U.S. Policy In Syria Is Being Determined By The News Cycle

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

A photo of a drowned Syrian boy on the banks of the Mediterranean Sea sparked a dramatic reconsideration of refugee policies worldwide in September 2015. Governments began adjusting their approach almost overnight, promising to open their borders to the afflicted even though the civil war in Syria had been raging for years by that point.

John Kerry, who at the time was secretary of state under President Barack Obama, called the photo “disturbing” and “provocative” and said the U.S. “could do a lot more to protect those people.” A week later, Obama announced that his administration would take in 10,000 more Syrian refugees.

Another dramatic news story altered policy toward Syria two months later, this time in a diametrically different direction. After a series of coordinated terror attacks in Paris left 137 dead, people called for the U.S. to stop accepting refugees. The month after those attacks, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump made his infamous call for a Muslim ban to be implemented.

Trump is now president, and his ban is tied up in legal tussles. But the news cycle is once more having an outsized impact on his geopolitical worldview.

Video of a chemical weapons attack allegedly carried out by Bashar Assad’s regime has prompted Trump to, seemingly overnight, undertake a complete reversal of approach to Syria.

Trump spent years warning against military involvement in Syria’s civil war. Now, he has begun hinting publicly about a military strike and meeting privately with lawmakers to discuss how it would progress. 

And during the campaign, Trump spoke about cooperating with Russia, a close Assad ally, to fight ISIS in Syria. He also called Assad an unsavory but stable ruler.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson moved in the opposite direction when addressing reporters on Thursday. 

“Steps are underway” for an international effort to remove the Syrian leader, Tillerson said, adding that “it is very important that the Russian government consider carefully their continued support for the Assad regime.”   

He also spoke openly about how the news coverage of the massacre was a catalytic moment for the administration. The attack, he said, “horrified all of us and brought to the front pages and to our television screens as well the tragedy that is part of the Syrian conflict.”

Trump himself acknowledged that his thinking on the matter changed based on photos he had seen detailing the aftermath of the chemical attack. He told reporters that “something should happen” in Syria, but failed to provide any specifics.  

By contract, Republicans routinely accused Obama of not doing enough to respond to the escalating crisis in Syria. Seemingly unaffected by horrific images of civilians being bombed by the Assad regime, he steadfastly argued that there was no strategic upside to military action. The picture of the drowned boy prompted him to slightly increase the number of Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S., but an equally haunting picture of a young boy bleeding from a bombing in Aleppo had no apparent policy impact.

Still, a haunting image or a revealing video has the capacity to profoundly affect foreign policy. Such visual elements can make people reconsider the need for famine relief in Sudan or spark global outrage about detainee treatment in Iraq. But rarely has new coverage directed policy toward a single country in the same way that it seems to direct current U.S. policy toward Syria. 

That may be a product of how difficult finding an actual policy on Syria has proven to be. The U.S. does not currently have the legal authority to attack the Assad regime, and it’s not clear whether Trump could get a war authorization from Congress. Even if he did, opening a military front against the Syrian government risks entangling Russia, Assad’s nuclear-armed ally. There is also no obvious U.S.-friendly successor should Assad be toppled ― in part because the dictator has made an effort to wipe out the moderate opposition, which has left extremists groups as the only alternative to his rule.

But some of it, certainly, is the product of the current administration, which is staffed with top officials who either craft their worldviews through the prism of media coverage or have little familiarity with the Syrian crisis. 

Trump seems poised to completely reverse his stance over the course of a news cycle. During the presidential campaign, he warned voters that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would start World War III by increasing the U.S. role in Syria. The New York Times reported on Thursday that Pentagon officials are preparing options for a military strike in Syria. One option, The Intercept reported, includes a “saturation strike,” using dozens of cruise missiles to attack military targets.

All this makes it hard to discern just how committed Trump is to any particular approach and to what degree he has actually thought through realistic approaches at all. Asked if Assad should step down, Trump said this week, “What happened in Syria is a disgrace to humanity, and he’s there, and I guess he’s running things, so I guess something should happen.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

House Republicans Were Handed A Historic Opportunity. They're Blowing It.

WASHINGTON ― House lawmakers are heading out of town for two weeks with a health care bill in tatters, a government funding deadline looming, and a White House and congressional leadership apparently unable to find consensus or face reality. But, according to House Republicans, everything is just fine.

“It’s going great! We’re making America great again,” Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) told The Huffington Post on Thursday when asked how things in the House were going.

That appears to be the honest assessment of Republicans right now. They aren’t bothered by their inability to pass a health care bill, or by Trump or Speaker Paul Ryan’s sinking poll numbers, or by the unprecedented dollars flowing into Democratic candidates’ coffers. And they firmly believe that, yes, they will find agreement on health care. Any day now.

“We’re making progress on all those things,” Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) said. “When you have a bill that’s not ready for prime time, the best thing for the American people is that we back up and get it right.”

Time and again, Republicans praised leadership for slowing down the health care debate, and they insisted that no part of their agenda had slipped.

Even Speaker Ryan (R-Wis.), who presented Republicans with a timeline at the beginning of the year that had them finished with their health care bill before the Easter break, said Republicans were still on schedule.

“We have in our timeline lots of flexibility built in,” Ryan said. “You know why? Because we have to work with the United States Senate.”

But all the flexibility on timing won’t account for the inflexibility of Ryan’s conference. Conservatives insist the GOP health care bill eliminate regulations that protect people with pre-existing conditions from being charged more for insurance. Moderates have said they can’t go along with that. And Republicans appear to have no way to break those disagreements.

If Republicans really do insist on passing health care, it’s easy to see how their entire agenda could be foiled. There are only 47 legislative days before the August recess after House Republicans return from their April break. The omnibus spending bill will chew up the first week of the schedule. Then, if they somehow broke the logjam, they’d still have to debate and pass their health care bill. And then pass another budget ― which doesn’t look like it’ll be automatic ― so they can do tax reform. And then Republicans would actually have to do tax reform, an issue that has evaded Republicans arguably for the last 30 years.

And they’re supposed to pass a massive infrastructure bill. And a defense supplement. And 12 appropriation bills.

Things are certain to slip.

Meanwhile, the White House already appears to be lashing out at Ryan, unable to accept that he and other congressional leaders can’t just make Republicans pass the health care bill.

In the sense that Republicans aren’t being jammed into voting on a bill with a 17% approval rating, maybe lawmakers have a right to be encouraged.

For Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Republicans pumping the brakes on their health care legislation is a good sign.

“It’s weird to be worried about not rushing enough, which is what they seem to be worried about,” Amash said Thursday. “We should take our time with it.”

But there’s still no evidence Republicans can bridge the divide in their conference on much of anything. Lawmakers appear no closer to passage than they were two weeks ago when GOP leaders pulled the health care bill from the floor, and members are heading back to their districts for two weeks. Presumably, dissatisfaction with what Republicans are discussing will further drive the conference away from a functional majority.

One of the most noteworthy critics of Republicans has been reliable Republican Rep. Tom Rooney of Florida. He recently told The Atlantic that, if Republicans can’t accomplish something, then it’s hard to justify why they’re in power.

“I’ve been here for eight years,” Rooney told HuffPost on Wednesday. “And for the Republican Party, we need to start passing bills that are positive, rather than just being an opposition or stopping things from happening.”

Again, however, most Republicans haven’t given up hope on their health care bill.

I’ve been here for eight years. And for the Republican Party, we need to start passing bills that are positive, rather than just being an opposition or stopping things from happening.”
Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.)

“Most people that I talk to realize that health care is the biggest problem in America,” freshman Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) said Thursday. “It was a problem before Obamacare. It’s gotten worse after Obamacare. And they realize it’s not going to be solved in a matter of a few weeks; it’s going to be a several month process.”

One member who spoke on the condition he not be identified said that, although there were conservatives and other members who were “not happy” with Ryan, no one seemed to be talking about a coup.

“It is not Paul Ryan’s fault at all,” Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) said. “This is just simply the process.”

When Hice was asked at what point Republicans would start clamoring for leadership changes, he said, “We’re not at that point.”

But reality is about to smack Republicans in the face.

The odds of them actually repealing and replacing Obamacare look worse every day. When they return from their Easter break, they’ll have four legislative days to debate and pass an omnibus spending bill that no one has seen ― with obvious pitfalls all over the legislation. (Will the omnibus fund Planned Parenthood? Will it fund a border wall? How much money above previously set spending caps can Congress accept?)

And, unlike the health care bill, Republicans need Democratic votes ― at least in the Senate ― to get a spending measure to President Donald Trump’s desk. If conservatives insist on funding the border wall and Democrats say no, who will blink first? And whose side will Trump be on?

While there are easy criticisms you could make of Ryan, senior GOP aides were eager to point out that, ultimately, the GOP’s inability to get anything done was a reflection on Trump.

“Despite what Paul Ryan’s detractors think, at the end of the day, this is Donald Trump’s Washington now,” one senior GOP aide said.

“You can’t just come in 24 hours before a vote, make some phone calls and expect anything to change,” the aide continued, referring to the ill-fated health care bill.

“Paul Ryan is the only thing holding this place together. It’s just one distraction after another.”

One distraction has been Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and his questionable Russia probe. After Nunes seemed to be coordinating with the White House, the California Republican stepped aside from leading the investigation on Thursday. Aides ask how those sorts of wounds are Ryan’s fault.

For Democrats, the answer is easy: Everything is a reflection of the speaker.

“They’re in the majority,” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said Thursday. “Speaker Ryan is the speaker. So one would think if they want to get something done, they would lead to get something done. And that’s not what they’re doing.”

Other Democrats were happy to pile on and point out how poorly things are going for House Republicans. “The definition of dysfunction” is how Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) described the House GOP conference.

“They can’t govern,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). “I mean, they may have more members of the House and more members of the Senate, but one thing they don’t have is a majority.”

Democrats urged Republicans to reach across the aisle to work out legislation.

“It’s not the House of Republicans; it’s the House of Representatives,” Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) told HuffPost. “And if they want to solve these problems, they might as well talk to a few Democrats.”

He added that the answer on health care was obvious: “If they want to deal with real problems, they can sit down with some of us. I see more of Speaker Ryan on TV than I do in the chamber.”

But Republicans, miraculously, blame Democrats for not working with them. Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said Thursday that it was difficult for Republicans to pass legislation because “you have the other side of the aisle that refuses to do anything whatsoever.”

“Not an idea, nothing, not even a vote,” he continued.

When it was pointed out that Republicans didn’t seek input from Democrats on the health care bill ― they literally hid the bill from their counterparts, adopted zero of their amendments and Ryan proudly said he didn’t want to work with the other side ― Bishop called it “cute spin.”

“Our side did go. And they refused to do anything,” he said.

Bishop implored Democrats to come up with a health care alternative, and he said it was one of the “sad elements” of the Affordable Care Act that Democrats didn’t come to them in 2010 when Congress was working through Obamacare.

That line of attack doesn’t exactly square with reality. Democrats point out that President Barack Obama held summits with Republicans, Congress debated the health care bill for over a year and more than 100 Republican amendments were ultimately incorporated into the bill.

Lee even suggested she was a little uncomfortable with how much Obama was asking for their ideas and incorporating their input. “Oftentimes I would just not have to say anything,” she said.

There is a growing chorus of moderate Republicans who say Republicans should reach across the aisle. Tuesday Group Chairman Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) suggested on Wednesday that working with Democrats was the best path forward for health care, and Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.) essentially said the same thing.

That continues to be an option of last resort, however, partially because Republicans are holding out hope that they can come together and partially because leaders know it would further weaken them.

That dynamic isn’t exactly new, but with the implosion of the health care bill, it’s maybe worse than ever. Still, aides didn’t think much had changed.

When one senior GOP aide was asked for comment on this story, the aide shrugged it off.

“Sounds like your story is a real barn burner, but the barn has been on fire for seven years now,” he said.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Male Lawmakers Suggest Women Go To The 'Zoo' For Abortions

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

WASHINGTON ― Two Republican Missouri lawmakers seeking to further restrict abortion in the state joked with each other on the Senate floor Wednesday that women would be better off going to the zoo than to a doctor for an abortion, because there is a longer waiting period for euthanizing zoo animals.

State Sen. Bob Onder (R) spoke in opposition to a tax hike benefitting the St. Louis Zoo because he opposes the city’s proposed ban on employers and landlords from discriminating against women for their reproductive choices. Onder, whose bill targeting abortion clinics had been filibustered the night before, lamented ― falsely ― that zoos are more heavily regulated than abortion clinics in Missouri.

“The St. Louis Zoo gets inspected once a year!” Onder said.

“Maybe we should send the people that want an abortion to the St. Louis Zoo, because we know it’ll be safer,” state Sen. Wayne Wallingford (R) added. 

Onder then pointed out that zoos have a five-day waiting period for euthanizing animals, while abortion clinics in Missouri require women to wait three days after meeting with their doctors before having the procedure.

“Let’s think about this. Babies, it’s three days, so although there are members of this body who don’t agree with that three days, babies are three days,” Onder said. “So, zoo animals, it couldn’t be more than 24 hours, right?”

“Five days, Senator,” he continued. He added: “I believe there’s some sort of requirement to notify in case some other zoo wants to adopt that animal. Isn’t that interesting?”

Abortion clinics are so heavily regulated in Missouri that only one facility in the state can perform abortions. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Tuesday that a federal judge intends to block a pair of laws requiring that abortion clinics meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers, or mini-hospitals, and that their doctors have admitting privileges at hospitals, because the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that those laws are intended to shut down clinics rather than to make them safer. 

But Onder wants to make St. Louis even less friendly to women who seek abortions. He suggested changing the tourism motto of St. Louis to say, “Where we protect our zoo animals, but it’s open season on Alternative to Abortion centers and pro-life organizations.” Then he took the apparent joke a step further, drafting an amendment that would rename the St. Louis Zoo the “Midwest Abortion Sanctuary City Zoological Park.”

The advocacy group Progress Missouri denounced Onder’s “drivel and lies.”

“Not only has he compared women to giraffes and zoo animals, but he has invoked the Holocaust and genocide in reference to a woman’s right to an abortion,” Progress Missouri said in a statement. “His colleague, Senator Wayne Wallingford, also suggested that we send people seeking an abortion ‘to the zoo.’ Unfortunately, this nonsensical rhetoric is as dangerous as it is disturbing, and there’s no place for it in public discourse.”

Onder later explained his rant in a Twitter post and clarified that he “never intended to offer” his draft amendment renaming the zoo. 

“Yesterday’s floor debate was not about the St. Louis Zoo,” Onder wrote. “Rather it was about two important subjects: tax increases and abortion.”

He added, “My discussion on the Senate floor was completely intended to shine a light on the disservice that St. Louis City did to the people of our region by banning their freedom of speech and religion in making St. Louis an abortion sanctuary city.” 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

This is what AI sees and hears when it watches 'The Joy of Painting'

Computers don’t dream of electric sheep, they imagine the dulcet tones of legendary public access painter, Bob Ross. Bay Area artist and engineer Alexander Reben has produced an incredible feat of machine learning in honor of the late Ross, creating…

Stellar echoes, Venusian automatons and more gain NASA moonshot funding

 NASA has announced the recipients of its most recent round of highly experimental projects it deems promising enough to fund. These NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts aren’t guaranteed to go all the way, but are rather sort of low-risk, high potential reward moonshots — science fiction they hope will be more the former than the latter. Read More

The leaked DJI Spark looks to be the Mavic Pro’s little bother

 DJI appears to be about to launch a drone even smaller than the Mavic Pro. Supposedly called the Spark, pics of the little drone has been popping up on several sites though DJI has yet to officially announce it. First, the Spark is smaller than the Mavic Pro when the Mavic’s prop arms are extended. The Spark appears to have fixed arms and brushless motors similar to the Mavic’s… Read More

Your Pick For the Best VPN Service Is Private Internet Access

VPNs are a hot topic these days, and our readers made it abundantly clear that Private Internet Access should be your first stop for protecting your private browsing data. This backs up the service’s win in Lifehacker’s 2014 Hive Five, so they’ve been a solid option for a long time.

Read more…

This Stunning Drone Footage of South Africa Looks Like a Real Life Lion King

For the past couple of years, mediocre drone videos of dramatic landscapes have littered the internet. Like, we get it, drone pilots. Your camera flies and stuff looks pretty from the sky and the whole conceit is pretty trite at this point. And then I saw these four minutes of magic, filmed in South Africa.

Read more…

‘Most important’ exoplanet GJ 1132b found to have an atmosphere

A couple years ago, researchers discovered what they called the ‘most important planet found outside [our] solar system,’ the exoplanet named GJ 1132b. This planet is about 16-percent larger than our own, and it is located about 39 light-years away. While this planet is itself far too hot to sustain life, researchers had said that if GJ 1132b has an … Continue reading

New Analysis Finds Clinton, Not Trump, Narrowly Won The Catholic Vote In 2016

Early exit polls from the 2016 presidential election suggested U.S. Catholics favored then-candidate Donald Trump over his opponent, Hillary Clinton. But new data suggest these analyses may have missed the mark. 

Using data released by the American National Election Studies last week, political scientist Mark Gray discovered that Catholic voters were split 48 percent to 45 percent in favor of Clinton.

Gray, who heads Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, also found that factors such as age, geography and race significantly impacted how Catholics voted in the election.

Exit polls aren’t a perfect gauge of which people turn out to vote or who they cast their ballots for, especially when it comes to demographic subgroups. Gray told America Magazine he considered the ANES data more reliable.

Gray’s analysis, released in a series of charts on Twitter over the last week, disrupts the narrative that a united “Christian America” elected President Donald Trump.

Exit polls released by CNN, The New York Times, and Pew Research Center shortly after the election told roughly the same story: A whopping 81 percent of white evangelicals, 61 percent of Mormons, and nearly 60 percent of Protestants backed Trump. Catholics, according to these polls, favored the Republican candidate by roughly 50-52 percent, compared to about 45 percent who voted for Clinton.

The new analysis suggests Catholics were more evenly split between the candidates.

“Basically, we assume the Catholic vote was a toss-up,” Gray told The Huffington Post on Thursday. “Too close to call.”

But among sub-groups of Catholic voters, the preferences are more clearly defined. Older Catholics tended to favor Trump, while millennials backed Clinton 59 percent to 28 percent, according to the ANES data.

White Catholics voted for Trump, while a greater majority of Hispanic Catholics and those of other races and ethnicities voted for Clinton. Trump also fared better among Northeastern and Midwestern Catholics, and Clinton stole the Catholic vote in the West. In the South, Catholics were fairly split.

Though the AMES data suggests Catholics favored Clinton by a small margin, Jesuit priest and author Father James Martin argued that a key takeaway from the analysis should be that Catholics are largely politically divided.

“It shows, once again, that there’s no such thing as a ‘Catholic vote.’ Catholics vote largely along party lines, as most other Americans do,” Martin said in an email to HuffPost. “So while they pay attention to things like abortion, refugees and migrants and the rights of LGBT people, they are, in the end, more likely to vote ‘Democrat’ or ‘Republican’ than ‘Catholic.’”

Gray agreed, noting that even within the Catholic hierarchy messages were mixed leading up to the election. Pope Francis appeared to weigh in on the U.S. presidential race in a February 2016 interview, saying Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border was “not Christian.” 

Meanwhile, some churches said it would be a “sin” to vote for the pro-abortion rights Clinton, while a handful of bishops encouraged their flocks to skip voting for either candidate.

“If you’re a Democrat and a Catholic, you may strongly emphasize Pope Francis’ statements about climate change or the preferential option for the poor,” Gray told America. “If you are a Republican and a Catholic, life issues may be the most important to you.”

“At the ballot box, partisanship trumps [Catholics’] faith when they make their choice,” he added. “It should be a difficult choice for any Catholic to vote because no candidate, no party really stands for what the church stands for.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.