Tag Archives : Build House

Mark McCloskey, who waved gun at protesters, garners just 3 percent of vote in GOP Senate primary

Mark McCloskey, who became infamous in 2020 for waving a rifle at Black Lives Matter protesters who marched near his front lawn in St. Louis, lost his bid for a U.S. Senate seat in Missouri on Tuesday night.

McCloskey won just three percent of the vote, according to results from the Associated Press, while Missouri’s Attorney General Eric Schmitt earned 45 percent of the vote to clinch the GOP nomination.

Polls had showed McCloskey was running far behind his opponents headed into election day.

McCloskey, an attorney, brandished an assault-style rifle while standing outside his home with his wife Patricia McCloskey, also a lawyer, during the 2020 summer protests against police brutality that followed the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minn.

The couple became symbol of the culture war in America, drawing praise at the time from former President Trump and conservatives who argued he was defending his home, but also condemnation from the left who said he threatened peaceful protesters.

The McCloskeys pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of assault and harassment over the incident, but were later pardoned by Missouri’s Republican Gov. Mike Parson.

A Missouri panel also filed an ethics complaint against the couple to suspend their law licenses, which the Missouri Supreme Court ruled on in February.

The court, calling the couple’s crimes a “moral turpitude,” sanctioned the McCloskeys and ordered them to complete 100 hours of pro-bono work. They were also ordered to a one-year probationary period, which if violated could result in an indefinite suspension of their law licenses.

The U.S. Supreme Court last month rejected an appeal from the couple, who argued the ruling violated their Second Amendment right to defend themselves in their own home.

In May 2021, Mark McCloskey announced his bid for Missouri’s open U.S. Senate seat to replace retiring GOP Sen. Roy Blunt.

At the time, he said Missourians were seeking a candidate like him who would fight back against the “cancel culture mobs.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Paul Pelosi pleads not guilty to misdemeanor DUI charges

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) husband, Paul Pelosi, has pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor driving under the influence charges.

Paul Pelosi, 82, did not show up in person at Napa County Superior Court on Wednesday and his attorney, Amanda Bevins, entered his not guilty pleas, which is permissible by California law for DUI misdemeanor defendants.

The case was filed as a misdemeanor due to the injuries of the 48-year-old driver of the 2014 Jeep that Paul Pelosi hit while driving his 2021 Porsche. However, the injuries of the Jeep driver were not described and further information on the defendant was not given because of the person’s request for privacy.

Paul Pelosi was arrested and charged with driving under the influence in May while driving late at night in Northern California’s wine country. The incident happened while the Speaker was preparing a commencement speech in Rhode Island for Brown University.

Pelosi’s husband was charged with driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher, according to his booking report. He was later released on a $5,000 bail following his arrest.

Law enforcement arrested Paul Pelosi approximately 80 minutes following their arrival at the scene of the accident.

A representative for Speaker Pelosi’s husband said previously that Paul Pelosi had been at a dinner party until about 10:15 p.m., and then drove the “short distance” home by himself. The representative added that Paul Pelosi was “fully cooperative” with authorities and that processing took until 7:30 a.m. the day following his arrest.

If convicted, Pelosi faces up to a minimum of five days in jail and up to five years of probation. He would also be required to complete a class on drunk driving and install an ignition interlock device in his vehicle — a breathalyzer that requires the driver to blow into it before operating the vehicle, according to the case’s prosecutors.

The Pelosis have been married since 1963.

The Speaker is traveling in Asia this week, including her controversial trip to Taiwan.

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats make slight gains in congressional preference: poll

Democrats have made a slight gain in the generic congressional ballot, according to a Monmouth University poll released Wednesday. 

The poll’s results show 38 percent of respondents support the Democratic Party keeping control of Congress, while 12 percent lean toward Democratic control. Thirty-four percent of those surveyed supported Republican control of Congress, while 9 percent leaned in favor of GOP control.

Democrats’ overall support rose to 50 percent, compared to 47 percent in June and 44 percent in May. Support for Republicans’ dropped to 43 percent compared to 47 percent in June and 48 percent in May. 

Almost 60 percent of respondents said it is “very important” that their party have control of Congress, with Democrats slightly outpacing Republicans, 63 percent to 59 percent, respectively. 

Patrick Murray, the director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, said recent events like the public hearings of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and multiple Supreme Court decisions may have created more enthusiasm for Democrats, but it is unclear if it is actual momentum. 

“It may simply be ongoing volatility in a public largely unhappy with the way things are going in Washington,” Murray said. 

The poll found that 28 percent of those who prefer Democratic control of Congress said their party keeping control makes it likely that Congress will make “substantial progress” on the most important issues to them, while 51 percent said it is somewhat likely. 

Thirty-three percent of those who prefer GOP control of Congress said it was likely, while 48 percent said it is somewhat likely. 

Democrats currently have a razor-thing majority of the Senate, and narrow control of the House.

Almost a quarter of respondents listed economic policy as the most important issue, more than any other. The economy was followed by abortion and gun control, each at 17 percent, health care at 14 percent and climate change at 11 percent. 

President Biden’s approval rating stabilized in the poll, standing at 38 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval. His approval rating rose 2 points while his disapproval rating dropped 2 points compared to June. 

The poll was conducted from July 28 to August 1 among 808 U.S. adults. The margin of error is 3.5 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

US should think systematically about democracy in the Pacific

As a matter of policy, the United States government seeks a free and open Indo-Pacific. This concept revolves around three key components. First, the United States seeks a world in which Pacific Islanders are free in their daily lives and reside in liberal democratic societies. Second, the United States seeks a world in which Pacific Island countries are free to manage their own domestic and international affairs. Third, the United States seeks a world in which the Pacific Islands Region is committed to the rules-based order that has governed international relations for decades.

In implementing this policy, the United States government must contend with the inherent tension between freedom, openness, and security in regional affairs. As Abraham Maslow taught us, the need for safety and survival dominates the need for freedom and independence. Given this hierarchy of needs, it is reasonable to expect sovereign states to prioritize foreign relations that ensure their safety and survival over those that promote their freedom and independence. Of course, liberal democratic states tend to prefer international relations with other liberal democratic states, all things being equal. However, all things are rarely if ever equal when major powers compete for access and control in small island states.

To square this circle, the United States government must constantly strike a balance between freedom, openness, and security in regional affairs. As suggested by Thomas Carothers and Benjamin Press, this is particularly difficult whenever there is a risk that confronting a partner government over its lack of commitment to democracy will trigger hostilities that could endanger the security benefits imparted by the relationship. One therefore needs to be mindful of where the Pacific Island countries fall on the political spectrum and where they are willing to engage in relations along the democracy-authoritarian divide. As it stands, several appear prone to such democracy-security dilemmas, including Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands. This arguably includes at least one liberal democratic state in Kiribati.

Since the invasion of Ukraine, the United States government has shown a pragmatic willingness to accommodate the non-democratic interests of other sovereign states in return for their strategic alignment against major power competitors. The diplomatic rehabilitation of Saudi Arabia serves as a case in point. Echoing Richard Youngs, this raises the question of whether the ‘free and open Pacific’ will be reduced to a mobilizing narrative for strategic partnerships that are only rhetorically driven by a commitment to strengthening democratic norms. Counter the pundits, the answer to this question still rests with the Biden administration and the United States Congress, who must decide whether it is in the national interest to reorder the region in full or part along the authoritarian-democracy divide.

In search of a coherent and comprehensive reply, the United States government will need to take into account the subregional dynamics at play in the Pacific. Aside from Nauru, the foundations of democracy are relatively strong across Micronesia. The subregion contains the Freely Associated States and many of the United States Pacific Territories. Plus, it is proximate to Hawaii. In contrast, there is far less of a commitment to democratic governance, democratic institutions, and rule of law in Melanesia. Apart from Bougainville, the strategic benefits to be gained by playing the democracy card appear less compelling too. For these reasons, one could argue that a stronger case can be made for reordering Micronesia along the authoritarian-democracy divide than Polynesia and Melanesia.

Whatever the strategic calculus, the United States government should seek to integrate and harmonize its policy approach within the region and beyond.

On the domestic front, a false dichotomy is often drawn between the domestic policy and the foreign policy of the United States in the Pacific. Paraphrasing Martin Holland, they are interdependent and intertwined. Just look at the politics of COFA migration. On the international front, a false binary is often portrayed between the strategic collaborators and the strategic competitors of the United States in the Pacific. As Jonathan Hughes and Jeff Weis have warned, strategic partners are not simple, homogenous entities. Even among allies, one should expect some degree of divergence between what each perceives to be their national security interests and the priorities that should be assigned to them. Consider the Suez Crisis as an example.

To avoid such black and white thinking, the Biden administration and the United States Congress should take into careful consideration the perspectives and interests of the State of Hawaii, United States pacific territories, Freely Associated States, treaty allies, and Taiwan when deciding whether it would be in the national interest to reorder the region in full or part along the authoritarian-democracy divide.

Michael Walsh is an affiliate of the Center for Australian, New Zealand, and Pacific Studies of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. The views expressed are his own. He served as the Chair of the Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Subcommittee of the Biden Defense Working Group during the 2020 United States Presidential Election.

Source: TEST FEED1

Pelosi’s flight to Taiwan most-tracked flight in Flightradar24 history

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) flight to Taiwan on Tuesday was the most-tracked flight in global flight tracking service Flightradar24’s history.

More than 708,000 people were watching the Boeing C-40C aircraft when it landed in Taipei, according to Flightradar24, securing its spot as the most-tracked live flight in the website’s history. The service started in 2006.

Over the course of the flight, a total of 2.92 million people tracked the aircraft at some point, according to Flightaware24. The U.S. Air Force plane, which took off from Kuala Lumpur and landed in Taipei, flew for roughly seven hours.

Pelosi touched down in Taipei on Tuesday after days of speculation regarding whether the Speaker would travel to the self-governing island amid tensions with China. 

The Speaker’s office never confirmed the visit prior to landing, but it was reported by a number of news organizations hours before she arrived.

Pelosi, traveling with a congressional delegation, wrote in an op-ed published in The Washington Post shortly after her arrival that the trip to Taiwan “should be seen as an unequivocal statement that America stands with Taiwan, our democratic partner, as it defends itself and its freedom.”

“We cannot stand by as the CCP proceeds to threaten Taiwan — and democracy itself,” she added.

The visit made Pelosi, the third-highest ranking official in the U.S. government, the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Taiwan since 1997. That year, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) traveled to the island. Pelosi touched down in Taiwan in 1999, but she was not in leadership at the time.

Pentagon officials had cautioned against Pelosi traveling to Taiwan out of concern that the visit could spark a retaliatory response from China, but she went anyway. The Speaker has a history of confronting leaders in Beijing, especially when it comes to matters relating to human rights.

Flightaware24 tracked more than 219,000 flights on Tuesday, according to its website.

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch live: Biden delivers remarks virtually at first meeting of reproduction rights task force

President Biden will deliver remarks virtually on Wednesday during the first meeting of the reproductive rights task force.

The event is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. ET.

Watch the video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

Student privacy laws remain the same, but children are now the product

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently issued a policy statement about the application of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) to Ed Tech providers, warning that they can only use student personally identifiable information (PII) collected with school consent for the benefit of the school, and that they cannot retain it for longer than required to meet the purpose of collection. Ironically, days later, a Human Rights Watch investigative report observed that almost 90 percent of Ed Tech products it reviewed “appeared to engage in data practices that put children’s rights at risk.”

These revelations are no surprise to children’s privacy advocacy groups like the Student Data Privacy Project. But in the midst of a COVID-fog, much like the fog of war, Ed Tech remained largely insulated from scrutiny, siphoning student PII with impunity.

Taking a step back, it’s important to understand how Ed Tech providers access and collect this information. In 1974, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was passed to protect school-held PII, such as that found in student directories. But FERPA contains a “School Official Exception” that allows schools to disclose children’s PII without parental consent so long as it’s disclosed for a “legitimate educational interest” and the school maintains “direct control” over the provider.  

In 1974, it was easy to maintain direct control over entities because there was no internet.

Today, schools increasingly rely on Ed Tech platforms to provide digital learning, pursuant to an electronically signed agreement, hosted by a nameless/faceless server, somewhere in the ether. Yet the law has barely changed since 1974. For example, the Department of Education (DOE) maintains that direct control can be established through use of a contract between the parties, despite the fact that online contracts and Terms of Service are often take-it-or-leave-it propositions that favor online services. In law, we called these “contracts of adhesion.” In Ed Tech advocacy, we call them data free-for-alls.

Given these concerns, in 2021 the Student Data Privacy Project (SDPP) helped parents from North Carolina to Alaska file access requests with their children’s schools under a FERPA provision mandating that schools provide parents access to their children’s PII. Most parents received nothing. Many schools seemed unable to get their Ed Tech providers to respond, and other schools didn’t know how to make the request of the provider.

One Minnesota parent received over 2,000 files, revealing a disturbing amount of personal information held by EdTech. How might this data be used to profile this child? And how does this comport with the FTC’s warning about retaining information only for as long as needed to fulfill the purpose of collection?

Despite this isolated example, most parents failed to receive a comprehensive response. As such, SDPP worked with parents to file complaints with the DOE in July 2021. As the one-year anniversary of these complaints draws near, however, the DOE has taken no substantive action. 

Ironically, in cases where the DOE sent copies of the parent’s complaint to the affected school district, the school’s response only bolstered concerns. One Alaska school district misapplied a Supreme Court case dealing with FERPA, asserting that “data gathered by technology vendors is not ‘educational records’ under FERPA” because the Ed Tech records are not “centrally stored” by the school. Ironically, that school attached its FERPA addendum to that same letter, which explicitly states that it “includes all data specifically protected by FERPA, including student education records, in any form.”

Unfortunately, this is indicative of widespread confusion by schools about applying FERPA to Ed Tech.

Yet parents have few options for holding Ed Tech providers accountable. Parents can’t sue Ed Tech because the schools have the direct contractual relationship. Parents can’t directly enforce FERPA because FERPA doesn’t offer a private right of action. Even state privacy laws are of little help when consent for sharing is given — and FERPA allows schools to consent on parents’ behalf.

There is some cause for hope. For example, President Biden’s March 1 State of the Union speech challenged Congress to strengthen children’s privacy protections “by banning online platforms from excessive data collection and targeted advertising for children.” And in January, Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) sent DOE a letter inquiring about the SDPP parent complaints. Most recently, we have the FTC’s warning to Ed Tech about protecting student data privacy. Beyond that, however, we’ve seen little progress, or action, by the government.

So here are three things that need to happen to hold Ed Tech accountable:

1. The FTC needs to enforce COPPA obligations on Ed Tech providers.
2. The DOE must enforce FERPA, compelling schools to hold Ed Tech vendors accountable.
3. Congress must update FERPA for the realities of the 21^st century.

A 50^th Anniversary is always a big occasion in a relationship, warranting a grand gesture to renew the commitment.

So what better gesture for the 50^th anniversary of FERPA in 2024 than for the government to renew its commitment to protecting the privacy of nearly 50 million students by enforcing the law and closing the gaps that have allowed Ed Tech providers to exploit children’s PII for their own profit, without oversight or accountability?

Joel Schwarz,J.D., CIPP, CDPSE, is a consultant and attorney specializing in privacy, cybersecurity, cyberintelligence and electronic surveillance. He previously served as the civil liberties and privacy officer for the National Counterterrorism Center and was a cybercrime prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice and the State of New York Attorney General’s Office. He’s also an adjunct professor at Albany Law School, teaching courses on cybercrime, cybersecurity and privacy. He is co-founder and board member of the Student Data Privacy Project.

Emily Cherkin, MA Ed, is a former educator, a parent, an activist, and The Screentime Consultant. She co-founded the Student Data Privacy Project. Her work has been featured on The Today Show, Good Morning, America, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

Source: TEST FEED1

Why wildfires disproportionately affect America’s poor

As wildfires in the United States become more deadly and seasons stretch longer due to climate change, new research out of the University of Georgia details to what extent these natural disasters impact America’s underserved populations. 

The study found that lower-income Americans faced with canceled homeowner insurance policies and rising premiums are also at the greatest risk of wildfires. 

Following extreme wildfires in the state of California in 2018 and 2019, the discontinuance of homeowners’ policies grew as insurance companies suffered major losses in at-risk regions.

“The probability of maintaining or replacing an at-risk policy increases when a homeowner invests in fire protection measures. However, these investments are comparatively costly for lower-income homeowners,” authors explained. Moreover, “ability to recover from destructive fires is affected by the reliability of property insurance.”

To carry out their investigation, researchers assessed regions in the contiguous United States with moderate to high wildfire risk. They then compared these regions with lower income areas and regional insurability. 

They found counties with higher wildfire risks tend to have higher poverty rates, while many of the states home to these counties only have a few available insurers, meaning once a policy has been terminated homeowners have fewer insurance options. 

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

“The overlap of wildfire risk, poverty and concentrated insurance markets should get people thinking about policies and interventions to help the most vulnerable homeowners,” said co-author Matthew Auer and dean of the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia in a statement. 

Based on annual average acres burned between 2016 and 2020, researchers identified the 14 highest-risk states, which included: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

In these, 98 counties had high wildfire potential, while only Oklahma and Wyoming did not have a high-risk county. In the remaining 12 states home to high-risk counties, about 60 percent of these counties were classified as high-poverty regions based on census data. 

Geographically, counties within wildfire-prone states that also had high levels of poverty tended to be clustered together.

Providing a potential model for other states, California has taken action to provide improved insurance to wildfire survivors following the past few years of extreme fires, in addition to bolstering resources and resilience efforts in low-income communities via the Safer from Wildfires program. 

However, “an open question this research highlights is how stakeholders such as insurance companies and insurance commissioners outside of California will respond to the intertwined problems of climate-driven, destructive wildfire, insurance risk in high- and extreme-wildfire-risk areas, and the plight of low-income homeowners in these areas,” researchers wrote. 

More studies are also needed to better understand the additional environmental, public health and economic toll of wildfires on low-income communities. 

Another hurdle in protecting vulnerable populations is the disjointed handling of public and private wildfire-prone areas in these regions. 

One potential solution for insurance companies could be providing incentives in the forms of lower premiums for homeowners who adopt certain fire safety measures.

“For folks who are in poorer counties, homeowners don’t have as much flexibility, and they don’t have the ability to afford all of the wildfire prevention strategies that may be required by the few companies willing to insure homes in wildfire-prone areas,” Auer said.

“This issue hasn’t been addressed in some states, and it needs to be because the situation we see today is just going to get worse.”

Source: TEST FEED1

UN warns two largest US water reservoirs at 'dangerously low levels'

The United Nations warned on Tuesday that the two biggest water reservoirs in the United States have dwindled to “dangerously low levels” due to the impacts of climate change.

The situation has become so severe that these reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, are on the verge of reaching “dead pool status” — the point at which water levels drop so low that downstream flow ceases, according to the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP).  

Without such flow, hydroelectric power stations would cease to operate, jeopardizing the electricity supply for millions in the region, a statement from the agency said.  

“The conditions in the American West, which we’re seeing around the Colorado River basin, have been so dry for more than 20 years that we’re no longer speaking of a drought,” said Lis Mullin Bernhardt, an ecosystems expert at UNEP.

“We refer to it as ‘aridification’ — a new very dry normal,” Bernhardt added.  

The Colorado River system supplies water to more than 40 million people and irrigates about 5.7 million acres of agriculture. The system serves seven states — Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Nevada and California — as well as Mexico.

Scientists have already estimated that Lake Mead and Lake Powell, which are fed by the river, will plunge to 25 percent of their capacity by the end of this year.

Meanwhile, only about 10 percent of the Colorado River’s natural flow, which has been heavily diverted throughout history along its 1,400-mile course, now reaches Mexico. 

As the western water crisis continues to deepen, water cuts will be introduced throughout the region, but experts warn that these actions may not be enough, according to UNEP.

“While regulating and managing water supply and demand are essential in both the short and long term, climate change is at the heart of this issue,” Maria Morgado, UNEP’s ecosystems officer in North America, said in a statement.

“In the long term we need to address the root causes of climate change as well as water demands,” Morgado added.

The combined impacts of climate change and overconsumption have exacerbated the crisis, as frequent droughts and temperature rises confront an expanding population, the UNEP statement said.

While the situation may be dire in the American West, the agency stressed that what is happening in the region is indicative of a wider global trend.

Across the world, hundreds of millions of people are impacted by climate change as drought and desertification become “the new normal,” according to UNEP.

“We are talking about a 20-year period of drought-like conditions with an ever-increasing demand on water,” Bernhardt said. “These conditions are alarming, and particularly in the Lake Powell and Lake Mead region, it is the perfect storm.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Kirby: No 'public spat' between White House, Pelosi on Taiwan visit

White House national security spokesman John Kirby denied that there was a “public spat” between the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over her decision to go to Taiwan.

In an appearance on Fox News, Kirby emphatically denied that there was a disagreement between Pelosi and the White House and told host Bill Hemmer that the White House has been nothing but “consistent.”

“Well, geez, Bill, I don’t know that there was a public spat with Speaker Pelosi. We’ve been nothing but consistent here at the White House that we respect her decision to go,” he added.

Kirby added that the White House provided Pelosi with a “context analysis” that he said she needed to make her decision as she on Tuesday became the highest-ranking U.S. official to set foot in Taiwan in 25 years.

“But I don’t believe that there was a public spat,” he said.

Kirby pushed back when Hemmer said that it was “pretty obvious” that the White House “tried to talk her out” of going to Taiwan.

“Actually, no, I wouldn’t concede with that,” Kirby said.

He added that the White House gave Pelosi an analysis of what it was going to look like “not just in this one stop but all the stops that she’s making on this important trip.”

“I mean, my goodness, I’ve been saying that for days now. This is her decision to make. Congress is a co-equal, independent branch of government, and members of Congress, including a previous Speaker of the House, have traveled to Taiwan, including this year,” he said.

He added that nothing about this trip was inconsistent with the U.S.’s long-standing approach to both China and supporting Taiwan.

Pelosi’s trip to Asia included scheduled stops in Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Japan. 

For decades, the U.S. has maintained an ambiguous policy in which it promises to support Taiwan, but without committing itself to send troops to defend it if China invades. It has never directly recognized the island’s independence.

President Biden shared the Defense Department’s apprehensions over news that Pelosi was planning to visit Taiwan last month, telling reporters that “the military thinks it’s not a good idea right now.”

Kirby previously said on Monday that the White House had communicated with Pelosi and her staff about the trip.

Source: TEST FEED1