Rising: May 16, 2025
Birthright Citizenship Battle: SCOTUS Appears Divided Over Arguments | RISING
The Hill's Courts & Legal Reporter Zach Schonfeld joins Amber Duke and Chris Cillizza to discuss the latest updates from the Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship.
Ron Johnson Shreds 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' Says Deficit Will Skyrocket| RISING
Amber Duke and Chris Cillizza discuss Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) blasting President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' that he thinks could raise the debt to $60 trillion in 10 years.
Tulsi Gabbard Accuses James Comey Of Calling For Trump's 'Murder' After '86 47' Post | RISING
Amber Duke and Chris Cillizza discuss DHS Secretary Kristi Noem directing her department and the Secret Service to investigate former FBI Director James Comey.
Newsom Cracks Down On Homeless Encampments, Proposes Peeling Back Healthcare For Migrants | RISING
Amber Duke and Chris Cillizza discuss California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) peeling back healthcare for illegal immigrants and ordering cities to ban homeless encampments.
Yale Professors Roasted After Saying They're Leaving Country Over Fascism Fears | RISING
Amber Duke and Chris Cillizza react to a group of Yale university professors being roasted online for their self-deportation efforts.
Ro Khanna Supports Trump's Drug Price EO, Responds To Whether He'll Run For President| RISING
Rep. Ro Khanna joins Rising to explain his stance on backing President Trump's latest executive order to lower prescription drug prices.
Shri Thanedar drops Trump Impeachment Vote Effort After Pressure From Dems | RISING
Amber Duke and Chris Cillizza discuss Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mi) dropping his efforts to impeach President Trump.
Young Men Struggling, Falling Behind In Education, Mental Health, Data Shows | RISING
Amber Duke and Chris Cillizza discuss reports that suggest young men and boys are falling behind, while their female peers surge ahead.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Massachusetts' sinking reading scores should be a five-alarm fire on Beacon Hill
Massachusetts can't afford to have an ideological fight over literacy instruction. Barely Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The Mass Reads Coalition, a diverse group that includes members ranging from Boston's NAACP branch to Latinos for Education, is backing the legislation that could help get Massachusetts students back on track by mandating school districts choose a literacy curriculum 'aligned with evidence-based literacy instruction.' The bill would require that the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education come up with annual data requirements for districts to report to ensure they are implementing science-backed literacy instruction. If the results show that more than 50 percent of kindergarten through third-grade students are falling behind, the district would be required to come up with a plan to implement science-backed instruction. Advertisement 'Our data has been telling us a very clear story for a number of years, and that story is, we're not teaching children how to read the right way,' Mary Tamer, MassPotential's executive director and a member of the Mass Reads coalition, told me. (Disclosure: Tamer is related to me through marriage on my father's side.) 'We need to do what Advertisement According to a 2023 Globe Even as the literacy crisis worsens, the MTA is yet again opposing the literacy bill. The union has raised questions about district autonomy. Max Page, the union president, told me there's a need for a 'systematic approach to improving literacy,' and even said that phonics needs to be a part of it. But he's opposed to the bill's supposedly narrow approach. 'This notion of science of reading, as if it is a thing that does not change and develop, seems wrong-headed and it limits the kind of creativity and flexibility that school districts and educators need to to model instruction for their particular students.' Advertisement But the bill doesn't mandate just one curriculum — it would allow for a range of approved methods. State Representative Simon Cataldo, a Democrat from Concord who is one of the cosponsors of the bill, told me that it's 'not acceptable' for the state to tolerate methods that have been proven not to work. Cataldo, a former special education teacher, said: 'What are we doing in government if we're not ensuring that a student can read?' Without accountability, some districts will continue to use disproven methods — often at the expense of their most vulnerable students. Some of the strongest pushback against state literacy requirements has come from Massachusetts' wealthiest communities. Lexington Superintendent Julie Hackett, for example, opposed the 2024 literacy bill and That's easy to say in a wealthy town like Lexington. 'If you look in leafy suburbs, you will find that there is a very robust portfolio of private tutoring, and parents can afford it, and they can access it, and they're going to do everything they can to make sure that they get their kids up to performance,' Jamie Gass, an education expert at the Pioneer Institute, told me. 'Mostly poor and minority kids in larger school districts don't have those same resources.' Advertisement That might also be true for disadvantaged kids in wealthy districts. On the third-grade English MCAS in 2024, Massachusetts has two options going forward. The supposedly progressive state can continue to settle for mediocre reading outcomes, dooming a generation of students to the challenges that come with poor literacy. Or it can set the standards it takes to be the leader in public education it purports to be. Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion columnist. She can be reached at
Indianapolis Star
10 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana Democrats need a moral comeback to stage a political one
I'm not a cynical person. I believe deeply in the power of people, relationships, and community to make things better. But when it comes to politics, especially right now, cynicism can feel like the only rational response. The most generous possible description of the current occupant of the White House is that he's a self-dealing narcissist with a mysterious charisma and an emotionally resonant economic critique of the last 40 years. The previous administration, by many credible accounts, functioned as a shadow presidency with an unelected cabal of aides and lackeys pulling the levers of power as the incumbent's mental deterioration accelerated in plain view. The state level, at least here in Indiana, doesn't offer much consolation. Many of our elected officials are unserious about governing; some are actively harmful. There's not a lot to justify even a shred of idealism. In other words, the moral high ground in politics, circa 2025, doesn't count for much. Unless, of course, the moral high ground is all you have. I've been writing this column for about six months now, and most of my ire has been directed at Indiana Republicans. They hold 85%–90% of the power in this state, so it seems only fair they receive a commensurate amount of scrutiny. I could pick more on Democrats, but why? The most coherent argument Indiana Dems have offered over the past decade is: 'Look at those crazy Republicans! At least we're not them!' It's an argument built almost entirely on outrage and a vague sense of moral and intellectual superiority. Yet, in just the past five years, several prominent Indiana Democratic officeholders (of the few that still exist) have been credibly accused of various creepy and distasteful acts. Most of these probably don't rise to the level of criminal offenses, but they are, without question, the acts of morally bankrupt individuals. The only thing worse than the individual acts is the top-to-bottom institutional complicity. The state party refuses to act. Party officials sweep credible allegations under the rug. The City-County Council orders a third-party investigation, which is then immediately hamstrung with lawyerly hair-splitting over 'legality,' when the real question should be about propriety and public trust. And Mayor Joe Hogsett, the de facto moral leader of the party, shrinks from the spotlight and shirks his responsibility. Briggs: Todd Young's political survival means never fully crossing Trump As much as it pains me to say it, this stands in stark contrast to the last time a prominent Hoosier Republican faced a similar scandal. When former Attorney General Curtis Hill was accused of unwanted sexual advances, the GOP replaced him at its convention. When Senate Minority Leader Greg Taylor faced (arguably) more serious accusations, the caucus initially voted to keep him in leadership. This might all sound like holier-than-thou primping and preening. After all, as previously established, modern politics is a cynical, zero-sum game. That's why my point isn't really about moral propriety, but about political ineptitude. Indiana Democrats seem to think that because they have so little power, they have to protect what scraps they do have. But I think they're getting it backwards. The question isn't 'how do we hold on to the little we've got?' The question is: 'What exactly are we sticking up for?' To illustrate — because, apparently, I'm the tortured sports metaphor guy — let's talk Bobby Knight. When he was leading undefeated teams and raising banners in the 1970s and '80s, he was untouchable. By all accounts, he was the same guy in 2000 when he was fired for an altercation with a student. But, by then, the program had been mired in mediocrity for years. The glory days were long gone. Knight was expendable, so he was canned. Opinion: I was dragged out by sheriff's deputies. Indiana Democrats stayed silent. Back to the Dems: What banners have their harassing and complicit officials raised? What accomplishments justify the tolerance of such behavior? They hold no meaningful state power. Even their grip on Indianapolis is routinely undermined by the legislature. What exactly are they defending, other than personal relationships and individual careers? I want a credible Democratic Party in Indiana. Yes, I agree with them on many of the big issues. But more than that, I want a real competition of ideas and a political landscape that generates better policies to improve Hoosier lives. Here's the bottom line: The moral high ground isn't worth much in politics these days, unless it's all you have. If Indiana Democrats want to make a political comeback, it begins with making a moral one.
Boston Globe
12 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Presidents Xi and Trump have a worrying amount in common
Advertisement A potent sense of national humiliation sits at the heart of both men's worldviews. In China, official narratives — and Xi's Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Trump offers a distinctly American version of the same thing. He portrays the United States, too, as a victim of foreign forces, regularly claiming that other nations — China, the European Union, Canada, and even Panama — have taken advantage of the United States. Global trade and immigration are framed as threats. Domestically, Trump blames the nation's decline on incompetent leaders and wrong-headed policies. He frames his mission as a fight to reclaim national dignity and the country's rightful place as a hegemon on the world stage. Advertisement There is also a striking rhetorical symmetry. Xi frequently invokes the ' In both cases, the underlying message is clear: We were a nation that was dangerously weak, and I alone can make us whole again. The narrative isn't just national, it's personal for Xi and Trump. Xi, son of a revered Communist Party leader, was Grievance is more than just empty words. The emotion offers clarity in confusion, enemies in times of anxiety, and a voice to those who have gone unheard. Grievance also creates a sense of urgency. If the system is broken — if institutions are failing and a decline feels imminent — then only extraordinary leadership can deliver salvation. Both Xi and Trump have used this logic to justify what amounts to purges within their governments and a highly personal and authoritarian approach to governance. Advertisement In Trump's case, this has meant expanding executive authority and undermining institutional checks. During his time in office, he has repeatedly clashed with the judiciary, dismissed top military and intelligence officials, and filled key roles with loyalists. Xi, meanwhile, has overseen a turn away from ' To be clear: The United States is not China, and Trump is not Xi. America retains strong democratic institutions, independent courts, and a vibrant civil society. Significant portions of the US population agree with President Trump's agenda, which is why he was reelected. In China, public opinion is much more difficult to know, and meaningful elections are nonexistent. The real danger isn't that the United States is becoming China. It is that across very different systems, people are increasingly drawn to the same seductive illusion: that it is the strength of individuals, not trust in institutions, that provides the only path to national salvation.
