This time, the riots followed the point-blank police shooting of 17-year-old Nahel Merzouk after a car chase. The cost of the riots in a mere week — over $1 billion in damages to businesses — towers above that of 2005, but perhaps more notable is that the discussion of the banlieues has receded, or is mediated through, the lens of the police. (In fact, this echoes a different French film, Ladj Ly’s 2019 crime thriller Les Miserables; the last prophetic image is of a young boy beside himself with trauma and anger brandishing a Molotov cocktail in the face of a cop with a gun.) Today the majority of rioters don’t have an immigrant background, and most of them are minors, some as young as 12 — in other words only a few years younger than the victim. It is their extreme youth combined with what has been characterized as their hyper violence that makes headlines.
The images we see are shocking, yes. There’s almost a one-upmanship on social media that pits three burnt busses against one gutted city hall (and I’ll raise you two looted McDonald’s). The scale of the destruction is breathtaking; it’s frequently symbolic, but often merely opportunistic — and sometimes downright incomprehensible in its perversity, like the assaults on the medical personnel trying to put some of these kids back together.
But today, despite all that is dystopian in these scenes of enraged children driven to trash their very own environment, almost everyone gets it. Few are actually surprised.
This is why 2023 is different from 2005. Regardless of the mindlessness of some of the destruction, the young people rampaging across French cities and towns are also expressing a deep anger rooted in humiliation that is felt across the country, not just in the banlieues. You could argue that for many French people, regardless of where they live, the nature of governance and decision-making in the past few years means that they all feel like “riff-raff” now.
What’s important to remember is that Macron’s governance is not incompetent — far from it. In comparison to the manner in which other major advanced democracies handled Covid, the energy crisis or inflation, France has done quite well. The trouble is that the people — the French rather than France — feel like they keep drawing the short straw when it comes to their voices and preferences being taken into account, their political and civic rights respected, their humanity protected.
From the often violent repression of the gilets jaunes (yellow vest movement) and Macron’s broken promises of a changed governing style, to the ramming through of pension reform (without a vote) in the face of massive, violent protests, the current government, despite its technocratic prowess, has given nearly every segment of French society, across all demographics and regions, cause to feel that they are governed sometimes competently but almost always with humiliating impunity. And too many have been injured or killed by police in the process; statistics show that French police kill four times more today than they did in 2010, fueling cycles of protest and repression.
That’s not to diminish the hardship and injustice faced far too often by some in French society rather than others. But the reality is, the oxygen behind these waves of increasingly frequent and increasingly violent displays is in part the fact that everyone in France has had at least a small taste of the humiliation that many have endured for decades — aside from those whose thirst for an order based exclusively on exaction and punishment drives them to the harder edges of the right.
In these early days of summer 2023, what floats above the smoldering remains of the riots, is the shared sense across French society that their problems are being systematically exacerbated by the actions of the police — and by those of a judiciary that tends to criminalize the victims and treat their families with disdain. It is an irony that this is what may finally provide a shared point of reference across French towns, communities, classes and creeds: That enough is enough and that root-and-branch police reform is not only necessary but urgent after decades of combined neglect and empowerment. But instead, as already pointed out by some, France has systematically passed legislation to further arm the police year after year over the last two decades.
The cycle of violence, from police and rioters, is taking place in a fragmented political landscape that is only going to get tougher to navigate. The riots are driving the right and far-right closer together — a tendency that is present across many European democracies and that will have profound consequences for next year’s European Parliament elections. But they also create pressures on a deeply-divided left — torn between their desires for social justice and the demands of a base that is increasingly receptive to the far-right’s promises of order.
Macron must confront this dilemma or risk making injustice and humiliation the exclusive drivers of French politics — an outcome that will only lead to further destruction and potentially catastrophic results in the presidential election of 2027.
[ad_2]
#Opinion #French #Riots #Disturbing
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The edicts prompted a furious backlash by an architecture world that was already primed for a fight. The preferred-style rule was the handiwork of a traditionalist Washington nonprofit called the National Civic Art Society, which fights for “the classical tradition” and has condemned modern architecture as “dehumanizing.” The organization had long criticized the American Institute of Architects, the professional association that voiced outrage against Trump’s new rule.
Trump had earlier named the Civic Art Society’s president, a conservative architecture critic named Justin Shubow, to the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts, which oversees new buildings in the capital. In January of 2021, as Trump left office, Shubow — who, professionals sniffed, was not even an architect — was elevated to the commission’s chairship.
Soon after taking office, President Joe Biden rescinded the executive orders and removed all but one of Trump’s appointees from the Fine Arts Commission, replacing Shubow with the celebrated contemporary architect Billie Tsien.
But as with so many other disruptions of the Trump years, things didn’t simply go back to normal — in part because Shubow is a determined advocate, and in part because the traditionalists have a point, or at least half a point.
And that half a point is: There are a lot of hideous federal buildings out there!
The growth of government in the decades after World War II happened to take place during one of the most maligned periods in public architecture. Like college campuses, government properties have been among the modernist era’s most conspicuous offenders, perhaps because the people commissioning the buildings were not the ones who would have to live or work in them. When it’s their own private home or business, people tend to be much less deferential to the artistes drawing up the blueprints.
In Shubow’s telling, that deference is the problem — baked right into the 1962 Moynihan document his rivals want to enshrine in law. “Design must flow from the architectural profession to the Government,” it declares, “and not vice versa.” Rather than a gesture of support for creativity, he says, the language essentially orders public servants to abandon their duty of keeping an eye on the contractors. (He notes that the AIA, which has blasted the GOP bill in the name of free expression, isn’t quite a dispassionate academic group: It’s a trade association for architects, ie those very same contractors.)
Shubow’s organization has commissioned a poll demonstrating that, by a significant percentage, Americans favor more traditionalist forms of architecture. Shouldn’t a democratically elected government make sure that its buildings don’t alienate the citizens who pay for them?
Well, sure. But the new bills do more than that. In elevating the stature of the Greek- and Roman-inflected buildings favored by Thomas Jefferson and his cohort, it adopts a grimly backward-looking posture in a country that has always been about dynamism and change.
So while it’s true that the capital was launched by people who obsessed about (small-r) “republican” style as they set about creating a fledgling republic in an age of monarchies, it’s also true that said obsession extended well beyond architecture to things like clothing — which, thankfully, no one is trying to legislate in the year 2023.
The idea of writing one particular style into law also ignores the tendency of tastes to change and perspectives to vary. Plenty of people — including me — adore the look of D.C.’s Federal Triangle, the massive 1930s constellation of Neoclassical government buildings including the Justice Department, the National Archives and the Department of Commerce. Others think its sweep of columned edifices looks kind of fascist, an association that no one could have imagined when the project was first envisioned in the 1920s.
[ad_2]
#Republicans #Mandate #Single #Style #Architecture #Washington
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The resulting report confirmed much of what tribes had complained about for decades: unfinished infrastructure projects that had been promised long ago as part of federal settlements, onerous restrictions on where and how tribes could put their water to use, and some 500,000 acre-feet a year that flowed down the river without compensation. Historically, tribes pursued settlements independently. “If you know one tribe, you know one tribe,” goes an axiom Vigil and others often repeat in relation to tribal water rights. But the tribal water study also underscored the consequences of their common history: There’s a difference between having a legal right to water and having a foothold in the federal apparatus that actually manages the river.
In 2019, nearly two decades into the megadrought affecting the Southwest, the seven Colorado River states adopted a drought contingency plan overseen by the Bureau of Reclamation to manage the changing hydrology on the river. In the years since, users in the lower basin and Mexico have had their water allotments cut by close to 1 million acre-feet, a more than 10 percent reduction.
Earlier this year, as the seven basin states scrambled to come up with a compromise to cut their 2023 allocations by a further 2 million acre-feet, Amelia Flores was working with partners in the state and federal government toward another milestone. Flores is chair of the Colorado River Indian Tribes, whose lands straddle the river on the California-Arizona border. For more than 20 years, CRIT’s leaders had been pushing for legislation that would allow the tribes to lease some of their water to users outside the reservation. With senior rights to more than 700,000 acre-feet a year, CRIT is one of the largest rights holders in the basin, providing water both to commercial farmers who lease tribal land — this part of the Southwest grows the bulk of the country’s winter vegetables — and to blunt the impact of shortages across in the system. Since 2016, through agreements with the federal Bureau of Reclamation, CRIT has fallowed enough farmland to leave 200,000 acre-feet of water in Lake Mead, preventing the reservoir’s levels from dropping even faster toward the critical “dead pool” level where power cannot be generated.
On Jan. 5, President Joe Biden signed legislation freeing the tribe to lease its water to users outside the reservation for the first time. But even as the tribe pushed that bill over the line, it wasn’t party to negotiations among the states about the shape of future cuts. As the tribe’s longtime attorney, Margaret Vick, explained recently in a joint phone interview with Flores, allowing tribal participation in those talks wouldn’t require an act of Congress. “What that would require is a phone call,” Vick said.
When the Bureau of Reclamation’s Feb. 1 deadline arrived without a deal, news outlets around the country reported on the proposal that came closest to consensus: Every state but California signed onto an arrangement that would leave the Golden State, which receives some 4.4 million acre-feet, by far the largest share of Colorado River water, to absorb the bulk of the cuts. To Flores’ surprise, the deal also called for CRIT to give up 45,000 acre-feet without compensation. Asked whether she’d had any prior notice from Arizona or its counterparts, Flores was blunt: “None, zero.” For the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the river is both the center of a sacred homeland and the backbone of government services: Agriculture represents about 80 percent of the tribal government’s revenue. Uncompensated water cuts could affect everything from health care to college scholarships for tribal members.
“Still to this day we don’t believe states really understand the dynamics of tribal water rights,” Flores said. “We need to be at the table.”
This dynamic is felt most acutely in Arizona, home to 22 tribes with claims to Colorado River water. When I asked Tom Buschatzke, director of the state’s water resources department, about negotiations with tribes, he touted a state program established in 2004 to buy farmland and leave it fallow in order to create a pool of Colorado River water rights the government could assign to future tribal settlements. Unfortunately, he explained, two decades on, most of that theoretical pool of water has literally evaporated with the changing hydrology of the river.
“That makes it difficult to push forward with settlements,” Buschatzke said. “I’m not going to offer a tribe something that would only be there 5 percent of the time.” There is, of course, a more reliable pool to draw from — the water that already flushes the toilets and irrigates the golf courses of Arizona’s cities and towns — but what Arizona politician is going to propose giving tribes that water?
“Wow,” Vigil says. “There’s an opportunity to start thinking about how we feed ourselves, where we feed ourselves and all those kind of things, and that’s one of the things that’s missing.”
About 70 percent of the basin’s water is allocated to agriculture, mostly to feed cattle. “And there is no structured place that I know of where those conversations are being had. Seventy percent of the water is [for] agriculture!” he repeated. “How are we not talking about that?”
While indigenous people have held a variety of top posts at Interior Department agencies going back 20 years or more, Biden’s appointment of Deb Haaland, the first Native American secretary of the Interior, signaled a commitment to Native points of view in the upper echelons of power at the White House. It did not take long for tribes to be disappointed. In late 2021, Vigil coordinated an effort that saw the leaders of 20 tribal nations sign a letter to Haaland, outlining a list of shared demands of federal officials, including a framework for leasing privileges similar to those won by CRIT. Haaland held a listening session with the signatories the following spring, one of “more than a dozen meetings” an Interior Department spokesperson highlighted of the government’s commitment to “robust consultation” with tribes. But to Vigil, it was part of a familiar pattern: Federal agencies seem always willing to talk but never to respond to specific demands.
This past February, federal officials announced the states had missed a second deadline to make further cuts, totaling 2 million to 4 million acre-feet, and that the Bureau of Reclamation would have to make the decision instead. In April, the Biden administration sketched out its plan to meet that target, setting aside distinctions between “senior” and “junior” rights holders, and asking California, Arizona and Nevada to reduce Colorado River water usage across the board by an additional 25 percent.
To avoid the bruising politics of choosing California alfalfa over Arizona subdivisions, the administration’s proposal put cities and towns with water rights dating to the 1960s on the same footing as irrigation districts with claims dating back to the 19th century. Settled tribal rights, too, would have to flow from the same bucket. But the threat of federal officials unilaterally imposing reductions on the states for the first time in history was finally enough to compel broader agreement. With the help of a wet winter and $1.2 billion in federal funds, Arizona, California and Nevada have agreed to cuts of roughly 13 percent across the lower basin, enough to stave off the immediate crisis. The plan is expected to gain final federal approval, but it will not materially change the role of tribes in future negotiations.
When I asked Vigil if he felt he’d seen any significant inflection points in tribal participation in the river’s governance after 15 years of advocacy, there was a long pause. Finally, he said, “You know the reason why that’s a tough question? Because nothing has really changed. We don’t have a formal place in the policymaking process. … And until that happens, that means our sovereignty is not being fully recognized.”
[ad_2]
#Forgotten #Sovereigns #Colorado #River
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
In recent years, Georgetown and the Maryland Jesuits became an early example of an institution attempting to atone for its past in the slave trade. In 2019, the school announced it would provide preferential admissions to descendants of enslaved people, and its Jesuit operators announced millions in funding for racial reconciliation and education programs.
It’s uncertain whether last week’s Supreme Court decision overturning race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions will affect Georgetown’s program for descendants of enslaved people. Georgetown president John J. DeGioia wrote in a statement that the university was “deeply disappointed” in the decision, and that the university will“remain committed to our efforts to recruit, enroll, and support students from all backgrounds.”
As the college system braces for the fallout of that Supreme Court decision — and amid a simmering cultural debate about how, or even whether, to teach the kind of history Swarns has unearthed in schools — we had a wide-ranging discussion about book bans, the history of the Catholic Church (and her own connection to it) and the future of campus diversity.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Naranjo: Obviously the Catholic Church is not the only institution involved in slavery in the U.S. Do you think all institutions with a history of enslaving people have a duty to provide a full accounting of their involvement in doing so?
Swarns: You’re absolutely right. My book is about the Catholic Church and Georgetown University and their roots in slavery, but they are far from alone. Slavery drove the growth of many of our contemporary institutions — universities, religious institutions, banks, insurance companies. Many of those institutions are grappling with this history and I think it’s really important and urgent for them to do that work. I think it helps us understand more clearly how slavery shaped Americans, many American families and many of the institutions that are around us today. So to me, this is critical work.
Naranjo: I understand you are Catholic yourself. Has your personal relationship with the church been affected during your research?
Swarns: I had been writing about slavery and the legacy of slavery, and so I stumbled across the story in this book about the Catholic Church and Georgetown. But it just so happened that I also happen to be a Black, practicing Catholic, and when I first heard about this slave sale that prominent Catholic priests organized to help save Georgetown University, I was flabbergasted. I had never known that Catholic priests had participated in the American slave trade. I had never heard of Catholic priests enslaving people. I was really astounded, and I’ve been doing this research, going through archival records of the buying and selling of people by Catholic priests to sustain and help the church expand, even as I am going to Mass and doing all of that. And so it has been an interesting time for me because of that.
One of the things, though, that has been fascinating is that, as I tracked some of the people who had been enslaved and sold by the church, I learned that many of them — even after the Civil War, even after they were free people — they remained in the church that had betrayed them and sold them. And they remained in the church because they felt that the priests, the white sinful men who had sold them who had done these things, did not own this church. The church — God, the Holy Spirit, the Son — they did not control that. And their faith that had sustained them through all of this difficult period of enslavement continued to sustain them. And not only that, many of these individuals became lay leaders and some even became religious leaders in the church and worked to make the church more reflective of and responsive to Black Catholics and more true to its universal ideals. And so, in a strange way, learning that history, learning about these people and their endurance and their resilience and their commitment to their faith has been really inspiring to me. So, I’m still practicing, I’m still going to Mass.
Naranjo: As you note in the book, Catholicism in the U.S. has often been perceived as a Northern religion. And you show us how that’s not necessarily the case. But what do you think its role in enslaving people means for conversations about culpability and reparations, given that many people view slavery as a Southern thing?
Swarns: I think that explains a bit of the disconnect for people. Many of us as Americans view the Catholic Church as a Northern church, as an immigrant church. Growing up in New York City, that’s certainly the church that I knew. The truth is that the Catholic Church established its foothold in the British colonies and in the early United States and in Maryland, which was a slaveholding state and relied on slavery to help build the very underpinnings of the church. So the nation’s first Catholic institution of higher learning, Georgetown, first archdiocese, the first cathedral, priests who operated a plantation and enslaved and sold people established the first seminary. So this was foundational to the emergence of the Catholic Church in the United States, but it’s history that I certainly didn’t know and most Catholics don’t know. And most Americans don’t know.
In terms of grappling with this history, the institutions have taken a number of steps. Georgetown and the Jesuit order priests, who were the priests who established the early Catholic Church in the United States, they’ve apologized for their participation in slavery and the slave trade. Georgetown has offered preference in admissions to descendants of people who were enslaved by the church, and it’s created a fund — a $400,000 fund — which they’ve committed to raising annually to fund projects that will benefit descendants. They’ve also renamed buildings and created an institute to study slavery.
The Jesuits, for their part, partnered with descendants to create a foundation and committed to raising $100 million toward racial reconciliation projects and projects that would benefit descendants. So those are the steps that have been taken so far by the institutions that I write about in my book.
Descendants, I think, have different feelings about whether or not this is adequate, whether or not more should be done. Most of the people that I speak to believe that these are good first steps, but that more needs to be done.
Naranjo: In your reporting process, did you experience any pushback into looking into a history that maybe some would like to have forgotten?
Swarns: In this instance, I was dealing with institutions that were trying to be transparent and trying to address this history. For both institutions, I would say there are more records that I wish I had that I don’t have. And that’s often what we journalists encounter. And part of the challenge, frankly, beyond institutional willingness or unwillingness, is just the marginalization of enslaved people during our history. Enslaved people were barred by law and practice from learning to read and write. So the records that would give great insight into their lives, letters and journals that historians and writers used to document the lives of other people, say, in the 1800s, are really, really, really, really scarce. And so that’s an enormous challenge for anyone trying to unearth the lives of enslaved people.
Naranjo: I was reading the book last week, after the Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Years before that, Georgetown had embarked on this process and, as noted in the book, implemented a program for preferential admission for descendants of people enslaved by its Jesuit founders. What responsibilities do you think institutions with similar histories of enslaving people have to descendants?
Swarns: Universities all across the country are obviously grappling with the implications of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision. More than 90 universities have already identified historic ties to slavery and have committed to addressing that history. There’s actually a consortium of universities studying slavery. And what the Supreme Court decision means for them and for their efforts, I think, remains uncertain.
Georgetown issued a statement last week like many universities did, saying that they remain committed to ensuring diversity on campus and valuing diversity. How this will all play out — I mean, I think we’re all going to have to wait and see. In terms of the responsibilities for universities that have identified their roots in slavery? I’m a journalist, so to me, I think it’s so important to document this history. To search in the archives, to make materials available and easily available to families to identify descendants. And to reach out and to work with descendants. I’m a journalist, I’m not a policymaker, and so there will be others who can hammer out what policies institutions feel are best and what policies that the descendants, if there are any identified, feel would be best. But for me as a journalist and as a professor, I feel the urgency of documenting this history and making sure that it is known. And collaborating with descendant communities, when those communities are identified, in terms of deciding on policies and programs.
[ad_2]
#Broke #News #U.S #Catholic #Church #Sold #Enslaved #People #Shes #Mass
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
POLITICO Magazine commissioned this poll because we thought, despite some initial polling shortly after Trump’s federal indictment, that we could dig deeper into the public’s sentiment. How much do people really understand about the charges facing Trump and do they believe he’s guilty? What kind of punishments do they think fit the crimes if he is convicted? And, of course, what impact could all of this have on Trump’s presidential candidacy?
The poll was conducted from June 27 to June 28, roughly three weeks after Trump’s federal indictment and nearly three months after Trump was criminally charged by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. The poll had a sample of 1,005 adults age 18 or older, who were interviewed online; it has a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points for all respondents.
At this point, roughly half of the country believes that Trump committed the crimes alleged against him.
Forty-nine percent of respondents — including 25 percent of Republicans — said that they believe Trump is guilty in the pending federal prosecution, which alleges that he willfully retained sensitive government documents after leaving office and obstructed a subsequent federal investigation. A nearly identical 48 percent of respondents — including 24 percent of Republicans — believe that Trump is guilty in the Manhattan DA’s pending prosecution, which alleges that Trump falsified business records in connection with a payment to the porn star Stormy Daniels in the run-up to the 2016 election in order to keep her quiet about an alleged sexual relationship between the two.
On the question of timing, however, there was more unity.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents (62 percent) said that the trial in the pending federal prosecution should take place before the presidential election next November — a figure that includes nearly half of Republican respondents (46 percent). A lower number, but a still-solid majority, said that the trial should take place before the Republican primaries begin early next year (57 percent of all respondents, including 42 percent of Republican respondents).
The findings could bolster the position of federal prosecutors, who have been pushing for a trial date as early as this December. Trump is expected to try to drag out the proceedings for as long as possible, particularly because he would likely be able to shut the prosecution down if reelected. But the federal statute that governs the setting of trial dates requires judges to account for not only the defendant’s interest but “the best interest of the public” as well.
What should happen to Trump if he gets convicted? Forty three percent said he should go to prison, but most were willing to spare him jail time. Nearly a quarter of respondents said that Trump should incur no punishment at all (22 percent), while 18 percent said he should receive probation and another 17 percent said he should face only a financial penalty.
The results were roughly similar when respondents were asked what the punishment should be if Trump is convicted in Manhattan. Most respondents said that Trump should not go to prison and that he should instead receive either no term of imprisonment, probation, or a financial penalty only (21 percent, 17 percent and 22 percent, respectively).
In both instances, a clear partisan breakdown was evident. For the DOJ case, 73 percent of Democrats thought Trump should go to prison if convicted, compared to 16 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents. For the Manhattan DA’s case, 65 percent of Democrats backed prison time, compared to 14 percent of Republicans and 36 percent of independents.
The results also complicate the post-indictment narrative that the charges have improved Trump’s chances of winning his party’s presidential nomination. It’s true that he’s gained support in the polls since the indictments, but our survey suggests that they haven’t fundamentally changed Republicans’ opinion of his campaign. While 21 percent of GOP respondents said the federal indictment on mishandling classified documents made them more likely to support Trump, 23 percent said it made them less likely; fully 50 percent said it had no impact and 6 percent said they didn’t know. The results were similar for the Manhattan DA’s indictment over the hush money payment.
Among the broader public, a conviction in either case would be damaging to Trump’s electoral chances. An identical number — 41 percent of all respondents — said that a conviction in either the federal case or the Manhattan DA’s case would make them less likely to support the former president. Despite all the commentary that he’s Teflon Don, it’s clear that some of his missteps can cost him.
The results also suggest that the numbers could get worse as Americans learn more about the pending charges. Roughly one-third of respondents said that they are not particularly familiar with the allegations in either case.
That number could decrease as media coverage continues, particularly in the run-up to potential trials. A trial date in the Manhattan DA’s case is currently set to begin on March 25, though it is conceivable that, as a practical matter, Trump could have the nomination locked up by then if dynamics in the GOP primary do not change. So far, most of his opponents have struggled to articulate a message that distinguishes themselves from Trump while appealing to a voter base that is largely sticking with him despite his mounting legal problems.
The public’s preference for a relatively speedy trial date in the federal prosecution against Trump could prove tricky to accommodate. Many legal observers are skeptical that a trial is possible next year, particularly given the complexities of a case that involves classified documents and a defendant who has historically proven adept at mounting aggressive delay strategies.
Indeed, according to the most recent statistics available, the median time from filing to disposition in felony cases in the Southern District of Florida, where the federal case against Trump is pending, is nine months. But that figure is almost surely dragged down by the fact that the significant majority of federal criminal cases are resolved by guilty pleas and that very few trials in the district, if any, have posed the sort of complexities that the first-ever criminal prosecution against a former U.S. president will pose, particularly involving classified information.
Still, if prosecutors and the presiding judge want to look to the law and satisfy the public’s interest, they can point to the results from this poll.
[ad_2]
#Poll #Trump #Indictments #Surprising #Result
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Putting Michigan “on the right side of history,” Whitmer assured the slacks-and-sportcoat crowd, “is going to be good for business.”
This was before jokes about Mackinac-induced hangovers, “Yoopers and trolls” — those who live on both of Michigan’s peninsulas, longings for her adult daughters to remain in the state and a softball q-and-a with the Detroit Chamber chief during which Whitmer mused about luring Disney to Michigan. There was also a discussion of what Michigan State basketball legend Tom Izzo had termed the “KMA phase” of one’s career.
“You know what the a is and the first two letters are kiss my,” she said in a Michigan accent so thick that Vernor’s Ginger Ale could bottle it and sell it as part of a Pure Michigan line.
That Whitmer, 51, is decidedly not in that KMA phase was evident when I spoke to her at the to-die-for governor’s residence atop Mackinac (don’t call it a mansion!). She ruled out running for president next year even if Biden forgoes reelection, but allowed a resounding “maybe” to pursuing the White House down the road.
“Might I have the fire in the belly?” she said. “Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t know. I can’t tell you.”
Pointing to the tension between her Midwestern modesty and the demands of running for president, she chuckled about having “to get comfortable bragging.”
A subsequent announcement, however, made it clear she’s willing to try. Whitmer is creating a federal PAC, called “Fight Like Hell,” to boost Biden and congressional candidates next year, offering her a platform for a visible role in the 2024 campaign and a foothold to mount a presidential bid in 2028.
Which is not as soon as some of her admirers would like. Democrats in Michigan’s congressional delegation have pleaded with Whitmer to run, I’m told by officials familiar with the conversations, and the lawmakers have themselves been nudged by colleagues from other states to push her. Notably, that roster of congressional Democrats from other states eager for a Whitmer bid included members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
These backstage conversations have taken place as Biden’s approval ratings show little sign of improvement and increasingly appear impervious to external events, for good or ill. Of course, Democrats are betting that the most significant external event of all — Republicans renominating a candidate with more baggage than O’Hare at Thanksgiving — will tip the election again to Biden.
Yet even their assumedly strong odds in such a rematch have not soothed Democrats.
Spending time on this car-free Great Lakes summer idyll, where much of Michigan’s political class heads each June to plot and gossip over local whitefish, fudge and IPAs, is to be reminded of a pattern I’ve noticed since the midterms: the Biden gap. The further up a Democrat is on the political food chain, the more publicly supportive and even defensive they are of the president. The closer a Democrat is to the grassroots, though, the more they sound like many of their own voters in openly pining for another nominee.
So whether it was Whitmer, other statewide officials or legislative leaders, each offered emphatic praise for Biden.
“There’s a distinction between waiting your turn and supporting leadership that you appreciate,” Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist told me, pushing back on the suggestion that Whitmer was being deferential to a relatively unpopular, octogenarian president.
Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson went even further contorting herself, making an impassioned case for diverse representation until I pointed out that Biden was not exactly an avatar of the new face of America. “But his Cabinet,” Benson began, before citing her friendship with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.These defenses of Biden are understandable: Michigan leaders want to remain close to the White House, some of them are truly fond of Biden and none want to be responsible for doing anything that can be perceived as undermining the incumbent in the face of Donald Trump’s return.
Yet to speak to others on the island, those who maybe have not been in the motorcade for a presidential visit and are not overly conscious of future statewide primaries, is to elicit much more direct answers.
“I think it’s time for Joe to move on,” Livonia Mayor Maureen Brosnan told me, adding that she thought Whitmer would “be a great president.”
Jen Eyer, an Ann Arbor city councilor, put it this way: “’That woman from Michigan’ would be amazing against Trump.”
Eyer was alluding to Trump’s insult of Whitmer at the height of the pandemic, which the governor embraced as a badge of honor.
It’s partly why, in Michigan especially, Biden’s decision to run again is so poignant.
It was in Detroit — the night before he won the Michigan primary, effectively claiming the Democratic nomination as Covid arrived on America’s shores — where Biden memorably vowed to be “a bridge” to the next generation of Democrats.
Among those standing behind him on stage as he made that pledge were his future vice president and the woman many high-level Democrats were hoping he’d make his future vice president: Whitmer.
In the more than three years since that night, the governor has helped Biden win Michigan, claimed her own reelection by double-digits, flipped the state Legislature and pocketed a raft of progressive accomplishments in a state Democrats lost in 2016. The years since have, well, not gone as well for Kamala Harris.
But it’s Harris who’s vice president, a near-lock to be on the ticket again next year and who could, by virtue of her office, ultimately block Whitmer from the nomination.
That’s much to the chagrin of many of those same Democrats who were pushing Whitmer-for-vice president in 2020 and think her moment to run for president may be next year. After all, by 2028, she may face not only Harris but contemporaries like California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats just elected governor last year, such as Maryland’s Wes Moore, Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro and Maura Healey of Massachusetts.
If Whitmer is bitter about being passed over for vice president or Biden attempting to hold the presidency into his mid-80s, she’s hiding it pretty well.
“I feel really lucky to be here, I really do,” she told me, “not just because we’re literally in maybe the best place you can sit in the United States of America.”
She’s right about the view — there may not be a better state-owned property in the country than the Michigan governor’s summer residence.
And Whitmer is one of the few potential presidential candidates I’ve covered whose insistence about loving her current job is at least plausible.
When I was pressing her whether she’d be disappointed to miss her best opening to run for president, she dismissed my question. I pointed out that she didn’t seem like she was in the Bill Clinton mold of eyeing the White House from before adolescence.
“Like I was born to run, no,” she interjected.
What was less plausible were her claims about not even expecting to be governor.
Her parents may have hailed from different parties, but Whitmer was born into Michigan political royalty.
Her mom, the Democrat, was an assistant attorney general for the state’s long-serving attorney general (Frank Kelley held the post for so many years he became known as the “eternal general”) and her dad, the Republican, served as state commerce secretary before running Blue Cross Blue Shield in Michigan.
Whitmer attended Michigan State for undergraduate and law school, an important political credential for those here who believe the East Lansing institution is the flagship university for actual Michigan residents.
She won a seat in the Michigan House before she turned 30.
Now she’s governor of the only state she’s ever lived in, a thoroughly rooted politician in an era of fading regionalism with the Midwestern Nice style along with that accent.
“One of the best things about Michiganders is we’re humble, but that humility sometimes doesn’t work in our favor when we’re telling our story about how great the opportunity is here,” Whitmer told me.
I don’t buy it.
Whitmer has honed her Michigan Miracle pitch about the state’s unemployment rate dropping below 4 percent for only the third time since the 1970s — two of those times on her watch. .
What’s more, she has a ready-made case for people and businesses ready to leave the pricey coasts but uneasy about Red America.
“One of the things that we boast is that every person is protected and respected under the law in Michigan,” says Whitmer, pointing to abortion rights and gay rights. “That’s not true in Texas.”
What I wonder is how much of her political reluctance owes less to Midwestern restraint and more to a lack of a male ego, something she invited with her Beto-adjacent “born to run” dismissal.
She will only tiptoe there, by praising other women governors — she has hosted a group of them on Mackinac — and calling them all doers. “They don’t get out there and grandstand, they get shit done,” Whitmer says.
They also, I can’t help but note, don’t run for president while nothing seems to stop a succession of male governors every four years, no matter how remote their prospects.
This prompts another chuckle. “A lot of dudes who were just born think they should [run],” Whitmer says.
One of Whitmer’s fellow female governors is more candid, though.
“It is sort of an outrageous situation, with all due respect to all the men in the Republican primary now and all the men in the Democratic primary in 2020,” New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told me. “The notion that men will just do it and women have to be asked.”
As I point out the Dakotas dynamic — South Dakota’s Republican Gov. Kristi Noem prepared for years to pursue the White House but then decided against it while North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum up and decided to run so he did — Lujan Grisham doesn’t even wait for me to finish the thought.
“Men know this leads to other powerful positions!” she says about the downpayment of running for president.
Lujan Grisham is a strong Biden supporter, but says 2028 “has to be” the year her party turns to a woman. “That’s going to be a real challenge for men,” she says,” because the country is going to say: Where are the women?”
It was a question I was asking myself the weekend after Mackinac, when I was in Des Moines for the annual barbecue and motorcycle ride hosted by Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), which becomes a GOP candidate forum this close to the state’s presidential caucuses. It was jarring to see Ernst and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds speak at the outset before turning the program over to a series of mostly male presidential contestants, some of whom lacked the governing experience and most of whom lacked the appeal of the opening acts.
For the moment, though, Whitmer is pushing to complete her Michigan story, one she knows won’t be fully successful without addressing the twin challenges of her time: retaining her state’s auto advantage in the transition to electric vehicles and reversing its population decline.
She used the chamber gathering here to unveil a dedicated “chief growth officer” — a Detroiter so dedicated to Michigan she has both peninsulas tattooed on her forearm — and a bipartisan commission tasked with addressing the state’s population loss.
The Republican co-chair of the commission is a longtime donor and Romney family retainer, John Rakolta, who made his peace with Donald Trump in 2016 and got rewarded with the ambassadorship to the UAE.
Yet as Rakolta made his way to the ballroom for Whitmer’s keynote speech, he seemed to have entered what Coach Izzo calls the KMA stage of life.
I asked him about Whitmer and 2024, and he quickly noted that she’s the future at a time both parties seem intent on tying themselves to the past.
“It’s the same with us,” said Rakolta, alluding to the looming presidential rematch. “Why would you look backward?”
[ad_2]
#Bypassing #Biden #Democrats
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
This means taking steps to ensure that Ukraine 1) wins this war and reestablishes full control over its internationally recognized 1991 borders; and 2) is fully anchored in the security and economic arrangements that from 1945 until 2014 made Europe a continent of peace, prosperity and cooperation. The transatlantic community can only be stable and secure if Ukraine is secure. Ukraine’s entry into NATO, fulfilling the promise made at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, would achieve that.
In Vilnius, NATO heads of state and government should offer an unequivocal statement of alliance support for Ukraine and for Kyiv’s aim of regaining sovereignty and territorial integrity within its 1991 borders. They should further underscore their readiness to supply Ukraine weapons — including longer-range missiles such as ATACMS, Western fighter planes and tanks — in sufficient quantities to prevail on the battlefield. This will demonstrate the allies’ unequivocal commitment to Ukrainian victory and send a clear message to Moscow that its military situation in Ukraine will only grow worse the longer the conflict continues.
In Vilnius, the alliance should launch a roadmap that will lead clearly to Ukraine’s membership in NATO at the earliest achievable date. As with Finland and Sweden, the process can bypass the Membership Action Plan in light of the close and ongoing interactions between NATO and Ukraine. NATO heads of state and government should task the Council in permanent session to develop recommendations on the timing and modalities of an accession process for Ukraine for decision at the next NATO summit in Washington in 2024.
To enhance Ukraine’s security until it joins NATO, NATO and Ukraine at Vilnius should establish a deterrence and defense partnership under which:
· the allies will provide all necessary arms, training, equipment, and intelligence and other support to deter or defeat ongoing and new aggression by Russia; and
· Ukraine will continue to carry out essential steps to expedite its integration into the alliance and its command structures.
At the Vilnius summit, the allies and Ukraine should upgrade the NATO-Ukraine Commission to a NATO-Ukraine Council. The Council will oversee the deterrence and defense partnership and serve as a crisis consultation mechanism — in the spirit of Article 4 of the Washington Treaty — in the event of a threat to the territorial integrity, sovereignty, or security of Ukraine or any of the NATO member states.
In Vilnius, the allies should reaffirm their commitment to enhance coordinated measures to meet Ukraine’s urgent needs for military and defense equipment, focusing directly on air defense systems, long-range missiles and necessary ammunition, tanks and advanced combat aircraft.
To expand practical assistance to Ukraine, the allies should invite Ukraine to assign additional liaison officers at NATO headquarters and commands to support the launch of a joint process of developing a Ukrainian long-term national security strategy, national defense strategy, and national defense posture compatible with NATO standards and planning.
The allies should also approve the updated Comprehensive Assistance Package to facilitate Ukraine attaining full interoperability with NATO forces and making a comprehensive transition to NATO standards. The focus should be on the transition to Western weapons systems; creation of a modern, NATO-compatible air and missile defense system; creation of a medical rehabilitation system for wounded soldiers, as well as a system for soldier reintegration into civilian life and a comprehensive demining effort.
Vilnius can be a historic NATO summit. The above steps would bring closer NATO membership for Ukraine and, with it, the elimination of gray zones and ambiguous security situations that have proven to be an invitation to aggression. The result would be a more stable, secure, and prosperous transatlantic community.
Signed:
Stephen E. Biegun Former U.S. deputy secretary of state
Hans Binnendijk Former director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council; distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council
Stephen Blank Senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute
Gen. Philip Breedlove (ret.) U.S. Air Force, 17th Supreme Allied Commander Europe; distinguished professor at the Sam Nunn School, Georgia Institute of Technology
Ian Brzezinski Former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO Policy; senior fellow at the Atlantic Council
Dora Chomiak Chief executive officer at Razom for Ukraine
Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.) U.S. Army, 12th Supreme Allied Commander, Europe; senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center
Luke Coffey Senior fellow at the Hudson Institute
Andrew D’Anieri Assistant director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center
Larry Diamond Senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; senior fellow at Stanford University
Amb. Paula Dobriansky Former under secretary of state for global affairs
Amb. Eric S. Edelman Former under secretary of defense for policy 2005-2009
Evelyn Farkas Executive director of the McCain Institute; former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia
Daniel Fata Former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO; senior advisor, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Amb. Daniel Fried Former assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia; former U.S. ambassador to Poland
Francis Fukuyama Senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University
Melinda Haring Nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center
Amb. John Herbst Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine; senior director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center
Maj. General William C. Hix (ret.) U.S. Army
Lieut. Gen. Ben Hodges (ret.) Former commanding general, U.S. Army Europe
Donald N. Jensen Adjunct professor at the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Johns Hopkins University
Andrea Kendall-Taylor Former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia
Amb. John Kornblum Former U.S. ambassador to Germany
David Kramer Former U.S. assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor; executive director at the George W. Bush Institute
Franklin Kramer Distinguished fellow and board director at the Atlantic Council; former assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs
Matthew Kroenig Vice president and senior director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security
Jan M. Lodal Distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council
Lieut. Gen. Doug Lute (ret.) Former U.S. Army; former U.S. ambassador to NATO 2013-17
Jane Holl Lute Former deputy secretary of homeland security
Shelby Magid Deputy director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center
Tom Malinowski Former U.S. member of Congress; senior fellow at the McCain Institute
Nadia McConnell President of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation
Robert McConnell Co-founder of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation; director of external relations at the Friends of Ukraine Network
Amb. Michael McFaul Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia; director at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University
Amb. P. Michael McKinley Former U.S. ambassador to Peru, Colombia, Afghanistan, and Brazil
Amb. Carlos Pascual Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
Amb. Steven Pifer Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
Amb. Stephen Sestanovich Former U.S. ambassador-at-large for the former Soviet Union 1997-2001; senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; professor at Columbia University
Amb. Andras Simonyi Former Hungarian ambassador to NATO; nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council
Angela Stent Nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
Amb. William B. Taylor Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
Amb. Alexander Vershbow Distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council; former NATO deputy secretary general; former U.S. ambassador to Russia and South Korea
Amb. Melanne Verveer Former U.S. ambassador-at-large for Global Women’s Issues; executive director at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security
Alexander Vindman Lieutenant Colonel (ret.), U.S. Army
Amb. Kurt Volker Former U.S. ambassador to NATO; former U.S. special representative for Ukraine negotiations
Amb. Marie Yovanovitch Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
[ad_2]
#Opinion #Ukraine #Roadmap #NATO #Membership #ASAP
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education (JKBOSE) recently declared the results for the class 12 board examinations of 2023. With the announcement, many students may have questions regarding their performance and may seek ways to review their answer scripts. To cater to this need, the board has provided an opportunity for students to apply for re-evaluation and obtain photocopies of their answer sheets. This article will guide you through the application process and important details for JKBOSE 12th result re-evaluation 2023.
The JKBOSE class 12 result for the year 2023 was announced on June 9th. This year, a total of 1,27,636 students appeared for the examination, out of which 82,441 students cleared the exam. The overall pass percentage was recorded at 65%. The pass percentage for girls stood at 68%, while for boys it was 61%. While these results are a significant milestone for many students, some may still have concerns or wish to have their answer sheets reviewed.
Application process for re-evaluation
If you are a student who wishes to have your answer scripts re-evaluated, you can apply for the process starting from June 19, 2023. The re-evaluation application can be submitted on the official website of JKBOSE (jkbose.nic.in). However, it is important to note that there is an application fee of Rs 495 that needs to be paid for re-evaluation. The fee can be paid online through the designated payment portal.
To make the application process easier for you, here is a step-by-step guide:
Visit the official website of JKBOSE (jkbose.nic.in).
Look for the link that says “JK Board result re-evaluation of class 12” on the homepage.
Click on the link to access the re-evaluation application page.
Provide the necessary credentials, such as your roll number, name, and other required details.
Proceed to make the payment of the application fee through the online mode.
Once the payment is successful, download the confirmation page and keep it for future reference.
Application process for obtaining photocopies of answer scripts
In addition to re-evaluation, if you wish to obtain photocopies of your answer scripts, you can also apply for it from June 19, 2023. The application for obtaining photocopies can be done on the official website of JKBOSE (jkbose.nic.in). The application fee for obtaining photocopies of answer scripts is Rs 255, which needs to be paid online.
To apply for obtaining photocopies, follow these steps:
Visit the official website of JKBOSE (jkbose.nic.in).
On the homepage, find the link for obtaining photocopies of answer scripts.
Click on the link to access the application page.
Enter the required details, including your roll number and other necessary information.
Proceed to make the payment of the application fee through the online mode.
Once the payment is successful, download the confirmation page and keep it for future reference.
Important dates for re-evaluation and obtaining photocopies
It is crucial to be aware of the important dates related to the re-evaluation and obtaining photocopies of answer scripts. The submission of re-evaluation applications and applications for obtaining photocopies will begin on June 19, 2023. The last date to apply for obtaining photocopies of answer scripts is July 2, 2023, while the last date for re-evaluation applications is July 9, 2023.
Statistics of JKBOSE class 12 result 2023
The JKBOSE class 12 result for the year 2023 witnessed an overall pass percentage of 65%. Out of the 1,27,636 students who appeared for the exam, 82,441 students successfully cleared it. The pass percentage for girls was 68%, while for boys it was 61%. These statistics reflect the hard work and dedication of the students and their commitment to academic excellence.
FAQs
What is the application fee for re-evaluation?
The application fee for re-evaluation is Rs 495.
When is the last date to apply for JKBOSE 12Th result re-evaluation?
The last date to submit the application form for scrutiny or result re-evaluation is July 9, 2023.
What is the last date to apply for JKBOSE copies of answer scripts?
The last date to apply for obtaining photocopies of answer scripts is July 2, 2023.
In recent media reports, it has been revealed that twin sisters hailing from a remote village in south Kashmir have achieved remarkable success by cracking the NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) in their very first attempt. The sisters, Syed Tabia and Syed Bisma, are the daughters of Syed Sajad, a revered figure leading the prayers in Watoo village, located in Kulgam district. Their dedication and hard work have been attributed to the proper coaching they received at a renowned center in Srinagar.
These talented sisters have undoubtedly made their parents proud, as well as their community, by achieving such an impressive feat. The significance of receiving proper coaching cannot be overlooked, as both the sisters and their father emphasized its vital role in their success. Their disciplined approach and determination have certainly paid off, setting a positive example for aspiring students in their region.
>> Meet Abdul Basit, NEET 2023 Topper from Kashmir Valley
In a separate report, it was also revealed that another pair of twin sisters from Srinagar, Rutba Bashir and Tooba Bashir, have also cracked the NEET examination. Although further details were not immediately available, this achievement highlights the exceptional talent and perseverance found within the city’s Shehr-e-Khas area.
The success of these twin sisters serves as an inspiration to countless students across the region, demonstrating that with dedication, hard work, and proper guidance, anyone can overcome obstacles and achieve their goals. Their accomplishments deserve recognition and praise, and they stand as a testament to the potential that lies within the youth of Kashmir.
Abdul Basit, a student hailing from Pulwama, has accomplished an extraordinary feat by securing the top rank in the NEET UG-2023 entrance exam in Jammu and Kashmir, according to the National Testing Agency (NTA) announcement on Tuesday. Basit’s exceptional performance, with a score of 705 out of 720, has earned him the prestigious first position in the highly competitive exam in J&K.
In an interview with Greater Kashmir, Basit attributed his success to his unwavering dedication and consistent efforts. He emphasized the pivotal role played by his teachers in providing him with proper guidance throughout his academic journey. Basit acknowledged that his success mantra was based on hard work and consistency, recognizing the invaluable support he received from his educators.
Basit’s educational journey commenced at Ziekra Educational Institute in Pulwama, where he completed his primary education up to the 8th grade. Later, he transferred to NIET Pulwama to pursue his secondary and senior secondary studies. Displaying ambition and determination, Basit enrolled at Aakash Institute in the 9th grade, where he diligently prepared for both his class 12th exams and NEET.
Impressively, Basit cleared the NEET exam in his first attempt, showcasing his academic prowess and meticulous preparation. The NEET UG-2023 examination was conducted nationwide on May 7, 2023, at various test centers.
The significance of Basit’s achievement is further highlighted by the statistics of the NEET UG-2023 exam. Out of a total of 37,276 registered students, 36,431 appeared for the exam. Among the candidates, an impressive 20,564 individuals successfully qualified, illustrating the exceptional caliber of students competing for medical admissions.
