that reinforces Tehran’s belief that its attacks may be undertaken at no cost.

Several steps deserve immediate consideration. First, the U.S. should deny the Iranian president and his representatives a visa to the United States for the upcoming UN General Assembly and use this event to rally support against Iranian “state” terrorism. To send a clear message, the U.S. should designate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a terrorist under U.S. and international authorities. Much has been made of our revitalized relationship with Europe and our Arab partners. We should work with these countries to ensure that they reject meetings with senior Iranian diplomats and ensure that Iran understands that its diplomatic isolation is the result of its “state” terrorism. Last, we should advise Iran unequivocally that we consider “state” terrorism against U.S. persons as an act of war. Absent a determined policy response to deter Iran, further attacks may ignite the conventional conflict we all wish to avoid.

Tehran will respond defiantly. We should expect attacks on our forces in Iraq or Syria to test our fortitude. Nevertheless, a serious multipronged approach will ignite debate among Iran’s leadership as to whether “state” terrorism is worth the potential costs, including a military conflict.

Absent a different approach to Tehran’s aggression, we risk Iran achieving a catastrophic success that cannot be viewed as anything other than an act of war resulting in war. Our restraint should not be the very cause of such a disastrous outcome.

Mark D. Wallace, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations for Management and Reform, is CEO of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI).

Norman Roule is a former National Intelligence Manager For Iran at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and a senior advisor to UANI.

Frances F. Townsend served as assistant to President George W. Bush for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and is a senior advisor to UANI.

Source: TEST FEED1

Rick Reed, GOP strategist behind Kerry Swift Boat ads, dies at 69

Rick Reed, a longtime GOP media strategist who famously crafted a series of ads in 2004 attacking then-presidential candidate John Kerry’s military record in the Vietnam War, died unexpectedly on Aug. 17. He was 69.

Reed was most known for designing multiple ads during the 2004 presidential campaign for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that accused Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee who at the time served as a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, of not deserving his combat medals and betraying his fellow soldiers.

The ad campaign was seen as a smear campaign by many, including former Republican presidential candidate and Vietnam prisoner of war John McCain, who called the commercials “dishonest and dishonorable.”

Beyond his involvement in the 2004 presidential race, Reed crafted ads for many Republican candidates during his career and for years served as a partner at Republican media firm Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm.

Reed also worked for McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

When interviewed recently, Reed said he was happiest when he was with his family, being productive at work and helping others, his loved ones wrote in his obituary.

“I am happiest when I am with my family and know that everyone else is happy,” Reed said, according to his obituary. 

“Life has its ups and downs so I understand that none of us are happy every single minute of every day,” he added.

Reed also served as the political editor of White House Bulletin and a vice president at Market Opinion Research. 

He also worked as a deputy director at the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), where he produced ads on behalf of Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), according to Reed’s biography page.

Reed, who was born in Wakefield, Mass., and most recently resided in Alexandria, Va., is survived by his wife Gayla Reed, whom he met at the NRSC, and three children.

Source: TEST FEED1

Hurricane Andrew made landfall 30 years ago today: America still hasn’t learned its lesson

When Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida on Aug. 24, 1992, it became — at the time — the costliest and most damaging hurricane to ever hit the U.S. It destroyed 63,000 homes, stripping many down to their concrete foundations, and damaged 124,000 others. It left 65 people dead and spawned at least 28 tornadoes from Georgia to Mississippi. In the years since, we have come to see Andrew for what it really was: a harbinger of things to come.   

Climate change has turned hurricane season into a recurring national nightmare. The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes have increased dramatically since the 1980s. Our changing climate continues to add more fuel for hurricanes in the form of increasing ocean heat content, and the growth along our coasts has expanded the targets for these storms. Andrew’s record as America’s costliest storm has already been surpassed by six subsequent hurricanes — Katrina, Harvey, Maria, Sandy, Ida, and Irma — with doubtless more to come.  

Andrew’s destruction should have been a wake-up call about the way we build our houses and brace our communities. For some, it was. Jurisdictions in South Florida quickly passed the strongest building codes in the country. In 2002, ten years after Andrew, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush enacted a statewide building code, overcoming resistance from inland counties that viewed hurricanes as a coastal concern. It proved prescient. Two years later in 2004, Hurricane Charley unleashed 100-plus mile-per-hour winds far inland across Florida. Homes built under the new codes fared far better across Florida than those built before, during what would become one of the most prolific hurricane seasons of all time for the state. 

We have seen a similar story play out with other recent hurricanes up and down the Atlantic seaboard — not to mention from increasing extreme weather events in other regions, such as wildfires in the West and tornadoes in the heartland and Southeast. When disasters strike communities with strong and modern building codes, people have homes to come back to. Where codes are weak, we lose lives and livelihoods, especially in low income and minority communities. Storms tear apart the fabric of towns and can decimate local economies for years or even decades.  

These disasters will get worse, and their impact farther reaching, yet most Americans remain woefully unprepared. We know how to build resilient and cost-effective structures to minimize the losses, yet only a dismal 35 percent of jurisdictions in the United States have the most current building codes in effect. There are two primary reasons. One is basic human nature: Jurisdictions don’t take threats seriously until a disaster forces their hand. We think it will never happen to us — not to my town, not to my house — until it does. If it does, it won’t be that bad — until it is that bad. 

A second challenge is upfront cost. Most resiliency upgrades are affordable (hurricane straps, stronger bolts, and better shingling) but the overall package of upgrades can raise the cost of a home enough to give local leaders pause. But this concern is shortsighted, as the upfront costs are more than offset by savings on insurance, repairs, and recovery and increased real estate values in the long-term.  

Homeowners and taxpayers feel these savings alike. Increasingly, residents of disaster-prone areas struggle to find homeowners insurance at all, which leaves taxpayers to foot the bill for public coverage. Taxpayers also pay dearly for disaster recovery, which is now running into the tens of billions every year. In this way, governments should view resilience expenditures — including subsidies and grants to help low-income residents — as investments rather than outlays. Studies show that for every dollar we spend on resilience, we save six dollars on recovery. 

Hurricane Andrew’s intensity and its impact shocked the nation, but too few have learned its lessons — even as storm after storm has demonstrated that disaster resilience is an imperative well beyond the Gulf Coast states. By reflecting this week on Andrew’s impact, leaders in states and localities across America can look ahead and plan for the worst. Florida proved in the storm’s aftermath that stronger building codes can save lives, property, and money. We shouldn’t have to lose more lives to learn this lesson.  

Craig Fugate was administrator of FEMA from 2009 – 2017 and served as an emergency manager in Florida during Hurricane Andrew.

Roy Wright, a former FEMA official, is president and CEO of the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, an organization dedicated to disaster resilience.

Source: TEST FEED1

University professors’ organization misunderstands the nature of antisemitism

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is among the most respected and influential college and university teachers’ organizations in the U.S. Founded in 1915, the AAUP’s stated mission is “to advance academic freedom [and] define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education.”

It is therefore disheartening that the organization has badly failed to comprehend the nature of antisemitism, which, as just reported by CNN, is a growing problem on many campuses.

A new “policy document” by the AAUP’s Committee on Academic Freedom acknowledges the “threat of antisemitism” in a perfunctory half-sentence and then spends two full pages – half its length – explaining it away.

The report, published in the AAUP’s 2022 Summer Bulletin, addresses the “Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom” found in recent statutes, mostly in red states, restricting subject matter and mandating approaches to history instruction in public schools from kindergarten through college. The opening section of the document is devoted to the committee’s rejection of a Florida statute that codifies the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, imposing financial penalties on school districts and institutions whose practices are found out of compliance.

It is vital for the AAUP to challenge such political interference in curriculum design concerning antisemitism or other subjects, especially when coupled with funding consequences. But the policy document goes further, disparaging the IHRA definition, and actually arguing that antisemitism should not be specifically covered in civil rights legislation.

The IHRA’s 2015 “Working Definition of Antisemitism” has been adopted or endorsed by 37 governments, including the U.S., the European Union, the Organization of American States and numerous non-governmental organizations. Comprising an introductory statement and 11 illustrative examples, the definition is explicitly “non-binding” and was never intended to be legally enforceable.

As explained by Kenneth Stern, one of the principal drafters, the definition was created for purposes of education and data collection, not as a speech or teaching code. Thus, the AAUP committee was quite right to object to the potential “weaponization” of the definition to punish teachers and schools.

It should have stopped there. Instead, the committee went on to mischaracterize the IHRA definition as equating “criticism of the policies of the state of Israel with antisemitism,” intended to protect Israel from “critical examination of [its] history and policies.” This is flatly untrue. Although curiously omitted from the committee’s appraisal, the IHRA unambiguously states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

One of the 11 IHRA examples does note that “applying double standards to Israel” may constitute antisemitism “by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” That should be unobjectionable. A double standard is the essence of discrimination. Is there any question that criticisms of nations and governments may encompass implicit appeals to racism?

Consider the description of COVID-19 as the “China virus,” complaints about Japan’s aggressive export policy, descriptions of social arrangements in Arab and Muslim countries or condescending references to the economic circumstances of African nations. In each of these cases, and others, racial and religious prejudices have been thinly veiled in superficially political terms. The IHRA points out that the same can be true of Israel, depending on the context.

More troubling is the AAUP committee’s gratuitous assertion that antisemitism should not be covered as a “special form of discrimination” in civil rights legislation but addressed only “as religious or race discrimination.” This claim betrays either stunning ignorance or callous disregard for the uniquely protean history of antisemitism, a conspiracy-based ideology that shape-shifts among religious, racial, ethnic, national, cultural, genetic and other hatreds, whichever is most destructive at any particular time.

Moreover, it is not clear that antisemitism is indeed covered by laws prohibiting religious and racial discrimination, at least regarding America’s million or more non-practicing Jews. The Nazis declared Jews racially distinct; there is surely no reason for the AAUP to follow suit.

Objections to “special” forms of discrimination have a sordid history. Until 2020, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Bostock case, gay and transgender people were not clearly covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many liberal jurisdictions therefore passed legislation specifically protecting the LGBT+ community over the protests of those who claimed that gay people were demanding “special rights.”

Ironically, the AAUP committee members teach at universities that recognize numerous forms of discrimination beyond race and religion. The chair is at San Diego State University, which prohibits discrimination based on “age, disability (physical or mental), gender (or sex), genetic information, gender identity (including transgender), gender expression, marital status, medical condition, nationality, race or ethnicity (including color or ancestry), religion or religious creed, sexual orientation, and veteran or military status.” 

The other members’ schools have even more protected categories, such as “parental status (including status as a foster parent),” “domestic violence victim status,” “gender transition status” and use of worker’s compensation, among others.

Given the range of anti-discrimination policies under which most faculty are already working, the call to exclude antisemitism is tone deaf, or worse.

The IHRA definition has its shortcomings; as with most approaches to complex social issues, it may be abused. It should never have been written into law. The AAUP report on “Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom” rightly denounces the Florida legislature’s political interference and statutory weaponization. But the drafting committee had no expertise on defining antisemitism and no competence on writing civil rights laws.

Intellectual life at American universities would be unrecognizable without the AAUP’s efforts for over 100 years. Nonetheless, the Committee on Academic Freedom has unaccountably ventured far beyond its remit, damaging its own credibility and compromising the AAUP’s historic mission.

Steven Lubet is Williams Memorial Professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. He is the author of “The ‘Colored Hero’ of Harpers Ferry: John Anthony Copeland and the War against Slavery” and a life member of the AAUP.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden orders airstrikes in Syria on groups backed by Iran

The U.S. military conducted precision airstrikes in Syria against Iran-backed groups at President Biden’s direction on Tuesday, U.S. Central Command announced.

Col. Joe Buccino, U.S. Central Command’s communications director, said in a statement that the strikes targeted “infrastructure facilities” in the city of Deir ez-Zor, located in eastern Syria, used by groups affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

“Today’s strikes were necessary to protect and defend U.S. personnel,” said Buccino. “The United States took proportionate, deliberate action intended to limit the risk of escalation and minimize the risk of casualties.”

The strikes came days after Iran-backed groups fired rockets that landed in the vicinity of Syria’s Green Village base that housed U.S. troops. 

None of the troops were harmed in the attack, but Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve officials said a separate rocket attack on Jan. 5 by Iran-backed groups damaged the base and a mosque nearby.

“At President Biden’s direction, U.S. military forces conducted precision airstrikes in Deir ez-Zor Syria today,” said Buccino. “These precision strikes are intended to defend and protect U.S. forces from attacks like the ones on August 15 against U.S. personnel by Iran-backed groups.”

Buccino added that Biden gave the order for the strikes under his Article II authority to protect U.S. personnel. 

The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.

“The United States does not seek conflict, but will continue to take necessary measures to protect and defend our people,” said Buccino.

The U.S. first sent ground troops to Syria in 2015 to combat the terrorist organization ISIS and back the Syrian Democratic Forces. Iran has backed Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, at times leading to fighting between Iran and the U.S. 

Meanwhile, Iran and the U.S. have engaged in indirect negotiations for more than a year to restore the Iran nuclear deal, which would limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions to ease sanctions against the country.

As one point of contention in the negotiations, Iran has desired the U.S. remove the IRGC — which U.S. Central Command said supported groups that conducted the Aug. 15 strike — from its list of terrorist organizations, but the Biden administration reportedly has been hesitant to do so as part of a potential deal.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden pledges $3B weapons package to Ukraine to mark Kyiv's independence day

President Biden marked Ukraine’s Independence Day on Wednesday by announcing a nearly $3 billion security assistance package to bolster Kyiv as it battles the Russian invasion.   

“Over the past six months, Ukrainians have inspired the world with their extraordinary courage and dedication to freedom,” Biden said in a statement Wednesday morning announcing the $2.98 billion package of weapons and equipment for Ukraine.  

“They have stood resolute and strong in the face of Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine. And today is not only a celebration of the past, but a resounding affirmation that Ukraine proudly remains – and will remain – a sovereign and independent nation,” Biden continued. “The United States of America is committed to supporting the people of Ukraine as they continue the fight to defend their sovereignty.”  

The package represents the single largest tranche of U.S. assistance to Ukraine since the start of the Russian war in February. Biden said it would allow Ukraine to obtain additional air defense systems, artillery systems and munitions, drones, and radars.  

The White House announcement came as Ukraine braced for stepped-up attacks from the Russians on Kyiv’s Independence Day, which also coincided with the six-month mark of the start of Moscow’s military campaign.  

Ukraine officials and international diplomats were told to telework on Wednesday due to increased threats of Russian attacks. Kyiv also banned public Independence Day celebrations.  

The U.S. has sent billions in weapons and military equipment as well as economic and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine to help Kyiv’s forces battle the Russian invasion and help address the effects of the war.  

The latest funding comes from the nearly $40 billion bipartisan Ukraine assistance package that Congress approved earlier this spring. 

U.S. weapons have played a critical role in helping Ukrainian forces defend their territory against the Russian invasion.  

“Many people are saying we’re brave fighters, and that’s the truth – but we wouldn’t exist already if there was no support from the U.S. Literally, the U.S. saved and is saving Ukraine. It’s not a metaphor, it’s a clear truth,” Oleksii Arestovych Arestovych, an adviser to the office of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, told The Hill in an interview in Kyiv on Tuesday.  

Russia failed early on in its goal of capturing the capital of Kyiv and has since shifted its focus to Ukraine’s east. 

The trajectory of the war is unclear, and the White House has warned that it could drag on for months if not longer. Biden said in Wednesday’s statement that the latest assistance package would ensure Ukraine “can continue to defend itself over the long term.” 

Laura Kelly contributed reporting.

Updated at 8:11 a.m. 

Source: TEST FEED1

When judges sometimes change their spots

The iconic Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren was a grievous disappointment to his appointing president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who famously called his selection “the biggest damned fool mistake I ever made.” 

But Warren didn’t change his philosophy in how he chose to judge during a judicial career. In fact, he had never been a judge before Eisenhower nominated him. He quickly acclimated himself; for example, pushing the Supreme Court to unanimity in Brown v. Board of Education, and greatly enhancing the rights of criminal defendants. Warren had been a relatively conservative California attorney general and governor but somehow he morphed, for whatever reason, into a great liberal on the bench.

Certainly, other justices have disappointed their nominating presidents or confirming senators who expected them to vote in particular ways on pivotal issues before them, only to later see them exhibit a different sense of purpose, or perhaps authority, in their idiosyncratic role as judges.

Many judges who have sat on the Supreme Court or lower courts, though, indeed have changed — perhaps “evolved” in their thinking or worldview — after spending time observing, possibly examining, the ebb and flow of society’s travails. They may determine, even subconsciously, a need to consider a more personally “validating” role than they previously imagined for themselves, in order to somehow make society “a better place.” 

This process doesn’t occur in a specific moment in time, in which someone, particularly a judicial officer, “finds” himself or herself — and it may not be a reversal of one’s personal philosophy of judging at all. It may just be an unarticulated, evolving sense by the individual jurist that, as Justice Benjamin Cardozo brilliantly put it, “the great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course and pass the judges by.”

Without an objective calculus made here of judges who have been “moved,” one hazards that the internal evolving or morphing that judges experience more often than not favors a more liberalized philosophy of judging. Why, though, has that happened? What inner voice motivates the changed orientation? And was it there before but submerged, or has it newly developed for some reason?

The questions I pose are inspired by a July 29, 2022, article by New York Times columnist David Brooks, titled, “How To Find Who You Are.” He loosely articulates — although not about judges — whether it is wise to sit in a room alone and focus on yourself to get in touch with “the real you” or to self-actualize the “real you.” Brooks posits that a person isn’t a closed system that can be studied in isolation: “A self exists only in relation to something else, while perceiving and interacting with the world.” 

The writer sees us as mimetic creatures — imitators — who learn by imitating what “excellent others” have done before us. Brooks argues that sometimes even friends alone can stimulate man and open up sides of his nature that hitherto have been locked.

The Brooks analysis regarding “finding oneself” as applied to the evolving nature of some judges might seem apostasy — especially to the orthodoxy that believes that judges should simply follow precedent and reflexively leave to the executive and legislative branches of government the role of “doing good” or making society “better.” After all, despite what Cardozo says, should judges allow the needs of a changing society to impact decision-making and how they do their job? Consider that this would mean engaging with litigants with a conscious goal of deciding in favor of the good guy, even if the law unambiguously supports the bad guy or the unsympathetic side of the case he occupies. 

The evolving nature of the thinking processes of some judges may seem almost Darwinian-like — that judges almost begin their judicial career in a certain way to address cases, only to instinctively change along the continuum of their careers. For Brooks it might be like a rock musician who, as life continues, gradually strays from the strident tendencies of hard rock to a more becoming, “mature” sound — and greater meaning.

Perhaps it’s simply a product of aging or the nurturing confidence accorded through tenure or communal recognition that help mold one’s music on the one hand, or legal judgments on the other — for the one using a guitar, the other using a gavel, to foster what he or she really wants to say or do, or wants to say or do now. For Brooks, it’s about how an artist or writer might “find oneself.” On the bench, it’s more directly about how a judge might re-find his or her role in a changing society, or how a “changed judge” even finds that the change lurks inside himself or herself and not somewhere else at all.

Joel Cohen, who practices law at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan in New York, is a former member of the New York State Judicial Conduct Commission. He is the author of “ Blindfolds Off: Judges On How They Decide” (2014) and teaches about judging at both Fordham and Cardozo Law Schools.

Source: TEST FEED1