Category Archives: United Airline News

Ted Nugent says Parkland students ‘have no soul,’ calls them ‘mushy-brained children’

The discourse surrounding the students who survived a mass shooting at a Florida high school in February and their activism on gun policy has turned radioactive in recent weeks. On social media, gun-control critics have pilloried student leaders Emma González and David Hogg, posting doctored images of González shredding the Constitution and memes showing Hogg in a Nazi uniform.

The teen-led movement has reignited the nation’s gun debate, drawing stark partisan lines, as well as cries of manipulation from the right, who say Democrats have used the students as both shield and sword to advance tighter restrictions on firearms.

Enter the Motor City Madman, musician Ted Nugent, perhaps the National Rifle Association’s most outspoken board member.

In a Friday interview mostly focused on González’s and Hogg’s criticism of the NRA, Nugent and radio host Joe “Pags” Pagliarulo discussed how the students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., have navigated media appearances and their belief that the teenagers have been manipulated by left-wing ideologues.

“These poor children, I’m afraid to say, but the evidence is irrefutable. They have no soul,” Nugent told Pagliarulo on the radio show on WOAI in San Antonio, which is syndicated nationwide.

On Valentine’s Day, a gunman killed 17 students and educators at the Florida high school in one of the nation’s deadliest school massacres. Nikolas Cruz, 19, has been charged in the shooting.

Nugent and Pagliarulo dissected González’s and Hogg’s interviews with CNN’s Alisyn Camerota five days after the shooting. “If they accept this blood money, they are against the children,” González said, speaking about politicians who accept donations from the NRA. “You’re either funding the killers, or you’re standing with the children.”

Nugent noted that no known NRA members have been involved in mass shootings, and he decried Camerota for not challenging González’s link between mass shootings and the NRA.

“The lies from these poor, mushy-brained children who have been fed lies and parrot lies,” Nugent said. “I really feel sorry for them. It’s not only ignorant, dangerous and stupid — it’s soulless. To attack the good, law-abiding families of America when well-known, predictable murderers commit these horrors is deep in the category of soulless.”

Defending the NRA, Nugent noted that the gun-rights group has provided firearms safety training and that it is sustained not by gun manufacturers but by “families, good families” in the organization.

Nugent, like many on the right, has been flustered by recent portrayals of firearms in the media and by the students, and been incensed when the semiautomatic AR-15 — what the NRA has called America’s favorite rifle — is described as a “weapon of war.” Semiautomatic rifles are not carried into combat, Nugent said on the program.

AR-15 semiautomatic rifles are the civilian equivalent of the M4 and M16 rifles — select fire weapons (semiautomatic or a three-round burst) that use similar ammunition. Though some M4 models are fully automatic that fire until the standard 30-round magazine is depleted, conventional military marksmanship focuses on controlled fire that discharges one round with each trigger pull. A Marine Corps training manual suggests 12 to 15 rounds a minute as the acceptable rate of fire for M16s and M4s to balance accuracy and ammunition conservation, and the burst option is generally discouraged in many scenarios.

In that way, military rifles commonly used in practice are functionally similar to how mass shooters used AR-15 pattern rifles in killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and the Parkland high school — an acknowledgment that few gun-rights advocates, including Nugent, seem to have made.

Nugent’s spokeswoman and the NRA did not return requests for comment.

Pagliarulo said Nugent’s claims on his program were “verifiably true.” When asked by The Washington Post to clarify what he meant by that, he said in an email exchange: “Ted called them liars. That’s verifiably true. Unless, of course, you believe NRA members are ‘child murderers,’ or you’re either ‘with us or with the killers.’ ”

Pagliarulo referred back to his interview with Nugent for additional clarity, which he published Saturday on Facebook.

About a year ago Nugent called for civility in the pressure cooker of partisan politics and gun violence, following an attack at a congressional baseball practice on a ballfield in Northern Virginia last May that left Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) seriously injured by rifle fire. Nugent vowed to be “more selective with my rants and in my words.”

Those rants have been notable. In 2007, Nugent drew criticism when he advised presidential candidate Barack Obama to “suck on my machine gun.” In 2012, at an NRA convention, Nugent said if Obama were reelected as president, “I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

Read more:

The Fix: Black Parkland students worry: What happens to us when schools are over-policed?

How the Parkland teens became villains on the right-wing Internet

Parkland shooting suspect’s brother sentenced to probation for trespassing at school

Fact check: Trump administration departs from reality on wall, census, Amazon

President Donald Trump hailed the start of his long-sought U.S.-Mexico border wall this past week, proudly tweeting photos of the “WALL!” Actually, no new work got underway. The photos showed the continuation of an old project to replace 2 miles of existing barrier.

And on Saturday, he ripped Amazon with a shaky claim that its contract with the post office is a “scam.”

Trump and his officials departed from reality on a variety of subjects in recent days: the census, Amazon’s practices and the makeup of the Supreme Court among them. Here’s a look at some statements and their veracity:

TRUMP: “Great briefing this afternoon on the start of our Southern Border WALL!” — tweet Wednesday, showing photos of workers building a fence.

Loyola-Chicago’s improbable ride ends in heartbreak at the Final Four

11:24 PM ET

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — When the magic ended Saturday for Loyola-Chicago, the young men who had been draped in glory throughout the most unforgettable month of their lives retreated to the locker room to collect themselves. Senior Ben Richardson — red-eyed and sniffling — leaned on head coach Porter Moser, who put his hand on Richardson’s shoulder.

At the moment, it was all too soon. Too soon to ponder how a Michigan team the Ramblers led by double-digits early in the second half managed to mount a furious rally to seal a 69-57 win. Too soon to consider what’s next for this collection of underdogs. Too soon to look back and remember how this wonderful journey unfolded.

This bunch could feel only destiny’s punch in its gut, a first for the Ramblers in a fortuitous postseason.

On Saturday against the Wolverines, the Ramblers were headed for late drama after seizing a double-digit lead. It seemed as though the modest Jesuit school in Chicago, cheered on by a famous, 98-year-old nun named Sister Jean was headed for another “Is this really happening?” victory.

It felt like another scene in Loyola-Chicago’s Disney movie, but Michigan had no concern for cute storylines. The Wolverines launched a remarkable run and sent the Ramblers back to the Windy City.

“The ball wasn’t really bouncing our way,” said Townes.

In the locker room after the game, the Ramblers’ heads were heavy, bent down and angling toward the floor. They spoke of missed shots and blown opportunities. Townes focused on the cramps he endured in the second half and wondered if he’d consumed enough liquids before the loss. Donte Ingram, solemn and fatigued, stood alone on a wall outside the locker room, waiting for the shuttle to carry him to the postgame interview room.

Moser shook hands with a few folks in the Alamodome corridor and shook his head as he walked. As a school official pushed her wheelchair past reporters, Sister Jean said nothing.

“I didn’t really notice a turn,” Dinardi said. “It never really sank in that we were going to lose this game until there were 30 seconds left.”

The Ramblers needed help. They struggled to reflect on the significance of their achievement in the minutes after the loss to Michigan, so they had to be reminded of their path.

A decade ago, Illinois State fired Moser. He bounced back after a stint at Saint Louis under Rick Majerus. In 2011, Loyola-Chicago, a school seeking its first winning season in five years, hired him. The team he assembled had no promises. No big-time scholarships. Moser had no five-stars in his locker room. Mostly no-stars.

So how’d the Ramblers get to the Final Four? A better question might be how they even got to the NCAA tournament?

In December, they lost to Milwaukee by double digits. Losses to Missouri State, Indiana State and Bradley would follow. They’re ranked 229th in average height on KenPom.com. They were the only team in San Antonio without a player listed in ESPN’s 2018 mock draft.

To get here, Loyola-Chicago beat a Miami squad with a potential lottery pick (Lonnie Walker IV). It beat the SEC champion (Tennessee). It beat one of the hottest offenses in America (Nevada). It beat the Kansas State squad that eliminated Kentucky. The Ramblers had Michigan, winner of 13 in a row entering Saturday’s game, on the ropes and desperate in the second half of a national semifinal matchup.

As reporters asked Ramblers players about the meaning of the moment, their tears dried up. They began to speak of the future and history, which will always highlight their success in the 2017-18 season.

They were praised by Chance the Rapper. Drake apologized for not being able to attend Saturday’s game. They met Russell Westbrook. They were on national television multiple times. They stayed in five-star hotels and couldn’t walk the streets without autograph requests.

They might never be able to navigate the Loyola-Chicago campus again without causing chaos.

“It was the best time of my life,” Custer said, “so I’m sad it has to be over.”

Yes, the loss hurt. But the Ramblers left the Alamodome as heroes.

“This season right here will be remembered forever,” Townes said.

And the agony of the loss, the emotion they couldn’t shake after the game, will soon fade and give the Ramblers a clear view of everything they accomplished, every unbelievable chapter of the most magical ride of the 2017-18 season.

“In a couple of weeks, a couple months,” freshman Cameron Krutwig said, “the memories are certainly going to outweigh the pain of this.”

Trump Advisers Urge Tougher Russia Policy After Expulsions

“I don’t remember such bad shape of our relations,” Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador to Washington, told NBC’s “Today” show. “There is a great mistrust between the United States and Russia.”

Since his arrival last year in Washington, Mr. Antonov said he had invited American officials to his residence only to be repeatedly rebuffed. “If they are scared, I said, ‘Come on, we can meet in a restaurant and to discuss all outstanding issues,’” he said. “It was four or five months ago. And I got answer: silent.”

American officials said a shift in the administration’s approach has been building for weeks. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, whose last official day on the job is Saturday, had come to the conclusion before Mr. Trump fired him this month that a year of attempting to cooperate had not yielded much success, according to people familiar with his thinking. As a result, they said, Mr. Tillerson had begun mapping out a tougher policy toward Russia and found agreement in the White House.

Photo
The British ambassador to Russia, Laurie Bristow, leaving the Russian Foreign Ministry headquarters on Friday in Moscow. Britain led the way in a coordinated ouster of more than 150 Russian diplomats.

Credit
Vasily Maximov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The administration began taking a more robust approach, publicly blaming Russia for a devastating attack on computers in Ukraine and elsewhere, accusing Moscow of trying to break into the United States’ power grid and imposing sanctions in retaliation for Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election in the United States.

Mr. Tillerson’s feelings were hardened further by a conversation with Boris Johnson, the British foreign secretary who described to him the nerve agent attack on a former Russian spy, Sergei V. Skripal, and his daughter living in Britain. Even in the hours before his dismissal by Mr. Trump, Mr. Tillerson spoke out in stronger terms than the president in condemning the poisoning.

While Mr. Tillerson is on the way out, his designated successor, Mike Pompeo, and the incoming national security adviser, John R. Bolton, are both considered even more hawkish on Russia.

At the same time, some officials at the Pentagon have expressed caution about the escalating conflict with Russia, citing consequences in Syria, where the United States and Russia have both conducted military operations.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The Trump administration expelled 60 Russian diplomats and intelligence officers and closed the Russian Consulate in Seattle this week as part of a wider international retaliation for the poisoning of Mr. Skripal. Russia responded Thursday by ordering out 60 Americans and closing the consulate in St. Petersburg. The scope of Russia’s retaliation grew clearer on Friday as the Kremlin summoned 23 ambassadors from other countries to evict some of their diplomats.

But Mr. Trump has remained publicly silent amid the dramatic rounds of diplomatic retaliation, leaving it to others to condemn Moscow. Frustrated by the investigation of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, into whether his campaign cooperated with Russia in 2016, a scenario he dismissed as a “hoax,” Mr. Trump recently called Mr. Putin to congratulate him on his victory in a re-election widely dismissed as a sham.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Trump made no mention of the poisoning of Mr. Skripal during the call but instead suggested that he wanted to schedule a summit meeting with the Russian president.

Both countries still have ambassadors in place, so high-level contact on potentially calamitous matters should continue, as it did at the height of the Cuban missile crisis. But the wheels of basic diplomacy, involving visas, consular services, cultural events and simply talking to people, are grinding ever more slowly and, in some cases, coming to a halt.

“The parties lose some of their eyes and ears, so the quality of the reporting goes down,” said Charles A. Kupchan, who was the Europe director of the National Security Council under President Barack Obama. “It’s not just intelligence but day-to-day political and economic reporting: What’s the buzz in the street, what do interlocutors say? And consular services do get hit.”

Photo
The United States Consulate in St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, has given the United States a presence in Russia’s main gateway to the West.

Credit
Olga Maltseva/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The expulsions left many diplomats wondering how the American Embassy in Moscow could operate. Much of the burden will fall on the ambassador, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., who took over an embassy already struggling to function after an order by the Kremlin last summer that it dispense with 755 employees in response to sweeping American sanctions for Russia’s election meddling.

“The embassy is struggling to do basic operations. This latest round will hurt,” said Michael A. McFaul, who served as ambassador in Moscow from 2012 to 2014. “Morale, of course, is also very low.”

Even before this week’s expulsions, the wait in Moscow to obtain a visitor’s visa to the United States was among the longest in the world. It now takes 250 days just to get an appointment with the visa section, compared with four in Beijing and 31 in New Delhi.

An American spokesman told Russian news media this week that the embassy had been placed under “significant constraints” by the Foreign Ministry and “could not accommodate all their many requests at all times, particularly for large groups.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Simon Schuchat, a former diplomat at the embassy in the Moscow, recalled how haphazard and unnerving it was when Russia began the process of ousting alleged spies during a round of expulsions in 2001. Inevitably, Moscow ordered out diplomats unconnected to espionage.

“They tended to go for people with better language skills,” Mr. Schuchat said, adding that they “missed many spies and included many non-spies.”

This time around, intelligence officers working under “official cover” as diplomats were especially targeted, but some American officials played down the impact, saying the United States still came out ahead in the expulsions.

“That’s to our benefit,” Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, said at a seminar on Thursday in Austin, Tex. “There are a lot more Russians in America than Americans in Russia in the intelligence agencies.”

On Friday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry accused the agencies overseen by Mr. Coats of exploiting the situation by approaching Russian diplomats leaving the United States to offer “assistance” in exchange for “entering into covert relations” on behalf of the American government.

“The ploy is not working,” the ministry said in a statement, “but their behavior is cynical and distasteful, as if Washington has stepped completely beyond the bounds of common decency.”


Continue reading the main story

Stephon Clark Was Shot 8 Times Primarily in His Back, Family-Ordered Autopsy Finds

The Sacramento police on Friday said they had not viewed the autopsy and declined to comment, saying it was “inappropriate” because the investigation was continuing. “We acknowledge the importance of this case to all in our community,” the police said in a statement.

Protesters in California’s capital have taken to the streets nearly every day since Mr. Clark was killed on March 18, demanding that the city’s leadership fire the two officers involved.

Mr. Clark’s family have accused the police department of trying to cover up misconduct by its officers and decided to conduct its own autopsy.

Video showed officers shouting at Mr. Clark minutes after the shooting stopped. “We need to know if you’re O.K.,” an officer yelled about three minutes after the gunfire ended. “We need to get you medics but we can’t go over to get you help unless we know you don’t have a weapon.”

Dr. Omalu said the autopsy suggested that Mr. Clark lived for three to 10 minutes after the shooting, adding to questions about the amount of time it took to get him treatment. Medical assistance did not arrive until about six minutes after the shooting.

Dr. Omalu said that he could not determine if Mr. Clark would have survived if he had received medical attention more quickly, but “every minute you wait decreases probability of survival.”

In its initial account, the Police Department said Mr. Clark had “advanced toward the officers” while holding what they believed to be a firearm. In body camera footage provided by the police, it is not clear which direction Mr. Clark is facing, and the family’s lawyer, Benjamin Crump, said the independent autopsy contradicted the assertion by the police that he was a threat.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Crump said the results proved that Mr. Clark could not have been moving toward the officers in a threatening fashion when they opened fire.

“These findings from the independent autopsy contradict the police narrative that we’ve been told,” he said. “This independent autopsy affirms that Stephon was not a threat to police and was slain in another senseless police killing under increasingly questionable circumstances.”

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Outside experts who have examined the case say it will be difficult to determine whether the officers could be held criminally accountable. The Supreme Court has sided with the police in fatal shootings if it is shown that officers reasonably believe their lives were in danger.

Justin Nix, who teaches policing at the University of Nebraska Omaha, said, “Any police shooting on camera is going to look bad. But when the guy is on his stomach and they continue to shoot, a lot of people are going to be bothered by it.”

Mr. Nix agreed the autopsy undercut the police’s version of events, but said: “He’s facing slightly in their direction. And it is possible they felt he was still reaching for what they thought was a gun.”

David A. Harris, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law who studies police accountability, said the officers were at a disadvantage because they were relying on information about the suspect from a police helicopter circling overhead.

Once they confront the suspect however, the officers order Mr. Clark to “show” his hands, rather than raise his hands, which Mr. Clark may have been doing when he was shot, Mr. Harris said.

But he said that if the officers perceived that Mr. Clark was armed and moving toward them, they are trained to shoot. “It is not clear they could have done anything differently,” he said.

The shots to Mr. Clark’s back were “not enough by itself to seal a negative judgment,” he said. In part because, “the victim’s body may have turned after the shooting began, and it is still unclear whether they could see that he had turned.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The Sacramento police chief, Daniel Hahn, requested assistance from the California Department of Justice earlier this week, headed by Attorney General Xavier Becerra, to join the department’s investigation as an independent party. Mr. Hahn said he hoped that step would reassure residents that the investigation would be impartial.

The episode began when two officers were dispatched to the Meadowview neighborhood in South Sacramento to investigate a report that someone was breaking car windows. A county sheriff’s department helicopter joined the search and hovered above, at one point telling officers that a suspect had picked up a crowbar.

The officers eventually spotted Mr. Clark, who appears to have run from them into his grandmother’s backyard. In body camera video, an officer is heard shouting the word “gun” repeatedly and opening fire almost immediately. No weapon was found on Mr. Clark’s body; the only object found was his cellphone.

After other officers arrived, the two officers involved in the shooting muted the audio on their body cameras as they discussed what had happened, which has also drawn criticism.

Mr. Clark’s funeral was on Thursday, attended by hundreds of mourners, including the Rev. Al Sharpton and other leaders from the Blacks Lives Matter movement. Mr. Clark’s brother, Stevante, pleaded with supporters not to forget his brother. Protests over the shooting, which have spread nationwide, are planned to continue on Saturday.


Continue reading the main story

Kim Jong-un’s China Visit Strengthens His Hand in Nuclear Talks

In images and in words, Mr. Kim and Mr. Xi signaled that they had repaired the relationship between their countries, which had soured as Mr. Kim had accelerated his nuclear program and Mr. Xi had responded by endorsing — and enforcing — more punishing sanctions proposed by the United States.

“The friendship between North Korea and China that was personally created and nurtured together by former generations of leaders from both our sides is unshakable,” Mr. Kim told Mr. Xi, according to Xinhua. Mr. Xi went out of his way to recall the warm friendship between his father, a high-ranking Communist Party official from the Mao era, and Mr. Kim’s father, Kim Jong-il, the North’s previous leader.

It is too soon to say whether the meeting marks a softening of China’s posture toward Mr. Kim or of its commitment to international sanctions against North Korea. But the visit served to highlight Beijing’s unique leverage over North Korea, even as Mr. Trump is threatening China with a trade war.

Mr. Trump can talk about maintaining “maximum pressure” on the North, but ultimately China — the North’s main trade partner — still decides what that means, because it can choose how strictly to enforce sanctions.

“China is saying to the United States and the rest of the world: Anyone who wants a deal on anything on the future of the Korean Peninsula, and certainly something which deals with nukes, don’t think you can walk around us, guys,” Kevin Rudd, a former Australian prime minister who is on good terms with the Chinese leadership, said in Hong Kong on Wednesday.

Photo
Mr. Kim, Mr. Xi and their wives at a banquet in Beijing this week. The visit highlighted Beijing’s unique leverage over North Korea, even as President Trump is threatening China with a trade war.

Credit
North Korean Central News Agency

Bruce Klingner, a former Korea analyst at the C.I.A. who is now at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, said China had been bypassed by the diplomatic outreach that resulted in Mr. Trump’s agreement to meet with Mr. Kim. “Beijing has been on the sidelines of North Korea’s recent charm offensive and likely saw it necessary to finally invite Kim for a summit to get a readout of the upcoming diplomatic meetings and to be seen as a major player,” he said.

The Chinese government said it had briefed the White House on Mr. Kim’s visit, adding that Mr. Xi had sent a personal message to Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

On Wednesday morning, Mr. Trump expressed optimism on Twitter about the potential for diplomatic success, saying there was “a good chance” that Mr. Kim would “do what is right for his people and for humanity.”

At her daily briefing, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, offered no concern about Mr. Kim’s visit to Beijing but declined to disclose the thrust of Mr. Xi’s message. “We feel like we’ve made significant progress and we’re going to continue moving forward in this process,” she said.

But there was little in the public accounts of Mr. Xi’s discussions with Mr. Kim to support such a positive assessment. Although Xinhua quoted Mr. Kim as saying he was open to talks with Mr. Trump and committed to denuclearization, North Korea’s own state media made no mention of either.

Xinhua also quoted Mr. Kim as proposing “phased, synchronized measures” by South Korea and the United States — a phrase that suggests a desire to negotiate a gradual drawdown of his arsenal, but which also echoes the North’s position in past talks that dragged on and ultimately failed. One major difference between then and now is that North Korea has a far more advanced nuclear arsenal.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Trump’s incoming national security adviser, John R. Bolton, meanwhile, has expressed little patience for extended negotiations. He has said that North Korea should be asked to park its nuclear arsenal at the Oak Ridge nuclear facility in Tennessee.

Some analysts in Washington saw Mr. Kim’s visit to Beijing as a masterstroke that softened his international image as a rogue figure and made him look as if he genuinely wants a peaceful resolution to the conflict, potentially complicating Mr. Trump’s task in their upcoming meeting.

“You’re building this momentum, looking reasonable, looking willing to denuclearize,” said Sue Mi Terry, a Korea scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, referring to the North Koreans. All of which makes it harder for Mr. Trump to blame the North Koreans if talks do not yield a breakthrough. “If we don’t play ball, with this hawkish team in place with Bolton and so on, at least perception-wise we look like we’re the problem,” she said.

If China decides to soften its stance on sanctions and act as North Korea’s protector, Mr. Kim will enter the talks in a considerably stronger position than he otherwise would have.

Photo
Mr. Kim’s father, Kim Jong-il, left, in Beijing with then-President Jiang Zemin of China in 2000. When this visit took place, Mr. Kim — like his son today — had held power in North Korea for about six years and was preparing for a summit meeting with South Korea’s president.

Credit
Xinhua, via Associated Press

“It is very unlikely that Kim Jong-un consulted with the Chinese before offering to meet Trump,” said Sergey Radchenko, a professor of international relations at Cardiff University in Wales. “This in itself was a rebellious affront to the Chinese leadership. But by doing this, Kim immeasurably strengthened his negotiating position vis-à-vis the Chinese. He came to Beijing not as a supplicant but as an equal.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Victor Cha, who was at one point Mr. Trump’s choice for ambassador to South Korea until the decision was abandoned, said that besides the possibility of a reconciliation between Beijing and Pyongyang, “the most potentially intriguing element of this” is that Mr. Kim traveled with his entire entourage out of the country. “Shows he’s not worried about leaving the palace vacant and vulnerable to some coup and that he will go abroad,” Mr. Cha said.

Many analysts said they believed China had initiated the visit, essentially telling Mr. Kim that he could no longer afford to be cavalier about his bigger, richer neighbor, and telegraphing to Mr. Trump that America could pay heavily for keeping China on the outside.

Beneath the new bonhomie in the official accounts of Mr. Kim’s trip, the edgy nature of the seven-decade-old China-North Korea relationship was still apparent.

No agreements between the two leaders were announced, even on basic issues. Mr. Xi, in his public comments, made no reference to Mr. Kim’s expected meeting with Mr. Trump, an omission that may have reflected Mr. Xi’s displeasure at being left on the sidelines.

There was also no public comment in Beijing about what Mr. Kim was planning to offer Mr. Trump or what role China would play as the talks approached, questions of the utmost importance to China.

While China supports the international effort to rid North Korea of nuclear weapons, it has also been careful not to press the North hard enough to risk a collapse of the Kim regime, which could potentially lead to a united Korean Peninsula, under an American security umbrella, on China’s border.

“China needs to know North Korea’s calculations,” said Da Wei, a professor at the University of International Relations in Beijing. “Kim knows the negotiations cannot fully succeed without China’s support. China’s involvement will make any solution more viable.”

Some analysts said Mr. Kim was repeating a pattern set by his father, Kim Jong-il, who visited China before his 2000 summit meeting with South Korea’s then-president, Kim Dae-jung. Kim Jong-il was then about six years into his tenure as North Korea’s leader, just as his son is now.

“Now six years into his own reign, Kim III seeks to play the role of the proactive, peace-seeking statesman,” said Lee Sung-yoon, a professor at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

He may hope to get Mr. Trump to settle for “another faulty, open-ended, non-biting nuclear deal” that would make it “politically near-impossible for the U.S. to talk about, let alone implement, a pre-emptive strike, John Bolton at the head of the National Security Council notwithstanding,” Mr. Lee said.


Continue reading the main story

‘There is deep pain’: Sacramento mayor on Stephon Clark’s brother disrupting City Council meeting

Protesters gathered by the hundreds at the Sacramento City Council meeting Tuesday night, and, like slain citizen Stephon Clark, they held up their cellphones.

“Does this look like a gun?” activist Berry Accius asked Mayor Darrell Steinberg and the other members of the council as those in the crowd extended their arms, phones in hand.

They were protesting the March 18 killing of Clark, 22, an unarmed black man shot at 20 times by two police officers. Police said the officers believed Clark had a gun, but only a white iPhone was found near his body.

The demonstrators on Tuesday were led by Stevonte Clark, who burst into the meeting about 30 minutes after it began, walked to the council’s dais and sat on it, chanting his brother’s name. His eyes met Steinberg’s.

“Stephon Clark! Stephon Clark!” he yelled, clad in a black shirt bearing his brother’s face.

And in front of Steinberg, he addressed the crowd: “The mayor and the city of Sacramento has failed all of you.” The demonstration prompted a recess and forced Steinberg to end the meeting early, citing safety concerns.

Steinberg said Clark’s disruption was inappropriate, but the moment revealed undercurrents of frustration and tension in a community marked by skepticism of police accountability.

“There is deep pain and anguish,” Steinberg told The Washington Post in a phone interview on Wednesday. “It’s our job to bear some of that pain, and to help translate the anguish and grieving and the historic pain [of black communities] into tangible and real change.”

Released body-camera footage of the incident, including delays in providing first aid and the officers’ failure to announce themselves as police, has prompted outrage in Sacramento, calls for accountability and numerous protests amid recent police killings of unarmed black men in the country.

Stevonte Clark could not be reached for comment. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) and Sacramento Police Chief Daniel Hahn announced earlier Tuesday that the state Department of Justice would provide independent oversight of the police investigation into the shooting.

“We take our responsibility in full recognition of the importance of getting it right,” Becerra said. “Because it’s about respect and trust. It’s about identifying ways to achieve public safety and safer outcomes in the future.”

Steinberg was also in attendance for the announcement. He had briefly spoken about the conduct of the officers, citing the ongoing investigation. But, he said, “regardless of the conclusions there, the outcome was just plain wrong. A 22-year-old man should not have died that way.”

Policy evaluations are underway, he said, including an April 10 department-led review of relevant procedures, like how foot pursuits should be conducted and regulations for applying first aid to suspects.

Police say that Clark was breaking into vehicles and that the officers pursued him as he headed to his grandmother’s house, where he had been staying. One officer shouted ‘Gun!’ in the belief that Clark was armed. The two officers took cover, and seconds later, fired 10 rounds each, striking Clark an unknown number of times. More than five minutes passed before officers provided medical attention. Clark died at the scene.

“It raises serious questions, obviously,” Steinberg said about the officers’ apparent failure to identify themselves as police.

The delay in providing medical attention, another focus of the outcry, is also a concern. “I am troubled by that,” he said, but he added that the probe may reveal why that had occurred.

Sacramento police declined to elaborate on their policy on providing live-saving aid to citizens they injure. “That is part of our ongoing investigation of this entire incident,” spokesman Vance Chandler said Wednesday. A single sentence of department guidance reads: “Officers shall provide first aid to injured parties if it can be done safely.”

Chandler also declined to describe department policy detailing how and when officers can disable their body-camera video and audio feed. In the closing moments of the body-camera footage released by the department, another police official asks the two officers involved in the shooting to mute their body cameras. The department has not released their names amid threats to their safety.

Family members and activists accuse police in general of treating black men with more violence. Steinberg said he believes unconscious racial bias is linked to police shootings generally, but he stopped short of describing any link to the Clark killing.

“I don’t believe our cops are racist. But that’s a different question from whether [implicit] racism pervades every aspect of community life, especially in law enforcement and communities of color.”

An analysis by The Post found that 987 people were killed by police last year — 68 of them unarmed. Clark is at least the sixth person fatally shot by the Sacramento Police Department since the beginning of 2015. Five of them were black men; the other was a white man. At least 230 people have been killed by police this year, according to The Post’s database on fatal force.

The White House on Wednesday called Clark’s death “a terrible incident” but declined to weigh in further on the shooting or the decision by Louisiana’s attorney general, announced Tuesday, not to seek charges against the officers who fatally shot Alton Sterling in 2016.

In Sacramento, the protests continue, and citizens are closely watching the outcome of the investigation. Steinberg said he is “extremely conscious” of nationwide accountability concerns involving police officers escaping punishment after they were found to have violated the public’s trust.

A Post analysis published last year found that since 2006, the nation’s largest police departments have fired at least 1,881 officers for misconduct. Departments reinstated 450 officers after appeals required by union contracts.

California laws minimize what law enforcement agencies publicly release after incidents such as officer-involved shootings, including the disciplinary measures taken and the investigators’ conclusions. “That’s not right. The public has the right to know,” Steinberg said.

All eyes are on Sacramento to serve as an example, he said.

“We need to ask and answer that seminal question: ‘Is there not a better way?’ And the answer has to be yes.”

Wesley Lowery contributed to this report.

Read more:

Baton Rouge police officers won’t be charged in fatal shooting of Alton Sterling

A deputy in Houston shot and killed an unarmed black man — days after Stephon Clark’s death

Veterans Affairs Secretary Is Latest to Go as Trump Shakes Up Cabinet

In the midst of that turmoil, Dr. Jackson, 50, who was named to his current position by President Barack Obama in 2013, has grown close with Mr. Trump, a commander in chief who enjoys familiar faces in his orbit and often rewards them with new roles.

Dr. Jackson had a rare turn in the spotlight in January, when he announced the results of Mr. Trump’s physical, his first while in office, and addressed speculation over the president’s physical and mental health. The president was very pleased with the performance.

“I’ve found no reason whatsoever to think the president has any issues whatsoever with his thought processes,” Dr. Jackson said.

His policy views are all but unknown, though, especially on Capitol Hill, where the Senate will decide whether he is up to leading the department. Senators, including Johnny Isakson of Georgia, the chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, issued cautious statements on Wednesday praising Dr. Shulkin and indicating that they would need to get to know the nominee.

Photo
Dr. Ronny L. Jackson, the White House physician, discussed the results of President Trump’s medical exam in January.

Credit
Doug Mills/The New York Times

That tone was echoed by mainstream veterans groups like Disabled American Veterans and the American Legion, who hold considerable sway in Washington, and who warned of a potential leadership vacuum at the department.

Privately, several White House aides acknowledged that Dr. Jackson’s lack of managerial experience could be problematic and said that once again the president’s interest in his personal bond with someone was more significant than their curriculum vitae.

In a Twitter post on Wednesday announcing the changes, Mr. Trump called Dr. Jackson “highly respected” and thanked Dr. Shulkin for “service to our country and to our great veterans.”

Mr. Trump said that Robert Wilkie, the under secretary for defense personnel and readiness at the Defense Department, would serve as acting secretary in the meantime, bypassing the department’s deputy secretary, Thomas G. Bowman.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The White House did not respond to a request asking who would replace Dr. Jackson.

Dr. Shulkin, who served as under secretary of veterans affairs in the Obama administration, had begun to make headway on some of the department’s most persistent problems. Those included an expansion of the G.I. Bill for post-9/11 veterans, legislation that makes it easier for the department to remove bad employees and a law that streamlines the appeals process for veterans seeking disability benefits.

Those successes and his easy grasp of complicated policy issues won Dr. Shulkin deep support on Capitol Hill and among veterans groups. And Mr. Trump, who made veterans issues and overhauling the scandal-ridden department a focal point of his campaign, showered Dr. Shulkin with praise. At a bill-signing ceremony in June, the president teased that the secretary need never worry about hearing his “Apprentice”-era catchphrase, “You’re fired.”

“We’ll never have to use those words on our David,” Mr. Trump said. “We will never use those words on you, that’s for sure.”

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

But in recent months, a group of conservative Trump administration appointees at the White House and the department began to break with the secretary and plot his ouster. At issue was how far and how fast to privatize health care for veterans, a long-sought goal for conservatives like the Koch brothers.

The officials — who included Dr. Shulkin’s press secretary and assistant secretary for communications, along with a top White House domestic policy aide — came to consider Dr. Shulkin and his top deputy as obstacles.

The secretary’s troubles only grew when what had been an internal power struggle burst into the open in February, after the department’s inspector general issued a scathing report on a trip Dr. Shulkin took last year to Britain and Denmark. The report, describing what it called “serious derelictions,” found the secretary had spent much of the trip sightseeing and had improperly accepted Wimbledon tickets as a gift.

Interactive Graphic

Turnover at a Constant Clip: The Trump Administration’s Major Departures

Since President Trump’s inauguration, staffers of the White House and federal agencies have left in firings and resignations, one after the other.


Critics of the secretary seized on the report to try to hasten his removal. Dr. Shulkin, fearing a coup, went public with a warning about officials “trying to undermine the department from within” and cut off those he saw as disloyal. The efforts backfired. At the White House, senior officials came to believe that Dr. Shulkin had misled them about the contents of the report. And the secretary’s public declarations only further aggravated top officials, who felt Dr. Shulkin had gone too far in commenting on internal politics with news outlets and had opened the administration to sharp criticism over his trip to Europe, which the report said cost more than $122,000.

But as recently as early March, after meetings with John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, Dr. Shulkin publicly claimed victory, signaling that he had the White House’s support to remove officials opposing him.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The victory was short-lived. Before long, Dr. Shulkin sharply curtailed his public profile, cutting off communications with reporters and isolating himself from top deputies he viewed as disloyal. People who have spoken with the secretary in recent days said he was determined to keep his post, even as it became increasingly clear his time was up. He was set to meet with leaders from the nation’s largest veterans groups on Thursday.

Despite his problems with the White House, Dr. Shulkin remained overwhelmingly popular on Capitol Hill, where the Senate unanimously confirmed him last year, and among the veterans groups that have traditionally held outsize influence in Washington. In recent weeks, leaders from both parties publicly and privately signaled their support, even as rumors of his replacement appeared in news reports.

But Mr. Trump had had enough. He began to discuss successors in recent weeks, even considering Energy Secretary Rick Perry as a possibility. He told friends last weekend that he would fire Dr. Shulkin, it was just a question of when.

Dr. Shulkin had made a preliminary inquiry about having Dr. Jackson for an under secretary role last year, and the president spoke with him briefly about it then, one senior administration official said. But it went nowhere at the time.

By Monday, Mr. Trump had started animatedly talking with a handful of people about the idea of Dr. Jackson’s replacing Dr. Shulkin, people familiar with the discussions said. Still, he did not tell many advisers of his plan until soon before it was announced.

A Navy doctor since 1995, Dr. Jackson deployed as an emergency medicine physician to Taqaddum, Iraq, during the Iraq war. He has served as a member of the White House medical unit since 2006 and as its lead physician since 2013, overseeing Mr. Obama’s physicals.

Dr. Jackson had told several people that he planned to retire from Washington after Mr. Obama left office. But Mr. Trump, whose previous personal physician made headlines with a series of unauthorized news interviews about his patient, asked Dr. Jackson to stay on. Mr. Trump, who goes to great lengths to hide details of his personal life, quickly came to trust Dr. Jackson, referring to him warmly as “Doc” around the White House.

Democrats, moderate Republicans and mainline veterans groups have all feared that Dr. Shulkin’s departure could clear the way for a more aggressive push for government-subsidized private care at the department.

“Every major veterans’ organization in this country vigorously opposes the privatization of the V.A.,” Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont and a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, said in a statement. “I stand with them. Our job is to strengthen the V.A. in order to provide high-quality care to our veterans, not dismember it.”

Correction: March 28, 2018

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated the rank of Dr. Ronny L. Jackson. He is a rear admiral, not an admiral.


Continue reading the main story

Apple needs more than apps to win over educators

At $299 (and $50 to $99 more if you want to get a compatible stylus), schools might not have the budget to get both a tablet and a traditional laptop for students. With the financial constraints of most public schools, they probably have to pick one of the two. And while Apple’s case for the iPad as an educational tool is a strong one, laptops remain a more sensible option for most students. Which begs the question: Why hasn’t Apple made a low-cost Macbook for education instead?

Apple is likely making a push into schools in an attempt to recapture some of its glory days in the education sector. Apple famously made a deal in 1978 with the Minnesota Education Computing Consortium (MECC) to supply 500 computers to schools, and by 1982, MECC was the largest seller of Apple computers in the country. Steve Jobs told Computerworld in a 1985 interview that “one of the things that built the Apple II was schools buying Apple IIs.”

It used to be that Apple computers were commonplace in learning institutions, with Macintoshes and eMacs present in schools and universities across the country throughout the 1980s and early 2000s. Much of that was due to efforts such as large-scale computer donations, deals with top colleges, and making eMacs (and other models) a little less capable and more affordable than the rest of Apple’s consumer lineup.

In the mid-2000s, Apple did make a low-cost Macbook for schools… sort of. It was the basic polycarbonate Macbook, and while it was initially intended for consumer audiences, it was still marketed and sold in schools as a low-cost alternative. When they were taken off the retail shelf in 2011, Apple still sold them exclusively to educational institutions for around $900 per machine.

In recent years, however, things have changed. According to a recent survey by FutureSource Consulting, Apple has fallen to a distant third behind Google Chromebooks and Windows PCs in the education market. That’s because Chromebooks and PCs are more affordable. In an effort to make its products sleeker and faster, Apple’s done away with most of its entry-level products. The cheapest Macbook right now, for example, is $1,300, which is definitely not a budget laptop by any stretch of the imagination.

So why can’t Apple make a cheap laptop? “Theoretically Apple could do this, although the first step they would have to take is to reduce their profit margin,” said analyst Rhoda Alexander from IHS Markit. “However, that profit margin is a key component of Apple’s success, allowing Apple to constantly reinvest in the brand, driving innovation and RD across hardware, software and content development.”

Apple could also make cheaper laptops with plastic cases and cheaper CPUs, but making mass quantities of cheap hardware doesn’t seem to be part of Apple’s current strategy. “There are other compromises they could make at the design and component level to reduce their cost, if their end goal was to drive unit volume,” continued Alexander, stating that Apple likely wants to maintain a “premiere standard across the entire brand line.”

Which seems to be why Apple seems to be so keen on iPads as part of its education strategy. Not only are the tablets portable, lightweight and easy to use, they’re also part of Apple’s “post-PC” narrative, where most tasks only need a touchscreen and an accessory or two.

In a way, it makes sense. When Engadget tried replacing a laptop with an iPad Pro for a week, we found it to be surprisingly effective, letting us do most tasks with ease. No, it didn’t quite replace a laptop for us — batch-resize images was a struggle, for example — but it was close. And for kids, that might be good enough.

The fact that so many parents already use iPads with their kids should not be underestimated. After all, this is a device that many children are already familiar with, and moving from what you have at home and bringing the experience to school makes sense. While laptops and keyboards are what we as adults are familiar with, children who grow up with hand-me-down tablets will be more adept with touchscreens. Combined with just how many educational apps there are available on the iPad, it’s no surprise that Apple sees the iPad as key to getting back into classrooms.

Yet, the cost is a barrier. Given the choice between a $300 iPad and Chromebooks that start at $150, it’ll be hard for schools to pick the former over the latter. Sure, one has sleek and powerful apps, but the other has a keyboard, with all the important functionality, for a cheaper price.

Apple could make a student-only iPad or Macbook just for the educational market, perhaps constructed out of a durable polycarbonate. As long as there was enough performance and power to properly run any and all educational apps as well as Apple’s own productivity tools without hiccups. It might not be as shiny and glossy as the iPad announced today or the current Macbook line, but it wouldn’t need to be.

But the reality is, we probably won’t see anything like that anytime soon. At the end of the day, Apple has stuck to its guns as a purveyor of high-end electronics. It would be very unlike Apple to suddenly produce cheaper budget versions of its hardware just to keep up with its rivals (the iPhone 5c didn’t last long, remember). Which is unfortunate, because that might be what it needs to do in order to convince more schools to switch to iPad.

Catch up on all of the news from Apple’s education event right here!