ECOCIDE X 2

Saudi Arabian Grand Prix to go ahead as planned despite Houthi missile attack

Oil facility 10 miles from track set ablaze on Friday afternoon  

Drivers hold four-hour meeting to discuss concerns

Smoke and flames rise from an oil facility near to the F1 circuit in the Saudi Arabian city of Jeddah after it was hit and set ablaze by a Houthi missile attack 

Photograph: Lars Baron/Getty


Giles Richards
THE GUARDIAN

Fri 25 Mar 2022


Race organisers have insisted that the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix will go ahead as planned after Yemen’s Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for a missile attack on an oil facility less than 10 miles from the circuit. But in a four-hour meeting with drivers that lasted until well past midnight local time, several are believed to have voiced their concerns to F1’s chief executive, Stefano Domenicali, with some lingering doubts over whether the race will still take place.

Discussions continued until 2.30am local time, over four hours after Domenicali had made his assurance that all was well. Organisers the Saudi Motorsport Company had earlier confirmed that it would go ahead after all 10 team principals agreed to race. “We are aware of the attack on the Aramco distribution station in Jeddah earlier this afternoon and remain in contact with the Saudi security authorities, as well as F1 and the FIA to ensure all necessary security and safety measures continue to be implemented to guarantee the safety of all visitors to the Formula One Saudi Arabian Grand Prix as well as the drivers, teams and stakeholders,” read a statement. “The race weekend scheduled will continue as planned. The safety and security of all our guests continues to be our main priority and we look forward to welcoming fans for a weekend of premium racing and entertainments.”


Fire breaks out at Jeddah oil depot before Saudi Arabia grand prix

Mercedes’ Toto Wolff said: “It was a good meeting. We, as team principals, have been assured that we are protected here, that’s probably the safety place in Saudi Arabia at the moment, that we’re racing.”

Red Bull’s Christian Horner was also confident it would go ahead. “We’ll be racing,” he said.

After the attack, huge plumes of black smoke rising high into the sky were clearly visible from the circuit. The Houthi rebels, who have been embroiled in war with a Saudi-led coalition for seven years, claimed to have carried it out, with Saudi state media saying the coalition had foiled a string of Houthi drone and rocket attacks. Last Sunday the Houthis attacked another oil facility in Jeddah as part of another wave of strikes.

Domenicali said he was assured by the Saudi authorities that the safety of the teams will be guaranteed. “We have received total assurances that, for the country, safety is first, no matter the situation – safety has to be guaranteed,” he said. “So we feel confident and we have to trust the local authority in that respect. Therefore, of course we will go ahead with the event.”

The team principals were unanimous in agreement at this stage that the race weekend should continue.

Some drivers were understood to be less convinced, however. Before the attack, Lewis Hamilton was unequivocal in demanding F1 does more to instigate reform in Saudi Arabia if the sport continues to race there. With the state accused of sportswashing and having recently executed 81 people in one day, the seven-times champion admitted he was shocked when he received a letter from a teenager sentenced to death for a crime he was alleged to have committed when he was 14.

Saudi Arabia’s human rights record has attracted enormous criticism – including allegations of indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Yemen – and placed F1 once more under the spotlight for assisting in legitimising the activities of the regime.

The Jeddah circuit is located approximately 10 miles from the site of the oil depot fire caused by a Houthi missile strike. Photograph: Clive Rose/Formula 1/Getty Images

Hamilton placed the pressure firmly on F1 to make a difference since the drivers have no say on the countries his sport visits. “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of those who are in power to really make the changes and we are not really seeing enough, we need to see more,” he said. “We don’t decide where we go to race in Formula One, but while it is not necessarily our responsibility, we are duty-bound to try and do what we can.”

Hamilton’s unease at racing in Saudi Arabia had not changed from last year’s race when he said he was “not comfortable” with F1 competing in the country. As revealed by the Guardian on Thursday Hamilton was written to earlier this week by the family of Abdullah al-Howaiti, who was sentenced to death for a crime they maintain he did not commit and was a minor when he was alleged to have done so.

Hamilton acknowledged he was aware of the letter and that its subject matter left him reeling. “It’s mind-blowing to hear the stories,” he said. “I’ve heard there is a letter sent to me from a 14-year-old on death row. When you’re 14 you don’t know what the hell you’re doing in life.”


F1 faces calls to quit Saudi Arabia while prisoner’s family asks Hamilton to help

Hamilton has attempted to ensure he is aware of human rights issues and has met representatives from some of the countries involved in an attempt to effect change.

The British driver remains committed to doing so but questioned why the authorities in Saudi Arabia and F1 itself were apparently oblivious to the need for reform.

“It is important we try to educate ourselves and with a little bit of difference, we can try to make sure we are doing something,” he said. “I am always open to having a discussion, to learning more and trying to understand exactly why things are happening and why they are not changing. It is 2022 and it is easy to make changes.”

With his Mercedes off the pace of the leaders he is searching for change too on track if the race takes place but is unlikely to enjoy any great steps forward this weekend. His car is suffering from the bouncing due to a downforce stall on straights and Mercedes are still working on an aerodynamic solution.

Hamilton was sixth-tenths off Charles Leclerc’s pole position last week in Bahrain and the team have no quick fix. Mercedes’s chief technical director, Andrew Shovlin, has said it could take two or three more races to solve their problems.

Ferrari and Red Bull were in a class of their own at Bahrain last week with the Scuderia’s Leclerc taking a one-two with Carlos Sainz. Mercedes were flattered by third and fourth, positions inherited after the Red Bulls of Max Verstappen and Sergio Pérez retired with a fuel system problem the team said it has now successfully resolved.

The battle between Ferrari and Red Bull is set to be fascinating. They are closely matched on pace, with Ferrari’s new engine proving to be hugely competitive. However, Jeddah is a different circuit to Bahrain, where there is a preponderance of slow corners. Jeddah is quick, indeed some drivers have suggested dangerously so, with a combination of close walls and blind corners.

Ferrari were strong in Bahrain through and in acceleration out of the slower corners while Red Bull enjoyed the superior straight-line pace. How they perform in Jeddah will be another indicator of relative strengths and weaknesses.

DOCTRINE OF HUMANITARIAN WAR

Madeleine Albright Was a Killer

Madeleine Albright has died at 84. She was a pioneering imperialist who passionately advocated greater use of deadly violence in pursuit of a US-dominated post–Cold War global order — and killed many, many people in the process.

From 1993 to 1997, Madeleine Albright served as United Nations ambassador. In that capacity, she presided over the brutal post–Gulf War sanctions on Iraq. 

(Chatham House / Flickr)


BYLIZA FEATHERSTONE
Jacobin

Madeleine Albright, who died Wednesday at the age of eighty-four, was America’s first female secretary of state. But the countless headlines touting that fact risk reducing her accomplishments to gender. That’s not fair: she was so much more than a trailblazer.

Albright was an imperial ghoul, as ruthless in her pursuit of American global dominance as any man. She played a central role in crafting a post–Cold War policy that wrought devastation on multiple continents. Her biography was a harrowing one: her family fled Nazi persecution when she was a child, and twenty-six of her relatives, including three grandparents, were murdered in the Holocaust. It’s a traumatic story, but rest assured: she presided over of plenty of trauma and death for others in return.

From 1993 to 1997, Albright served as United Nations ambassador. In that capacity, she presided over the brutal post–Gulf War sanctions on Iraq, with the aim of maximizing the misery of Iraqis so as to encourage Saddam Hussein’s overthrow. In a 1996 interview with Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes, Albright seemed to suggest that the deaths of other people’s children were simply a cost of doing empire. “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima,” said Stahl. “And you know, is the price worth it?” Albright answered, “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

Although the mortality estimates Stahl was referring to have subsequently been questioned by researchers, Albright made it clear that she was quite prepared to inflict death on that scale. It’s hard to fathom the death of more than half a million children, and the refractory misery, for so many families, contained in that one statistic. Yet that was a “price” Albright was willing to extract from ordinary people in that poor country, where sanctions deprived Iraqis of medicines, clean drinking water, and essential infrastructure.

The Powell Doctrine — that is, the view of post–Cold War foreign policy advanced by Clinton’s Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Colin Powell (also recently eulogized here and not kindly) — was that the United States should limit its military interventions to situations in which its own national interests are threatened. Albright did not agree, and they clashed over what the US role should be in crises like Bosnia. Powell wrote in his memoir that he “almost had an aneurysm” when she asked him, “What’s the point of having this superb military we’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

As UN ambassador, Albright drove UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali from power after a relentless campaign, a sorry episode that sheds some light on her vision of the fin de siècle world order. Boutros-Ghali, whose tenure in office was supported by every country other than the United States, later attributed his ouster to his publication of a UN report arguing that an Israeli attack on a refugee camp in Lebanon, which killed one hundred people, was deliberate and not a mistake, contrary to the Israeli government’s claims. US officials denied that this was the reason, citing instead disputes over Rwanda, Croatia, and Bosnia. He had ruffled some Western ruling-class feathers by calling Bosnia a “war of the rich.” As well, Boutros-Ghali, an architect of the Camp David accords, saw Albright’s campaign against him as racist or xenophobic pandering to anti-UN Republicans (Bob Dole, for example, had taken to making fun of the Egyptian secretary general’s name: “Booootros Booootros” or “Boo Boo”), who were especially animated after fifteen US soldiers died in a botched UN peacekeeping raid in Somalia. Among other means of driving the secretary general from power, Albright falsely accused Boutros-Ghali of corruption. Writing in Le Monde Diplomatique at the time, Eric Rouleau suggested the real reason for Albright’s vendetta against her popular colleague:

The fall of the Berlin Wall had enabled the United States to conduct the Gulf War almost as it pleased and this suggested a model for the future: the UN proposes, on Washington’s initiative and the US disposes. But Mr. Boutros-Ghali did not share that view of the end of the Cold War.

From 1997 to 2001, Albright was secretary of state, under President Bill Clinton. In that much-celebrated groundbreaking role, she continued inflicting unimaginable suffering on the Iraqis. UN assistant secretary-general Denis Halliday resigned his post in 1999 in order to speak out against the sanctions; the US was “knowingly killing thousands of Iraqis each month,” he said at the time, a policy he called “genocide.” Although many Americans were shocked when the George W. Bush administration invaded Iraq, the reality is that when Bush came into office, the United States was already bombing Iraq, on average, about three times a week. That’s our girl! Just as warmongering as a man.

Albright also promoted NATO’s expansion into the former Soviet countries in Eastern Europe, a reckless trajectory that numerous high-ranking diplomats over the years have warned would inevitably antagonize Russia. That policy has contributed significantly to the terrifying potential nuclear conflict that we’re now facing, as well as the awful massacre of Ukrainian civilians (at least 977 for certain, as of yesterday, and the UN high commissioner for human rights believes the real number is much higher).

Albright never retired, a distinction that her fans will no doubt see as a badass rejection of ageism. But it would have been much better for the world had she taken some time off to bask in her considerable achievements. Her consulting company helped Pfizer avoid sharing their international property, although doing so would save lives around the world during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine patents remain a major cause of global vaccine apartheid and mass death. But it’s unlikely that this troubled her on her deathbed: the deaths of poor, brown people who aren’t Americans have always been “worth the price” to Albright.

During the 2016 presidential primary, she said of women (like this writer) who didn’t support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” She later apologized for the comment in an op-ed column in the New York Times, so I don’t want to be petty about it. After all, the Iraqi people never got an apology from her. But reviewing the evidence above, it was reckless of Albright to consign other women to that famous inferno.

Almost certainly, there’s already a reservation in her name at that sizzling underground hot spot. Maybe there she will finally get the recognition she deserves, as a standout among murderous imperial warmongers of any gender.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Liza Featherstone is a columnist for Jacobin, a freelance journalist, and the author of Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers’ Rights at Wal-Mart.

SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=KOSOVO

Seeing the Forest for the Trees
Thesis on The Kosovo Crisis and the Crisis of Global Capitalism
(originally written May 1999, Bill Clinton set the stage for George W. to invade Afghanistan and Iraq for humanitarian purposes.)
http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005/01/war-whats-it-good-for-profit.html

CLIMATE CHANGE

'Extremely dry': Farmers in southern Alberta gear up for drought conditions

A farmer's field in Alberta is shown.

Karsen Marczuk
CTV News Lethbridge Video Journalist
Published March 25, 2022 


With the Lethbridge area not seeing much snow over the past few months, the dry conditions are already causing grief for some farmers.

"We had some snow fall but most of that just blew away or blew around," said James Johnson with Johnson Fresh Farms near Taber, Alta. "It’s still extremely dry."

Just weeks away from spring seeding, Johnson calls the dry conditions just another bump in the road. But there are more bumps on the road than usual this year, like the rising cost of fertilizer and gas as a result of Russia’s attack on Ukraine.


"Especially with the high input costs right now with fuel and fertilizer, I know it's probably a little bit different for the dryland guys, they're really going have to think long and hard (about) how much fertilizer they want to risk putting on their crop," said Johnson. "We’re lucky to have irrigation."

Southern Alberta experienced a large drought throughout the summer last year, with many crops wilting away in the heat.

"We’re going into this season really lacking any sub-soil moisture at all. In some areas, there will be some top moisture, and I’ve seen some reports on that, where people think they have enough to maybe germinated, but it's not enough to carry the crop on,” said Lynn Jacobson, president of the Alberta Federation of Agriculture.

Jacobson says the lack of moisture can effect more than just crops.

"There's not going to be a lot of grass for the cattle for grazing, for people with cattle, so that's going to have an effect on people with grazing leases and even their own pastures," he said. "And hay is already tight this year, so that's just going to cause another problem."

There isn't much precipitation in the long-range forecast, something Environment Canada meteorologist Alysa Pederson says has been the trend since October.

“We only had about 88.7 mm of precipitation, which is only about 63 per cent of normal,” she said.

Pederson said much of Western Canada saw a La Nina throughout the winter, which brought less precipitation.

She says cooler but drier conditions are expected throughout the spring in the Lethbridge area.

“We’re looking at a little bit below normal, but that doesn’t mean we're going to have warm weeks, or below normal weeks, kind of averaging out through the season,” Pederson said.

A map from Environment Canada.

Pederson added that the past winter is in line with 2021 and 2020.

With warmer weather on the horizon, Jacobson expects crop insurance to be a hot item once again this summer.

Both Johnson and Jacobson say all they can do now is cross their fingers and hope for rain.

At 96 degrees, Phoenix breaks 1990 heat record in first heatwave of spring
Adam Terro
Arizona Republic


Temperatures in Phoenix hit a new record high on Friday with the weather expected to warm up even more over the weekend, according to the National Weather Service in Phoenix.

Phoenix Sky Harbor reached 96 degrees Friday afternoon, setting a new daily high-temperature record for March 25, 15 degrees above the normal temperature for the date.

The previous record of 93 degrees was set in 1990 and 1988, according to NWS Phoenix.

Temperatures are expected to increase over the weekend, peaking on Saturday with an expected high of 96 degrees and a low of 63 degrees at night, NWS meteorologist Marvin Percha said.

Forecasts for Sunday include a high of 94 degrees and a low of 61 with a slight breeze persisting throughout the weekend, Percha said.

It's the first heatwave of the spring season in the Valley, and although not hot enough is to force closures of trails and parks in Phoenix, officials are advising hikers to take precautions.

The Phoenix Parks and Recreation Services reminded those planning to go out onto trails over the weekend to be prepared and stay safe.

Hikers are encouraged to go out in the mornings and evenings in order to avoid the hottest times of the day. Additionally, hikers should dress appropriately for the weather, stay hydrated, carry a phone in case of emergencies and stay on designated trails.

The weather is expected to quickly cool off at the start of next week.

NWS forecasts showers to begin Monday and last throughout Tuesday as well. A high of 85 is expected on Monday, and temperatures will drop to 71 on Tuesday, along with an 80% chance of showers, according to Percha.

In addition to the rain, the breeze from the weekend is expected to pick up and reach gusts of up to 25 mph on Monday, according to NWS Phoenix.

The Ketanji Brown Jackson Hearings Show Marriage Equality Is the Next Target Once Roe Falls

BY MARK JOSEPH STERN

MARCH 23, 2022

Sen. John Cornyn questions Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday. 

Win McNamee/Getty Images

For several decades, Republicans used Supreme Court nomination hearings to sharpen their knives against Roe v. Wade. They have long seized the opportunity to make their case against Roe, railing against the decision as a paragon of judicial activism and overreach. During Ketanji Brown Jackson’s hearings this week, GOP senators have, predictably, condemned Roe—but not as much as might be expected. Instead, many senators have turned their attention to a different precedent that’s likely next on their hit list once Roe likely falls this summer: Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision recognizing same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry.

Loathing for Obergefell emerged early on Tuesday, when Republican Sen. John Cornyn launched a frontal assault on the ruling, then sought Jackson’s reaction. He began by criticizing “substantive due process,” which holds that the “liberty” protected by the due process clause protects substantive rights, not just procedural ones. The Supreme Court has used this theory to enforce “unenumerated rights” that it deems fundamental, including the right to marry, raise children, use contraception, and terminate a pregnancy. Along with equal protection, it served as the basis of Obergefell. According to Cornyn, however, this doctrine is “just another form of judicial policymaking” that can be used “to justify basically any result.”

Obergefell, Cornyn told Jackson, was “a dramatic departure from previous laws” that contradicted “234 years” of history. Most states, he pointed out, had not yet repealed their bans on same-sex marriage when the “edict” came down. “Do you share my concern,” he asked Jackson, “that when the court … creates a new right, declaring that anything conflicting with that is unconstitutional, that it creates a circumstance where those who may hold traditional beliefs on something as important as marriage, that they will be vilified as unwilling to assent to this new orthodoxy?”

Cornyn then lectured Jackson about the alleged evils of Obergefell. “When the court overrules the decisions made by the people,” he told her, “as they did in 32 of the 35 states that decided to recognize only traditional marriage between a man and a woman, that is an act of judicial policymaking.” The senator went on to claim that “Dred Scott, which treated slaves as chattel property, was a product of substantive due process.” (That’s not actually true, but it marks an obvious effort to sully decisions like Obergefell with the taint of racist origins.) Cornyn also dismissed Obergefell as “court-made law that we’re all supposed to salute smartly and follow because nine people who are unelected, who have lifetime tenure, whose salary cannot be reduced while they serve in office—five of them decide that this is the way the world should be.”

Republican Sen. John Kennedy picked up this baton a few hours later. Kennedy criticized Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of Obergefell, for refusing to identify a “formula” for fundamental rights and instead going “case by case.”

“Can you understand,” Kennedy asked, “why some Americans go, ‘Wait a minute. These are unenumerated rights. Are justices interpreting the Constitution or are they just deciding a right when they get five votes and it’s just a moral conviction?’ ” Republican Sen. Ben Sasse also grilled Jackson about substantive due process and the court’s authority “to create new fundamental rights.” He returned to the subject on Wednesday, then expressed disappointment when she declined to disavow the doctrine.

In case it wasn’t clear what these senators were up to, Cornyn made it explicit on Wednesday afternoon. “The Constitution doesn’t mention the word abortion,” he lectured Jackson, “just like it doesn’t mention the word marriage.” These senators appear confident that the Supreme Court will overrule the constitutional right to an abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which should come down by June. They are so confident, in fact, that they prodded Jackson to say whether she would abide by Dobbs once she joins the court, rather than fight to revive Roe. But on the whole, Republicans were noticeably less engaged over abortion than they were about same-sex marriage.

It’s easy to see why. The GOP, alongside the conservative legal movement, has built up a massive infrastructure to fight the culture wars. After Roe, it will need a new target, and marriage equality is the obvious choice. Republicans never really gave up on the issue, but rather staged a tactical retreat after Obergefell, pressing for sweeping exemptions from civil rights laws to legalize discrimination against same-sex couples. But after Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett replaced the gay-friendly Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, this retreat slowed to a crawl, and Republicans sought to regain some ground. They pressed the Supreme Court to roll back protections for same-sex couples (to no avail—yet) and have now launched a campaign to mandate anti-LGBTQ discrimination in schools. A GOP legislator in Texas has asked Attorney General Ken Paxton to declare that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage remains valid and enforceable.

As the architect of Texas’ vigilante abortion ban has candidly acknowledged, overturning Roe will leave Obergefell hanging by a thread. And the unraveling won’t stop there. A number of major decisions protecting reproductive rights, including access to contraception, will be imperiled if the court repudiates substantive due process. So will Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 decision legalizing interracial marriage, which—just like Obergefell—relied on both due process and equal protection. Republican Sen. Mike Braun claims to have misspoken when he said that Loving should be overturned on Tuesday. But he was only following his beliefs to their logical conclusion.

The fact that Republicans don’t talk much about marriage equality these days doesn’t mean they’ve accepted it. The GOP’s 2020 platform called for the government to cease recognizing same-sex unions. Republican legislators around the country are falling over themselves to ban discussion of same-sex marriage in public schools. And now Republican senators have used the Jackson hearings to test the waters with Obergefell, revealing a newly invigorated push for its reversal. And why not? The crusade against Roe seemed hopeless for decades until, suddenly, it didn’t. With six conservative justices installed on the Supreme Court, there’s no limit to Republicans’ anti-gay dreams.

MEGAN RAPINOE CALLED OUT MITCH MCCONNELL'S TWEET ABOUT KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

“This is so gross.”

BY JILLIAN GIANDURCO
MARCH 25, 2022
GILBERT CARRASQUILLO/GC IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES

Even though Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Senate confirmation hearings ended on March 24, some people are seriously fed up with the way Jackson was treated throughout the hearings — including soccer star Megan Rapinoe. After Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader in the Senate, tweeted he would not be voting to confirm Jackson to the Supreme Court, Rapinoe called out the senator for his support of Brett Kavanaugh during his controversial Supreme Court hearing in 2018, and addressed what she says his refusal to elect Jackson actually means. If you think there’s a chance the senator may change his mind, Megan Rapinoe’s tweet about Mitch McConnell and Ketanji Brown Jackson says it all.




On March 24, McConnell took to Twitter to release a statement saying he “cannot and will not support” Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson “for a lifetime appointment to our highest court,” citing Jackson’s record and “performance this week” as the reasons why. It’s a pretty lame excuse, considering she’s held five different roles with the U.S. legal system, including public defender, district judge, and judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As The Washington Post pointed out, this experience makes her more qualified than any sitting member of the court. Luckily, Megan Rapinoe — who is no stranger to speaking out about her political beliefs — saw right through his sentiments and responded to the minority leader’s flagrant display of double standards in a quote tweet, writing, “Your dude couldn’t even answer questions about beer.”

Rapinoe finished off her clap back tweet by calling out McConnell’s real reason for refusing to elect Jackson, writing, “You couldn’t possibly yell ‘it’s because she’s a Black woman’ any louder. This is so gross.”


Jackson would be the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court, and, surprise surprise, her confirmation process has been troubling. Through her process, Jackson has had to face racist and sexist lines of questioning, bad-faith questions about her credentials, and suggestions that her record shows her to be incompetent or immoral. At the same time, Jackson has the highest approval ratings of any Supreme Court nominee in 35 years, according to a Gallup poll. Many of those watching the four days of her hearings called out her treatment as racist, sexist, or both, particularly as compared to previous confirmation hearings.

It’s that comparison that clearly troubled Rapinoe — the “dude” she referred to was Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who famously lashed out during his confirmation hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2018. Kavanaugh’s hearing was an exceptionally bad one, and included Christine Blasey Ford’s harrowing recount of Kavanaugh’s alleged attempt to sexually assault her in 1980s (Kavanaugh denied her allegations), and Kavanaugh’s famous defense of beer as part of his rebuttal of Blasey Ford’s allegations. Still, McConnell’s support for the nominee never wavered. McConnell even went so far as to call Kavanaugh “one of most qualified and most impressive Supreme Court nominees in our nation’s history” on October 1, 2018, and referred to Kavanaugh’s hearing responses as “thoughtful” and “expansive.”



Of course, McConnell’s history with controversial Supreme Court nominees is, uh, thorough. Back in 2016, McConnell threw his support behind President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch: The push for Gorsuch came after McConnell spent 11 months stonewalling Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, claiming that new justices shouldn’t be confirmed in an election year.

But fast forward four years, and McConnell managed to expedite the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, just before that year’s election. Barrett was confirmed to the lifelong position exactly 30 days after her nomination announcement, and eight days before Election Day on Nov. 3. (His rationale at the time was that it didn’t count this time, because Trump was running for re-election.) Noticing a pattern yet?

I guess at least this time, McConnell just said “no” without trying to justify it. It’s almost a shame — who knows what he might have come up with this time.

'Depressed' Ukrainian-Born Russian General Walked Out On U.S. Military Meeting: Report

U.S. officials said Maj. Gen. Yevgeny Ilyin called the situation in his native country "tragic" in what they interpreted as a sign of greater divisions in Russia.

By Mary Papenfuss
Mar. 25, 2022



In a rare burst of emotion, a “depressed” Ukrainian-born Russian major general called the military operation in his home country “tragic” and suddenly walked out of a meeting with U.S. officials, CNN reported Thursday.

The Americans indicated the emotional moment was likely a sign of a broader upheaval and poor morale in Russia over the military operation in Ukraine.

Maj. Gen. Yevgeny Ilyin, deputy chief of the main directorate of international cooperation, became upset in a rare meeting late last month with Americans at the Russian ministry of defense in Moscow, CNN reported.

A U.S. defense attaché inquired about Ilyin’s Ukrainian family roots just as the meeting was breaking up, according to a U.S. summary of the meeting obtained by CNN.

The typically “stoic” Ilyin became “flushed and agitated,” according to the U.S. account of the meeting. He said he was born in Dnipropetrovsk and then moved with his family to Donetsk, where he went to school. Both cities are in Ukraine.

He then called the situation in Ukraine “tragic and I am very depressed over it” — then exited the room without shaking anyone’s hand, according to the account, CNN reported.

What specifically Ilyin was reacting to, as well as the circumstances of the meeting and other details, could not immediately be determined, according to CNN.

“At the very least,” noted the American account, “it is clear that morale problems among Russian forces are not limited to front-line troops,” the summary concluded.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, is reportedly furious and humiliated that Russia wasn’t able to conquer Ukraine in just days, as he expected. Amid his fury, top spies have been placed under house arrest and at least one top government official, Putin aide Anatoly Chubais, has reportedly fled Russia over his opposition to the invasion of Ukraine.

Kremlin Flabbergasted by Putin Adviser Who Fled Russia

A sunset over Kremlin churches in Moscow on Thursday. (AP Photo)

By Luca Cacciatore    |   Friday, 25 March 2022 

The Russian government is reportedly beside itself after the former chairman and CEO of Rusnano, Anatoly Chubais, a champion of privatization in the post-Soviet era, fled the country despite no Western sanctions, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday.

Chubais also resigned from his position as Russian President Vladimir Putin's special envoy for sustainable development, according to the outlet. He was last seen in Istanbul, a site quickly becoming a hotspot for fleeing oligarchs after Turkey refused to join EU sanctions.

Russian political analyst Ilya Grashchenkov told the Moscow Gazette on Friday that the reason for Chubais' departure was probably the result of a multitude of factors.

Grashchenkov said the oligarch's role as the special envoy for sustainable development "was highly connected to the relations of Western elites." After the total economic war on Russia began, Chubais' position became a liability for both parties, he theorized.

"Now is the time for Chubais to leave; if he stays, he will be part of the current system in the eyes of the West and the opposition," Grashchenkov said. "Chubais openly opposes the Kremlin. He is an open opponent of the special operation [in Ukraine] and Putin's politicians — plus, he can conduct some political activities in the West."

Others see the departure as almost entirely politically motivated, signaling Chubais may be in danger of Kremlin retaliation.

Andrei Kolesnikov, a political scientist at the Carnegie Moscow Center, compared the Russian elite to a submarine during an appearance on a Russian syndicated broadcast on Wednesday.

"The Russian elites are now a submarine from which it is terrifying to step out." He said. "It is very difficult to emerge.

"For rich people, bound by a large amount of information that is inaccessible to us, it is almost impossible to leave this submarine."

Kolesnikov compared Chubais' exit to former Russian adviser to the World Bank Boris Lvin earlier this month

"There was also a man who left the World Bank staff — Boris Lvin, a man of liberal and libertarian convictions," Kolesnikov said. "All these people are economists and liberals, such a combination of circumstances. All the rest sit in their seats and respect their leader.

How Joe Biden turned into a leading boogeyman for Republicans

COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED TO A NICER GUY

Analysis by Adam Wollner, CNN
Fri March 25, 2022

U.S. President Joe Biden speaks to the media in the framework of a European Union leaders summit amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, in Brussels, Belgium March 24, 2022. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

(CNN)One year ago, Republicans were struggling to find a line of attack that stuck to President Joe Biden, who enjoyed approval ratings in the mid-50s.

It would be an understatement to say much has changed since then. While there were some signs the public's views of Biden were on the uptick following his State of the Union address and initial response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, his job performance numbers have still been mostly mired in the low 40s.

Now, new polling from Pew Research Center suggests Biden is not only broadly unpopular, but emerging as a chief campaign villain for Republicans in this year's midterm elections.

Pew's survey found that 71% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters said they think of their vote for Congress this fall as being "against Biden." Among Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters, just 46% said they view their vote as "for Biden." (Among all registered voters, 36% said their vote would be "against Biden," 24% said "for Biden," and 38% said Biden would not be much of a factor.)

While that wide party split should be concerning for Democrats, it's not terribly surprising. Historically, voters tend to deliver a rebuke to the party in power during the first midterm of a president's tenure.

What's more surprising is that Biden -- who was seen by many as a middle-of-the-road alternative to Trump in the 2020 election and immediately after -- is more of a motivating factor for midterm voters of the opposing party than other recent presidents who were initially seen as more polarizing.

Pew's polling found in June of 2018 that 61% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said their vote for Congress would be against then-President Donald Trump, who was despised by liberals from the outset. In June of 2010, 54% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters said their midterm vote would be against then-President Barack Obama, who faced opposition from the Tea Party movement early on in his administration.

And in June of 2006, ahead of the second midterm election of George W. Bush's presidency, 65% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters said their congressional vote would be against him. At that point, Bush's popularity was in the tank for a variety of reasons, including the Iraq War and his response to Hurricane Katrina.

In all three years, the president's party encountered a midterm "shellacking," as Obama famously put it in his case. (In Bush's first midterm in 2002, the GOP bucked historical trends and gained seats in Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attack.) And right now, Biden is even more of a motivating factor for the rival party.

So, what's changed for Biden? The President's numbers may say less about him personally than the increasingly polarizing nature of the country's politics.

Rather than landing on a single line of attack, Republicans have just attacked Biden on, well, everything, ranging from the Afghanistan withdrawal, to the pandemic, to inflation, to his Supreme Court pick. And they've done so relentlessly in ads, congressional floor speeches and appearances on Fox.

That's not to say the criticism Biden has faced is unwarranted or that he hasn't had his fair share of missteps. And his numbers among Democrats and independents have suffered over the past 14 months too.

But the reality is there's likely very little the President could have done in an increasingly divided and nationalized environment to avoid a stinging and widespread backlash from Republicans (some of whom don't even believe Biden was duly elected in the first place).

Republicans know this and will look to take full advantage of it heading into November.

The Point: Biden's numbers in the Pew poll further underscore the uphill climb Democrats face this fall -- and just how polarized the political climate has become.

The Supreme Court rules that Joe Biden is commander-in-chief. Three justices dissent.

The judiciary cannot be part of the chain of command.

By Ian Millhiser Mar 25, 2022,

President Joe Biden salutes Marines outside the Marine Barracks as he makes a surprise walk down Barracks Row in Washington, DC, on January 25, 2022. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Friday evening decided, no, it was not going to needlessly insert itself in the military chain of command above President Joe Biden.

The Court’s decision in Austin v. U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 largely halted a lower court order that permitted certain sailors to defy a direct order. A group of Navy special operations personnel sought an exemption from the Pentagon’s requirement that all active duty service members get vaccinated against Covid-19, claiming that they should receive a religious exemption.

A majority of the Court effectively ruled that, yes, in fact, troops do have to follow orders, including an order to take a vaccine.

The decision is undeniably a win for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary that has prevailed for many decades. But the fact that the Court had to weigh in on this at all — not to mention that three justices, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the majority — is a worrisome sign about America’s judiciary.

As Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained in a brief opinion laying out why the lower court erred, this court “in effect inserted itself into the Navy’s chain of command, overriding military commanders’ professional military judgments.” Had the Court ruled the other way in SEALs, it would have effectively placed itself at the apex of the military’s chain of command, displacing Biden as commander-in-chief.

But as Kavanaugh correctly notes in his concurring opinion, there is a long line of Supreme Court precedents establishing that courts should be exceedingly reluctant to interfere with military affairs.

In Gilligan v. Morgan (1973), for example, the Court held that “the complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments,” and that “it is difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.”

Nevertheless, Judge Reed O’Connor, a notoriously partisan judge in Texas who is best known for a failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, ruled in favor of the service members who refused to follow a direct order. And the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused the Navy’s request to stay key parts of O’Connor’s order.

That left the responsibility of restoring the military’s proper chain of command to the Supreme Court. Though the Court’s order does not wipe out O’Connor’s decision in its entirety, it temporarily blocks that decision “insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering respondents’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions.”

But the astonishing thing about the SEALs order is that the Supreme Court needed to intervene in this case at all.

Order prevailed, but several justices wanted to upend things

The most astonishing thing about the SEALs order is that at least three justices dissented. (While it is likely that six justices sided with the Navy here, only four justices — the three dissenters plus Kavanaugh — chose to reveal how they voted. So it is possible that one other justice silently dissented.)

Thomas did not explain why he dissented, but Alito published a brief opinion, joined by Gorsuch, which lays out why he thinks that judges should be allowed to countermand orders handed down to military personnel by their commanders. Among other things, Alito complains that the Navy did not provide service members with a meaningful process they could use to request a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement.

The Navy provided the Court with several statements from high-ranking officers explaining why it requires nearly every sailor to be vaccinated, and why it generally considers unvaccinated special warfare personnel undeployable.

According to Adm. William Lescher, the Navy’s second-highest-ranking officer, Navy vessels have only limited medical facilities. So, if one of the ship’s crew becomes seriously ill, that “would require a return to port or an emergency medical evacuation by helicopter” — potentially forcing the whole ship to abandon its mission to accommodate one unvaccinated service member.

Special warfare personnel, moreover, often deploy in very small units. So one member becoming sick is a big blow to the team. And, the Navy argued, special operations “are often conducted in hostile, austere or diplomatically sensitive environments” where a severely ill service member might not be able to obtain local medical care and may need to be evacuated by the Navy — an operation that is itself dangerous and that could force the sick service member’s fellow sailors to risk their lives on his or her behalf.

To these concerns, Alito essentially said, “Prove it.”

“In order to win at trial,” Alito wrote in response to the Navy’s warnings, “it would not be enough for the Government to posit that sending an unvaccinated Seal on such a mission might produce such consequences.” Rather, the Navy would have to prove that requiring vaccination “is the least restrictive means of furthering the interest it asserts in light of the present nature of the pandemic, what is known about the spread of the virus and the effectiveness of the vaccines, prevalent practices, and the physical characteristics of Navy Seals and others in the Special Warfare community.”

I want to emphasize the sheer enormity of what Alito is suggesting here. Once the Supreme Court permits a single servicemember to defy a direct order, that opens the door to any member of the armed services who disagrees with an order running to court to seek an exemption.

Think of the kinds of orders that military personnel have to obey — “take that hill,” “guard this prisoner,” “cease fire.” And even if Alito did not intend for his dissent to apply to such battlefield orders, his dissent could effectively neutralize major military assets while religious liberty cases brought by service members are being litigated. Imagine, for example, if the captain of an aircraft carrier is ordered to deploy his ship close to Ukraine — but the captain refuses because, for religious reasons, that captain believes that Vladimir Putin should prevail in his war against Ukraine.

The Court has understood for many decades that the military simply cannot function if its members think orders may be optional. As the Supreme Court held in Goldman v. Weinberger (1986), “the essence of military service ‘is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service.’”

Permitting service members to seek exemptions from the courts, Goldman explains, would undermine service members’ “habit of immediate compliance with military procedures and orders” — a habit that “must be virtually reflex with no time for debate or reflection.”

At the end of the day, every service member must know who their commander is, and everyone must respect the chain of command. There can only be one person at the apex of that chain, and it can either be Joe Biden or Samuel Alito.

And, as Kavanaugh notes in his opinion, the Constitution is very clear about who is at the top of that chain. It says, in unambiguous terms, that “the President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”