ReportWire

Tag: the americas

  • Why Montana’s TikTok ban may not work | CNN Business

    Why Montana’s TikTok ban may not work | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Montana has become the first US state to ban TikTok on all devices, even personal ones, triggering renewed doubts about the short-form video app’s future in the country.

    On Wednesday, the state’s governor, Greg Gianforte, signed a bill into law that would fine TikTok and online app stores for making the service available to state residents. It takes effect next year.

    The move goes a step beyond other states that have restricted TikTok from government devices. It also comes at a time when some federal lawmakers are pushing for a nationwide ban.

    But legal and technology experts say there are huge hurdles for Montana, or any state, to enforce such a law. The TikTok ban immediately prompted one lawsuit from TikTok users who allege it violates their First Amendment rights, with more legal challenges expected. Even if the law is allowed to stand, the practicalities of the internet may make it impossible to keep TikTok out of the hands of users.

    Montana’s new law, SB419, makes it illegal for TikTok and app marketplaces to offer the TikTok service within state lines.

    Passed in April, the bill establishes fines of $10,000 per violation per day, where a single violation is defined as “each time that a user accesses TikTok, is offered the ability to access TikTok, or is offered the ability to download TikTok.”

    Individual users themselves would not be on the hook just for accessing TikTok, according to the law.

    If the law survives in the courts, TikTok, and companies such as Apple and Google, could be forced to find ways to restrict TikTok from Montana smartphone users — or face huge penalties.

    But that’s a big if.

    TikTok and other civil society groups warn that the law as written is unconstitutional. There are two main arguments TikTok’s defenders have cited.

    One is that the law violates the First Amendment rights of Montanans, by restricting their ability to access legal speech and by infringing on their own rights to free expression through the app.

    On Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union accused Gianforte and the state legislature of having “trampled on the free speech of hundreds of thousands of Montanans who use the app to express themselves, gather information, and run their small business in the name of anti-Chinese sentiment.”

    A group of TikTok users echoed that complaint in a lawsuit filed Wednesday evening in the US District Court for the District of Montana, hours after the governor’s signature. “Montana can no more ban its residents from viewing or posting to TikTok than it could ban the Wall Street Journal because of who owns it or the ideas it publishes,” according to the complaint.

    Another allegation is that the law represents an unconstitutional “bill of attainder,” or a law that penalizes somebody absent due process.

    NetChoice, an industry trade group that counts TikTok as a member, said the bill “ignores the U.S. Constitution.”

    “The government may not block our ability to access constitutionally protected speech – whether it is in a newspaper, on a website or via an app,” said Carl Szabo, NetChoice’s general counsel.

    A spokesperson for Gianforte didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Even if the law survives a legal challenge, experts say its breadth could make it difficult to effectively implement and enforce.

    For one thing, app stores such as Apple’s operate on a country-by-country basis and aren’t able to filter apps at the state level, multiple experts have said.

    As a result, there would be no way for companies such as Apple and Google to practically comply with the law, TechNet, a trade organization that counts those companies as members, told Montana lawmakers at a hearing in March.

    “App stores,” a TechNet witness said at the hearing, “do not have the ability to geofence on a state-by-state basis. It would thus be impossible for our members to prevent the app from being downloaded specifically in the state of Montana.”

    The open-ended nature of the law means enormous unbounded liabilities for TikTok and app store operators.

    “What this really does is create a huge potential liability for both TikTok and the mobile app stores,” said Nicholas Garcia, policy counsel at the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. “And what it requires them to do is to figure it out, under threat of Montana coming in and saying, ‘You have not been complying with the law.’”

    It’s unclear how, exactly, Montana officials might determine noncompliance.

    One sure-fire way would be for Montana officials to attempt to download or access TikTok themselves on devices they control, and if they are successful, to sue TikTok or app store companies for those violations, said Alan Rozenshtein, an associate law professor at the University of Minnesota. But that would not identify violations occurring on devices used by the wider public, which is the entire point of the ban, he added.

    “That would require Montana to do surveillance of its own citizens of who’s downloading, and how,” Rozenshtein said. Alternatively, he added, Montana could try to obtain court orders compelling the companies to hand over business information — such as billing data or other non-content information related to users — that could identify them as Montana residents.

    Authorities could also try to subpoena TikTok or the app stores for information on users who have accessed or downloaded TikTok from within the state, but those requests wouldn’t capture the many people who would likely circumvent the ban using more sophisticated methods.

    Virtual private networking (VPN) services would make it trivial for users to get around the restrictions, according to Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, a consumer advocacy group. A VPN could make a user in Montana appear as if they are connected to the internet from outside state lines.

    “Any teenage anime fan or British TV aficionado can tell you how to circumvent such a silly ban using a VPN,” said Greer.

    Officials could potentially try to expand their dragnet by asking companies to use additional data they possess on their users to make inferences about who may be accessing TikTok. But depending on the scope of such a request, it could trigger legal objections and privacy concerns — if the additional data is even available.

    Asking internet providers to implement statewide network filters might be another way to enforce the law, said Garcia. But internet providers are not named as a type of entity subject to the TikTok ban.

    “So the only reason they would get involved would be if TikTok or Apple and Google wanted them to,” Garcia said, “and made some business case for why they should go through that effort on a contractual basis or something.”

    Still, said Rozenshtein, just because the Montana law is silent on internet providers does not preclude Montana from potentially seeking a court order forcing broadband companies to filter TikTok traffic at the network level.

    As with the dozens of other states that have imposed some level of TikTok restrictions, Montana’s government has cited the app as a potential privacy and security risk.

    US officials worry that TikTok’s links to China through its parent company, ByteDance, might result in American’s personal information leaking to the Chinese government. That could help China with spying or disinformation campaigns against the United States, according to authorities.

    So far, though, the risk appears to be hypothetical: There is no public evidence to suggest that the Chinese government has actually accessed TikTok’s US user data. And TikTok isn’t the only company that collects large amounts of data, or that might be an attractive target for Chinese espionage.

    TikTok has said it is executing on a plan to store US user data on cloud servers owned by the US tech giant Oracle, and that when the initiative is complete, access to the data will be overseen by US employees.

    More than half of US states have announced some restrictions on TikTok affecting the app on government devices. Montana’s ban marks the beginning of a new phase, however — and the widely expected legal challenges may determine whether other states soon follow suit.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • TikTok sues Montana over new law banning the app | CNN Business

    TikTok sues Montana over new law banning the app | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    TikTok on Monday filed a suit against Montana over a bill that would ban the popular short-form video app in the state starting early next year.

    TikTok alleges that the ban violates the US Constitution, including the First Amendment, as well as other federal laws, according to a complaint filed in Montana District Court. The company also claims concerns that the Chinese government could access the data of US TikTok users – which are a key motivation behind the ban – are “unfounded.”

    The bill was signed by Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte last week, and would impose a fine of $10,000 per day on TikTok or app stores for making the app available to personal devices in the state starting on January 1, 2024.

    “We are challenging Montana’s unconstitutional TikTok ban to protect our business and the hundreds of thousands of TikTok users in Montana,” TikTok spokesperson Brooke Oberwetter said in a statement. “We believe our legal challenge will prevail based on an exceedingly strong set of precedents and facts.”

    Emily Flower, a spokesperson for Montana’s Attorney General, told CNN: “We expected a legal challenge and are fully prepared to defend the law.”

    The Montana law stems from growing criticism of TikTok over its ties to China through its parent company, ByteDance. Many US officials have expressed fears that the Chinese government could potentially access US data via TikTok for spying purposes, though there is no evidence that the Chinese government has ever done so. Some federal lawmakers have also called for a ban.

    Montana’s ban went a step beyond other states that have restricted TikTok from government devices. But legal and technology experts say there are challenges for Montana, or any state, to enforce such a ban. Even if the law is allowed to stand, the practicalities of the internet may make it impossible to keep TikTok out of the hands of users.

    TikTok said in the complaint that the app is used by “hundreds of thousands” of people in Montana to “communicate with each other and others around the world on an endless variety of topics, from business to politics to the arts.”

    “This unprecedented and extreme step of banning a major platform for First Amendment speech, based on unfounded speculation about potential foreign government access to user data and the content of the speech, is flatly inconsistent with the constitution,” TikTok said in the complaint.

    TikTok is seeking for the court to invalidate and permanently enjoin Montana from enforcing the ban.

    The legal challenge by TikTok is an indicator of the hurdles that Montana and other lawmakers could face in attempting to restrict the platform in the United States. A group of TikTok creators also sued Montana last week over the state’s ban, saying it violates their First Amendment rights.

    CNN’s Brian Fung contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Manhattan district attorney urges court to reject Trump bid to move criminal case | CNN Politics

    Manhattan district attorney urges court to reject Trump bid to move criminal case | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Manhattan District Attorney’s office is arguing that former President Donald Trump’s criminal case involving hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels should not be moved to federal court because it had nothing to do with Trump’s official duties as president.

    In a court filing late Tuesday, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, used Trump’s own statements against him, citing Trump’s 2018 tweets about the hush money payments to Daniels as a “private contract” and “private agreement.” The filing also pointed to Trump’s then-lawyer Rudy Giuliani saying in 2018 that the payment “was made to resolve a personal and false allegation.”

    Trump was charged in April with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records over the repayments to then-lawyer Michael Cohen for hush money payments made during the 2016 campaign to women who claimed they had extramarital affairs with Trump, which he denies. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.

    Earlier this month, Trump’s attorneys sought to move the criminal case against Trump from New York into federal court, arguing the Manhattan district attorney’s charges against Trump were tied to his duties as president.

    But the district attorney’s filing urges a federal judge to reject that bid, saying that the payments at question related to his personal business and were made to “conceal criminal conduct that largely occurred before his inauguration.”

    “The objective of the alleged conduct had nothing to do with defendant’s duties and responsibilities as President,” the Manhattan district attorney’s office wrote. “Instead, the falsified business records at issue here were generated as part of a scheme to reimburse defendant’s personal lawyer for an entirely unofficial expenditure that was made before defendant became president.”

    The motion from Trump’s attorneys to move the criminal case out of New York has not paused the case there. Last week, Trump appeared virtually at a hearing in which Judge Juan Merchan read Trump an order about what he can and cannot say publicly about the case and evidence that his legal team will receive from prosecutors to prepare for trial.

    At that hearing, Merchan set a trial date of March 25, 2024, potentially setting the trial to occur during the middle of the Republican presidential primary season early next year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How strong is Trump? He’s beating Republican rivals in their home states | CNN Politics

    How strong is Trump? He’s beating Republican rivals in their home states | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Do you know who is polling third in the 2024 Republican race for president? That may feel like an odd question given that the two leading candidates, former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, are the only ones averaging over 5% nationally.

    The answer, though, is former Vice President Mike Pence and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, both tied at just 4%.

    More worrisome for Haley, who is taking part in a CNN town hall Sunday evening, and other candidates polling outside the top two is the seeming nationalization of the GOP primary process this year. We’re seeing that reflected in state polling, including in the early voting and declared candidates’ home states: All largely show a significant advantage for Trump.

    Presidential primaries, unlike general elections, don’t occur on the same day. They’re sequential, with outsize importance given to the states that vote first. This is why you see Republican candidates flocking to Iowa (for its caucuses) and New Hampshire (for the first-in-the-nation primary).

    In recent years, national polling leaders at this point in the primary season who would go on to lose their party nominations did so in part because they lost the Iowa caucuses. That happened to the two candidates with the largest national leads: Republican Rudy Giuliani and Democrat Hillary Clinton, each in 2008.

    Both were clearly in trouble in Iowa at this point in the cycle. In fact, neither led their side’s contests in Des Moines Register polling from May 2007.

    This year, we’re not seeing such a disconnect between national and early-state polling – at least not yet. The top two candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire surveys released to the public have been Trump and DeSantis. A University of New Hampshire poll taken in mid-April, for example, had Trump at 42% and DeSantis at 22%. New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, who is expected to announce his 2024 plans this week, was in third place at 12%.

    Let’s focus closer on that Sununu datapoint. A few years ago, I noted that one of the better ways to predict whether a candidate trailing in national and early-state polls could surprise people is by examining how they were doing in their home states.

    At this point in the 2016 cycle, Sen. Bernie Sanders was already leading in the Vermont Democratic primary, despite Hillary Clinton’s sizable national edge. On the other hand, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s lack of any polling strength in his home state made me dismiss him as a contender.

    Home-state polling is a crucial early indicator of a candidate’s strength. Voters there know these candidates best. If you can’t break out where the voters already know you, how can you break out in states where voters are just getting to know you?

    Sununu doesn’t need to worry about name recognition in the Granite State. The same is true for Haley in South Carolina, where she used to be governor. South Carolina also happens to be the third state on the 2024 GOP nominating calendar, after Iowa and New Hampshire.

    The most recent poll from South Carolina that meets CNN’s standards for publication put Trump well out in front. The Winthrop University survey, completed in early April, had Trump at 41%, DeSantis at 20% and Haley at 18%. Her fellow South Carolinian, Sen. Tim Scott, came in at 7%. More recent data hints at Haley dropping a little and Scott climbing up in the weeks since, though Trump is still way ahead.

    It’s quite possible Trump keeps his lead and knocks Haley out of the race with a victory in the South Carolina primary. Remember, he did something similar in 2016, when he ended Sen. Marco Rubio’s presidential bid by beating him in Florida.

    Of course, you can spot where Trump is vulnerable, if you look hard enough.

    For example, in Florida, DeSantis and Trump have been trading leads in polling this year.

    And you can make the case that these early-state polls overall suggest that Trump is a bit weaker than the national numbers might indicate. On average, he’s polling in the low-to-mid-40s in the early states versus in the mid-50s nationally. In other words, a majority of voters in the early states are going for someone other than Trump, which isn’t true at the national level.

    Can you imagine how devastating losing in New Hampshire or South Carolina – or both – would be for Trump? It would puncture a large hole in the idea that his nomination is inevitable.

    For the moment, though, that scenario seems like a fantasy. Trump may be showing some weakness in the early-voting states but not close to the same degree as national front-runners who lost in years past.

    Trump can be beat. It’s just going to be really tough.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Silicon Valley escalates the battle over returning to the office | CNN Business

    Silicon Valley escalates the battle over returning to the office | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Three years after Silicon Valley companies led the charge for embracing remote work in the early days of the pandemic, the tech industry is now escalating the fight to bring employees back into the office -— and igniting tensions with staff in the process.

    Google, which has long been a bellwether for workplace policies in the tech industry and beyond, frustrated some employees this week by announcing plans to begin more strictly enforcing its policy that requires workers in-office at least three days a week. The updated policy includes tracking office badge attendance and possibly factoring it into performance reviews, according to CNBC, citing internal memos.

    “Overnight, workers’ professionalism has been disregarded in favor of ambiguous attendance tracking practices tied to our performance evaluations,” Chris Schmidt, a software engineer at Google and member of the grassroots Alphabet Workers Union, told CNN in a statement. “The practical application of this new policy will be needless confusion amongst workers and a disregard for our various life circumstances.”

    In a statement, Ryan Lamont, a Google spokesperson, told CNN that its policy of working in the office three days a week is “going well, and we want to see Googlers connecting and collaborating in-person, so we’re limiting remote work to exception only.”

    Lamont said that company leaders can see reports showing how their teams are adopting the hybrid work model, including “aggregated data” on badge swipes. He added that now that the company is more than a year into its hybrid model, “we’re formally integrating this approach into all of our workplace policies.”

    Google isn’t alone in facing pushback from employees. Other tech companies are also grappling with how best to compel workers to come into the office after they’ve grown accustomed to greater flexibility. The tug-of-war is compounded by the fact that tech companies have laid off tens of thousands of employees over the past year, leveling a major blow to employee morale.

    At Amazon, tensions boiled over last week as hundreds of office workers staged a walkout to call attention to their grievances, including the three-day return-to-office mandate that was implemented in May.

    A current Amazon worker who spoke at the walkout said that she started an internal Slack channel called “remote advocacy” because she wanted a space where workers could discuss how the new return-to-office policy would impact their lives.

    “Before I realized what was happening, that channel had 33,000 people in it,” the worker, who identified only as Pamela, said to the crowd at the event. Pamela called the Slack channel advocating for remote work “the largest concrete expression of employee dissatisfaction in our entire company history.”

    But the employee criticism isn’t stopping tech companies, who have spent billions on sprawling campuses over the years and often preach the value of serendipitous workplace interactions, from moving forward with their return to office policies.

    In response to the walkout, Amazon previously told CNN it may “take time” for some workers to adjust to being in the office more days. But the company also said it’s “happy with how the first month of having more people back in the office has been” and touted the extra “energy, collaboration, and connections happening” in the office.

    Facebook-parent Meta similarly doubled down last week on its push to get workers in the office, warning that employees currently assigned to an office must return to in-person work three days a week starting this September. (A Meta spokesperson told CNN the updated policy was not set in stone, and employees designated as remote workers will be allowed to keep their remote status).

    At least one tech company is taking a gentler approach.

    Salesforce is trying to lure staff into offices by offering to donate $10 to a local charity for each day an employee comes in from June 12 to June 23, according to an internal Slack message reported on by Fortune.

    A Salesforce spokesperson told CNN: “Giving back is deeply embedded in everything we do, and we’re proud to introduce Connect for Good to encourage employees to help us raise $1 Million+ for local nonprofits.”

    But it might take more than temporary charitable contributions to convince some workers it’s worthwhile to return. Schmidt, the software engineer at Google, said that even if you go into the office, there’s no guarantee you’ll have people on your team to work with or even a desk to sit at.

    “Many teams are distributed, and for some of us there may not be anyone to collaborate with in our physical office locations,” Schmidt said. “Currently, New York City workers do not even have enough desks and conference rooms for workers to use comfortably.”

    “A one size fits all policy does not address these circumstances,” he added. “We deserve a voice in shaping the policies that impact our lives to establish clear, transparent and fair working conditions for all of us.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s how much each state will get in the $42.5 billion broadband infrastructure plan | CNN Business

    Here’s how much each state will get in the $42.5 billion broadband infrastructure plan | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Biden administration on Monday outlined how states across the country will be receiving billions of dollars in federal funding for high-speed internet access, highlighting the US government’s push to bring connectivity to more Americans and to close the digital divide.

    More than $42 billion from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law will be distributed to US states and territories for building internet access, the White House said — with Texas eligible for the largest award of more than $3.3 billion, followed by California, which could receive more than $1.8 billion.

    “We’re talking today about a major investment that we’re making in affordable, high-speed internet, all across the country,” Biden said in a speech Monday, describing internet access as a critical economic resource allowing children to do their homework, for workers to find jobs and for patients to access health care.

    “I’ve gotten letters and emails from across the country from people who are thrilled that after so many years of waiting, they are finally going to get high-speed internet,” Biden said, citing one message he received from an Iowa woman who described the development as “the best thing that’s happened in rural America since the Rural Electrification Act,” referring to the push under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to bring electricity to farms and ranches nationwide.

    All US states and territories have been awarded at least some funding, starting with the US Virgin Islands, which is eligible for $27 million under the initiative known as the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program.

    The BEAD program marks one of the largest-ever infusions of federal money for bringing disconnected households and businesses online. And it reflects months of work by the US government to design new and updated broadband maps showing which areas of the country remain unserved or under-served.

    Finalized by the Federal Communications Commission last month, the new maps show that 7% of US households and businesses, representing 8.5 million physical locations and tens of millions of individual Americans, do not have broadband internet access, which is defined as internet download speeds of at least 25 megabits per second. The new maps provide information about internet connectivity at a granular level, whereas previous maps assessed connectivity only at a census-block level. The older maps also considered a census block to be served if just one household in that block had broadband access, even if many of its surrounding neighbors did not — leaving many Americans to report that they had no high-speed internet even when the official maps claimed that they did.

    The updated maps allowed the US government to calculate which states had the greatest need for broadband funding and to distribute the infrastructure law’s resources accordingly. States and territories may begin applying for the funds as soon as July 1, the White House said. After the applications are approved by the Commerce Department, state officials will gain access to at least 20% of their eligible awards.

    Under the infrastructure law, US states had been guaranteed at least $100 million in BEAD funding, while US territories were promised at least $25 million.

    Nineteen states received more than $1 billion in the final allocation, the White House said, adding that the 10 states receiving the most funding were Alabama, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington.

    And it complements another $23 billion across five separate broadband access programs included in the legislation, such as a program specifically aimed at Tribal connectivity and another for low-income households. And it follows a $25 billion investment under the American Rescue Plan, the 2021 Covid-19 stimulus package.

    Monday’s announcement marked the launch of a three-week nationwide tour by President Joe Biden and other White House officials to tout the administration’s economic plan.

    Here’s how much each state received:

    • Alabama: $1,401,221,901.77
    • Alaska: $1,017,139,672.42
    • Arizona: $993,112,231.37
    • Arkansas: $1,024,303,993.86
    • California: $1,864,136,508.93
    • Colorado: $826,522,650.41
    • Connecticut: $144,180,792.71
    • Delaware: $107,748,384.66
    • District of Columbia: $100,694,786.93
    • Florida: $1,169,947,392.70
    • Georgia: $1,307,214,371.30
    • Hawaii: $149,484,493.57
    • Idaho: $583,256,249.88
    • Illinois: $1,040,420,751.50
    • Indiana: $868,109,929.79
    • Iowa: $415,331,313.00
    • Kansas: $451,725,998.15
    • Kentucky: $1,086,172,536.86
    • Louisiana: $1,355,554,552.94
    • Maine: $271,977,723.07
    • Maryland: $267,738,400.71
    • Massachusetts: $147,422,464.39
    • Michigan: $1,559,362,479.29
    • Minnesota: $651,839,368.20
    • Mississippi: $1,203,561,563.05
    • Missouri: $1,736,302,708.39
    • Montana: $628,973,798.59
    • Nebraska: $405,281,070.41
    • Nevada: $416,666,229.74
    • New Hampshire: $196,560,278.97
    • New Jersey: $263,689,548.65
    • New Mexico: $675,372,311.86
    • New York: $664,618,251.49
    • North Carolina: $1,532,999,481.15
    • North Dakota: $130,162,815.12
    • Ohio: $793,688,107.63
    • Oklahoma: $797,435,691.25
    • Oregon: $688,914,932.17
    • Pennsylvania: $1,161,778,272.41
    • Rhode Island: $108,718,820.75
    • South Carolina: $551,535,983.05
    • South Dakota: $207,227,523.92
    • Tennessee: $813,319,680.22
    • Texas: $3,312,616,455.45
    • Utah: $317,399,741.54
    • Vermont: $228,913,019.08
    • Virginia: $1,481,489,572.87
    • Washington: $1,227,742,066.30
    • West Virginia: $1,210,800,969.85
    • Wisconsin: $1,055,823,573.71
    • Wyoming: $347,877,921.27
    • American Samoa: $37,564,827.53
    • Guam: $156,831,733.59
    • Northern Mariana Islands: $80,796,709.02
    • Puerto Rico: $334,614,151.70
    • U.S. Virgin Islands: $27,103,240.86

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • AI is already linked to layoffs in the industry that created it | CNN Business

    AI is already linked to layoffs in the industry that created it | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Many have raised alarms about the potential for artificial intelligence to displace jobs in the years ahead, but it’s already causing upheaval in one industry where workers once seemed invincible: tech.

    A small but growing number of tech firms have cited AI as a reason for laying off workers and rethinking new hires in recent months, as Silicon Valley races to adapt to rapid advances in the technology being developed in its own backyard.

    Chegg, an education technology company, disclosed in a regulatory filing last month that it was cutting 4% of its workforce, or about 80 employees, “to better position the Company to execute against its AI strategy and to create long-term, sustainable value for its students and investors.”

    IBM CEO Arvind Krishna said in an interview with Bloomberg in May that the company expects to pause hiring for roles it thinks could be replaced with AI in the coming years. (In a subsequent interview with Barrons, however, Krishna said that he felt his earlier comments were taken out of context and stressed that “AI is going to create more jobs than it takes away.”)

    And in late April, file-storage service Dropbox said that it was cutting about 16% of its workforce, or about 500 people, also citing AI.

    In its most-recent layoffs report, outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas said 3,900 people were laid off in May due to AI, marking its first time breaking out job cuts based on that factor. All of those cuts occurred in the tech sector, according to the firm.

    With these moves, Silicon Valley may not only be leading the charge in developing AI but also offering an early glimpse into how businesses may adapt to those tools. Rather than render entire skill sets obsolete overnight, as some might fear, the more immediate impact of a new crop of AI tools appears to be forcing companies to shift resources to better take advantage of the technology — and placing a premium on workers with AI expertise.

    “Over the last few months, AI has captured the world’s collective imagination, expanding the potential market for our next generation of AI-powered products more rapidly than any of us could have anticipated,” Dropbox CEO Drew Houston wrote in a note to staff announcing the job cuts. “Our next stage of growth requires a different mix of skill sets, particularly in AI and early-stage product development.”

    In response to a request for comment on how its realignment around AI is playing out, Dropbox directed CNN to its careers page, where it is currently hiring for multiple roles focused on “New AI Initiatives.”

    Dan Wang, a professor at Columbia Business School, told CNN that AI “will cause organizations to restructure,” but also doesn’t see it playing out as machines replacing humans just yet.

    “AI, as far as I see it, doesn’t necessarily replace humans, but rather enhances the work of humans,” Wang said. “I think that the kind of competition that we all should be thinking more about is that human specialists will be replaced by human specialists who can take advantage of AI tools.”

    The AI-driven tech layoffs come amid broader cuts in the industry. Many tech companies have been readjusting to an uncertain economic environment and waning levels of demand for digital services more than three years into the pandemic.

    Some 212,294 workers in the tech industry have been laid off in 2023 alone, according to data tracked by Layoffs.fyi, already surpassing the 164,709 recorded in 2022.

    But in the shadow of those mass layoffs, the tech industry has also been gripped by an AI fervor and invested heavily in AI talent and tech.

    In January, just days after Microsoft announced plans to lay off 10,000 employees as part of broader cost-cutting measures, the company also confirmed it was making a “multibillion dollar” investment into OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT. And in March, in the same letter to staff Mark Zuckerberg used to announce plans to lay off another 10,000 workers (after cutting 11,000 positions last November), the Meta CEO also outlined plans for investing heavily in AI.

    Even software engineers in Silicon Valley who once seemed uniquely in demand now appear to be at risk of losing their jobs, or losing out on salary gains to those with more AI expertise.

    Roger Lee, a startup founder who has been tracking tech industry layoffs via his website Layoffs.fyi, also runs Comprehensive.io, which examines job listings and compensation data across some 3,000 tech companies.

    Lee told CNN that a recent analysis of data from Comprehensive.io shows the average salary for a senior software engineer specializing in artificial intelligence or machine learning is 12% higher than for those who don’t specialize in that area, a data point he dubs “the AI premium.” The average salary for a senior software engineer specializing in AI or machine learning has also increased by some 4% since the beginning of the year, whereas the average salary for senior software engineers as a whole has stayed flat, he said.

    Lee noted Dropbox as an example of a company offering notably high pay for AI roles, citing a base salary listing of $276,300 to $373,800 for a Principal Machine Learning Engineer role. (By comparison, Comprehensive.io’s data puts the current average salary for a senior software engineer at $171,895.)

    Those looking to thrive in the tech industry and beyond may need to brush up on their AI skills.

    Wang, the professor at Columbia Business School, told CNN that starting this past spring semester, he began requiring his students to familiarize themselves with the new crop of generative AI tools on the market. “That type of exposure I think is absolutely critical for setting themselves up for success and once they graduate,” Wang said.

    It’s not that everyone needs to become AI specialists, Wang added, but rather that workers should know how to use AI tools to become more efficient at whatever they’re doing.

    “That’s where the kind of a battleground for talent is really shifting,” Wang said, “as differentiation in terms of talent comes from creative and effective ways to integrate AI into daily tasks.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russian aircraft harass US drones over Syria for third time this week | CNN Politics

    Russian aircraft harass US drones over Syria for third time this week | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Russian aircraft once again harassed US MQ-9 Reaper drones over Syria Friday, the Air Force said, in a sign of increasing friction between the two countries in Middle East airspace.

    The incident marked the third time this week that US drones over Syria were intercepted by Russian aircraft.

    “Earlier today three MQ-9 drones were once again harassed by Russian fighter aircraft while flying over Syria,” commander of US Air Forces Central Lt. Gen. Alex Grynkewich said in a news release. “During the almost two hour encounter, Russian aircraft flew 18 unprofessional close passes that caused the MQ-9s to react to avoid unsafe situations.”

    “We continue to encourage Russia to return to the established norms of a professional Air Force so we can all return our focus to ensuring the enduring defeat of ISIS,” Grynkewich added.

    On Thursday, Russian fighter jets harassed a US MQ-9 Reaper drone that was conducting a mission against ISIS targets in northwest Syria. One of the Russian jets dropped flares in front of US drone in an apparent attempt to hit the drone, forcing it to take evasive maneuvers, the Air Force previously said.

    And earlier in the week, three Russian jets dropped parachute flares in front of three US drones, forcing the drones to take evasive maneuvers. One Russian jet also lit its afterburner in front of a US drone, limiting the drone operator’s ability to safely operate the aircraft.

    Russia is operating in Syria in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while the US maintains its presence as part of the anti-ISIS coalition.

    While the two countries have used a deconfliction line in Syria over the last several years to avoid unintentional mistakes or encounters that can inadvertently lead to escalation, Russian military actions have increasingly violated the deconfliction protocols, including flying too close to US military bases in Syria.

    But the US wasn’t the only target of harassment from the Russian military this week. On Thursday, a Russian SU-35 fighter jet conducted a “non-professional interaction” with two French Rafale fighter jets that were flying a mission near the Iraq-Syria border, according to the official Twitter account of the French Armed Forces.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta cut election teams months before Threads launch, raising concerns for 2024 | CNN Business

    Meta cut election teams months before Threads launch, raising concerns for 2024 | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Meta has made cuts to its teams that tackle disinformation and coordinated troll and harassment campaigns on its platforms, people with direct knowledge of the situation told CNN, raising concerns ahead of the pivotal 2024 elections in the US and around the world.

    Several members of the team that countered mis- and disinformation in the 2022 US midterms were laid off last fall and this spring, a person familiar with the matter said. The staffers are part of a global team that works on Meta’s efforts to counter disinformation campaigns seeking to undermine confidence in or sow confusion around elections.

    The news comes as Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is celebrating the unparalleled success of its new Threads platform, surpassing 100 million users just five days after launch and opening a potential new avenue for bad actors.

    A Meta spokesperson did not specify, when asked, how many staffers had been cut from its teams working on elections. In a statement to CNN on Monday night, the spokesperson said, “Protecting the US 2024 elections is one of our top priorities, and our integrity efforts continue to lead the industry.”

    The spokesperson did not answer CNN questions about what additional resources had been deployed to monitor and moderate its new platform. Instead, Meta said the social media giant had invested $16 billion in technology and teams since 2016 to protect its users.

    But the decision to lay off staffers ahead of 2024, when elections will not only take place in the United States but also in Taiwan, Ukraine, India and elsewhere, has raised concerns among those with direct knowledge of Meta’s election integrity work.

    The disparate nature of Meta’s work on elections makes it difficult for even people inside the company to say specifically how many people are part of the effort. One group of relevant employees hit harder by the layoffs were “content review” specialists who manually review election-related posts that may violate Meta’s terms of service, a person familiar with the cuts told CNN.

    Meta is trying to offset those cuts by more proactively detecting accounts that spread false election-related information, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

    For years, the social media giant has invested heavily in teams of personnel to root out sophisticated and coordinated networks of fake accounts. That “coordinated inauthentic behavior,” as Meta calls it, began in the lead up to the 2016 election when an infamous Russian government-linked troll operation ran amuck on Facebook.

    The team tasked with combating the influence campaigns – which includes former US government and intelligence officials – has been generally seen as the most robust in the social media industry. The company has published quarterly reports in recent years that expose governments and other entities found to have been operating covert campaigns pushing disinformation on Meta’s platforms.

    Those teams investigating disinformation campaigns now must further prioritize which campaigns and countries to focus on, another person familiar with the situation said, a trade-off that could result in some deceptive efforts going unnoticed.

    The person emphasized that Meta still has a dedicated team of professionals working on these issues, many of whom are widely respected in the cyber and information security communities.

    But while artificial intelligence and other automated systems can help detect some of these efforts, unearthing sophisticated disinformation networks is still a “very manual process” that involves intense scrutiny from expert staff, another person with direct knowledge of Meta’s counter disinformation efforts told CNN.

    The person said they feared Meta was regressing from progress it had made from learning from past mistakes. “Lessons that were learned at great costs,” they said, citing the company’s 2018 admission that its platforms were used to incite violence in Myanmar.

    In addition to its in-house team, Meta and other social media companies rely on tips from academics and other researchers who specialize in monitoring covert disinformation networks.

    Darren Linvill, a professor at Clemson University’s Media Forensics Hub, said he has sent the company valuable tips in recent months, but Meta’s response time has slowed significantly.

    Linvill, who has a long track record of successfully identifying covert online accounts, including helping to unearth a Russian election meddling effort in Africa in 2020, said that Meta recently removed a network of Russian language accounts that were posting both pro and anti-Ukraine content on Facebook and Instagram.

    “They were trying to stoke anger on both sides of the debates,” he said.

    Launched last Thursday, Threads has become an instant success with celebrities, politicians, and journalists flocking to the platform.

    The new Twitter-style app is tied to users’ existing Instagram accounts, rather than being linked directly to Facebook. Currently, Threads shares the same community standards as Instagram, but the platforms differ on issues relating to Meta’s methods to combat disinformation.

    Meta also applies labels to state-controlled accounts on Facebook and Instagram, such as Russia’s Sputnik news agency and China’s CCTV. However, these labels do not appear on state-controlled accounts on Threads.

    The launch of Threads even as Meta trims its disinformation-focused personnel comes at a turbulent and transformative time for those tasked with writing and implementing rules on social media platforms.

    Elon Musk, the billionaire who bought Twitter last year, has all but torn up that platform’s rule book and gutted the team that worked on implementing policies designed to combat disinformation efforts.

    Last month, YouTube, which has also made job cuts, announced it would allow videos that feature the false claim the 2020 US presidential election was stolen, a reversal of its previous policy.

    The rule reversals come as the Republican-controlled House of Representatives investigates interactions between technology companies and the federal government.

    Last week, a federal judge in Louisiana ordered some Biden administration agencies and top officials not to communicate with social media companies about certain content, handing a win to GOP states in a lawsuit accusing the government of going too far in its effort to combat Covid-19 disinformation.

    The restrictions and the scrutiny could give cover to social media companies that may want to pull back on some of their platforms’ rules around election integrity, said Katie Harbath, a former Facebook official who helped lead the company’s global election efforts until 2021.

    “I can [almost] hear [Meta Global Affairs President] Nick Clegg saying that ‘we’re going to be cautious of what we do, because we wouldn’t want to run afoul of the law,’” Harbath said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • EU blesses transatlantic data sharing deal | CNN Business

    EU blesses transatlantic data sharing deal | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The European Union on Monday gave final approval to an agreement with the US government that restores the ability for thousands of businesses to easily transfer the personal information of European citizens to servers located in the United States, and vice versa, in the face of surveillance concerns by privacy advocates.

    The decision resolves, for now, years of uncertainty about the future of transatlantic data flows that US officials say support more than $1 trillion in annual economic activity. Those data flows had been threatened when a previous EU-US agreement was struck down in 2020 by Europe’s top court over insufficient privacy protections for EU citizens.

    With the EU’s approval, the new agreement again allows businesses to transfer European data to the United States as if it were another EU member state, without requirements to implement additional privacy safeguards.

    Monday’s so-called “adequacy decision” by the European Commission paves the way for companies to sign up for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, which entered into force the same day.

    EU officials said the new framework improves upon its predecessor by tying in an executive order signed by President Joe Biden last year limiting how US intelligence agencies may access European citizens’ personal information.

    The order also provided for the creation of a new court-like body that can force US companies to delete EU citizens’ data if an investigation determines that EU citizens’ privacy rights were violated. EU citizens will be able to file individual complaints to the Data Protection Review Court.

    In a statement, EU President Ursula von der Leyen called the US enhancements “unprecedented.”

    “Today we take an important step to provide trust to citizens that their data is safe, to deepen our economic ties between the EU and the US, and at the same time to reaffirm our shared values,” von der Leyen said. “It shows that by working together, we can address the most complex issues.”

    But civil liberties advocates on Monday sharply criticized the framework as too similar to “Privacy Shield,” the agreement struck down in 2020, signaling that the new framework is likely to be tested with its own court challenges.

    “Guess what: it is largely a copy of the old principles!” tweeted Max Schrems, the privacy activist who led the charge that resulted in Privacy Shield’s nullification.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US orders deployment of fighter jets and Navy destroyer to Middle East in response to Iranian activities | CNN Politics

    US orders deployment of fighter jets and Navy destroyer to Middle East in response to Iranian activities | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered F-35 and F-16 fighter jets deployed to the Middle East, as well as the destroyer USS Thomas Hudner, in response to Iranian activities in the Strait of Hormuz.

    “In response to a number of recent alarming events in the Strait of Hormuz, the Secretary of Defense has ordered the deployment of the destroyer USS Thomas Hudner, F-35 fighters and F-16 fighters to the US Central Command Area of Responsibility to defend US interests and safeguard freedom of navigation in the region,” Pentagon deputy press secretary Sabrina Singh said Monday.

    The deployments come after two incidents earlier this month in which Iranian Navy ships attempted to seize merchant vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman.

    The US Navy intervened in both incidents on July 5. In one instance, in which an Iranian vessel was approaching the Richmond Voyager oil tanker, Iranian personnel opened fire on the tanker and hit the ship near the crew’s living spaces.

    “In light of this continuing threat, and in coordination with our partners and allies, the department is increasing our presence and ability to monitor the straight and surrounding waters,” Singh said. “We call upon Iran to immediately cease these destabilizing actions that threaten the free flow of commerce through this strategic waterway of which the world depends on for more than one fifth of the world’s oil supply.”

    Last week, a senior defense official said that US air and maritime forces are working together to continue monitoring the waterway, recently starting to fly A-10 attack aircraft over the Strait of Hormuz. The A-10s were deployed in late March.

    The US also bolstered its forces in the Middle East in May after destabilizing actions from Iran in the Persian Gulf.

    “[The] United States will not allow foreign or regional powers to jeopardize freedom of navigation through the Middle East waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz,” National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby said at the time.

    He added that there is “simply no justification” for Iranian actions to interfere, harass or attack merchant ships.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The US immigration story extends well beyond the border | CNN Politics

    The US immigration story extends well beyond the border | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    There is a tendency to view the different elements of the immigration landscape in isolation.

    • Texas is being sued by the US Department of Justice for acting on its own to put obstructions along the border.
    • New York and other cities complain they are overwhelmed by buses of migrants being sent from the border.
    • In the absence of action by Congress, court decisions are setting US border policy.

    But the elements are all interrelated.

    I talked to CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez to get her perspective as a White House reporter with a deep background in reporting on all aspects of the larger immigration story. Our conversation, conducted by email, is below. And don’t miss her story that published Tuesday: Federal judge blocks Biden’s controversial asylum policy in a major blow to administration.

    WOLF: The US government is suing Texas to remove floating barriers from the Rio Grande. But it’s just the latest in a series of escalating measures Texas has undertaken on its own to keep migrants out of the country. What is the state of play at the border?

    ALVAREZ: The handling of the US-Mexico border has long been a point of contention between President (Joe) Biden and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who’s argued that the administration hasn’t done enough to enforce the border.

    As an affront to Biden’s border policies, Abbott has transported migrants to Democratic-led cities without coordinating with city officials, deployed more personnel to the Texas-Mexico border, and earlier this month, installed buoys in the Rio Grande.

    Border agents have historically worked closely with the Texas National Guard and the Texas Department of Public Safety. But the latest steps taken by the state have made day-to-day operations more difficult.

    DPS made certain portions of the Texas-Mexico border more difficult to access, marking a departure from the coordination that previously existed between law enforcement. Agents on the ground have also sent regular reports to US Customs and Border Protection headquarters about what they’ve observed as Abbott’s operation has been underway, a Homeland Security official told me.

    But disturbing images of migrants with injuries and troubling reports of Texas troops pushing migrants back to Mexico forced the Biden’s administration hands.

    Last week, the Justice Department said it’s assessing the situation along the Texas-Mexico border and on Monday, the DOJ filed a lawsuit on a separate, though related matter: the installation of a floating barrier. The lawsuit says Texas didn’t seek authorization before placing the floating barrier in the Rio Grande and poses a threat to navigation.

    That court battle could take months to play out. But in the interim, it could fuel tensions between agents and troops on the ground and further escalate the feud between Biden and Abbott.

    WOLF: You’ve written about how an expected surge of migrants after the end of a Covid-era policy known as Title 42 never materialized. What happened?

    ALVAREZ: Let’s provide some context first. Migration often ebbs and flows.

    But the Biden administration has had to grapple with unprecedented mass movement of people in the Western hemisphere, which is in part the outcome of the coronavirus pandemic decimating conditions in the region.

    The administration relied on a public health authority, known as Title 42, to quickly expel migrants back to Mexico or their origin countries. That authority had been invoked under former President (Donald) Trump and used to turn away migrants, including asylum-seekers, at the US-Mexico border on public health grounds.

    In the days leading up to the expiration of Title 42, thousands of migrants tried to cross the US southern border, knowing that they could face tougher penalties after the end of the authority including bans on reentry to the United States.

    And that’s indeed been the case. Increased deportations and tougher policies, paired with other, new legal pathways to the United States, appear to have driven down the number of people attempting to unlawfully cross the US-Mexico border.

    In June, for example, US Border Patrol arrested nearly 100,000 migrants along the US southern border, marking a decrease from May and marking the lowest monthly border encounters since February 2021, according to US Customs and Border Protection data.

    WOLF: Far from the border in Texas, New York Mayor Eric Adams, after earlier welcoming migrants bused to his city, has said with increasing urgency that the city is full. Migrants are now also being bused to Los Angeles. What’s the latest on the busing angle?

    ALVAREZ: The busing is still happening. Since last year, Texas has bused more than 27,000 migrants to six cities, according to Abbott’s office. The cities include Washington, DC, New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver and Los Angeles.

    One of the main issues with the transport of migrants to these cities that officials often raise alarm about is the lack of coordination. The governor’s office doesn’t generally notify cities that migrants are being sent there, leaving border NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) to try to fill the information void.

    It’s important to note, though, that migrants who are released from government custody have been vetted and processed by federal authorities and are released as they go through their immigration court proceedings. An immigration judge ultimately decides whether a migrant has grounds to stay in the United States or be ordered removed.

    WOLF: All of these things are related – the efforts by Texas to create its own border policy, the difficulty New York and cities are facing as they deal with an influx of migrants … everything feeds from the lack of more comprehensive immigration reform. Is there any movement in Congress toward dealing with all of this in a comprehensive way?

    ALVAREZ: Bills addressing the immigration system have been introduced by both parties. Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas, for example, has introduced legislation that addresses work visa programs, among other parts of the system. But it’s such a divisive issue that legislation struggles to move forward.

    Both parties are so far apart on the issue that even though Democrats and Republicans acknowledge the US immigration system is broken, they can’t agree on how to fix it.

    Without comprehensive reform, the federal government is left to implementing a patchwork of policies and then playing defense when lawsuits are filed against them, often resulting in policy whiplash.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Republicans can’t get out of their climate bind, even as extreme heat overwhelms the US | CNN Politics

    Why Republicans can’t get out of their climate bind, even as extreme heat overwhelms the US | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Deadly heatwaves are baking the US. Scientists just reported that July will be the hottest month on record. And now, after years of skepticism and denial in the GOP ranks, a small number of Republicans are urging their party to get proactive on the climate crisis.

    But the GOP is stuck in a climate bind – and likely will be for the next four years, in large part because they’re still living in the shadow of former president and 2024 Republican frontrunner Donald Trump.

    Even as more Republican politicians are joining the consensus that climate change is real and caused by humans, Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric has driven the party to the right on climate and extreme weather. Trump has called the extremely settled science of climate change a “hoax” and more recently suggested that the impacts of it “may affect us in 300 years.”

    Scientists this week reported that this summer’s unrelenting heat wave would have been “virtually impossible” were it not for the planet-warming pollution from burning fossil fuels. They also confirmed that July will go down as the hottest month on record – and almost certainly that the planet’s temperature is hotter now than it has been in around 120,000 years.

    Yet for being one of the most pressing issues of the 21st century, climate is rarely mentioned on the 2024 campaign trail.

    “As Donald Trump is the near presumptive nominee of our party in 2024, it’s going to be very hard for a party to adopt a climate-sensitive policy,” Sen. Mitt Romney, a Republican from Utah, told CNN. “But Donald Trump’s not going to be around forever.”

    When Republicans do weigh in on climate change – and what we should do about it – they tend to support the idea of capturing planet-warming pollution rather than cutting fossil fuels. But many are reticent to talk about how to solve the problem, and worry Trump is having a chilling effect on policies to combat climate within the party.

    “We need to be talking about this,” Rep. John Curtis, a Republican from Utah and chair of the House’s Conservative Climate Caucus, told CNN. “And part of it for Republicans is when you don’t talk about it, you have no ideas at the table; all you’re doing is saying what you don’t like. We need to be saying what we like.”

    With a few exceptions, Republicans largely are no longer the party of full-on climate change denial. But even as temperatures rise to deadly highs, the GOP is also not actively addressing it. There is still no “robust discussion about how to solve it” within the party, said former South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis, who now runs the conservative climate group RepublicEn, save for criticism of Democrats’ clean-energy initiatives.

    “The good news is Republicans are stopping arguing with thermometers,” Inglis told CNN. Still, he said, “when the experience is multiplied over and over of multiple days of three-digit temperatures in Arizona and record ocean temperatures, people start to say, ‘this is sort of goofy we’re not doing something about this.’”

    Meanwhile, the impacts of a dramatically warming atmosphere are becoming more and more apparent each year. Romney and Curtis, two of the loudest climate voices in the party, both represent Utah – a state that’s no stranger to extreme heat and drought, which scientists say is being fueled by rising global temperatures.

    “There are a number of states, like mine, that are concerned about wildfires and water,” Romney said, adding he believes Republican governors of impacted states have been vocal about these issues.

    Utah and other Western states are looking for ways to cut water use to save the West’s shrinking two largest reservoirs, Lakes Powell and Mead. And even closer to home, Utah’s Great Salt Lake has already disappeared by two-thirds, and scientists are sounding alarms about a rapid continued decline that could kill delicate ecosystems and expose one of fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the nation to toxic dust.

    “I think the evidence so far is that the West is getting drier and hotter,” Romney told CNN. “That means that we’re going to have more difficulty with our crops, we’re going to have a harder time keeping the rivers full of water. The Great Salt Lake is probably going to continue to shrink. And unfortunately, we’re going to see more catastrophic fires. If the trends continue, we need to act.”

    While Republicans blast Democrats’ clean energy policies ahead of the 2024 elections, it’s less clear what the GOP itself would prefer to do about the climate crisis.

    As Curtis tells it, there’s a lot that Republicans and Democrats in Congress agree on. They both want to further reform the permitting process for major energy projects, and they largely agree on the need for more renewable and nuclear energy.

    As the head of the largest GOP climate caucus on the Hill, Curtis’ Utah home is “full solar,” he told CNN, and is heated using geothermal energy.

    While at a recent event at a natural gas drilling site in Ohio, as smoke from Canada’s devastating wildfire season hung thick in the air, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was asked how he would solve the climate crisis. He suggested planting a trillion trees to help offset the pollution created by burning fossil fuels – a bill House Republicans introduced in 2020. The measure has not yet passed the House and has an uncertain future in the Senate.

    Rep. John Curtis, a Utah Republican, said his home is decked out in solar panels and geothermal energy.

    But the biggest and most enduring difference between the two parties is that Republicans want fossil fuels – which are fueling climate change with their heat-trapping pollution – to be in the energy mix for years to come.

    Democrats, meanwhile, have passed legislation to dramatically speed up the clean energy transition and prioritize the development of wind, solar and electrical transmission to get renewables sending electricity into homes faster.

    On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Democrats want to pass more climate legislation if they take back a full majority in Congress. He later told CNN the GOP is “way behind” on climate and there’s been “too little” progress on the party’s stances.

    “I think we’d get a lot more done with a Democratic House, a Democratic president and continuing to have a Democratic Senate,” Schumer told CNN. “Unfortunately, if you look at some of the Republican House and Senate Super PACs, huge amounts of money come from gas, oil and coal.”

    Even though Curtis and Romney are aligned on the party needing to talk about climate change, they differ on how to fix it. While Curtis primarily supports carbon capture and increased research and development into new technologies, Romney is one of the few Republicans speaking in favor of a carbon tax – taxing companies for their pollution.

    “It’s very unlikely that a price on carbon would be acceptable in the House of Representatives,” Romney said. “I think you might find a few Republican senators that would be supportive, but that’s not enough.”

    The idea certainly doesn’t have the support of Trump, or other 2024 candidates for president, and experts predict climate policy will get little to no airtime during the upcoming presidential race.

    “Regrettably, the issue of climate change is currently being held hostage to the culture wars in America,” Edward Maibach, a professor of climate communication at George Mason University and a co-founder of a nationwide climate polling project conducted with Yale University, told CNN in an email. “Donald Trump’s climate denial stance will have a chilling effect on the climate positions of his rivals on the right — even those who know better.”

    Even if climate-conscious Republicans say Trump won’t be in the party forever, Inglis said even a few more years may not be enough time to counteract the rapid changes already happening.

    “That’s still a long way away,” Inglis said. “The scientists are saying we can’t wait, get moving, get moving.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The crisis pregnancy center next door: How taxpayer money intended for poor families is funding a growing anti-abortion movement | CNN

    The crisis pregnancy center next door: How taxpayer money intended for poor families is funding a growing anti-abortion movement | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A few blocks from the Ohio State University campus in Columbus, America’s battle over abortion is playing out under one roof.

    On one side of a squat single-story office building, a Planned Parenthood clinic offers reproductive health care and refers patients for abortions. Next door is a branch of Pregnancy Decision Health Center, a crisis pregnancy center that offers counseling and support for pregnant women – but also works to dissuade them from terminating their pregnancies and has been accused of promoting misinformation about abortion.

    Of the two neighboring organizations, only Planned Parenthood provides medical services such as Pap smears, birth control and STD treatments.

    But the crisis pregnancy center is the one receiving money from the state government. Ohio has funneled nearly $14 million in taxpayer funds to the center and others like it over the last decade, according to government records – even as state leaders have cut funding that previously went to Planned Parenthood for programs such as breast and cervical cancer screenings. 

    Ohio isn’t alone. More than a dozen states devote some of their budget to funding crisis pregnancy centers, a CNN review found. About half of those states distribute federal money intended to help needy families to the centers.

    Some of the organizations that receive money have been accused of spreading abortion misinformation or using the funds to advocate anti-abortion causes instead of helping women. 

    “Public dollars should go to promoting public health,” said Ashley Underwood, the director of Equity Forward, an abortion rights advocacy group. Crisis pregnancy centers, she said, “solely exist to deter people from getting abortion services.”

    Since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade this summer, a wave of abortion restrictions has swept the country, leaving millions of women with easier access to crisis pregnancy centers than abortion care. Crisis pregnancy centers far outnumbered abortion clinics across the US even before the court’s ruling, and anti-abortion groups are now planning to expand. 

    Pregnancy center leaders and their state government allies say the organizations deserve taxpayer funds because they provide pregnant women with resources like free diapers and ultrasounds. But some of the centers also lie to women about the safety and potential risks of abortion, according to multiple studies, abortion rights activists, and women who have been to the centers. 

    That kind of deception isn’t typical in any other area of health care, said Dr. Amy Addante, an Illinois OB-GYN who performs abortions and has been a vocal critic of crisis pregnancy centers.

    “The purpose of these centers is to try to stop someone from having an abortion,” said Addante. “I cannot think of any other medical decision or any other aspect of health care where there is a group of individuals whose only intent is to stop you from receiving that health care.”

    Big open windows invite patients and passersby into the waiting room at the Pregnancy Decision Health Center (PDHC). With velvety green chairs, leafy plants, and a coffee station that greets visitors as they come in the door, the crisis pregnancy center could pass for an upscale dental office or spa.

    Outside, PDHC’s sign towers over the neighboring Planned Parenthood, literally casting a shadow over the clinic’s entrance. Inside, the contrast is even starker: Planned Parenthood’s waiting room looks run-down – old chairs crowd the small space, faded informational posters cover the walls, and daylight is blocked by signage on the windows and mirrored doors meant to protect patients’ privacy.

    Multiple times a week, patients looking for Planned Parenthood mistakenly walk through PDHC’s doors, according to a Planned Parenthood clinician, Jennifer, who asked CNN not to use her last name out of security concerns. Some patients have told Planned Parenthood that PDHC employees told them abortion wasn’t safe or said PDHC tried to delay them and make them late for their Planned Parenthood appointments.

    Lillian Williams is the vice president of health services of Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio.

    “They’ve provided an array of misinformation, whether it’s about abortion care or even about contraceptive services,” said Lillian Williams, the vice president of health services of Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio.

    Ayla Krueger, a 23-year-old Columbus resident, visited PDHC earlier this month with a friend who was seeking an STD test. She said that during their hour-and-a-half visit, an employee claimed that condoms were only 50% effective, the spread of STDs could only be prevented if people followed “God’s plan” of avoiding sex before marriage, and that if a woman who has an STD gets an abortion, “your STDs travel up your cervix into your organs and could kill you.”

    “I was dumbfounded,” Krueger said of the encounter. “My heart was breaking, thinking about girls who don’t understand what they’re walking into there… and possibly getting coerced.”

    Experts said that the center’s rhetoric was not medically accurate. “We do worry about ascending infections in abortions and pregnancy, but the risk is really, really low,” said Dr. Jonas Swartz, an OB-GYN and professor at Duke University Medical Center. “Crisis pregnancy centers regularly overstate the risk of abortions and this is just one example of that.”

    The center also offers “abortion pill reversal,” according to its website, annual reports and pamphlets at the office. Abortion reversal is a medically dubious, unproven treatment that purports to undo a medication abortion but has been denounced by medical groups and found to be dangerous by researchers. A clinical trial that attempted to study abortion reversal was halted prematurely in 2019 when several participants suffered hemorrhaging.

    Kathy Scanlon, PDHC’s president, declined an interview request and didn’t respond to CNN’s questions about Krueger’s allegations or abortion pill reversal.

    “Every woman deserves care and compassion when facing an unexpected pregnancy,” Scanlon wrote in an email, adding that the center provides “practical pregnancy care and support ranging from free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds to parenting education classes and much-needed baby items” such as diapers and car seats.

    Anti-abortion signs sit on a table during the Ohio March for Life in Columbus.

    Research has found that crisis pregnancy centers commonly disseminate misinformation. A study released last year by The Alliance, an abortion rights advocacy group, found that almost two-thirds of crisis pregnancy centers in nine states promoted false or biased information about abortion on their websites. That included false claims that abortions increased the risk of cancer or infertility.  More than a third of clinics also advertised that they offered abortion pill reversal – and state-funded clinics were more likely than privately-funded ones to offer the unproven procedure and less likely to offer prenatal care, according to the study. 

    Similarly, a 2012 academic study of crisis pregnancy centers in North Carolina found that 86% of centers promoted false or misleading medical information on their websites. 

    Crisis pregnancy center leaders say they are working to help women. Peggy Hartshorn, who founded the Columbus center and is now the chair of Heartbeat International, one of the largest global networks of crisis pregnancy centers, said the allegations that the groups spread misinformation are “a false narrative.”

    She said that the information her centers provide to clients is “very well-researched, medically referenced – we document everything with multiple sources.”

    “Deep down in their hearts, women do not want to have abortion,” Hartshorn said. “Pregnancy centers are good for America, they really are.”

    In Ohio, a new six-week abortion ban that went into effect after the Supreme Court decision, is currently on hold amid court battles. The Planned Parenthood clinic near Ohio State University doesn’t perform abortions – it refers patients to a Planned Parenthood surgical center on the other side of town that does.

    The waiting room in the Planned Parenthood near campus.

    That facility, too, has a state-funded crisis pregnancy center operating across the street. On a recent afternoon, a handful of protesters lined the clinic’s fence with signs depicting bloody fetuses and shouted “you are already a mother” and “abortion is murder” whenever a patient came within earshot. One protester – wearing a reflective vest and holding a clipboard, similar to Planned Parenthood volunteers – tried to direct patients away from the abortion clinic and to the crisis pregnancy center across the street. The center told CNN the protesters weren’t affiliated with their organization.

    It’s not rare for pregnancy centers to operate near abortion clinics. More than 100 pregnancy centers around the country are located within 200 meters of an abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood location, according to a CNN analysis. Some – in states like Delaware, Indiana and Michigan – are next door to clinics. 

    Abortion rights advocates say the intention is to mislead women and block them from accessing abortion.  

    “The purpose of co-locating near a legitimate provider is to intercept someone seeking legitimate health care and divert them into walking through their doors instead,” said Tara Murtha, the co-author of a report about pregnancy centers and a spokesperson for the Women’s Law Project. “It’s basically an obstacle course and a systemic barrier to abortion care.”

    Despite the groups’ apparent spreading of misinformation, at least 18 states have funded crisis pregnancy centers with taxpayer money, according to a CNN review of government records and statements from state agencies. The largest is Texas, which has sent more than $200 million to the groups over the last decade. 

    More than a half-dozen states bankroll crisis pregnancy centers at least partly with funds from Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a federal welfare program. Those federal funds are sent to states as a block grant, which gives state officials wide latitude in how to spend it, including on programs like “alternatives to abortion” grants for crisis pregnancy centers. 

    Research has shown that a smaller percentage of poor families are now receiving cash assistance from the TANF program than in previous decades.

    While about 68% of families with children in poverty received cash assistance through TANF in 1996, when the program was created, that percentage declined to just 21% by 2020, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan think tank. The percentage was even lower in some of the GOP-dominated states that use TANF funding to support crisis pregnancy centers, such as Texas and Louisiana.

    “When you look at successes in reducing poverty by strengthening the safety net, cash assistance is the most effective way to help families,” said Aditi Shrivastava, who co-authored the study. “We are seeing states spend less of their money directly on cash assistance, and we don’t think that is what the program should be doing.”

    In the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, some states are piloting new efforts to fund crisis pregnancy centers. Lawmakers in Arkansas and Iowa approved state funding for such groups for the first time this year.

    The states have argued that crisis pregnancy centers deserve taxpayer funding because they provide services to pregnant women in need. 

    “If we are going to be the most pro-life state in the union, we have to be prepared when those mothers come to a facility and they need help,” Arkansas state Rep. Robin Lundstrum said at a legislative hearing about the state’s new program earlier this year.

    In Columbus, Pregnancy Decision Health Center is receiving more than $528,000 from the state government in the current fiscal year, according to government records. All of that comes from federal TANF funds. The funding amounts for about a fourth of the center’s total revenue, while the rest comes from private donations, according to the group’s most recent tax records available.

    People participate in the Ohio March for Life.

    Despite the large amounts of money, there’s little oversight of how the taxpayer dollars are being used. 

    Many of the appropriations are written into spending bills passed by GOP-dominated state legislatures. Pennsylvania, for example, has sent more than $70 million over the last decade to crisis pregnancy centers through Real Alternatives, an anti-abortion group that distributes state funding to crisis pregnancy centers. 

    A 2017 report by the state auditor general found that Real Alternatives used hundreds of thousands of dollars of the money it received from Pennsylvania “to fund its activities in other states,” in what the auditor said was an example of the group “siphoning funds intended to benefit Pennsylvania women.” Real Alternatives denied the allegations in a statement, saying that they had “no basis in fact or law.”

    Michigan, which had contracted with Real Alternatives to distribute funding for crisis pregnancy centers, canceled its contract after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed the funding for it in 2019. In a letter about the veto, Whitmer thanked a watchdog group that had issued a report accusing the organization of only helping a fraction of the pregnant women it had agreed to support.

    Real Alternatives, which also receives TANF money from Indiana, said the Michigan report was “riddled with inaccuracies, distortions, half-truths and defamatory statements.”

    A bill in the Ohio legislature that would have required crisis pregnancy centers receiving state funding to provide their clients with only medically accurate information died in committee in multiple recent legislative sessions. The state’s GOP legislative leaders did not respond to requests for comment.

    Meanwhile, some of the same red states that have bankrolled crisis pregnancy centers have stripped funding from Planned Parenthood. In Ohio, for example, the group never received state funding for abortions, but for years it received money for other services like cancer screenings, STD prevention and treatment, and sex education for teens.

    In 2016, however, Ohio lawmakers banned the state from funding any organization that performs abortions, and the law went into effect after it was upheld by a federal appeals court in 2019. That meant that Planned Parenthood affiliates in Ohio lost about $600,000 a year in state funding, and led to the cancellation of some of their non-abortion health programs.

    While Planned Parenthood does receive some additional reimbursements through Ohio’s Medicaid program for providing non-abortion health care to people on Medicaid plans, it no longer receives state grants.

    Planned Parenthood also lost additional federal funding under Title X, a program that funds birth control and reproductive health services, under a Trump administration rule. But the organization started receiving that money again this year after the Biden administration reversed the rule.

    Maria Gallo, a sexual and reproductive health epidemiologist at Ohio State University, said that state funding for crisis pregnancy centers shows how conservative lawmakers prioritize anti-abortion rhetoric over medical care for women.

    “It’s dangerous in part because they are legitimizing (crisis pregnancy centers),” Gallo said. “They are legitimizing that as a source of medical care when they’re not licensed medical facilities.”

    Crisis pregnancy centers drastically outnumber abortion clinics in the United States. There were 790 abortion clinics operating in 2021, compared with about 2,600 crisis pregnancy centers, according to a database compiled by Reproaction, an abortion-rights group.

    That disparity is only likely to grow in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. Hartshorn, the chair of Heartbeat International, said the organization has created an online training program to help people open new pregnancy centers, especially in places without existing ones.

    “We need more people, we need more places, and we need more paths to pregnancy health,” Hartshorn said.

    Thank you notes are displayed in the Planned Parenthood in Columbus.

    A study by the National Center for Responsive Philanthropy found that the groups have taken in more and more money in recent years: They received over $1 billion in revenue in 2019, the most recent year data was available, compared to about $771 million in 2015. 

    Several women who went to state-funded crisis pregnancy centers told CNN they felt misled and manipulated by the groups, and disturbed that they were getting taxpayer money.

    Last year, a woman who asked to be identified by her middle name, Eve, had just lost her job when she suspected she might be pregnant. She and her boyfriend went to Women’s Care Center in Columbus after finding the group on Google. Money was tight, and she chose the center – which is receiving more than $700,000 from the state of Ohio in the current fiscal year – because it promised free pregnancy testing. 

    Eve’s test was positive, and she asked the staff about an abortion. She said they handed her a pamphlet that warned her the procedure could cause infertility – though abortion doesn’t typically affect a person’s ability to become pregnant in the future. For three hours, Eve said the staff pressured her to carry the pregnancy to term.

    “It became very clear that they were against abortion really quickly,” said Eve, who left the center feeling upset and later got an abortion. The center didn’t respond to questions about Eve’s visit but said in an email they are “absolutely committed to accuracy, excellence and transparency in all we do.”

    One day, Eve said she hopes to have kids. But at the time, she didn’t feel financially or emotionally stable enough to have a baby.

    “Nobody wants to make a decision to have an abortion,” Eve said. “And they made me feel really guilty and bad about it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Brazil’s election explained: Lula and Bolsonaro face off for a second round in high stakes vote | CNN

    Brazil’s election explained: Lula and Bolsonaro face off for a second round in high stakes vote | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Brazil votes for a new president on Sunday, in the final round of a polarizing election that has been described as the most important in the country’s democratic history.

    The choice is between two starkly different candidates – the leftist former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, popularly known as Lula, and the far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro – while the country struggles with high inflation, limited growth and rising poverty.

    Rising anger has overshadowed the poll as both men have used their massive clout, on-and-offline, to attack each other at every turn. Clashes among their supporters have left many voters feeling fearful of what is yet to come.

    The race could be a close one. Neither gained over 50% in a first round vote earlier this month, forcing the two leading candidates into this Sunday’s run-off vote.

    Lula da Silva was president for two terms, from 2003 to 2006 and 2007 to 2011, where he led the country through a commodities boom that helped fund huge social welfare programs and lifted millions out of poverty.

    The charismatic politician is known for his dramatic backstory: He didn’t learn to read until he was 10, left school after fifth grade to work full-time, and went on to lead worker strikes which defied the military regime in 1970s. He co-founded the Workers’ Party (PT), that became Brazil’s main left-wing political force.

    Lula da Silva left office with a 90% approval rating – a record tarnished however by Brazil’s largest corruption probe, dubbed “Operation Car Wash,” which led to charges against hundreds of high-ranking politicians and businesspeople across Latin America. He was convicted for corruption and money laundering in 2017, but a court threw out his conviction in March 2021, clearing the way for his political rebound “in a plot twist worthy of one of the Brazilian beloved telenovelas,” Bruna Santos, a senior advisor at the Wilson Institute’s Brazil Center, told CNN.

    His rival, Bolsonaro, is a former army captain who was a federal deputy for 27 years. Bolsonaro was considered a marginal figure in politics during much of this time before emerging in the mid-2010s as the figurehead of a more radically right-wing movement, which perceived the PT as its main enemy.

    He ran for President in 2018 with the conservative Liberal Party, campaigning as a political outsider and anti-corruption candidate, and gaining the moniker ‘Trump of the Tropics.’ A divisive figure, Bolsonaro has become known for his bombastic statements and conservative agenda, which is supported by important evangelical leaders in the country.

    But poverty has grown during his time as President, and his popularity levels took a hit over his handling of the pandemic, which he dismissed as the “little flu,” before the virus killed more than 680,000 people in the country.

    Bolsonaro’s government has become known for its support of ruthless exploitation of land in the Amazon, leading to record deforestation figures. Environmentalists have warned that the future of the rainforest could be at stake in this election.

    The race is a tight one for the two household names who espouse radically different paths to prosperity.

    Bolsonaro’s campaign is a continuation of his conservative, pro-business agenda. Bolsonaro has promised to increase mining, privatize public companies and generate more sustainable energy to bring down energy prices. But he has also has vowed to continue paying a R$600 (roughly US$110) monthly benefit for low-income households known as Auxilio Brasil, without clearly defining how it will be paid for.

    Bolsonaro accelerated those financial aid payments this month, a move seen by critics as politically motivated. “As the election loomed, his government has made direct payments to working-class and poor voters – in a classic populist move,” Santos told CNN.

    Bolsonaro’s socially conservative messaging, which includes railing against political correctness and promotion of traditional gender roles, has effectively rallied his base of Brazilian conservative voters, she also said.

    Lula co-founded the Workers' Party (PT), that became Brazil's main left-wing political force.

    Lula da Silva’s policy agenda has been light on the details, focusing largely on promises to improve Brazilians fortunes based on past achievements, say analysts.

    He wants to put the state back at the heart of economic policy making and government spending, promising a new tax regime that will allow for higher public spending. He has vowed to end hunger in the country, which has returned during the Bolsonaro government. Lula da Silva also promises to work to reduce carbon emissions and deforestation in the Amazon.

    But Santos warns that he’ll face an uphill battle: “With a fragile fiscal scenario (in Brazil) and little power over the budget, it won’t be easy.”

    Lula da Silva faces a hostile congress if he becomes president. Congressional elections on October 3 gave Bolsonaro’s allies the most seats in both houses: Bolsonaro’s right-wing Liberal Party increased its seats to 99 in the lower house, and parties allied with him now control half the chamber, Reuters reports.

    “Lula seems to ignore the necessary search for new engines of growth because the state cannot grow more,” she said.

    A Datafolha poll released last Wednesday showed 49% of respondents said they would vote for Lula da Silva and 45% would go for Bolsonaro, who gained a percentage point from a poll by the same institute a week ago.

    But Bolsonaro fared better than expected in the October 2 first round vote, denying Lula da Silva the outright majority which polls had predicted. The incumbent’s outperformance of the polls in the first round suggests wider support for Bolsonaro’s populist brand of conservatism, and analysts expect the difference in Sunday’s vote to be much tighter than expected.

    There could be any number of other surprises. Fears of violence have haunted this election, with several violent and sometimes fatal clashes between Bolsonaro and Lula da Silva supporters recorded in recent months. From the start of this year until the first round of voting, the US non-profit Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) recorded “36 instances of political violence involving party representatives and supporters across the country,” that suggests “even greater tensions and polarization than recorded in the previous general elections.”

    Critics also fear Bolsonaro has been laying the groundwork to contest the election. Though he insists he will respect the results if they are “clean and transparent,” Bolsonaro has repeatedly claimed that Brazil’s electronic ballot system is susceptible to fraud – an entirely unfounded allegation that has drawn comparisons to the false election claims of former US President Donald Trump. There is no record of fraud in Brazilian electronic ballots since they began in 1996, and experts are worried the rhetoric will lead to outbreaks of violence if Lula da Silva wins.

    “In this consequential election, the confidence we have in the strength of Brazilian democratic institutions is going to be challenged,” Santos said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Kyrsten Sinema’s decision makes Democrats’ 2024 Senate map tighter | CNN Politics

    How Kyrsten Sinema’s decision makes Democrats’ 2024 Senate map tighter | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema decided to shake up the political world on Friday by becoming an independent. The former Democrat is still caucusing with the party in the Senate, so the Democratic caucus still has 51 members. Now, instead of 49 Democrats and two independents within their ranks, the caucus has 48 Democrats and three independents.

    But that simple math hides a more clouded picture for Democrats and for Sinema herself. Sinema’s interests are no longer necessarily the Democrats’ best interests in the next Congress, and the 2024 Senate map became even more complicated for Democrats with Sinema’s decision.

    To be clear, Sinema has always been a thorn in the Democrats side during her time in Congress. Over the last two years, Democrats have had to almost always make sure that any bill or nomination had Sinema’s support to have any chance of passing. That’s the math when you have only 50 Senate seats in a 100-seat chamber. A lot of bills and nominations were never voted on without Sinema and Manchin’s backing.

    From 2013 (Sinema’s first term in Congress) to 2020, Sinema voted against her party more than almost any other member of Congress. She stayed with the party about 69% of the time on votes where at least one half of the Democrats voted differently than half of Republicans. The average Democrat voted with their party about 90% of the time on these votes.

    It’s quite possible that Sinema’s percentage of sticking with the party will lower now that she is an independent. Consider the example of former Sen. Joe Lieberman. The longtime Democrat won reelection as a third-party candidate in 2006, after losing the Democratic primary to a left-wing challenger (the now fairly moderate Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont)

    Relative to the average Senate Democrat, Lieberman voted with the party 10 points less of the time after becoming an independent than he had in his last term as a Democrat. If that happens with Sinema, she’ll become even more conservative than West Virginia’s Joe Manchin (the most conservative member of the Democratic caucus).

    This would make sense because the incentive structure is now very different for Sinema. Ahead of a 2024 reelection campaign, she no longer has to worry about winning a Democratic primary. Sinema has to worry about building a coalition of Democrats, independents and Republicans. That is far more difficult to do if you’re seen as too liberal.

    Indeed, the big reason Sinema became an independent is because it would have been very difficult to win a Democratic primary. Her approval rating among Arizona Democrats in an autumn 2022 CES poll stood at just 25%. A number of Democrats (e.g. Rep. Ruben Gallego and Rep. Greg Stanton) were already lining up to potentially challenge her in a primary.

    A question now is whether Sinema’s decision to become an independent will dissuade some of those Democrats from running. The idea being that Sinema still caucuses with the Democrats, and Democrats wouldn’t want to split the Democratic vote in a general election allowing a Republican to win in a purple state like Arizona.

    It’s an interesting bet from Sinema. After all, Democrats usually don’t run a candidate against independent Sen. Bernie Sanders in Vermont. The Democrats who run against independent Sen. Angus King in Maine have not gained traction in recent elections. Don’t forget the aforementioned Lieberman won as a third-party candidate.

    The electoral math structure was and is totally different in these circumstances, however. Sanders wouldn’t attract a left-wing Democratic challenger because he is already so progressive. Lieberman declared his third-party candidacy after the primary, so Republicans didn’t have time to find a well-known challenger. Republicans also knew that Lieberman, who was an ardent supporter of the Iraq War, was probably the best they could hope for in the deeply Democratic state of Connecticut.

    This leaves the King example. King, like Sinema, is a moderate from not a deeply blue or red state. There’s just one problem for Sinema in this analogy: King is popular. He had previously won the governorship twice as an independent and has almost always sported high favorables.

    Sinema is not popular at all. The CES poll had her approval rating below her disapproval rating with Democrats, independents and Republicans in Arizona. Sinema’s overall approval stood at 25% to a disapproval rating of 58%. Other polling isn’t nearly as dire for Sinema, but the average of it all has her firmly being more unpopular than popular.

    Put another way, Sinema’s current numbers are probably not going to scare off many challengers from either the Democratic or Republican side. Additionally, there’s zero reason for Democrats to cede the ground to Sinema because it would keep a Republican from winning. It isn’t clear at all that Sinema can win as an independent.

    What Sinema’s move did accomplish is that it made the electoral math a lot more complicated in Arizona and therefore nationally. Having two people in the race who are going to caucus with the Democratic Party likely makes it more difficult for the Democrats to win.

    One potential worrisome example for Democrats in a purple state (at least then) was the 2010 Florida Senate race. Then Republican Gov. Charlie Crist decided to run as an independent after it became clear he wouldn’t beat the more conservative Republican Marco Rubio in a Republican primary. Crist, who said he would caucus with the Democrats, split the Democratic vote with then Rep. Kendrick Meek, and Rubio cruised to a win.

    I should point out that Democrats certainly have a chance. The 1968 Alaska Senate race, for example, featured two Democrats (Mike Gravel and then Sen. Ernest Gruening as write-in). Gravel won in the state which Republican Richard Nixon carried, too, by a few points.

    In 2024, Arizona Republicans could nominate an extreme candidate that flames out. They just lost every major statewide race in 2022 because of who they nominated.

    Don’t dismiss the possibility too that Sinema could win like Harry Byrd did in the 1970 Virginia Senate election when both parties nominated candidates. Maybe voters will like Sinema’s new independent registration.

    Sinema also could find herself flaming out when running in the general election without a major party backing her like Gruening did in 1968 or then Sen. Jacob Javits in the 1980 New York Senate race.

    We just don’t know.

    All that said, the Democrats already have a difficult map heading into 2024. Depending on whether the Democrats win the presidency (and have a Democratic vice president who can break Senate ties), they can afford to lose zero to one Senate seats and maintain a majority.

    The vast majority, 23 of the 34, senators up for reelection in 2024 caucus with the Democrats. An abnormally large number (7) represent states Republican Donald Trump won at least once. This includes Arizona.

    With Sinema’s break from the Democratic party, the road is, if nothing else, curvier for Democrats.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • St. Louis school shooter had an AR-15-style rifle, 600 rounds of ammo and a note saying ‘I don’t have any friends. I don’t have any family,’ police say | CNN

    St. Louis school shooter had an AR-15-style rifle, 600 rounds of ammo and a note saying ‘I don’t have any friends. I don’t have any family,’ police say | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The 19-year-old gunman who killed two people and wounded several others at his former high school left a note saying his struggles led to “the perfect storm for a mass shooter,” St. Louis police said.

    Orlando Harris graduated from Central Visual and Performing Arts High School last year and returned Monday with an AR-15-style rifle, over 600 rounds of ammunition and more than a dozen high-capacity magazines, St. Louis police Commissioner Michael Sack said.

    Harris died at a hospital after a gun battle with officers.

    Investigators found a handwritten note in the car Harris drove to the school. Sack detailed some of the passages:

    “I don’t have any friends. I don’t have any family. I’ve never had a girlfriend. I’ve never had a social life. I’ve been an isolated loner my entire life,” the note said, according to Sack. “This was the perfect storm for a mass shooter.”

    Given the gunman’s extensive arsenal, the tragedy could have been “much worse,” the police chief said.

    Authorities credited locked doors and a quick law enforcement response – including by off-duty officers – for preventing more deaths at the school.

    But the shooter did not enter a checkpoint where security guards were stationed, said DeAndre Davis, director of safety and security for St. Louis Public Schools.

    Davis also said the security guards stationed in the district’s schools are not armed, but mobile officers who respond to calls at schools are.

    “For some people that would cause a stir of some sort,” Davis said Tuesday. “For us, we thought it’s best for our officers, for the normalcy of school for kids, to not have officers armed in the school.”

    Student Alexandria Bell, 15, and teacher Jean Kuczka, 61, were gunned down in the attack.

    One of the teacher’s colleagues, Kristie Faulstich, said Kuczka died protecting her students.

    During the rush to evacuate students from the school, “One student looked at me and she said, ‘They shot Ms. Kuczka.’ And then she said that Ms. Kuczka had put herself between the gunman and the students,” Faulstich said.

    Jean Kuczka

    Kuczka was looking forward to retiring in just a few years, her daughter Abigail Kuczka told CNN.

    Alexandria was looking forward to her Sweet 16, her father Andre Bell told CNN affiliate KSDK.

    “It’s a nightmare,” Bell said. “I am so upset. I need somebody – police, community folks, somebody – to make this make sense.”

    He joins a growing list of parents grappling with the reality of their child being killed at school.

    Across the country, at least 67 shootings have happened on school grounds so far this year.

    As the shooting unfolded in St. Louis, a Michigan prosecutor who just heard the guilty plea of a teen who killed four students last fall said she was no longer shocked to hear of another school shooting.

    “The fact that there is another school shooting does not surprise me – which is horrific,” Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald said.

    “We need to keep the public and inform the public … on how we can prevent gun violence. It is preventable, and we should never ever allow that to be something we just should have to live with.”

    Students grieve near Central Visual and Performing Arts High School, where two people were killed.

    Bell, the father of the slain teen, said he’s struggling to get answers about what happened.

    “I really want to know: How did that man get inside the school?” he told KSDK.

    Authorities have said the doors were locked. But the St. Louis police commissioner declined to detail how the shooter got in.

    “I don’t want to make this easy for anybody else,” Sack said.

    The gunman didn’t conceal his weapon when entering the school, Sack said.

    “When he entered, it was out … there was no mystery about what was going to happen,” the commissioner said. “He had it out and entered in an aggressive, violent manner.”

    Faulstich said school’s principal came over the intercom and used the code phrase “Miles Davis is in the building” to let faculty know an active shooter was in the building.

    “I instantly but calmly went to lock my door and turn off the lights,” the teacher said. “I then turned to my kids and told everyone to get in the corner.”

    Within a minute of locking her second-floor classroom door, Faulstich said, someone started “violently jostling the handle, trying to get in.”

    “I absolutely commend my students for their response,” Faulstich said. “Even in the moments when they were hearing gunfire going on all around they stood quiet and I know they did it to keep each other safe.”

    Adrianne Bolden, a freshman at the school, told KSDK that students thought the school was conducting a drill – until they heard the sirens and noticed their teachers were scared.

    “The teacher, she crawled over and she was asking for help to move the lockers to the door so they can’t get in,” Bolden said. “And we started hearing glass breaking from the outside and gunshots outside the door.”

    Sophomore Brian Collins, 15, suffered gunshot wounds to his hands and jaws. He escaped by jumping from a classroom window onto a ledge, his mother VonDina Washington said.

    “He told me they heard an active shooter notification over the intercom so everyone in the class hid,” Washington said. According to her son, the gunman then came into the classroom and fired several shots before leaving.

    After the gunman left the third-floor classroom, Washington said another student opened a classroom window, and some of them jumped.

    Brian has numbness in his hands and trouble moving some of his right-hand fingers.

    “He’s really good at drawing,” Washington said. “He went to CVPA for visual arts, and we’re hoping he’ll be able to draw again.”

    Math teacher David Williams told CNN everyone went into “drill mode,” turning off lights, locking doors and huddling in corners so they couldn’t be seen.

    He said he heard someone trying to open the door and a man yell, “You are all going to f**king die.”

    A short time later, a bullet came through one of the windows in his classroom, Williams said.

    His classroom is on the third floor, where Sack said police engaged the shooter.

    Eventually, an officer said she was outside, and the class ran out through nearby emergency doors.

    Security personnel were at the school when the gunman arrived, St. Louis Public Schools Communications Director George Sells said.

    “We had the seven personnel working in the building who did a wonderful job getting the alarm sounded quickly,” Sells said.

    The commissioner did say the school doors being locked likely delayed the gunman.

    “The school was closed and the doors were locked,” Sack told CNN affiliate KMOV. “The security staff did an outstanding job identifying the suspect’s efforts to enter, and immediately notified other staff and ensured that we were contacted.”

    After widespread controversy over the delayed response in confronting school shooters in Uvalde, Texas, and Parkland, Florida, Sack said responding officers in St. Louis wasted no time rushing into the school and stopping the gunman.

    “There was no sidewalk conference. There was no discussion,” Sack said. “There was no, ‘Hey, where are you going to?’ They just went right in.”

    A call about an active shooter at the high school came in around 9:11 a.m., according to a timeline provided by the commissioner.

    Police arrived on scene and made entry four minutes later.

    Officers found the gunman and began “engaging him in a gunfight” at 9:23 a.m. Two minutes later, officers reported the suspect was down.

    Asked about the eight minutes between officers’ arrival and making contact with the gunman, Sack said “eight minutes isn’t very long,” and that officers had to maneuver through a big school with few entrances and crowds of students and staff who were evacuating.

    Police found the suspect “not just by hearing the gunfire, but by talking to kids and teachers as they’re leaving,” Sack said.

    As phone calls came in from people hiding in different locations, officers fanned out and searched for students and staff to escort them out of the building.

    Officers who were at a church down the street for a fellow officer’s funeral also responded to the shooting, the commissioner said.

    A SWAT team that was together for a training exercise was also able to quickly load up and get to the school to perform a secondary sweep of the building, Sack said.

    Some officers were “off duty; some were in T-shirts, but they had their (ballistic) vests on,” the commissioner said. “They did an outstanding job.”

    Correction: An earlier version of this story gave the wrong age for 15-year-old Alexandria Bell, who was killed in the shooting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link