War Comes to Kyiv - Residents are facing nightly air strikes, food shortages, and the prospect of taking up arms to defend the capital. - link
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Historic Nomination to the Supreme Court - The fact that Jackson is eminently qualified doesn’t mean that her confirmation hearing won’t be a bonfire of bad faith—far from it. - link
For Ukraine, Far Too Little, Too Late - The central flaw in the West’s strategy was fearing that preëmptively confronting Putin would give the Russian leader a justification to attack—but it’s now clear that he intended to invade, whatever the U.S. and Europe did. - link
Gish Jen Reads Grace Paley - The author joins Deborah Treisman to read and discuss “Friends,” by Grace Paley, which was published in a 1979 issue of the magazine. - link
Europe’s Aggressive New Stance Toward Putin’s Regime - The defiance of Ukrainian citizens in the face of the Russian onslaught has inspired the European Union to action. - link
From Vox
The Supreme Court could make it very easy for federal law enforcement to violate the Constitution -
Border Patrol agents work a checkpoint at an entry near the Del Rio International Bridge on September 22, 2021 in Del Rio, Texas. | Brandon Bell/Getty Images
What’s the remedy if a federal official violates your constitutional rights? The answer may soon be nothing.
Robert Boule owns a bed and breakfast along the border between Washington State and Canada, which is cheekily named the “Smuggler’s Inn.” It’s a business that has a fairly shady reputation.
Those charges were later dismissed by a Canadian court on constitutional grounds. But now, Boule’s somewhat sketchy inn is the subject of a Supreme Court case that could grant federal law enforcement officers sweeping immunity from lawsuits alleging that they violated the Constitution — even when those officers target people who are entirely innocent.
Egbert v. Boule could radically expand federal officers’ legal immunity
In March of 2014 Boule welcomed a guest who had recently arrived in the United States from Turkey. Although the guest was lawfully present in the United States, federal border patrol agent Erik Egbert decided to confront this guest when he arrived at Boule’s inn.
When the guest arrived, Egbert drove onto Boule’s property and approached the car containing the guest. After Boule asked Egbert to leave, and Egbert refused, Boule stepped between the border patrol agent and his guest. Egbert then allegedly shoved Boule against the car, grabbed him, and pushed him to the ground.
Then, after Boule complained to Egbert’s supervisor about this treatment, Egbert allegedly retaliated against him by contacting the Internal Revenue Service and asking that agency to investigate Boule’s tax statute.
Boule, in other words, alleges that Agent Egbert violated his constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and if Egbert did, indeed, assault Boule, that could form the basis for a valid Fourth Amendment lawsuit. Boule also claims he had a First Amendment right to complain to Egbert’s supervisor without facing retaliation.
And yet, in Egbert v. Boule, a case being argued in front of the Supreme Court this Wednesday, the Court is likely to cut off Boule’s lawsuit against Egbert before it even gets off the ground. In the process, the Court could gut a seminal precedent from the early 1970s establishing that federal law enforcement officers can be held personally responsible when they violate the Constitution.
The primary issue in Boule is the continued viability of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents(1971), which permits federal lawsuits against federal officials who allegedly violated the Constitution. Although the Court has not yet overruled Bivens, it has already stripped that case of much of its force. The Supreme Court’s most recent case applying Bivens, for example, said that a border patrol agent — who allegedly shot and killed a Mexican child, from across the US-Mexico border, and in cold blood — could not be sued.
So the most likely outcome in the Boule case is that Agent Egbert receives lawsuit immunity. The more difficult question is whether any meaningful part of Bivens will remain in effect after Boule is decided.
Bivens, briefly explained
Although the Constitution places numerous limits on federal law enforcement, including the limits imposed by the First and Fourth Amendments, it is silent about what the proper remedy is when a law enforcement officer violates those rights. A federal law does permit suits against state law enforcement officers who violate “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,” but there is no similar statute that explicitly authorizes suits against federal agents.
Nevertheless, the Court concluded in Bivens that a right to sue federal law enforcement officers is implicit in the Constitution. “Power,” Justice William Brennan wrote for the Court in Bivens, “does not disappear like a magic gift when it is wrongfully used.” An officer who acts unlawfully “in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own.” And thus there must be some legal remedy to ensure that officers do not abuse this power.
But Bivens fell out of favor with the Supreme Court almost as soon as it was decided. Months after Bivens was handed down, President Richard Nixon made his third and fourth appointments to the Court — giving it a new majority that was less favorable to the rights of criminal defendants. And the Court has moved inexorably to the right ever since, in large part because the Electoral College and Senate malapportionment allow Republicans to confirm their own nominees, and to block Democratic nominees, even when Republicans do not enjoy majority support from the nation as a whole.
As a result, the Court’s more recent decisions have described Bivens suits as “a ‘disfavored’ judicial activity.” In Hernández v. Mesa (2020), the case where a border patrol agent shot a Mexican child, the five Republicans in the majority concluded that it is “doubtful that we would have reached the same result” if Bivens were “decided today.” And Hernández also instructed lower courts to be very reluctant to hear Bivens claims.
Under Hernández, courts should be skeptical of any Bivens suit that is “different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court,” and should dismiss these suits if there are any “special factors counselling hesitation.”
All of which is a long way of saying that Boule faces an uphill battle in a Supreme Court that’s only grown more conservative since Hernández was decided.
The Court could give the entire border patrol sweeping immunity from constitutional litigation
Indeed, given the Hernández decision, it wouldn’t be difficult for the Court’s Republican majority to craft an opinion rejecting Boule’s lawsuit. Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Hernández is a love letter to the federal border patrol, and can easily be read to immunize every member of that agency from Bivens suits.
Recall that Bivens suits will typically be dismissed if a court determines that the case presents “special factors counselling hesitation.” Alito’s Hernández opinion claimed that several such factors were present in that case, some of which are not at all present in Boule. Among other things, Alito noted that the US and Mexican governments disagreed about what should happen to a US official who shoots a Mexican child from across the border, and suggested that this disagreement should be resolved through “diplomatic channels” and not through a lawsuit.
But Alito’s opinion also spoke reverently about the job of border patrol agents, and the role they perform “by attempting to control the movement of people and goods across the border.” Quoting from a federal statute, Alito noted that the border patrol’s responsibility is to “detect, respond to, and interdict terrorists, drug smugglers and traffickers, human smugglers and traffickers, and other persons who may undermine the security of the United States,” and that border patrol agents might be deterred from doing this job aggressively if they could face lawsuits for illegal conduct.
So there really isn’t too much uncertainty about how the Court will resolve Boule. Hernández is pretty clear that the courts should not bother themselves with trivial things, such as the First and Fourth Amendments, if those amendments could interfere with the important work of US border patrol agents.
The more uncertain question is whether the Court will use Boule as a vehicle to neutralize Bivens altogether, or at least to cut off many Bivens suits that do not involve the border patrol.
Boule is, admittedly, not the most sympathetic plaintiff who has ever filed a Bivens lawsuit. But the Supreme Court deals in broad legal rules that bind every federal court in the country. In the likely event that the Court rules against Boule, it could do considerable violence to the public’s ability to hold rogue law enforcement officers accountable.
What the State of the Union can, and can’t, do for Biden’s political fortunes -
President Joe Biden at the White House on February 28. | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
He has a rhetorical opportunity, but it’s unrealistic to expect one speech to turn everything around.
On the eve of his State of the Union address, amid an international crisis, President Joe Biden has sunk to his worst approval numbers yet.
A new Washington Post/ABC poll found just 37 percent of adults approve of Biden’s job performance. The poll was conducted partly before and partly after Russian President Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine.
That’s just one sample, but Biden’s approval in FiveThirtyEight’s weighted average of polls has sunk to 40.7 percent, from around 42 percent before Russia attacked Ukraine — suggesting the foreign crisis has so far not spurred the American public to rally around Biden’s leadership. Instead, he has bottomed out as the crisis ramps up.
The stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war are much higher than Biden’s own political fortunes, of course, and he shouldn’t be making decisions about it based on his approval rating. But this is an ominous sign regarding the American public’s willingness to bear the costs of economic turmoil that the war and the resulting sanctions from the West may unleash.
It’s too much to expect any one speech to drastically change Biden’s political position, but it is one of the most high-profile chances he’ll get to put out a message to the public before November’s midterms. But to do so, he’ll have to strike a balance between the international crisis and Americans’ domestic worries.
A foreign crisis, and a public with domestic concerns
Though Biden has been praised by foreign policy elites for his response since Russia’s attack, the conflict likely still seems far off to many Americans, notable mainly for deepening the sense that the world is going to hell.
Instead, it’s the state of the economy that continues to most unsettle the public, with 75 percent of respondents to the Post/ABC poll rating the economy as either “not so good” or “poor.” Asked about their personal finances, 35 percent of respondents said they were worse off since Biden took office, 17 percent said they were better off, and 47 percent said they were doing about the same.
That perception is likely due to high inflation eating into real incomes. According to the Bureau of Economic Affairs, real incomes decreased by 0.5 percentage points in fourth quarter of 2021 compared to one year prior. And bad news on this metric is associated with a bad performance for the president’s party in midterm elections.
But Biden’s problems are broader than the economy. His approval rating rapidly dropped in August of last year, as headlines were dominated by chaos in Afghanistan while he was withdrawing US troops. The media then moved on from Afghanistan, but the bad news continued with the rise of new Covid variants, as well as inflation. By the fall, polls showed that about half of voters gave Biden low marks for “competence.” In a new Quinnipiac University poll conducted after Putin’s attack, just 39 percent of respondents approved of Biden’s response to Russia, with 47 percent disapproving.
So from Afghanistan to his legislative agenda to the economy to the coronavirus to now Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the narrative has been the same: that Biden is floundering and ineffective. Some of those criticisms are unfair, others are defensible — but that’s the perception he really needs to change to have any hope of avoiding a midterm debacle.
What the State of the Union can, and can’t, do for Biden
Biden will get to make the case for his crisis response, and for his presidency in general, with his State of the Union address Tuesday. And though Ukraine has been dominating headlines and will clearly be a focus, much of the speech is still expected to focus on the economy and the administration’s efforts to fight inflation, Nancy Cook of Bloomberg News reported.
The speech itself is unlikely to affect his approval — Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones has written that these addresses “rarely affect a president’s public standing in a meaningful way, despite the amount of attention they receive.” But his best opportunity to make a memorable historical statement may lie in the realm of foreign policy. Certain addresses focused on international matters have stood the test of time, in ways both good and bad.
In 1823 James Monroe used his “president’s message” (as the State of the Union, then delivered in writing, was then called) to announce what became known as the Monroe Doctrine, which became a cornerstone of American foreign policy. In 1941 FDR listed “Four Freedoms” that the US pledged to defend all over the world, as war raged. And in 2002 George W. Bush asserted that North Korea, Iran, and Iraq comprised an “axis of evil,” setting the stage for the US invasion of Iraq. Each of these was remembered for putting forward a distinct idea or memorable turn of phrase.
If Biden wanted to speak and craft rhetoric for history rather than short-term popularity, he could try to do so. But he also may want to avoid trying to define a new foreign policy doctrine now, amid a tense unfolding crisis. His imperative is still two- sided — he wants to signal resolve in standing up against Putin’s aggression, but he also would very much like to make clear a path to deescalating the crisis is possible.
It’s a tough balance to strike, particularly with the perceived need in the speech to cover all the domestic concerns that worry Americans as well. And there are other topics on Biden’s mind as well — such as his new Supreme Court nominee and his hopes of reviving the stalled Build Back Better bill in some form. Modern State of the Union addresses usually attempt to cover practically everything on the political agenda, even though they risk sounding like a laundry list.
War in the time of crypto -
A cryptocurrency exchange point in Kyiv, Ukraine, on January 24. | STR/NurPhoto via Getty Images
In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which side is crypto helping? Both.
In times of crisis, there is no good; there’s only a best course of action, given the circumstances. Is crypto good in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? Is it bad? Neutral? It’s a hard question to answer.
Cryptocurrency is now a more mainstream part of the global financial system, which means that — for better or for worse — it’s inevitably a part of international conflict, too. This is on full display as Russian forces invade Ukraine. Millions of dollars in crypto have flowed in to support Ukraine’s army and hacktivist groups. Even the Ukrainian government is nowsoliciting donations in crypto and has already raised more than $15 million. Some Ukrainians are also turning to crypto as an alternative to Ukrainian financial institutions, which are limiting people’s access to bank accounts and foreign currency. In a scenario where governments are in chaos, it’s difficult to rely on traditional banks, and there’s fear of surveillance. So a relatively anonymous system where no government is involved is appealing.
“The fact that it can’t be frozen, the fact that it can’t be censored, and the fact that it can be used without ID is very, very important,” Alex Gladstein, chief strategy officer at the Human Rights Foundation, told Recode. “And they are why bitcoin is such an important humanitarian tool.”
Just how useful an avenue crypto is for people in crisis or organizations in need of donations is up for debate. You need a relatively sophisticated understanding of technology to use crypto, and if you weren’t already set up for it, the onset of a war might not be the moment to try to do it. Plenty of donations to Ukrainian groups are flowing in just fine using more traditional currencies.
“This is not a time for disrupting things. Folks have their lives disrupted already,” said Giulio Coppi, global digital specialist at the Norwegian Refugee Council.
All of the things that make crypto appealing to those under siege apply to those doing the sieging as well. Crypto is often usedby bad actors, and could be exploited by Russia to avoid sanctions, which is currently the main weapon being employed by the US and its allies against Russia. Its prevalence in cyberwarfare also means people holding crypto could be a target for cyberattacks, and although one of the main appeals of crypto is that it’s supposed to be anonymous, it isn’t foolproof.
More broadly, cryptocurrencies are quite volatile. While proponents of the crypto space often argue that bitcoin and the like are some sort of “digital gold,” they’ve lost value amid global uncertainty, undercutting the argument that they’re a kind of safe haven. If you imagine a scenario where you take $1,000 out of Ukraine in a cryptocurrency and by the time you’re able to convert it back to cash it’s lost half its value, that’s not ideal. But what if crypto is the easiest way to get money in a crisis? Is it better than nothing at all?
Ukrainians are using crypto — but there are limitations
Right now, at least some Ukrainians escaping the country seem to be taking their crypto with them, which they hope to convert back into fiat currency once they arrive to safety. Others seem to be looking toward crypto as a way to store their wealth as Ukraine’s economy collapses; the country’s central bank has already suspended electronic cash transfers and is blocking Ukrainian citizens from withdrawing foreign currency. Trading on the Ukrainian crypto platform Kuna reached its highest level since May 2021 this past Friday.
“In Ukraine right now, you can download a bitcoin wallet open source — totally unconnected from your ID — and you can generate an address via a QR code or an alphanumeric string,” Gladstein explained. “You can paste that to me, I can send you $1,000, and it goes through in a few minutes.”
Using crypto in the middle of a crisis isn’t necessarily easy. For one thing, you need an internet connection and a working device. You also need to know how to use crypto, which has a steep learning curve and is something people aren’t going to be able to pick up quickly in moments of crisis. There are thousands of cryptocurrencies, and they don’t all work the same way. Crypto also has to be available to buy: Right now, even wealthier Ukrainians are reportedly having trouble buying Tether, a digital currency that’s pegged to the US dollar. And if you’re only converting other assets you own into crypto now, the rest of the financial system needs to be working, too.
“It might work for some people, but they need first to unfreeze their assets, transfer them into digital currency, and then manage to get out [of the country], which is actually the main problem right now,” Coppi said. “And then when they’re out, hope it hasn’t devalued too much.”
That means that for now, crypto might be most helpful to the people who already have it. That could account for millions of people in Ukraine, which has spent the last few years aggressively promoting its own domestic cryptocurrency industry. In February, the country’s parliament passed a law “legalizing” crypto, and Ukraine now ranks fourth in the world in terms of crypto adoption, according to the blockchain research company Chainalysis.
Andriy Andriyenko/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
A Ukrainian soldier at an ATM in Mayorske on December 11, 2021.
As the conflict continues, supporters of Ukraine are sending even more crypto into the country. On social media sites and platforms like Telegram, people — including leaders of the country’s burgeoning crypto sector — are sharing their crypto wallet addresses and soliciting donations. One NGO supporting the Ukrainian military has reportedly raised several million in cryptocurrency, and groups are using crypto to buy a motley collection of military equipment, medical supplies, and even a facial recognition app. Some of these fundraising efforts have been active for months, but picked up steam last week.
To be sure, if you’re looking to send crypto to help in Ukraine, it’s important to check if the people on the receiving end want it and are equipped to handle it. Notably, neither the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense nor the National Bank of Ukraine appear to be accepting cryptocurrency donations right now, though the government of Ukraine is, according to its verified Twitter account. Given crypto’s volatility, it’s also worth remembering that the amount of the donation in crypto isn’t set in stone and could drop fast.
“If they don’t ask you for it, don’t send it,” Coppi said.
Russia can also take advantage of crypto
The heroic version of crypto in crisis — one that paints it as an alternative for people in dire situations — obfuscates the darker side of the space. It’s a very pertinent side, in particular, with regard to Russia.
Even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the United States government was worried that cryptocurrencies could dull the impact of economic sanctions. Iran has used bitcoin mining to bypass trade embargoes, according to research from the blockchain analytics firm Elliptic.
Multiple countries have begun to hit Russia with heavy sanctions. In some corners, that’s caused concern that Russia could use crypto to circumvent sanctions and move money undetected. As the New York Times outlines, the Russian government has been developing a digital ruble, and Russia has been building tools to help hide the origins of digital transactions. Basically, if sanctions are meant to keep countries and businesses from dealing with Russia, crypto would be a way to get around them. Michael Parker, a former federal prosecutor, told the Times it would be “naive” to think Russia hadn’t gamed out a scenario where sanctions were imposed and it would have to find alternatives.
Alexander Nemenov/AFP via Getty Images
People walk past a currency exchange office in central Moscow on February 24.
To avoid this scenario, Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s vice prime minister and minister of digital transformation, has called for crypto and blockchain platforms to block the addresses of Russian users. The Biden administration is also weighing how it might sanction Russian cryptocurrency assets, and has already urged crypto exchanges to ensure that specific, sanctioned individuals and organizations from Russia aren’t using their platforms.
While cutting off Russia’s access to crypto could have real repercussions for the country — crypto has become increasingly popular in Russia, which is also the world’s third-largest bitcoin miner — it may not be possible. Not all exchanges confirm the identity of their customers, and it’s generally difficult to track the origin of cryptocurrency transactions. Whether a cryptocurrency exchange legally has to comply with sanctions may depend on where they’re registered and where they operate. Many exchanges have rebuffed calls for them to freeze Russian accounts.
1/6 I understand the rationale for this request but, despite my deep respect for the Ukrainian people, @krakenfx cannot freeze the accounts of our Russian clients without a legal requirement to do so.
Crypto can also be used to fundraise for bad actors. Just as pro-Ukrainian groups have been able to get funding via crypto, so have pro-Russian separatist groups in Ukraine, including in 2014, when Russia invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula, said Jess Symington, the head of research at Elliptic. “The pro-Russian groups were particularly active around the 2014 conflict,” she said.
Russia has heavy ties to crypto-linked cybercrimes and illegal activity such as money laundering and ransomware. According to one analysis from Chainalysis, three-quarters of the money made through ransomware attacks last year went to hackers linked to Russia. In January, the Ukrainian government was targeted by a series of cyberattacks that disguised themselves as ransomware that demanded bitcoin, before destroying data on government computers.
“Capital flight by economically distressed Ukrainians, or even Russians, is a very different thing than the Russian state attempting to launder money or evade sanctions,” said Alex Zerden, a former Treasury Department official under the Obama and Trump administrations.
Coppi, from the Norwegian Refugee Council, warned that people putting their money in crypto may become unsuspecting victims in cyberwarfare, and not only in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. “Most conflicts are going to be more and more about cyberwarfare,” he said. “You risk becoming a target.”
That being said, it’s not as though other currencies can’t be used for unsavory activities. “US dollars are used for a lot of really great economic activities,” Zerden said. “It’s also used to buy drugs and weapons and, you know, engage in human trafficking, right?”
Bitcoin maybe isn’t digital gold
One of the big arguments that crypto proponents have long made is that cryptocurrencies have the potential to act as “digital gold.” That means that, unlike fiat currencies, bitcoin can’t be diluted because there’s only going to ever be a set number of bitcoin, and that investing in cryptocurrencies is a way to diversify your portfolio in the face of volatility. Theoretically, that’s supposed to mean that bitcoin is a way to hedge against inflation, or that if the stock market crashes, bitcoin won’t. This theory hasn’t entirely proven to be true. Crypto has shown itself to be super volatile, and it often moves with stocks. The current conflict has highlighted crypto’s volatility.
Bitcoin fell when Russia invaded Ukraine, as did the S&P 500 — it didn’t act differently from major US stocks. And as the S&P 500 rebounded later in the week, so did bitcoin.
“That’s removing the perception that people had that cryptocurrencies could be used as a hedging asset against these kinds of macroeconomic conditions,” said Hugh Harsono, a digital currency researcher.
Still, cryptocurrency advocates say bitcoin can be better than the alternatives — like cash, bank accounts, or other physical assets, like gold or real estate — because it’s beyond the control of any one institution and easily transportable. And while crypto may be volatile, it can be less volatile than some countries’ fiat currencies or markets. Earlier this year, the Turkish lira became more volatile than bitcoin, which prompted some people in Turkey to cash in their fiat currency for bitcoin and Tether.
“You’re worried that bitcoin went down 10 percent today or whatever,” Gladstein, from the Human Rights Foundation, said. “What are your other options for Ukrainians? What are they going to do? Put it in the Ukrainian stock market? Are they going to put it in a house? Are they going to bring the house with them?”
Crypto is a part of war now, like it or not
This isn’t the first time people have turned to crypto amid an international conflict, but it does feel like the first time crypto is front and center, so much so that some have even called Russia’s invasion of Ukraine“the world’s first crypto war.”
This is largely thanks to crypto proponents who have rallied in support of Ukraine and tried to find a role for crypto. The cryptocurrency exchange FTX, for instance, has given the equivalent of $25 to every Ukrainian user on its platform to use as they please, according to its CEO Sam Bankman- Fried. One of the co-founders of the Russian protest band Pussy Riot, Nadya Tolokonnikova, has organized a fundraising effort to sell 10,000 NFTs of the Ukrainian flag. Vitalik Buterin, the Russian-born founder of ethereum, has encouraged people to donate to humanitarian efforts in the country with crypto.
Of course, some of crypto boosters’ efforts to inject the digital assets into a war effort have been a little cringeworthy. It doesn’t really help for a bored ape NFT person to express solidarity with Ukraine. Given the scamminess of parts of the space, it’s also hard to know which projects are actually going to help people in Ukraine and which ones are just money grabs by opportunists.
For now, we don’t know how crypto will shape international conflict, or whether it will ultimately help or hurt. People fleeing war zones might find a unique use for crypto, but they’ll need to figure out how to use it first. There are already plenty of other ways to raise and move money that don’t involve digital currencies. And while crypto may make it easier to sidestep sanctions, countries were evading sanctions long before bitcoin arrived.
What we do know is that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are now a real factor in global economies and in conflicts. Whether it’s good or bad in wartime, crypto is doing what its proponents say it does — giving people a way to work outside of traditional financial institutions — and there’s no sign that will change anytime soon.
From The Hindu: Sports
Bhavani Devi confident of doing well -
Mascara pleases -
Mumbai teen attempts record for batting longest, stays at crease for over 72 hours - 19-year-old Siddarth Mohite passed compatriot Virag Mane’s 50-hour record, created in 2015, before batting for 72 hours and five minutes during a marathon net session
Jason Roy pulls out of IPL citing bubble fatigue - The England batsman was signed by Gujarat Titans for his base price of ₹2 crore at the mega auction
South Africa beats New Zealand by 198 runs, splits series 1-1 - After setting New Zealand a target of 426, South Africa bowled out the home team for 227 to win with more than a session remaining at Hagley Oval in Christchurch
From The Hindu: National News
GESCOM’s power tariff revision proposal opposed at KERC consultative meeting in Kalaburagi -
KCR greets Stalin on his birthday - Speaks to TN CM over phone from Delhi
Seminar on K-Rail challenges -
BSNL rolls out PDO service at Ramanahalli - The service will provide high-speed internet at nominal cost to the villagers
Centre relaxes guidelines for scientists, makes it easier to access grants - The new guidelines for ‘Ease of Doing Science: Towards less government, more governance’ are aimed at reducing the compliance burden and switching from research administration to research facilitation
From BBC: Europe
Ukraine conflict: Russia bombs Kharkiv’s Freedom Square and opera house - Missiles hit the the cultural heart of the city, targeting an opera house, concert hall and offices.
Ros Atkins on… Russia’s nuclear threat - Ros Atkins looks at the history of nuclear tensions and deals between the US and Russia.
Ukraine conflict: Disney, Warner, Sony halt release of films in Russia - The moves come as major corporations cut business links with Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.
Canada to ban imports of crude oil from Russia - Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the move would send a “powerful message”.
Ukraine conflict: Half a million flee as fighting rages - Hundreds of casualties are reported as major cities remain under attack from Russian forces.
From Ars Technica
A wartime plea to Western satellite companies: “We need this data, please” - “Within one hour there will be an attack on Kyiv again.” - link
Hands-on: Gmail’s new sidebar feels like a big banner ad for Google Chat - Gmail’s desolate vertical sidebar is optional today and mandatory in Q2 2022. - link
NASA wants to maintain Russia partnership but is studying “operational flexibilities” - “We, as a team, are operating just like we were operating three weeks ago.” - link
No, bad leftovers didn’t cause teen’s life-threatening infection, amputations - Media misreads medical case study, blames non-foodborne infection on leftovers - link
BP abandons Russian oil company stake, Shell pulls out of Nord Stream 2 - Oil and gas contribute around 40 percent of Russia’s federal budget. - link
From Jokes Subreddit
A lawyer, comedian and a war hero walk into a bar. -
The bartender says, “what can I get for you, Mr Zelensky?”
A panda walks into a restaurant and orders a plate of bamboo -
When he’s finished with his meal, he hops up onto the table, pulls out two Glock 45s and unloads both magazines, blasting everything in sight.
When the guns are empty, he throws them down and starts walking towards the door. The bartender looks up from behind the bar and yells, “Hey! What the hell, man?”
The panda yells back at the bartender, “Hey, I’m a PANDA! Look it up!” The bartender opens his dictionary and sees the following definition for panda:
“A tree dwelling marsupial of Asian orgin, characterized by distinct black and white coloring. Eats bamboo shoots and leaves.”
A man kills a deer and takes it home to cook for dinner. Both he and his wife decide that they won’t tell the children what kind of meat it is, but will give them a clue and let them guess. The dad said, “Well, it’s what Mommy calls me sometimes.”The little girl screamed to her brother, “Don’t eat it. Its an asshole!
/cdn.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23278292/1237215392.jpg)
Andriy Andriyenko/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
/cdn.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23278287/1238722602.jpg)
Alexander Nemenov/AFP via Getty Images:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-
cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23256779/Midterms_Chart_7_final.png){kind=link}