Flight cancellations stretch into Monday after tough weekend

Another 484 flights were canceled in the U.S. on Monday following a tough weekend that saw 1,500 flights canceled across the country.

Tracking website FlightAware also shows about 1,817 flights were delayed on Monday.

A number of delays and cancelations were reported at Chicago Midway International Airport, according to FlightAware’s misery map. Thunderstorms and heavy rain are forecast in the Chicago, Ill., area.

Airports in New York, Washington, D.C., and Boston were also experiencing a high volume of cancelations and delays.

Republic Airways, headquartered in Indianapolis, Ind., canceled 6 percent of its flights, or 67 in total.

SkyWest Airlines canceled 74 percent of its flights, about 3 percent, while United Airlines canceled 52 flights, about two percent of its total flights.

Southwest Airlines canceled 50 flights, 1 percent of is total flights for Monday.

Over the weekend, carriers canceled 850 flights around the U.S. on Sunday, 657 on Saturday and an additional 1,400 flights on Friday.

The airline industry has struggled with staffing shortages, high fuel costs and busy summer travel.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has been seeking ways to improve reliability with airlines and assist travelers, including possibly imposing a fine on airline companies that cancel flights.

Source: TEST FEED1

Blinken welcomes cease-fire between Israel, Gaza militants

Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday welcomed a cease-fire in Gaza, which ended a three-day bout of intense violence between Israel and Palestinian militants.

“The agreement will bring a welcome respite to Israeli and Palestinian civilians and permit deliveries of critical fuel and other supplies into Gaza,” Blinken said in a statement.

Several dozen were killed as Palestinian Islamic Jihad militants targeted Israel and Israel targeted Gaza.

Palestine’s major militant group, Hamas, withheld from the fighting, though it has often fought with Israel over the coastal strip since it seized power in 2007. 

The recent three-day conflict was the worst since an 11-day war last year between Hamas and Israel.

The coastal strip’s new cease-fire, negotiated by Egyptian officials, reportedly allowed Gaza’s power plant to restart Monday. 

The secretary thanked Egypt, Qatar, Jordan and other allies for aiding and supporting the cease-fire agreement. 

“The United States remains dedicated to our ironclad commitment to Israel’s security and will remain fully engaged in the days ahead to promote calm,” Blinken wrote, adding that the U.S. will work to help “improve the quality of life for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”

President Biden on Sunday condemned the Islamic Jihad’s “indiscriminate rocket attacks” against Israel and called for an investigation into the attacks from both parties.

“The reports of civilian casualties in Gaza are a tragedy, whether by Israeli strikes against Islamic Jihad positions or the dozens of Islamic Jihad rockets that reportedly fell inside Gaza,” Biden said.

The fighting reportedly killed 44 Palestinians and wounded 311. No Israeli deaths were reported.

Source: TEST FEED1

Families should be allowed to direct federal pandemic aid

Colleges received $75 billion in pandemic aid from the federal government, and over 40 percent of those funds were designated as grants directly to low- and moderate-income students at both public and private colleges. Students could spend these grants on “any component of the student’s cost of attendance or for emergency costs that arise due to coronavirus, such as tuition, food, housing, health care (including mental health care) or child care.”

Public K-12 schools received a total of $189.5 billion in federal pandemic aid. Unlike the grants provided to college students, none of this money was given directly to families to be used to help their children recover from the substantial learning loss that resulted from the pandemic. 

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) is seeking to change that and allow families of K-12 students to have direct access to federal pandemic aid, as was the case for college students. Scott’s RECOVER Act would allow families to have the opportunity to receive grants for their children — if their states wish to use unspent K-12 pandemic aid for Child Opportunity Scholarships.

If their states allow it, families with incomes below 300 percent of the poverty line ($83,250 for a family of four) could use federal pandemic aid to combat the significant learning losses that occurred from stresses caused by the coronavirus pandemic, including schools shut down for face-to-face instruction and poorly implemented online learning. Eligible families who desire extra help for their children would receive scholarships that could be spent on “tutoring or educational classes outside the home, curriculum and curricular materials, books or instructional materials, technological education materials, online educational materials, private school tuition, testing fees, diagnostic tools, and educational therapies for students with disabilities.”

A 2020 study found that customized and small group tutoring done by teachers or paraprofessionals could lead to large learning gains for students who were behind. Customized tutoring is when students are given help in precisely the areas where they have fallen behind, which is not feasible in classroom settings — even when class sizes are very small.

Nationally, public schools spent less than half of their pandemic aid, as of May 31. Further, districts plan to spend only 25 percent of the most recent aid on academic recovery.

I am generally against federal efforts to promote choice in K-12 education because decades of experience suggest that the feds will overregulate school choice programs in the same manner they overregulate public schools. However, Scott’s RECOVER Act concerns a fixed pot of federal money that must be spent by September 2024 — so there is not enough time for the federal regulatory apparatus to overregulate.

If the RECOVER Act becomes law, governors should learn from negative experiences with the federal government’s Supplemental Education Services (SES) effort earlier this century. Under the No Child Left Behind law, SES grants to parents to purchase tutoring for their children were administered by public schools that did not want the grants to even exist, and the results were often far from ideal.   

If Scott’s RECOVER bill becomes law, I offer governors two pieces of advice:

  • Administer the Child Opportunity Scholarships at the state level and outside the state department of education, whose rank-and-file educators will prefer that federal funds stay with the public schools; and
  • Have top researchers in your state study the effect of these grants to parents, perhaps through offering the scholarships to eligible families through a lottery. Then outcomes for students who received the scholarships could be compared to students who received only remediation through public schools — and future policymakers would have a better understanding of the best way to help students who fall behind academically. 

Congress should not rely solely on public school districts, which often failed their students during the pandemic. Instead, Congress should allow thoughtful governors to use the unspent billions of dollars in federal aid to allow low- and moderate-income families to access tutoring and other services to help their children get back on grade level. If learning loss is permanent, it will be a shame given that American taxpayers have devoted so much to give students a better future.

Benjamin Scafidi is the director of the Education Economics Center at Kennesaw State University.

Source: TEST FEED1

Kinzinger unveiling new push to recruit 'pro-democracy' candidates

An organization allied with Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) launched a new, nonpartisan training program on Monday aimed at recruiting “pro-democracy” and “pro-freedom” candidates across the U.S.

Keep Country First Policy Action, an Illinois PAC created by Kinzinger, said in a press release its Country First Academy will “identify and train” election workers and candidates running at all levels of government, with a particular focus on state and local offices.

Kinzinger, one of two Republican members of the Jan. 6 House panel investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol, is not running for reelection. He has been a fierce critic of former President Trump and his “Make America Great Again” wing of the GOP, but has also recently slammed Democrats for meddling in GOP primaries to oust moderate Republicans in the House.

In a statement, Keep Country First Executive Director Zach Hunter said it was “time for a new generation of Pro-Freedom, Pro-Democracy leaders to step up and fight the toxic partisanship that has hobbled our institutions and turned neighbors against each other.”

“Country First Academy will identify and train prospective candidates and volunteers who want to put country over party and begin to actually solve problems rather just trying to score political points,” Hunter said.

The Hill has reached out to Kinzinger’s office for comment.

Country First Academy now has a live website and a promotional video on YouTube that shows clips of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol last year in an effort to overturn certification of the 2020 election.

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” the video begins, before asking candidates to push back against “talking points that got us here in the first place.”

Trump has taken an active role in this year’s midterms, backing election deniers and seeking out primary opponents for GOP lawmakers who voted to impeach him over the Capitol riots, or defended the results of the 2020 election.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chair of the Jan. 6 panel who faces a difficult primary challenge from a Trump-backed candidate, said in a recent New York Times interview the GOP is “very sick” and “continuing to drive itself in a ditch.”

“I think it’s going to take several cycles if it can be healed,” she said.

Kinzinger, who was among 10 House Republicans that voted to impeach Trump, delivered a passionate speech last month during the congressional hearings probing Jan. 6, calling for Americans to “demand more of our politicians and ourselves.”

“Oaths matter. Character matters. Truth matters. If we do not renew our faith and commitment to these principles, this great experiment of ours, our shining beacon on a hill, will not endure,” he said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Abortion rights is a multi-criteria decision

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling moved abortion rights to the states. Trigger laws effectively made abortions illegal in some states, bifurcating the country into two “abortion” zones. Indiana became the first state to enact new legislation that bans abortions, with limited exceptions.

The ideological positions offered by the “pro-choice” abortion rights proponents and “pro-life” anti-abortion advocates groups cannot be overcome with reasoning or emotional appeals. Each faction is deeply ingrained in their views and beliefs, unwilling or unable to acknowledge the validity of the other’s position, either ethically or legally. 

The abortion rights advocates argue that women have a right to their bodies and any choices made about it. As such, decisions about terminating pregnancies are a personal medical issue, best left to the pregnant women in conjunction with her physician. 

The anti-abortion advocates argue that life begins at conception, and the lives of the unborn must be protected at all costs, except perhaps if the life of the woman is threatened for some. 

So how can one resolve two positions that appear not just diametrically opposed, but are not even on the same page? This is like two baseball teams showing up at different baseball diamonds to play each other. 

A first step forward may lie in the field of multi-criteria decision-making.  

Problems for which there are several criteria demand tradeoffs. If you like to indulge in pizza, fried foods and ice cream, but also do not want to gain weight, you must reach a balance between consuming such foods and what your weight will be. These are choices that we all make individually. 

But what happens when society must make such choices collectively? 

There are numerous options that lie between the abortion rights and anti-abortion positions, based on criteria for assessing the legality and availability of safe abortions.

One criterion focuses on the line for when life begins. The anti-abortion side views life beginning at conception. The abortion rights side mostly acknowledges that life begins when the fetus is viable if delivered, which is around 24 weeks, near the end of the second trimester.

A second criterion focuses on how the pregnancy came about — including whether it is the result of rape, incest or birth control failure. 

A third criterion focuses on the health of the fetus, including genetic defects that could lead to debilitating health issues and the survival of the child if delivered. 

A fourth criterion is the health and well-being of the mother, including life-threatening situations related to the pregnancy. 

A fifth criterion focuses on where the law should be adjudicated: federal or state. 

This presents a practical dilemma to move each groups position from their preferred solution. As such, the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling gave abortion rights advocates federal protections for women reproductive decisions, while the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs moved such decisions to the states. This effectively traverses the Pareto front towards the anti-abortion preferred solution in some states, which could be fully banning all abortions after conception provided the woman’s life is not in danger. 

What multi-criteria decision-making does is force each camp to consider the spectrum of positions along a Pareto front, which are all nondominated options; one cannot improve the positions of both groups simultaneously. 

 Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly sought a more incremental movement on Roe. He wanted to move along the Pareto front in the direction of the anti-abortion position, but not as aggressively as the majority opinion ultimately ruled. 

Solutions between the extremes along a Pareto front rarely satisfy both groups. Roe v. Wade was a compromise for the abortion rights camp, as is the current Supreme Court Dobbs ruling for the anti-abortion camp. What has fueled the current disruption is the abruptness of the movement along the Pareto front.

Compromise demands both give and take, something that continues to be challenging in Washington, particularly in the legislative branch, often in the executive branch, and now in the judicial branch.

Living in a complex society requires, even demands, compromise. Successful organizations, relationships, friendships and marriages all involve compromise. 

If our three branches of government cannot engage in compromise, the results are laws and policies that incite unrest, mistrust and dissent. 

What is necessary and appropriate to inform compromise on abortion rights is greater input from the medical community, given that women’s reproductive decisions fall within this rubric. Without such input, state legislative bodies are guaranteed to overstep their authority and create more harm than good.

Given that 61 percent of the population support abortions being legal, the next move in the abortion access chess match may be more moderate than some expect. The recent vote on whether to ban abortion in Kansas could be indicative of this, with voters resoundingly voting to keep abortion legal. Even the new Indiana law includes exceptions that may incite anger among some in the anti-abortion camp. 

Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a founder professor of Computer Science and the Carle Illinois College of Medicine at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a data scientist who applies his expertise in data-driven risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden to tout bill's prescription drug prices, energy provisions in pitch to Americans, aide says

President Biden plans to use upcoming travel to tout the $740 billion climate, health and tax reconciliation bill passed by Senate Democrats on Sunday, a top White House official said.

“The president will — our entire team will be out making the case,” National Economic Council Director Brian Deese said on CNN’s “New Day” on Monday.

Deese said in upcoming trips Biden will work to sell the bill to the American people “to explain in very practical terms why this matters for people’s lives” and how the provisions will apply to everyday Americans.

Senate Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) on Sunday, with Vice President Harris casting a tie-breaking vote. All Republicans voted against the measure.

The House is expected to take up the bill later this week before sending it to Biden’s desk for his signature.

The bill will, among other provisions, allow Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs and set aside billions for investments aimed at combatting climate change.

Deese said the climate provisions will allow families to access “lower energy costs, lower utility bills, making it easier to access things like energy-efficient upgrades for their homes, energy-efficient appliances and the like.”

While some lawmakers have questioned the bill’s impact on battling inflation, Deese said the administration will make the case that the legislation will help lower prices for many Americans.

Biden has praised passage of the bill in the Senate — where his push for major spending on climate and other priorities stalled for months — and urged the House to quickly approve the bill.

Source: TEST FEED1

DeSantis heads to battleground states to boost Trump-backed candidates

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is set to hit the campaign trail this month for several of former President Donald Trump’s endorsed candidates in a handful of 2022 battlegrounds.

DeSantis will travel to Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania this month for a series of rallies hosted and organized by the conservative group Turning Points Action, Fox News reported on Monday.

Those rallies will see the Florida governor stump for several candidates including Ohio Republican Senate nominee J.D. Vance, Pennsylvania GOP gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano, Arizona Republican Senate nominee Blake Masters and Arizona GOP gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake.

Neither Turning Points nor DeSantis’s campaign immediately responded to The Hill’s requests for comment.

But according to Fox News, the rallies are being billed as an effort to “unite” the GOP ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, with Turning Points Action founder and president Charlie Kirk telling the news outlet that DeSantis “has become the model for a new conservative movement” in the United States.

“That he is willing to throw the full weight of his support behind Kari, Blake, and JD tells you everything you need to know about these incredible candidates who I endorse and support 100%,” Kirk told Fox News.

The rally circuit will reportedly take DeSantis to Roswell, N.M. to stump for Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-N.M.) on Aug. 14. That same day, he’ll travel to Phoenix, Ariz., to campaign for Masters and Lake.

Five days later, on Aug. 19, DeSantis will travel to Pittsburgh, Pa., for a rally supporting Mastriano, and then to Youngstown, Ohio, where he’ll attend a rally for Vance.

Each of the candidates that DeSantis is rallying for has been endorsed by Trump, with the exception of Herrell, though she previously won the former president’s support during her successful 2020 campaign for her House seat.

DeSantis’s travel plans are the latest evidence of his growing sway among Republican voters nationally amid speculation that he could mount a 2024 bid for the GOP presidential nomination.

But notably, the rallies don’t put him in direct contention with Trump, who is also said to be weighing a 2024 comeback bid of his own.

While DeSantis has traveled extensively this year for various political events, the rally schedule marks something of a shift in his strategy. He’s met with donors and influencers in other states, but has held few rallies for midterm candidates. Perhaps most notably, he made a trip to Las Vegas in April to stump for GOP Senate hopeful Adam Laxalt, a longtime friend of the Florida governor.

Source: TEST FEED1

Axios sold to Cox Enterprises for $525 million

Axios, the digital media company founded by Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen and Roy Schwartz, has sold to Cox Enterprises for more than a half billion dollars.

Cox Enterprises is a publicly traded media conglomerate that was founded on ownership of local newspapers. Today its subsidies include cable provider Cox Communications, Cox Automotive and Cox Media Group.

Sources familiar with the deal said the agreement to purchase Axios totals $525 million.

“With so much happening in the world, Axios plays a critical role in delivering balanced, trusted news that people need,” said Cox Enterprises Chairman and CEO Alex Taylor. “Our company started in the media business, and we have always had a passion for journalism. Bringing a forward-thinking organization like Axios into Cox Enterprises is exciting for us on many levels, and we look forward to helping them continue to scale and grow.”

The outlet reported part of the deal includes new investment of $25 million in Axios’s media arm, which has recently branched out into a number of local news markets including Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta.

The companies’ three founders — VandeHei, Allen and Schwartz — will all keep a minority shareholder status at Axios and remain on its board while continuing to make day-to-day newsroom and business decisions.

“Not a chance,” VandeHei told The New York Times when asked if he planned to step aside in the near future. “This is my life’s work, it’s my passion. I would do it for free.”

The Axios communications software business, Axios HQ, will become an independent company majority-owned by the founders and will include Cox as sole minority investor. VandeHei will be chairman of the board of Axios HQ and Schwartz will be its CEO.

Axios is the latest in a slew of D.C.-based media companies to sell to large media conglomerates in recent months. Last summer, Politico was acquired by German publisher Axel Springer and the Times purchased The Athletic in January.

The Hill was sold to Nexstar Media Group last August.

Source: TEST FEED1

Listen to Alaskans: Ranked choice voting is a step forward for democracy

Over the last two years, questions about election processes and outcomes have become yet another red-hot issue in the national conversation.

In Alaska, we took a big step toward giving voters more influence in who represents us in Washington. In November 2020, voters approved a ballot measure that ensures Alaska’s future elections put voters first. It created a two-step process: an open, pick-one primary, after which the top four vote getters advance to a ranked choice general election.

In June, this new system launched, as Alaskans took part in the first open, nonpartisan primary election to select the top four candidates for Alaska’s at-large congressional seat and to fill the vacancy left by the passing of Rep. Don Young.

Our new primary system contrasts with the process used the last time we had an open congressional seat in many ways.

In 1973 there was no primary. Instead, 215 party insiders used internal, partisan processes that had no public buy-in to select the two candidates who appeared on the special election ballot. Everyday Alaskans had no say in who their choices would be. This year, every Alaskan was allowed to participate and was allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice, regardless of their — or the candidate’s — political affiliation.

A total of 48 Alaskans ran in the special primary election, offering voters a genuine choice in political ideologies and party membership. The candidates reflected Alaska’s diversity and hailed from every corner of the state.

Earlier this year, every registered voter was mailed a ballot and could vote for any candidate of their choosing. More than 161,000 ballots were returned — in fact, turnout for the special primary was greater than seven of the previous nine primary elections.

Now, we have three choices for the special general election to be held on Aug. 16 (it would have been four, but the third-place finisher dropped out too late to replace them with the fifth-place finisher).

Advancing the top four vote-getters to the general election ensures that the candidates Alaskans most support, regardless of party affiliation, are the ones they get to choose from in November. Advancing four candidates balances the need for voter choice with representative primaries to give Alaskans more say in their elections and who represents them.

However, the biggest step forward for voters is the implementation of ranked choice voting (RCV) in the general election.

In a ranked choice voting election, voters can rank candidates in order of preference from first to fourth. This gives Alaskans more choices, encourages greater issue engagement, and helps ensure that winners are elected with the support of a true majority of voters. It also eliminates the so-called “spoiler effect” that we often see in races with more than two candidates.

When ballots are counted, if a candidate receives more than 50 percent of first choices, that candidate will be declared the winner — just like our elections now. If not, the race goes to an “instant runoff.”

The candidate with the fewest first choices is eliminated, and the voters who ranked that candidate first have their ballot count for their second choice — so, being voters’ second choice can be very important to the outcome.

This process continues until one candidate receives 50 percent of voters’ choices and is declared the winner. A simple visual explanation of ranked choice voting can be found here.

As you watch Alaska’s returns, remember that in the overwhelming majority of instances of RCV, the candidate with the most first-choice support prevails. But in the few instances they don’t, it’s because that candidate just doesn’t have enough support to win a majority of voters.

Previously, candidates often won elections in Alaska with support from less than a majority of their constituents, which meant most voters supported someone else. In a state with a long history of viable third-party and independent candidates, this meant it wasn’t always true that winning candidates represented what Alaskan voters want.

Alaska has some other rules in our voting laws that are important, especially for election night. We live in an instant world where we want everything right away — from our curbside pick-up orders to our meals. It might feel like elections should be the same, no different.

But the Alaska Division of Elections — in line with state law — allows up to 15 days for absentee ballots to be received after Election Day. That’s to account for Alaska’s many military ballots, as well as rural voters — not because of RCV. But as part of that rule, only first-choice results will be reported for the first 15 days following the election, while absentee ballots are still coming in. So — unless one of the candidates receives 50 percent of first choices, don’t expect to know the final outcome during those 15 days.

Some cities and states with RCV elections produce results on election night, while others take a longer time to report, like Alaska. For Alaskans, we know our extended vote-counting period is not new or unique to RCV; Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s win in 2010 was called after 15 days, and Rep. Young and Sen. Dan Sullivan’s wins in 2020 were called after eight days. Our new voting system is no different. There will be those who will try to use RCV to sow doubt about the process and outcome. Therefore, understanding how it works is critical for everyone.

As we embark on this new path to strengthen the role voters play in deciding who represents us, Alaskans believe RCV will provide voters more choice, more voice, and more power.

Bruce Botelho is the former attorney general of Alaska and former mayor of Juneau. He currently sits on the board of Alaskans for Better Elections. For more information on Alaska’s RCV vote system visit: https://www.elections.alaska.gov/RCV.php or https://alaskansforbetterelections.com/

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch live: Biden briefed on Kentucky flooding

President Biden will on Monday morning visit eastern Kentucky for a briefing on the state’s efforts to recover from the recent devastating flooding.

The briefing is scheduled to begin at 12:30 p.m. ET.

Watch the live video above.

Source: TEST FEED1