Ponte Vedra students take home prize in C-SPAN's National Documentary Competition
>>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<<
[DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks]
Elizabeth Curran and Sree Vidya Siliver, of Alice B. Landrum Middle School were deemed 2025 honorable mention prize winners and will receive $250 for their documentary, 'The Climate Crisis.' C-SPAN also recognizes Sandra Pagilighi, a teacher who served as their adviser.
'Your Message to the President: What issue is most important to you or your community?' was the theme of this year's competition, to which over 3,500 students participated from 42 states across the country with over 1,700 contest entries.
The top five popular topics covered included:
Climate, Environment, and Land Use, 11%
K–12 Education Policies and the Cost of College, 10%
Health Care and Mental Health, 10%
Gun Violence, School Safety, and Firearm Policies, 9%
Inflation, Taxes, Government Spending, and the Economy, 9%
'Congratulations to all of the incredibly talented young students who won awards in this year's competition! Through in-depth research and interviews with an array of topical and technical experts, you have crafted impactful short stories that capture issues of wide public interest and importance,' said C-SPAN's Director of Education Relations Craig McAndrew. 'Your documentaries set a very high bar for future StudentCam filmmakers, and you should be proud knowing your work will inspire your peers and foster thoughtful consideration from all audiences. We can't wait to see what you do next!'
Watch 'The Climate Crisis' below
Click HERE to view the 150 winning student films.
[SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Click here to download the free Action News Jax news and weather apps, click here to download the Action News Jax Now app for your smart TV and click here to stream Action News Jax live.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
5 hours ago
- Newsweek
US Nuclear Weapons 'Deployed' to UK for First Time in 17 Years
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The United States military has moved nuclear weapons to British soil for the first time in close to two decades, new analysis indicates. Open-source analysts identified an aircraft taking off from the Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico, bound for the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force (RAF) base at Lakenheath, in the east of England. Kirtland Air Force Base is the headquarters of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Nuclear Weapons Center, a main storage site for nuclear weapons. A U.S. defense official told Newsweek the U.S. did not comment on the "status or location of strategic weapons." A spokesperson for the British Defense Ministry said: "It remains a long-standing UK and NATO policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at a given location." Why It Matters Speculation has long surrounded whether the East England RAF base could once again host U.S. nuclear weapons. RAF Lakenheath hosted American nuclear weapons for several decades until 2008. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) said in 2023 that U.S. military budget documents "strongly" implied the Air Force intended to re-establish its nuclear weapons mission in the U.K. RAF Lakenheath—the home of the 48th Fighter Wing, dubbed "Liberty Wing"—has been upgraded in recent years. If Washington moves nuclear weapons back into the U.K., "it would break with decades of policy and planning and reverse the southern focus of the European nuclear deployment that emerged after the end of the Cold War," the FAS said in updated analysis earlier this year. A USAF C-17 Globemaster III from the 97th Air Mobility Wing participates in the Miami Beach Air and Sea Show on May 25, 2024. A USAF C-17 Globemaster III from the 97th Air Mobility Wing participates in the Miami Beach Air and Sea Show on May 25, 2024. AP/NewsBase What To Know Flight tracking data shows that a USAF C-17 cargo plane departed from Albuquerque for a flight of just over 10 hours to Lakenheath on July 16 and left the U.K. two days later. "It looks like it went to England, dropped off those weapons and then it went back to regular operations in the U.S.," William Alberque, a former head of NATO's nuclear non-proliferation center, told Britain's The Times. The U.K. government announced last month it would buy at least 12 F-35A fifth-generation aircraft, which, unlike the F-35B jets the country's RAF already operates, are certified to carry nuclear weapons. The jets will be stationed at RAF Marham, a base north of Lakenheath. The purchase "reintroduces a nuclear role for the Royal Air Force for the first time since the UK retired its sovereign air-launched nuclear weapons following the end of the Cold War," the British government said in a statement. The U.K. has Trident, its own nuclear weapons program made up of four Vanguard-class submarines able to fire nuclear missiles. The U.S. has both strategic and nonstrategic nuclear weapons. Nonstrategic nuclear weapons, which in the U.S. case are variants of the B61 gravity bomb, are also known as tactical nuclear weapons. The U.S. announced at the start of the year that it had completed a long-running program to upgrade the B61 to the B61-12. Strategic nuclear weapons are deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and those fired from bomber aircraft. They are thought of as the missiles that could level entire cities and threaten major global superpowers. Unlike strategic weapons, tactical nuclear weapons are designed for use on the battlefield or in what is known as a specific theater. They have a smaller yield and are designed to be used against different targets than strategic nuclear weapons, which are limited under the New START Treaty that is due to expire in 2026. The U.S. has an estimated 200 tactical nuclear weapons, with roughly half deployed at European bases. The U.S. is believed to have around 100 tactical bombs deployed in five NATO countries on the continent, including in Turkey, Germany and Belgium. What People Are Saying Sidharth Kaushal, a senior research fellow with the British think tank, the Royal United Services Institute, told The Times that the C-17 flight "could be the transport of B61s for potential use on RAF F-35As in due course. Kaushal added, "It represents a move towards the use of tactical nuclear weapons. It reintroduces a bit of flexibility in terms of how nuclear weapons are used."
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
Florida's attorney general appeals judge's contempt finding in immigration case
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has appealed a federal judge's ruling that found him in civil contempt because of a letter he sent in April after she ordered a halt to enforcement of a new state immigration law. Uthmeier's lawyers last week filed a notice of appealing U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams' ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As is common, the notice does not detail arguments that Uthmeier will make at the Atlanta-based appeals court. But the appeal is the latest move in an unusual dispute between Uthmeier and the Miami-based judge. The issue stems from a law, passed during a February special legislative session, that created state crimes for undocumented immigrants who enter or re-enter Florida. The Florida Immigrant Coalition, the Farmworker Association of Florida and two individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on April 2, contending, in part, that the law violates what is known as the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. Williams on April 4 issued a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the law. She extended the temporary restraining order April 18 and directed Uthmeier to send a letter notifying police agencies that they could not enforce the law. The directive came after reports of arrests. Uthmeier sent such a letter April 18 but followed with an April 23 letter that spurred the contempt issue. Uthmeier has argued that the temporary restraining order — and a longer-lasting preliminary injunction issued later — should only apply to him and local state attorneys because they were the named defendants in the underlying legal challenge to the law (SB 4-C). In the April 23 letter to police agencies, Uthmeier reiterated that position and said he could not prevent police from enforcing the law 'where there remains no judicial order that properly restrains you from doing so,' according to Williams' June 17 contempt ruling. Williams said that statement and other wording in the letter violated her order, writing that in a 'variety of ways, Uthmeier's April 23rd letter conveyed to law enforcement that they could and should disregard the April 18th letter's message that they were required by court order to cease enforcement of SB 4-C.' 'Uthmeier's role endows him with a unique capacity to uphold or undermine the rule of law, and when he does the latter by violating a court order, the integrity of the legal system depends on his conduct being within the court's remedial reach,' Williams wrote in the 27-page contempt ruling. In a court filing in May, Uthmeier's lawyers said he complied with the temporary restraining order by not enforcing the law and notifying law-enforcement agencies about the temporary restraining order. The filing said Uthmeier was free to express his disagreement with Williams' decision in the April 23 letter. 'The attorney general has consistently abided by the court's order to cease enforcing (the law),' the document said. 'Nowhere does the TRO (expressly or impliedly) require the attorney general to refrain from sharing his views about the order with law enforcement.' The filing also said Williams' reading of the April 23 letter 'relies on one portion of one sentence, rather than reading (the) letter as a whole and in the context of what preceded it: the April 18 letter' and a legal brief that also was filed April 23. To carry out the contempt finding, Williams ordered Uthmeier to file bi-weekly reports about whether any arrests, detentions or other law-enforcement actions had occurred under the blocked law — filings he has submitted. Williams on April 29 issued a preliminary injunction to continue blocking the law, saying it likely was preempted by federal immigration-enforcement authority. In part, she pointed to the law requiring that violators go to jail and indicated that could conflict with federal authority. Uthmeier also has appealed the preliminary-injunction ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. He asked the appeals court and the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of the preliminary injunction but was turned down. Such a stay would have allowed enforcement of the law while the legal battle plays out.
Hamilton Spectator
5 days ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Major projects: How Bill C-5 works and why Indigenous leaders are so concerned
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Mark Carney held a meeting with hundreds of First Nations chiefs Thursday, amid widespread skepticism and frustration over his controversial major-projects legislation. Bill C-5 gives the federal government sweeping new powers to speed up permitting for what the Liberals call 'nation-building projects.' Carney says Bill C-5 is needed to shore up the economy in the face of a trade war with the United States, while opponents call it a massive power grab. Here's what's C-5 does and what people are saying about it. What problem is this trying to solve? Canada has built few large projects over the past decade. That has led Conservatives, some provinces and some industry groups to argue that Ottawa's regulatory burdens are holding back growth. The Liberals tried to streamline project approvals through Bill C-69, an impact assessment law meant to resolve environmental and Indigenous concerns upfront to keep projects from getting tied up in the courts. Critics say the legislation has actually been holding back major infrastructure projects since it became law in 2019. Federal Conservatives have dubbed the law the 'No More Pipelines Act' and it's deeply unpopular in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Carney was elected in April with a mandate to diversify Canada's economy and ensure exports can more easily reach countries beyond the U.S. Ottawa has also promised to build up northern infrastructure, in part to meet a NATO military alliance spending target for critical infrastructure. Carney said Bill C-5 'creates the ability to flip … the attitude towards those projects once they are selected, once conditions are put in place — how those projects can move forward, as opposed to why.' Which projects could be fast-tracked? We don't know yet. The government has pointed to ports, railways and sometimes pipelines. The Ontario government has suggested a major commuter highway tunnel could qualify as a nation-building project. What are the provinces doing? Some provinces have also passed legislation aimed at speeding up development. Ontario's government has given itself the right through Bill 5 to designate 'special economic zones' where it can suspend everything from safety rules to environmental and labour standards, with a focus on mining projects. British Columbia's Bill 15 similarly allows the province to expedite the construction of anything from critical mineral mines to local hospitals. What's in the federal bill? The legislation has two main parts. The first part looks to eliminate barriers to interprovincial trade and labour mobility and work to harmonize various regulations across the country. It also allows Ottawa to decide that goods and services that have met one province's requirements can be deemed to have met 'comparable federal requirements' when moving interprovincially. That might involve things like energy efficiency standards on household appliances. The main part of the bill relates to fast-tracking approvals for projects that Ottawa decides are 'in the national interest.' The government says that decision is meant to be based on five criteria, including whether the project can 'strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security,' help fight climate change or 'advance the interests of Indigenous peoples.' Getting that seal of approval would clear all federal approvals for the project — including virtually all environmental laws — while requiring the proponent to fulfil obligations set out by Ottawa. Why the rush? The government fast-tracked Bill C-5 with support from the Conservatives, and the House delivered the bill to the Senate with a programming motion that effectively forced the upper chamber to pass it within days. Critics called for a deeper review of the bill, arguing there was no need to rush it through because proposed fast-track projects won't start work before Parliament returns from its summer break. The government also could have had Parliament sit through the summer, instead of sending MPs and senators home for 12 weeks. How do Indigenous Peoples feel? There is widespread opposition to the legislation among First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders, who argue elements of it could be used to undermine their rights. The government had amended the legislation to clarify it cannot override the Indian Act, though Indigenous leaders say it still puts fundamental rights at risk. The bill didn't mention a UN declaration Ottawa has endorsed that promises those communities 'free, prior and informed consent.' The Assembly of First Nations warned that the government's plan to set up advisory councils after the bill becomes law does not give real power to Indigenous communities on the ground. Those criticisms were amplified in the hastily organized meeting that took place Thursday. Chiefs have been complaining that they are not getting direct talks with Carney and his ministers, while being barred from allowing technical staff to attend the meeting. Some walked out of the meeting after realizing much of it consisted of free time for chiefs to discuss the legislation with each other, instead of having direct engagement with the government. Other chiefs boycotted the process. Chief Phyllis Whitford of O'Chiese First Nation of Alberta said the meetings were 'political theatre' and not meaningful consultation. 'This is a pre-determined process — a process that is disrespectful, top-down and (that) divided Indigenous leaders, by privileging some voices over others,' she said. Chief Vernon Watchmaker of Kehewin Cree Nation, also of Alberta, predicted more court battles leading to less investor confidence, thanks to legislation that centralizes power in Ottawa. 'That is not modernization. It is colonization in 2025,' he said. Some Indigenous communities have welcomed the legislation, including some Alberta communities with economic stakes in energy projects and the Manitoba Métis Federation. Others say they are ready to undertake widespread, disruptive protests against specific projects. — With files from Kyle Duggan and Alessia Passafiume This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 17, 2025.
