WATCH: Rain Continues Into Afternoon, But Sun Takes Over Soon
- Business Insider
Joe Manchin's opposition to party-line infrastructure bill may derail early Democratic efforts to capitalize on Biden stimulus
Sen. Joe Manchin criticized reconciliation as a path to more stimulus spending on climate and infrastructure, and he opposes ending the filibuster.
Meghan Markle says 'rude and racist are not the same' while addressing how she's been treated by the press compared to Kate Middleton
Meghan Markle told Oprah that a royal press team would defend Kate Middleton but didn't do the same for her.
- The New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden has nominated two female generals to elite, four-star commands, the Defense Department announced, months after their Pentagon bosses had agreed on their promotions but held them back out of fears that former President Donald Trump would reject the officers because they were women. The nominations of Gen. Jacqueline D. Van Ovost of the Air Force to head the Transportation Command, which oversees the military’s sprawling global transportation network, and of Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson of the Army to head the Southern Command, which oversees military activities in Latin America, now advance to the Senate, where they are expected to be approved. The unusual strategy to delay the officers’ promotions — intended to protect their accomplished careers — was devised last fall by Mark Esper, the defense secretary at the time, and Gen. Mark Milley, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times They both thought the two generals were exceptional officers deserving of the commands. But under Trump, they worried that any candidates other than white men for jobs mostly held by white men might run into resistance once their nominations reached the White House. Esper and Milley feared that if they even broached the women’s names, Trump and some of his top aides would replace them with their own candidates before leaving office. So the Pentagon officials delayed their recommendations until after the election in November, betting that if Biden won, then he and his aides would be more supportive of the picks than Trump, who had feuded with Esper and Milley and had a history of disparaging women. They stuck to the plan even after Trump fired Esper six days after the election. “They were chosen because they were the best officers for the jobs, and I didn’t want their promotions derailed because someone in the Trump White House saw that I recommended them or thought DOD was playing politics,” Esper, referring to the Department of Defense, said in an interview with The New York Times, which first reported the strategy last month. “This was not the case,” Esper added. “They were the best qualified. We were doing the right thing.” The strategy paid off Saturday, when the Pentagon announced in separate afternoon statements and in Twitter messages from its press secretary, John Kirby, that Biden had endorsed the generals’ promotions and that the White House was formally submitting them to the Senate for approval. The disclosure last month that the Pentagon senior leadership had held back the nominations to protect the careers of the two officers from Trump prompted a lively debate in military journals and on social media. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who left the military last summer after his own entanglement with the White House, argued in the national security blog Lawfare that Esper and Milley should have fought it out with Trump. “Upholding good order and discipline within the military does not mean dodging difficult debates with the commander in chief,” Vindman wrote. But defenders of Esper and Milley’s strategy say that Vindman’s argument ignores the civil-military crisis between Trump and the senior Pentagon leaders in the fall. Trump, furious that they had stood up to him when he wanted to use active-duty troops to battle Black Lives Matter protesters, was openly disparaging of Esper to his aides and to the public. Trump was also countermanding the Pentagon at seemingly every turn, especially on social issues. When Milley and senior Army officials sought to set up a commission to look into renaming bases that were named after Confederate generals, Trump took to Twitter, vowing that “my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations.” Lloyd J. Austin III, the new defense secretary, declined last month to comment on the lengths to which Esper and Milley went to ensure that Van Ovost and Richardson received their command assignments. “I would just say that I’ve seen the records of both of these women,” he said. “They are outstanding.” Promotions for the military’s top generals and admirals are decided months before they take over their new positions. So the delay in formally submitting the two officers’ promotions should not affect when they start their new jobs, most likely this summer, Pentagon and congressional officials said. Van Ovost is a four-star officer, leading the Air Force’s Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois. Of the 43 four-star generals and admirals in the U.S. military, she is the only woman. Richardson is the three-star commander of the Army component of the Pentagon’s Northern Command, based in San Antonio, which is playing an important role in providing military assistance to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s coronavirus vaccination program. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. © 2021 The New York Times Company
- The Independent
Follow the latest in US politics
- The Independent
Lauren Boebert: Congresswoman linked to QAnon attacks Democrats for being ‘obsessed with conspiracies’
- The Independent
Biden signs executive order to expand voting rights: ‘If you have the best ideas, you have nothing to hide’
‘Every eligible voter should be able to vote and have it counted’
- CBS News
- The Telegraph
- NBC News
Stone Foltz, 20, a sophomore at Bowling Green State University and a new member of the Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity, was allegedly hazed during an initiation event when he was made to drink alcohol.
- Business Insider
- Business Insider
- USA TODAY
- The Telegraph
Nearly 11,000 women could be living with undiagnosed breast cancer following 'protect the NHS' drive
- The Telegraph
Beneath a soft blanket of Californian therapy-speak, the Sussexes were in vicious attack mode. Everyone – except the Queen – was a target. Prince Charles, Prince William, the Duchess of Cambridge, unnamed members of the Royal Family, advisers, the press... All of them are guilty, guilty, guilty – of not having the warmth, goodness and openness of the Sussexes. There was bombshell after bombshell. A regular theme was that, every time something was said by the press to be Meghan’s fault, it was apparently someone else’s fault. So it wasn’t the Duchess of Cambridge who was reduced to tears by Meghan before the Sussexes’ wedding. No – it was the Duchess of Cambridge who made Meghan cry but did the right thing: “She owned it, and she apologised.” There were allegations of racism and the very sad revelation that the Duchess had had suicidal thoughts – “I just didn't want to be alive any more”. But, again and again, the suggestion was that the only people in real pain were the Sussexes. There was barely a mention that the world is going through a pandemic that has killed more than 2.6 million people. When Prince Philip, seriously ill in hospital, was brought up, it was to advertise Meghan’s kindness in immediately getting on the phone to the Queen to ask how he was. Every blow was coated in a Ready-Brek glow of virtue signalling and self-congratulation. In the Sussexes’ own eyes, they can do no wrong. To some, this will be seen as a deeply damaging programme for the Royal family. Millions of viewers – particularly younger ‘woke’ ones – will side with Harry and Meghan. But while the Twitterati may be up in arms, the broad sway of British opinion will cleave to the heart of the Royal family – the Queen. How modest and short her Commonwealth Day message was on Sunday, particularly in comparison with the Sussexes. She praised the “selfless dedication to duty… demonstrated in every Commonwealth nation”. She has demonstrated that selfless duty ever since she came to the throne 69 years ago; she showed signs of that selflessness almost since her birth over 94 years ago. The British public knows this and respects her for it. The Queen has never given an interview in those 94 years. Harry and Meghan have given two interviews within a month to two of the biggest names in American television: Oprah Winfrey and James Corden. Even Princess Diana had been married to Prince Charles for 14 years before her explosive Panorama interview in 1995. The Queen’s greatest PR message is the power of silence. The tactic works like a charm, but only the Queen, it seems, realises this. Princess Diana, Prince Charles and, most recently, Prince Andrew have all made disastrous errors in TV tell-alls. In 1988, Prince Charles asked the late Sir Peregrine Worsthorne, then editor of The Sunday Telegraph, how he should conduct his public life. Perry said Charles should confine himself to public duties and never air his private thoughts. The Prince buried his head in his hands, moaning: “But then I’m just a cypher.” Perry was right. Royal interviews by disaffected family members are big box office – but they are only ever harmful to all concerned. Over the next few weeks, it will be the Royal family that takes a battering over the latest revelations. But history tells us that the Sussexes’ attacks will have less and less traction as time goes by. Like all other members of the Royal family not in the direct line of succession, they will drift further and further from the action. Prince Harry was born third in line to the throne; he is now sixth. When Princess Margaret was a child, she was second in line. If she were alive today, she’d be 21st in line, after Lena Tindall, Zara Phillips’s younger daughter. In California, the Sussexes are now utterly detached from royal life. There’ll be no sign of them on state occasions; no more sightings of Harry in his dashing uniforms, now he’s lost his military role. It is clear the Sussexes have made the full migration from Royals to Californian celebrities. Harry has begun to speak California psychobabble: “I’m not comfortable with sharing that.” California speak is also a tremendous device for masking hypocrisy and this will slowly be unmasked. Thus Meghan saying in the interview that all she wants to do is to “live authentically”, while feeding her chickens – oh yes, and broadcasting to billions, too, and picking up multi-million dollar pay cheques.
- The State
Here’s when you could get your stimulus check under the new bill.
The 22-year-old modeled in a Givenchy fashion show over the weekend.
- The Week
Papa John's founder says he's been working to get the N-word out of his vocabulary for the 'last 20 months'
The former CEO of Papa John's is assuring the public he's been working on not using racist language, an effort that has apparently been ongoing for nearly two years. John Schnatter, the Papa John's founder who in 2018 stepped down as chairman after admitting he used the N-word during a conference call, told One America News Network the pizza chain's board has painted him "as a racist" when "they know he's not a racist," per Mediaite. From there, Schnatter described his "goals," evidently including no longer saying racial slurs. "We've had three goals for the last 20 months," Schnatter said. "To get rid of this N-word in my vocabulary and dictionary and everything else, because it's just not true, figure out how they did this, and get on with my life." The former pizza boss also told OANN he "used to lay in bed" after his ouster wondering "how did they do this," and he called on Papa John's to come out and declare that it "didn't follow proper due diligence" and that he actually "has no history of racism." Schnatter stepped down as Papa John's chair after Forbes reported that he "used the N-word on a conference call" that had been "designed as a role-playing exercise for Schnatter in an effort to prevent future public-relations snafus." He apologized at the time, saying "racism has no place in our society." Shortly after, though, Schnatter said he resigned because the board asked him to "without apparently doing any investigation" and that he now regrets doing so. Later, Schnatter would vow that a "day of reckoning" would come in a bizarre 2019 interview, in which he also famously declared he's eaten "over 40 pizzas in the last 30 days." Update: In a statement on Monday, Schnatter said he has been seeking to eliminate "false perceptions in the media" and that "on OANN, I tried to say, 'Get rid of this n-word in (the) vocabulary and dictionary (of the news media), and everything else because it's just not true,' – reflecting my commitment to correct the false and malicious reporting by the news media about the conference call." Papa John’s ex-CEO says he’s been working for the last 20 months “to get rid of this N-word in my vocabulary” (h/t @mount_bees) pic.twitter.com/8heITnJJxA — philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) March 8, 2021 More stories from theweek.comThe Harry and Meghan interview might have taken down more than the royal family7 spondiferously funny cartoons about the Dr. Seuss controversyA record number of migrant kids are in Border Patrol custody