Tag Archives : Build House

Beware of war predictions: Ukraine’s outcome is not yet written

In 1942, Germany controlled most of Europe and a large swath of Northern Africa, and Japan controlled much of China, Southeast Asia, and was at Australia’s doorstep. By the end of 1943, the maps looked quite different. War is like that, a dynamic phenomenon. A scene from the movie, “Lawrence of Arabia,” says it best: After marching through burning sands and biting windstorms, Lawrence and his men were on the edge of dehydration when they found an oasis.  Lawrence realized that his camel boy was missing. When no one volunteered to go back to retrieve the boy, Lawrence went himself. His men pleaded with him not to go, saying that his fate was written by Allah. Two days later, Lawrence returned with the boy, so exhausted and dry that he could only whisper, “Nothing is written unless we write it.” 

A war’s outcome is written by its combatants. It depends upon which side commits what is necessary — in blood, materiel, and will — toward achieving its aims, how long it can sustain its efforts, and whether it makes fewer mistakes than its enemies. By that score, how or when the Ukraine war will end remains unknown. 

Some Western strategists are predicting that even with allied help, the best outcome will be a stalemate. They reason that Russia is larger and has more resources than Ukraine. So, even if Russia cannot win outright, it can prevent Ukraine from winning. Thus, they conclude, a stalemate is the most likely outcome. Given this, the reasoning continues, it’s best to stop the fighting and negotiate a solution now to prevent more suffering. I wonder if these same strategists would have recommended that to the Continental Congress after George Washington’s 1776 defeat on Long Island and in New York? After all, Britain was a global military and economic powerhouse compared to the American colonies, and at the time success looked impossible to many. 

The stalemate prediction and the recommendations that flow from it defy the nature of war. War is not an arithmetic affair. Numbers count, but success in war cannot be predicted by merely calculating force ratios and economic potential. War on paper is not the same as real war. 

Unable to seize Kyiv and replace Volodymyr Zelensky’s government quickly, Vladimir Putin shifted to Plan B: subjugate Ukraine by permanent partition. He is firmly committed to so limit Ukraine’s political sovereignty, territorial integrity and economic capacity that, even if Ukraine does not become a Russian vassal, Russia gains from its aggression and Ukraine loses. And Putin seems willing to spill much blood — Russian and Ukrainian, combatants as well as non-combatants, well beyond what is militarily necessary — to achieve his aims.  

Hotels, hospitals, shopping centers, apartment buildings, and refugees have been and continue to be Russian targets — depravity without limits. And he is “Russianizing” the areas he has seized — changing the currency to rubles, forcing Russian banks upon the residents, changing political leaders, integrating Ukrainian industrial assets into the Russian economy, and deporting Ukrainian citizens — annexation Russian-style, just as he did in 2014 in Crimea and the Donbas.  

Putin will not stop until he is stopped. His overall purpose is to re-establish a greater Russia.  First reuniting former Russian states — the Baltic countries, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine.  Then, when and if possible, Russian “buffer states,” nations of the former Warsaw Pact — Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. Subjugating Ukraine is one step toward this ultimate goal.

Putin seems willing to commit everything within his power, but is he able to actually generate and apply what’s necessary for even his first step? That remains to be seen. Even with the oil money still flowing into Russian coffers, Putin is having great difficulties in generating soldiers, units and leaders to replace his losses. And even with his oil money, he is also having difficulty repairing, producing, procuring and delivering the vehicles, arms and ammunition his forces need. Ukraine’s fighters, using allied arms and ammunition, have forced Russian forces into a grinding war of attrition in the northern and eastern parts of Ukraine — one that is not clear Putin can, in fact, sustain.

With allied support, the Zelensky government is fighting hard to stop Plan B from succeeding.  This is a tough fight, but one the Ukrainians are still determined to win. The Ukrainian people know what’s at stake: their right to a political and economic life of their choosing. Further, Putin’s vision and aggression have generated opposition around the world. Whereas he sought to weaken NATO, it has strengthened and will grow. Where he wanted to show democracy’s weakness, he provoked unity and strength. Grand strategically, he may have lost already. Strategically, within Ukraine itself, who will succeed is yet unclear. 

The Ukraine war is actually being fought and waged at two levels. The first is strategic, in Ukraine: the allies staying true to their word and supplying Ukraine with what it needs to create negotiating conditions favorable to the Zelensky government increases the probability that Putin’s aggression will fail. The second war is grand-strategic, beyond Ukraine: preventing the kind of world in which force plays an increasing role. The rules-based world created after World War II is one in which America and its allies, as well as many other nations, prospered. A future with weak rules and more wars is not one conducive to any country’s prosperity. 

The war at both levels is worth fighting. And both, worth winning. Preventing future war starts with stopping Putin in Ukraine. Those who are suggesting that we negotiate with Putin now are not thinking about what’s at stake should Putin’s aggression pay off. The Zelensky government, the Ukraine people, and its allied supporters still have the ability to write the outcome. 

James M. Dubik, Ph.D., a retired lieutenant general of the U.S. Army, is a senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War. He served in military command and operational roles in Bosnia, Haiti and Iraq, and helped train forces in Afghanistan, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Honduras, and many NATO countries.

Source: TEST FEED1

Chris Rock jokes about Will Smith slap after apology

Hours after Will Smith posted an apology video for slapping Chris Rock at the Academy Awards earlier this year, Rock reportedly joked about the incident during his comedy show — without directly addressing Smith’s apology.

During a show in Atlanta on Friday as part of his “Chris Rock Ego Death World Tour,” the 57-year-old comedian briefly joked about the incident, according to multiple reports.

“Everybody is trying to be a f—ing victim,” Rock said, CNN reported. “If everybody claims to be a victim, then nobody will hear the real victims. Even me getting smacked by Suge Smith … I went to work the next day, I got kids.”

Rock’s mention of the 53-year-old actor as “Suge Smith” apparently referenced Suge Knight, the jailed CEO of Death Row Records.

“Anyone who says words hurt has never been punched in the face,” Rock added, according to People.

Earlier on Friday, Smith offered his first on-camera apology for slapping Rock after the comedian joked about Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, who revealed in 2018 that she had been diagnosed with alopecia areata.

After Rock referenced her hairstyle during the awards show, Smith approached him on the stage and slapped him, before returning to his seat and hurling expletives at him.

“I was out of line and I was wrong,” Smith said in the Instagram video. “I am embarrassed and my actions were not indicative of the man I want to be. There is no place for violence in a world of love and kindness.”

“Chris, I apologize to you,” the actor later added. “My behavior was unacceptable. And I’m here whenever you’re ready to talk.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Speaking up about college presidents speaking out

When the Supreme Court announced its decision overturning Roe v. Wade, college and university presidents faced a familiar dilemma: Should they weigh in on hotly contested public controversies?

We believe they should, but only on issues that have a direct impact on their campus communities and in ways that protect and promote their commitment to critical thinking, active debate, and the pursuit of truth by students, faculty, and staff. 

In the past, some presidents were “prominent voices of reason and thoughtfulness in the public discourse, society’s moral and ethical touchstones.” They used their bully pulpits to lead debate, not just on higher education, but on “other important issues of the time.” Today’s presidents instead “tiptoe around public controversy,” thereby abdicating “a vital role of the university in a civil society — to help shape” informed discussion “on the things that really matter.”

And yet, today’s presidents, whose public utterances are seen as representing institutional positions, have good reasons to exercise restraint. In 1967, when the Vietnam war divided the country, the Kalven Committee at the University of Chicago noted that the university’s unique function in society is — and should be — fostering an environment of unfettered inquiry. That mission, perhaps counterintuitively, requires the institutions themselves to “maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures.”

The university, the committee added, “cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy” without effectively “censuring any minority who do not agree with the view adopted.” For this reason, the university, “the home and sponsor of critics,” should not itself be the critic.

Of course, for much of history, and still today in many parts of the world, critical thinking and active debate were not the hallmarks of university pedagogy or practice. Universities were expected to indoctrinate students to accept particular political, religious, and social principles. The presidents of Princeton and Columbia, for example, committed their universities to supporting U.S. participation in World War I, and “did all they could to repress dissent.” As former Stanford University president Richard Lyman has observed, nothing in the law of nature “says a politicized university must always be politicized in favor of peace, freedom, and equality.”

Moreover, the “criticism and dissension that emerge from campus communities” may be tolerated by the society-at-large in part because of “institutional restraint on the part of universities and their presidents.”

The erosion of that tacit bargain has already begun. Almost 60 percent of Republicans believe colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country. A major driver of their dissatisfaction is the perception that campuses lean sharply left. Conservative governors and state legislators are increasingly intervening in policies traditionally reserved for educators. Florida’s Stop WOKE Act, for example, restricts what schools can teach about race, and Gov. Ron DeSantis has recently signed laws that regulate tenure and accreditation and mandate annual viewpoint diversity surveys, with an implicit threat to cut appropriations depending on the results. “It used to be thought that a university campus was a place where you’d be exposed to a lot of different ideas,” DeSantis explained. But now orthodoxies “are promoted, and other viewpoints are shunned or even suppressed.”

“Supercharged” by social media and a 24-7 news cycle, hyper-partisan political polarization guarantees that almost any statement presidents make on “hot button” subjects will alienate a segment of their community.

Campus activists who want to “use the university to accomplish overt and covert social and political goals” often attack pronouncements that do not fully endorse their views. Further, while fears of alienating major donors “may be more myth than reality,” presidents, for whom fundraising is essential, “err on the side of caution.”

Presidents, in our view, should speak out about issues central to the institution’s operations or higher education. Of course, that standard “might lead one to wonder which issues do not have clear relevance” to these purposes. To answer that question, presidents should consider whether the impact on their campus is both significant and distinct from the impact on society-at-large. Examples include campus free speech, affirmative action, and certain visa and immigration policies.

When the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, we believe it was entirely appropriate for presidents to clarify for their communities what reproductive health services would still be available in the aftermath of the decision.

Each case is, of course, a judgment call. In this area, however, less is more. Presidents should resist calls to opine on every crisis or tragedy and be wary of issuing statements just because others are weighing in. The impact of presidential statements quickly “dissipates if presidents jump too frequently to offer vague statements/platitudes.”

The approach we have outlined may feel unsatisfying, especially to members of the campus community eager to see their own values reflected back to them, but as the Kalven Committee observed 55 years ago, the upside of an institution’s neutrality, and it is by no means inconsiderable, is “the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest.”

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. He is the co-author (with Isaac Kramnick) of Cornell: A History, 1940-2015.

David Wippman is the President of Hamilton College.

Source: TEST FEED1

Zelensky says Ukraine's harvest could be cut in half by war

Ukraine’s typical harvest output could be halved this year by the Russian invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday.

“Ukrainian harvest this year is under the threat to be twice less,” Zelensky wrote in a Tweet in English.

“Our main goal — to prevent global food crisis caused by Russian invasion,” Zelensky wrote Sunday. “Still grains find a way to be delivered alternatively.”

A top global food supplier, Ukraine’s production has been disrupted by war with Russia.  The conflict has exacerbated the global food crisis, according to the World Bank, as countries scramble to navigate surging prices with trade restrictions. It’s also blocked critical ports in the Black Sea.

In 2020, Ukraine was the world’s fifth-largest supplier of wheat, and Zelensky has long been warning of global famine if the country isn’t able to export its product.

The warring countries signed an agreement last week with Turkey and the United Nations to facilitate Ukrainian grain export via the Black Sea, but dangerous waters are making shippers wary of the risks.

Zelensky visited a Black Sea port Friday to mark the first ship loaded for export since the start of the warfare.

On Saturday, Zelensky urged civilians in the easternmost Donbas region of the country to leave amid intense fighting with Russian forces.

Zelensky said in a statement that hundreds of thousands of people remain in the area and refuse to leave but must for their own safety, adding that his government is organizing for a mandatory evacuation.

Zelensky also called on the U.S. and other nations to recognize Russia as a terrorist state, saying the gesture would be an “effective defense of the free world.”

Source: TEST FEED1

No, Sen. Grassley, the FBI is not corrupted to its core

When a politician who has been in Congress for nearly half a century says that the FBI is “corrupted” to its “core,” well, that’s enough to send a chill up and down the national spine.

After all, if the FBI is totally corrupt, to whom do we turn to ensure integrity in our democratic institutions so that we don’t become Mexico, where justice is scaled to the amount of “mordida” paid out and criminal cartels run a shadow government? Or that we don’t become China, where justice means adherence to ruling party diktats and citizens are punished based on inadequate “social credit” scores tallied by a government that monitors every private move? 

An FBI corrupt to its core would be catastrophic for a nation that has pegged its very existence and moral credibility on an even-handed adherence to the rule of law. So any claim of systemic corruption in the FBI should be made with utmost sobriety and based on overwhelming, objective evidence since the ramifications, if true, cut to the heart of our survival as a democracy. And of course — this obviously goes without saying — such a claim never should be made to further the political interests of one party over the other. I mean, who in Congress would do that?

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter dated July 25 to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray and made it public at the same time. In the letter, Grassley asserts he has “whistleblower” information that the FBI purposefully has not acted on “derogatory information” about Hunter Biden and that two FBI employees specifically worked to thwart an investigation. “If … true,” Grassley wrote (apparently not certain that the whistleblowers are truthful), then “the Justice Department and FBI are — and have been — institutionally corrupted to their very core … .” 

Holy pork-barrel corn subsidies! A member of Congress is calling the storied FBI institutionally corrupt to the core. Irony just got an updated definition. Since Grassley’s dramatic assertion grabbed headlines and ignited calls to disband the FBI, it is worthy of deconstruction and perspective to make sure the American people aren’t being unduly panicked. 

Grassley gets some things right and raises specific legitimate concerns appropriate to his role of oversight. He falls out of the logic tree, however, when he claims that those legitimate concerns, which are fairly isolated, are proof somehow of a thoroughly corrupted FBI.  

Here’s what he gets right — and I base the following on my expertise regarding the Attorney General Guidelines that set forth what is needed to open an FBI investigation:

The information residing on Hunter Biden’s laptop, at least that which has become publicly known, is sufficient, under the guidelines, to justify an FBI criminal and/or counterintelligence investigation of Hunter’s unregistered actions on behalf of a foreign entity and to determine whether his father was paid — while he was vice president — for helping to further Hunter’s business dealings overseas. Grassley is within his oversight rights to inquire whether the FBI has acted on these reasonable indicators.  

Grassley also is within his rights to follow up on information provided to him that raises concerns that a potential investigation of Hunter Biden is being impeded because of political biases of certain decision-makers within the FBI. Grassley singles out two FBI employees in his letter and alludes to possible unnamed others who concern him. Such an inquiry is fair game and appropriate. 

Here’s what he gets wrong;

First, Grassley frames his argument within the context of “derogatory information” about Hunter Biden that he believes the FBI either isn’t acting on or is characterizing as “disinformation.” This is sloppy wording and betrays a lack of understanding of our legal system.  

Hunter Biden’s laptop is chock-full of derogatory information reflecting a troubled life that people of goodwill hope he gets help with. The FBI investigates violations of federal law, not undefined derogatory information. If Grassley is concerned with or in possession of information indicating a violation of federal law, he should articulate that clearly. His letter doesn’t do that.

Second, Grassley states that he is in possession of “a significant number of protected communications from highly credible whistleblowers.” However, he doesn’t mention how many whistleblowers he’s heard from, what places them in a position to be “credible,” or whether they would agree to provide their information under oath. Without context, claiming whistleblower input carries no more weight than, say, an anonymous source.

Finally, Grassley zeroes in on the actions of — count them — two FBI employees as further proof of inappropriate FBI reaction to the Hunter Biden saga. So, from a starting point of concern about FBI disregard for undefined “derogatory information” and “disinformation,” input from unvetted whistleblowers, and the antics of a mid-level FBI agent and intelligence analyst, Grassley concludes that the FBI is and has been institutionally and “systemically” corrupted at its core.  

That’s a belly-flop off a high dive. 

No, the FBI is not corrupt at its core. Thousands of cases are made each day by thousands of FBI agents and analysts across the country that accrue to the benefit and safety of the American people without regard to political considerations.  

The FBI deserves and welcomes oversight and, yes, the biased actions of a very few in the FBI have been alarming over the recent past — something I and others have persistently criticized. Prudent oversight calls out the misdeeds of bad actors and holds the FBI accountable for a clean scrub. Purely political oversight, on the other hand, engages in over-the-top hyperbole and scare tactics that unnecessarily and recklessly shake the faith of the citizenry to motivate votes that foster party power. 

Publicly revealed facts suggest that Hunter Biden and his family deserve investigation — but that should be done in service to the principles of justice, not politics. Grassley’s inflammatory and false accusation of institutional corruption degrades his legitimate concerns by coming across as an attempt to shame or bully the FBI into an investigation just in time for the midterm elections.  

When political goals are valued higher than ideals of justice by either party, that’s the real core corruption.

Kevin R. Brock is a former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He independently consults with private companies and public-safety agencies on strategic mission technologies.

Source: TEST FEED1

Congress takes aggressive stance against foreign spyware

Congress is seeking to ramp up U.S. defenses against the evolving threat of foreign spyware following recent incidents exposing its use on government officials, journalists and dissidents.

Last week, the House Intelligence Committee passed the Intelligence Authorization Act, which included a provision authorizing the Director of National Intelligence to prohibit the U.S. intelligence community from buying and using foreign spyware. 

The bill would also allow the president to impose sanctions on foreign government officials and firms that target U.S. officials with spyware.  

At a Wednesday hearing, Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) shined a light on foreign government use of the Pegasus spyware, which was developed and sold by the Israeli company NSO Group, to monitor domestic and foreign officials, journalists, human rights activists and political opponents.

“This spyware could be used against every member of this committee, every employee of the executive branch, every journalist or political activist,” Schiff said. 

“And aside from periodically updating the software on our devices, there’s little you can currently do to protect yourself from being targeted and compromised,” he added.

Schiff also mentioned how a group of news organizations and researchers working last year for the Pegasus Project, which investigated how and where the spyware was deployed, uncovered rampant use by countries around the world, including Mexico, Saudi Arabia, India, Poland and Hungary. 

The project also released a leaked list of more than 50,000 phone numbers of individuals targeted by governments using the spyware tool. 

“Since that disclosure, a steady stream of disturbing reports has revealed that thousands of journalists, civil society activists, and many others have had their devices compromised by NSO’s tools,” Schiff said.

U.S. officials, including diplomats, have reportedly numbered among the victims of the spyware. 

Late last year, Reuters reported that at least nine State Department officials based in Uganda were hacked by an unknown attacker using Pegasus. Sources told Reuters at the time that the hacks took place over several months. 

Although the Israeli spyware cannot penetrate phones with U.S. numbers, the hacker was able to get inside the State Department officials’ phones because they were registered with foreign ones

U.S. allies have also been a target of the spyware. In April, it was reported that U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s office was the target of multiple malware attacks between 2020 and 2021. Although researchers investigating the hacks were unable to identify specific individuals, they linked the attacks to the United Arab Emirates.

This week, a top European Union lawmaker said his phone was likely compromised by Pegasus.

In a letter obtained by Reuters, EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders said that Apple informed him last year that his phone had likely been hacked using the Israeli spyware. 

The potential hack prompted an investigation of Reydner’s devices as well as phones belonging to other EU employees.

“I believe that these cases are the tip of the iceberg and there are many more yet to be discovered,” said John Scott-Railton, a researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab who testified at the hearing. 

In November, the Department of Commerce blacklisted NSO Group amid intense scrutiny by the U.S. for facilitating unlawful surveillance. 

The White House in June also voiced its own concerns following an attempt by U.S. defense contractor L3Harris to purchase spyware tools from NSO Group. 

The Biden administration said at the time that the acquisition of the spyware would “pose a serious counterintelligence and security risk to U.S. personnel and systems.”

L3Harris reportedly ended talks with NSO Group following the White House concerns. 

U.S. officials familiar with the matter told The Washington Post that the defense firm “reached out to the U.S. government and said they would not be moving forward” with the acquisition.

“When the United States government added NSO group and another vendor to the entity list, this sent a strong signal which was pretty powerful and it impacted both NSO group’s valuation and investor confidence,” Scott-Railton said.

“Congress should send that signal to all unaccountable players within the industry,” he added. 

Scott-Railton also suggested that Congress should direct the intelligence community to use resources available to disrupt firms that sell such spyware, adding that those companies should be prohibited from doing business with U.S. federal agencies.

He also recommended that the U.S. should apply diplomatic pressure to countries “that have become safe havens with these problematic companies.”

Although the Pegasus spyware is now getting global recognition for its unlawful surveillance, it is still advertised by NSO Group as a hacking tool used by law enforcement to catch criminals involved in various activities, including terrorism, drug trafficking and human trafficking, said Mike Sexton, a senior policy advisor for cyber at Third Way’s national security program.

“[The spyware] is being used way more often against people who unambiguously do not pose that kind of threat to law and order,” Sexton said.

He added that the U.S. should develop a legal framework allowing firms to operate without violating human rights.

“I think that these companies can conduct themselves ethically and can play a productive role supporting law enforcement, but I don’t think we’re going to stop hearing about these [abuses] until that is no longer optional,” Sexton said. “It needs to be mandatory.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Of strikes and storms: A potentially disastrous political season

Beware of the Ides of August! With most of this year’s primary elections settled, except for 13 states that hold primaries in August and September, political pundits are turning their attention to public opinion polling about issues confronting our nation. In the background, a potential confluence of events is building to what could become a “perfect storm” that reshapes the sentiments of voters nationwide.

In a recent Pew Research Center survey, only 20 percent of Democrats and 5 percent of Republicans rated the conditions of the U.S. economy as “excellent/good,” and of those surveyed, 75 percent said they are “very concerned” about rising prices for food, gasoline and other goods.

Exposed only over the past two years, our supply chains for decades have been a fragile network of just-in-time delivery. Persistent disruptions of supply chains are a key component driving concerns about the economy and, to an extent, inflation.

As summer winds down and we look toward November’s midterm elections, it’s important to step back to consider what poses incredible risk to our supply chain. We are in the midst of two stalled labor negotiations in the transportation sector and about to enter the peak of hurricane season. The convergence of these events could wreak havoc on our economy and the elections.

On July 1, the contract expired for more than 22,000 West Coast dockworkers who continue to handle nearly 40 percent of U.S. imports, and talks linger on with the Pacific Maritime Association. Simultaneously, 115,000 railroad workers nationwide, who move over 20 billion tons of goods per year, await a new contract after more than two years of failed negotiations.

While those close to the contract talks for dockworkers remain positive and committed to keeping cargo flowing, many U.S. industries are worried and cite the 2002 lockout and 2015 eight-day strike as examples that set the U.S. economy back billions of dollars and required intervention from presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, respectively. The outlook is not as bright for rail workers. Despite President Biden’s appointment of a Presidential Emergency Board to help resolve the contract dispute, some close to the talks believe a resolution will remain evasive and simply delay a strike.

With these labor disputes serving as the backdrop, NOAA’s outlook for the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season predicts above-average hurricane activity, including the potential for three to six major storms. Even though the season has remained relatively quiet, with only three named storms that were relatively weak and short-lived, peak hurricane season is not until mid-August and runs through late October. During this window we should expect intensification of the quantity and strength of storms.

Hurricanes disrupt community lifelines — what the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) describes as the “seven enablers” of continuous operation of critical government and business functions that are essential to human health, public safety or economic security. My tenure with the National Security Council as senior director for resilience policy included the record-setting 2020 Atlantic hurricane season with its 30 named storms; 12 storms making landfall in the contiguous U.S.; and 10 of those storms forming in September alone. In this role, I recognized that rapid restoration of these lifelines requires resilient supply chains, and that accountability and public perception of disaster response easily can translate into a political context.

A Fox News survey released on July 17 found an astounding 93 percent of American voters are “concerned” about inflation. Any minor disruption to supply chains will have a cascading effect, impacting prices and consumer confidence and requiring decisive leadership to mitigate. Strikes by critical transportation workers or a hurricane affecting the United States could bring about a knee-jerk reaction in the economy. And there is a very real possibility that strikes and storms could converge in the coming weeks.

Striking dockworkers and railroad workers — even for only a few days — in the run-up to a major hurricane would send reverberations across the country and bring surging costs on commodities. That could jeopardize the ability of responders to send supplies quickly to where they are needed. Emergency managers for years have educated communities on what it means to be prepared, suggesting they include a three- to seven-day supply of water and nonperishable food. This year, being prepared may require having supplies that exceed seven days given the state of supply chains.

We must ask ourselves if elected officials at all levels of government are taking the steps necessary to minimize the impacts of potential disruptions. Are state and local governments preparing hurricane-prone communities for the instability in supply chains? Has the federal government, which has widely integrated the private sector into its domestic response plans, accounted for supply chain challenges? Especially during election season, a crisis can have far-reaching implications.

The road to this year’s midterms already has had twists and turns. From pessimism about the economy to polarizing views on ideological issues, the winds of this fall are hardly settled. A domestic disaster, such as a damaging hurricane, compounded by two labor strikes in critical industries, if negotiations fail, could further alter the political landscape in 2023 and beyond. 

Brian J. Cavanaugh is a senior vice president at American Global Strategies LLC. He served as special assistant to the president and senior director for resilience policy at the U.S. National Security Council from 2018 to 2021.

Source: TEST FEED1

Why Democrats are excited for Biden after a big week

A week ago, President Biden seemed down on his luck. 

He had just been diagnosed with COVID-19, after dodging it for more than two years.

He was being bashed by people in his own party for appearing flat-footed on abortion.

The all-important climate legislation he had been pushing seemed dead in the water.

And as if things couldn’t appear any worse, The New York Times had recently released a poll showing that most Democrats wanted someone else to run for their party’s nomination in 2024.

But a lot changed in a week.

Biden defeated his COVID-19 symptoms, and despite testing positive on Saturday after days of testing negative in what his doctor deemed a rebound case, it looks like the president has avoided any severe illness.

Gas prices are at the lowest they’ve been in weeks.

He’ll soon sign a bipartisan bill to boost the domestic chip industry, which has been a major priority.

And there’s an emerging deal in the Senate on his domestic climate and health agenda that caught almost all of Washington off guard this week. 

But it’s not all good for Biden. The Commerce Department on Thursday said the economy shrank for a second straight quarter, raising fears of a recession.

But overall, it was the best week in some time for the president. He even got some props from his old boss on his bout of good news. 

“This has been a big week for the Biden Administration and Democrats in Congress,” former President Obama said on Thursday, highlighting the movement on legislation. “Progress doesn’t always happen all at once, but it does happen – and this is what it looks like.” 

Even Democrats who had questioned Biden’s leadership days earlier were feeling more optimistic. 

“He had a really good f—ing week,” said one Democratic strategist, who acknowledged doubting the White House’s strategy– or lack thereof – earlier this month. “And it’s a good reminder that things can change so quickly in politics. Remember when everyone was writing those OMG Biden has COVID stories? That was a week ago.”  

The legislative victories, while not set in stone just yet, are potentially game-changing for Biden and the Democrats, after more than a year of wrangling in Congress — much of it messy and public — over Biden’s economic agenda. 

Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way, said that if both the semiconductor bill and the reconciliation package succeed, “the first two years of the Biden administration are probably the biggest of any Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson.”

“That shows competence,” he said.

Progressives hungry for climate action and frustrated by months of inaction have a reason to look up because of the deal announced this past week. 

“If this bill passes, not only is it historic, it’s going to help drive up youth voter turnout for the election,” said Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez, president and executive director of the youth voting group NexGen America, noting that policy to fight climate change was a major motivator for young voters in 2020 who turned out to support Biden.

However, it’s unclear whether that enthusiasm will translate into more support for Biden among young voters, who polls have shown souring on Biden. 

“At the end of the day, what I think people have to remember is, Biden was never the youth candidate,” said Tzintzún Ramirez. “If [Democrats are] able to get this done, it shows young people their vote really does help deliver the policy agenda that they want.”

Biden is contending with record high inflation and remains underwater in the polls, with his national approval average around 38 percent. 

But Democratic strategist Rodell Mollineau said Biden has been “unfairly plagued” by what he hasn’t accomplished versus what he has and the legislative deals are sure to re-energize him, particularly when it comes to the base. 

Mollineau acknowledged that it will continue to be a roller coaster ride for Biden. 

“He’s gonna have good weeks and bad weeks between now and the midterms and between now and his reelection,” he said. 

Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) said in a local radio interview on Thursday that he would not support Biden running again in 2024, instead calling for a “generational change” at the top of the ticket 

“I think the country would be well-served by a new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats who step up,” he said on Chad Hartman’s radio show. 

Those comments came after news of the deal on a sweeping reconciliation package that had most corners of the Democratic Party swimming with excitement. 

“The president intends to run in 2024. We are ways away from 2024,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Friday when asked about Phillips’s remarks. “We are going to continue to focus on doing the business of the American people, by delivering for families, by lowering costs for families.”

A CNN poll this week found that 75 percent of Democrats want someone other than Biden to run in 2024, following up on a similar poll earlier in the month from The New York Times and Siena College.

That leaves some skeptical Biden can turn it around.

“At the end of the day, people that don’t like Biden are still not going to like Biden if they’re concerned about everything from his age to his political acumen, I don’t think this changes the needle that much,” said Basil Smikle, a Democratic strategist and director of the public policy program at Hunter College.

But Mollineau said he thinks that oftentimes, journalists and talking heads “look at the last piece of data and make long term assumptions” about Biden’s viability. 

He added that Biden is skilled at playing the long game. 

“How many times was he written off as dead during the 2020 primary?” he said. “So many folks have been ready and willing to write him off but he’s playing a much larger game than one news cycle.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Why Texas Democrats are feeling a sense of déjà vu

Democrats are feeling cautiously optimistic about flipping the Texas governor’s mansion, even as they acknowledge a strong sense of déjà vu following past elections in which the state eluded them despite seemingly favorable tailwinds.

Many observers had written off the race between Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke, pointing to the incumbent governor’s generally high favorability and the Lone Star State’s deep-red hue. 

But the recent shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde sparked a renewed debate over gun control and raised pressure on state officials, including Abbott. And polls conducted in the shooting’s aftermath suggest a surprisingly close race.

Still, while Democrats say these developments make them feel hopeful, they’re also reminiscent of recent campaign cycles in which Republicans ultimately came out triumphant despite tight polling leading up to Election Day.

“I’m feeling cautiously optimistic,” said Texas Democratic state Rep. James Talarico. “This doesn’t mean that we don’t have a lot of work to do. Even if Beto wins, it doesn’t mean we stop working.” 

“This is a long-term effort that outlives any individual,” he added.

A number of polls show a tightening race in recent weeks. One, from the University of Houston’s Hobby School of Public Affairs released earlier this month, showed Abbott leading O’Rourke 48 percent to 43 percent, while a Quinnipiac University poll released last month also found Abbott leading O’Rourke by the same margin. It’s an improvement from late last year when a Quinnipiac poll showed Abbott leading O’Rourke by 17 points.

These numbers may look familiar to O’Rourke and Democrats. A Quinnipiac University poll released in August 2018 showed O’Rourke trailing Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) by 6 points. And during that same period, the RealClearPolitics polling average had Cruz leading O’Rourke by 6.5 points, according to Vox.

Democrats will also remember that the year’s Senate race was the closest in Texas since 1978 — but O’Rourke ended up losing by just over 2 points. The final RealClearPolitics polling average before the election showed Cruz leading by an average of 2.6 points. 

“He closed the gap near the end,” said Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa. “We’re 100 days out, and he’s closed the gap rapidly.” 

Democrats also had high hopes for Texas in 2020 only to see Republicans gain ground, particularly in the southern portion of the state with Hispanic voters. Republicans up and down the ballot this year say they are working to build on that momentum.

However, Democrats argue that their voter turnout will be higher than it was in 2020, given the lack of in-person campaigning that took place after the height of the coronavirus pandemic on the Democratic side.

“We don’t have that limitation anymore,” Hinojosa said. “What we do is just work harder than we’ve ever worked before. There’s too much at stake now.”

Still, Texans say the state’s political landscape is changing. Experts also point out the different dynamics in play in a gubernatorial election versus a statewide Senate race. 

Abbott has faced a number of crises and controversies over the past year, including the state’s power grid failure during a massive winter storm in 2021, the fatal elementary school shooting in Uvalde in May and the state’s attempts to ban most abortions, particularly in light of the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade.

“He’s looked weak,” said Jon Taylor, a political science professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio. “This is why I would argue the end of Roe and the Uvalde school shooting are influencing and will continue to influence this race going into the fall.” 

And Abbott’s approval ratings appear to be in decline. According to a poll released by the Texas Politics Project earlier this month, Abbott’s approval rating slipped 3 points to 43 percent. The governor’s disapproval rating sat at 46 percent, according to the poll.

Nationally, the mood could not be better for Republicans looking to win seats on Capitol Hill, in state legislatures and at governor’s mansions across the country, given Biden’s low approval ratings. The same Texas Politics Project survey showed Biden with a dismal 35 percent approval rating and a 55 percent disapproval rating in the state. 

The poll showed O’Rourke with 39 percent support and Abbott with 45 percent support. 

“I think in some ways [O’Rourke] is isolated from the politics of the White House and Congress,” progressive political strategist Sawyer Hackett said. “On the other hand, Beto has done a good job to distinguish himself from many of the failures of the Biden administration, especially on issues like immigration and issues like voting rights where Beto has been calling for more action and the Biden administration has come up short.” 

Talarico has repeatedly emphasized what he says are the differences between Texas Democrats and their D.C. Beltway cousins, recently accusing national Democrats of deploying “spineless talking points and soulless fundraising emails.”

“Texas Democrats have a history of being a little different from our national counterparts, and Beto O’Rourke is a prime example of that,” Talarico said, before recounting O’Rourke confronting Abbott at a press conference after the Uvalde school shooting in May.

“I really can’t imagine President Biden or Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D-Calif.] or [Senate Majority] Leader [Charles] Schumer [D-N.Y.] ever doing something like that,” he said. 

O’Rourke’s exposure to the national spotlight could stand to help him as well in his home state. After nearly defeating Cruz in 2018, interest in O’Rourke skyrocketed, and he went on to run in the Democratic presidential primary before dropping out in November 2019. 

“He’s had an opportunity over the years to get a relatively high name ID and has continued to campaign in one way or another throughout this time,” Hinojosa said. 

O’Rourke’s allies also point to what they say is an upbeat energy on the ground that is different from past elections, particularly in rural areas. 

Republicans maintain they are not taking the polls for granted but point out that O’Rourke’s high name ID comes with the baggage public political figures often carry. 

“They were floored that how could it be possible that a race could be that close in Texas,” said one GOP strategist, referring to Abbott’s allies watching the Senate race in 2018. “Now they find themselves in a similar situation, frankly, with a much more wounded Beto than the brand that Cruz had to deal with.” 

The strategist said the polls were indicative of the electorate responding to the recent rulings from the Supreme Court and the government’s response to the Uvalde school shooting. 

“I think by the time you get to November, God willing that nothing like that kind of incident happens again, I think if the electorate is again focused on the economy and things that are going wrong under the Biden administration, I think that plays right into the hand of a red state like Texas,” the Republican strategist said. 

“I’m not super worried. I don’t think many people are,” the strategist added. “They’ve got to step up their game, though, and hopefully they do that here soon.” 

Both candidates have reported impressive fundraising hauls so far, with O’Rourke narrowly leading Abbott in the money game. 

O’Rourke’s campaign announced earlier this month that it raked in $27.6 million from Feb. 20 to June 30, which came from more than 511,000 contributions. 

Meanwhile, Abbott’s campaign said he raised $24.9 million during the same period from about 113,000 contributions. The campaign’s cash-on-hand total at the end of the period was just under $46 million. 

O’Rourke’s campaign did not say how much cash it had on hand at the end of the reporting period.

“It helps that O’Rourke is decently funded, unlike the last two Democratic nominees,” Taylor said. 

“[Democrats] also have to be aware of the power of the incumbency,” he added, referring to Abbott’s advantage in the race. 

“Stay tuned,” Taylor said. “It’s going to get nastier and crazier because this is Texas politics.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden speaks via FaceTime with, sends pizza to veterans protesting for burn pit bill

President Biden spoke with veterans who are camping out at the Capitol building until the Senate passes a bill to expand care for veterans with burn pit injuries via FaceTime and sent them pizza on Saturday. 

Biden tweeted that he was originally planning to visit them in person to meet with veterans and their families supporting the Sgt. 1st Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act, but he needed to cancel after testing positive for COVID-19. 

He said he instead had Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough bring them pizza and facilitate a FaceTime call with them. 

“These heroes fought for our country — they shouldn’t have to fight for health care, too,” McDonough’s office said in a tweet. “The Senate must pass the PACT Act now.” 

Biden said on the FaceTime call that the country has a “sacred obligation” to care for those who go into war and care for them and their families after they return. He said opposing the legislation is “despicable,” and he has to believe that the bill’s opponents are “going to make up for the mistake they made.” 

The Senate attempted to advance the bill on Wednesday, but it only received 55 of the necessary 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. All Democrats and eight Republicans voted in favor of the bill, while three senators were absent. 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the day after the bill failed that he plans to bring it up for a vote again on Monday. 

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), one of the votes against the legislation, said on the Senate floor that he was not opposed to the main purpose of the legislation, but he opposed that the bill would include $400 billion in unrelated spending, which he called a “budgetary gimmick.” 

Toomey tweeted on Saturday that the bill could have passed weeks ago if Senate Democrats dropped the spending from the bill. 

Schumer said in his comments after the bill failed that he offered Toomey the ability to propose an amendment to remove the spending after the legislation received 60 votes to advance, but Toomey insisted on the amendment passing in advance. 

Toomey called for the Senate to vote on the amendment in a subsequent tweet. He said Sen. John Tester (D-Mont.) is working in good faith to resolve the conflict.

Source: TEST FEED1