Republican concedes long-unsettled North Carolina court election to Democratic incumbent

Republican concedes long-unsettled North Carolina court election to Democratic incumbent

By GARY D. ROBERTSON Associated Press

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The Republican challenger for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat conceded last November’s election on Wednesday to Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs, two days after a federal judge ruled that potentially thousands of disputed ballots challenged by Jefferson Griffin must remain in the final tally.

In a statement provided by his campaign to The Associated Press, Griffin said he would not appeal Monday’s decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Myers, who also ordered that the State Board of Elections certify results that show Riggs is the winner by 734 votes from over 5.5 million ballots cast in the race.

Griffin’s decision sets the stage for Riggs to be officially elected to an eight-year term as an associate justice.

“While I do not fully agree with the District Court’s analysis, I respect the court’s holding — just as I have respected every judicial tribunal that has heard this case,” Griffin said. “I will not appeal the court’s decision.”

Myers delayed carrying out his order for seven days in case Griffin wanted to ask the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review his decision. Democrats, meanwhile, had called on Griffin to accept defeat.

Riggs is one of two Democrats on the seven-member state Supreme Court, and winning improved the party’s efforts to retake a court majority later in the decade. Griffin is a state Court of Appeals judge whose term ends in 2028.

“I wish my opponent the best and will continue to pray for her and all the members of our court system here in North Carolina. I look forward to continuing to serve the people of North Carolina,” Griffin said.

While the Associated Press declared over 4,400 winners in the 2024 general election, the North Carolina Supreme Court election was the last race nationally that was undecided.

Myers ruled that Griffin’s efforts after the Nov. 5 election to remove from the election total ballots that state appeals courts agreed were ineligible under state law would have damaged federal due process or equal protection rights of affected voters had they been implemented.

Griffin filed formal protests that initially appeared to cover more than 65,000 ballots. Ensuing state court rulings whittled the total to votes from two categories, covering from as few as 1,675 ballots to as many as 7,000, according to court filings. Griffin hoped that removing ballots he said were unlawfully cast would flip the outcome to him.

Democrats and voting rights groups had raised alarm about Griffin’s efforts, which in one category of ballots had only targeted six Democratic-leaning counties. They called it an attack on democracy that would serve as a road map for the GOP to reverse election results in other states. Griffin said Wednesday that his legal efforts were always “about upholding the rule of law and making sure that every legal vote in an election is counted.”

Most of the ballots that state appeals courts found ineligible came from military or overseas voters who didn’t provide copies of photo identification or an ID exception form with their absentee ballots. The appeals courts had permitted a 30-day “cure” process for those voters so their ballots could still count if they provided ID information.

Myers, who was nominated to the bench by President Donald Trump, agreed with Riggs and her allied litigants that the “retroactive invalidation” of those ballots violated the rights of service members, missionaries, or others working or studying abroad who cast their ballots under the rules for the 2024 election.

“You establish the rules before the game. You don’t change them after the game is done,” Myers wrote in his order.

The other category of ballots was cast by overseas voters who have never lived in the U.S. but whose parents were declared North Carolina residents. A state law had authorized those people to vote in state elections, but state appeals courts said it violated the state Constitution. Myers wrote that there was no process for people mistakenly on the list to contest their ineligibility, representing “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.”

Griffin said Wednesday the rulings of state appeals judges still recognized that the state election board failed to follow laws and the state constitution.

“These holdings are very significant for securing our state’s elections,” he said.

Beef Sausage and Cheddar Monkey Bread

Beef Sausage and Cheddar Monkey Bread

Beef Sausage and Cheddar Monkey Bread

Photo Courtesy of BeefItsWhatsForDinner.com

Beef Sausage and Cheddar Monkey Bread Recipe from Beef It’s What’s For Dinner

Prep time: 25-30 minutes

Cooking time: 30-35 minutes

Serving size: 12 servings

Ingredients

  • 1 recipe Mexican-Style Beef Sausage
  • 2 cans (7-1/2 ounces each) refrigerated buttermilk flavored biscuits
  • 1-1/2 cups reduced-fat shredded Cheddar cheese
  • 1/2 cup chopped green onion
  • 1/4 cup olive oil
  • 1/2 cup Mexican crema or dairy sour cream

Directions

  1. Prepare Mexican-Style Beef Sausage. Set aside.

Mexican-Style Beef Sausage: Combine 1 pound Ground Beef, 2 tablespoons red wine vinegar, 1-1/2 teaspoons dried oregano leaves, 1-1/2 teaspoons smoked paprika, 1-1/2 teaspoons chile powder, 1 teaspoon garlic powder, 1/2 teaspoon salt and 1/2 teaspoon chipotle chile powder in large bowl, mixing lightly but thoroughly. Heat large nonstick skillet over medium heat until hot. Add sausage mixture; cook 8 to 10 minutes, breaking into 1/2-inch crumbles and stirring occasionally. (Cooking times are for fresh or thoroughly thawed Ground Beef. Ground beef should be cooked to an internal temperature of 160°F. Color is not a reliable indicator of ground beef doneness.)

  1. Preheat oven to 350°F. 
  2. Open biscuit cans; cut each biscuit into quarters. Place biscuits into large bowl. Add sausage mixture, cheese, onion and oil; gently toss until well combined.
  3. Generously coat Bundt pan with cooking spray. Place sausage and biscuit mixture in prepared pan. Bake in 350°F oven 30 to 35 minutes until top is golden brown and biscuits are set. Remove from oven; immediately invert onto serving plate. Let rest for 10 minutes. Drizzle with crema, as desired. 
Key Republican says he won’t back Trump’s pick for top DC prosecutor because of Jan. 6 ties

Key Republican says he won’t back Trump’s pick for top DC prosecutor because of Jan. 6 ties

By MARY CLARE JALONICK and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Thom Tillis says he’s informed the White House that he won’t support Ed Martin, President Donald Trump’spick for top federal prosecutor in Washington, stalling the nomination in the Senate weeks before the temporary appointment expires.

The North Carolina Republican told reporters Tuesday that he had met with Martin on Monday evening and was opposing his nomination because of his defense of rioters who breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Martin, a leading figure in Trump’s campaign to overturn the 2020 election, spoke at a rally on the eve of the violent riot and represented defendants who were prosecuted for the attack.

“We have to be very, very clear that what happened on January 6th was wrong,” Tillis said. “It was not prompted or created by other people to put those people in trouble. They made a stupid decision, and they disgraced the United States by absolutely destroying the Capitol.”

The U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington is the country’s largest and prosecuted more than 1,500 riot defendants after the 2021 attack. Trump pardoned most of the rioters the day he was inaugurated, and he later appointed Martin to temporarily lead the office. That appointment expires later this month, and Trump has urged Republican senators to quickly confirm Martin to the job.

“Ed is coming up on the deadline for Voting and, if approved, HE WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Monday.

Martin could still be confirmed after his appointment expires. But Tillis’s opposition will prevent the committee from advancing the nomination, for now, and signals that Martin might not have the votes to win confirmation on the Senate floor. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley did not list Martin on this week’s agenda for votes later in the week, suggesting that Republicans are aware there are not enough votes to confirm him.

Speaking to reporters later on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said that it is ultimately the Judiciary panel’s decision whether to proceed with Martin’s nomination. “My understanding is they haven’t scheduled anything on that yet, and we will cross that bridge if and when we come to it,” he said.

Martin has roiled the federal prosecutors’ office since his appointment as U.S. attorney in January, including firing or demoting veteran attorneys who prosecuted Trump supporters for storming the U.S. Capitol and interrupting the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.

He has also described federal prosecutors as the “president’s lawyers” and forced the chief of the office’s criminal division to resign after a dispute over a directive to scrutinize the awarding of a government contract during the Biden administration. He also demoted several senior leaders, including prosecutors who handled or oversaw politically sensitive cases involving the Jan. 6 riot and Trump allies Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon.

Tillis said he believes that anyone who broke into the building that day should be prosecuted, a disagreement he said he had with Martin.

“Whether it’s 30 days or three years is debatable, but I have no tolerance for anybody who entered the building on January 6th, and that’s probably where most of the friction was,” Tillis said.

Dozens of former federal prosecutors in the office have raised alarm over Martin’s scant courtroom experience and his actions since taking office. In a letter to the committee, more than 100 veterans of the office described him as “an affront to the singular pursuit of justice for which this Office has stood for more than two centuries.”

His supporters have touted his record fighting for conservative causes and his efforts to tackle violent crime since his appointment. About two dozen Republican state attorneys general said in a letter to the committee that Martin has “shown conclusively that he has what it takes to serve in that role with integrity and a fearless commitment to do what is right on behalf of the American people.”

It is unclear what will happen if Martin is not confirmed by May 20, the day his appointment expires. Attorney General Pam Bondi could ask the district court to extend Martin’s interim status or the administration could nominate someone else to serve as the interim U.S. attorney while Martin’s nomination is pending.

Tillis said that the White House can “work through that” if they want to extend Martin’s appointment, but “at this point I’ve indicated to the White House I wouldn’t support his nomination.”

In a post on X, White House spokesman Alex Pfeiffer said that “Ed Martin is a fantastic U.S. Attorney for D.C. and will continue to implement the President’s law-and-order agenda in Washington. He is the right man for the job and we look forward to his confirmation.”

___

Associated Press writers Michelle Price and Ali Swenson contributed to this report.

Bear sightings rise across North Carolina as breeding season begins

Bear sightings rise across North Carolina as breeding season begins

RALEIGH, N.C. (WPTF) – Black near sightings are on the rise across North Carolina, with reports coming in from both rural and urban areas. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission attributes the increase to seasonal movement patterns, as bears become more active in search of food.

Commission biologist Greg Batts explains that June marks the breeding season for bears, leading to increased activity, especially among young males.

“Typically, the bears that we see are young males. The females stay with their cubs for a year; when they come out of that den after year one, they kick out the male cub,” Batts told the WPTF Afternoon News.

These young bears are then forced to find new territories, which often leads them into more urbanized areas.

“They tell them to go find their own place in the world, so then they start wandering around all over the place. With our bear population being the way that it is—12,000 bears on the coast, 8,000 in the mountains—there’s not a lot of places for them. They move into these more urban areas where it’s a fragmented habitat,” said Batts.

Batts says that Hyde or Carroll county have some of the densest bear populations on the planet.

“We think we have about 12,000 out on the coast and then 8,000 up in the mountains, and then in the middle part of the state we’re just starting to fill in everywhere,” said Batts.

Understanding bear behavior is crucial for coexistence. Batts mentions that examining a bear’s tooth can reveal its age.

“Every bear that we can get our hands on… we go to grab the tooth. We can tell exactly how old the bear is from the tooth because bears have periods where they are feeding very graciously and then they go to lay down (not hibernation) and they have a period of no growth at all which shows up very clearly in the tooth,” said Batts.

Looking at statistics, you’re more likely to be bit by a dog or struck by lightening than be bit by a bear. You’re as much a threat to the bear as it is to you. Batts says it all depends on the landscape if a bear is going to move in.

“Typically if a bear moves into an area and all it’s doing is bumping into people and there’s dog’s barking at it, it’s not going to stay there long it’s going to move on and try to find somewhere quieter,” said Batts.

Despite their size, black bears are generally timid creatures. Batts emphasizes that they are more likely to avoid humans than confront them.

“It’s hard for people to enjoy it. They think ‘oh this bear is going to attack me, it’s going to attack my pets,’ or whatever but in general with a wild bear you can clap your hands at it and it’s going to run in another direction. Just don’t corner it,” said Batts.

To minimize encounters, residents are advised to secure food sources, remove bird feeders, and keep trash in bear-proof containers. For more information on safely coexisting with bears, visit the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission’s website or call their Wildlife Helpline at 866-318-2401.

Supreme Court allows Trump ban on transgender members of the military to take effect, for now

Supreme Court allows Trump ban on transgender members of the military to take effect, for now

By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to enforce a ban on transgender people in the military, while legal challenges proceed.

The court acted in the dispute over a policy that presumptively disqualifies transgender people from military service and could lead to the expulsion of experienced, decorated officers.

The court’s three liberal justices said they would have kept the policy on hold.

Just after beginning his second term in January, Trump moved aggressively to roll back the rights of transgender people. Among the Republican president’s actions was an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.

In response, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that gives the military services 30 days to figure out how they will seek out and identify transgender service members to remove them from the force.

Three federal judges had ruled against the ban.

In the case the justices acted in Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma, Washington, had ruled for seven long-serving transgender military members who say that the ban is insulting and discriminatory and that their firing would cause lasting damage to their careers and reputations. A prospective service member also sued.

The individual service members who challenged the ban together have amassed more than 70 medals in 115 years of service, their lawyers wrote. The lead plaintiff is Emily Shilling, a Navy commander with nearly 20 years of service, including as a combat pilot who flew 60 missions in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The Trump administration offered no explanation as to why transgender troops, who have been able to serve openly over the past four years with no evidence of problems, should suddenly be banned, Settle wrote. The judge is an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush and is a former captain in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps.

Settle imposed a nationwide hold on the policy and a federal appeals court rejected the administration’s emergency plea. The Justice Department then turned to the Supreme Court.

The policy also has been blocked by a federal judge in the nation’s capital, but that ruling has been temporarily halted by a federal appeals court, which heard arguments last month. The three-judge panel, which includes two judges appointed by Trump during his first term, appeared to be in favor of the administration’s position.

In a more limited ruling, a judge in New Jersey also has barred the Air Force from removing two transgender men, saying they showed their separation would cause lasting damage to their careers and reputations that no monetary settlement could repair.

The LGBTQ rights group Lambda Legal called the high court order a devastating blow to dedicated and highly qualified service members.

“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice. Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down,” the group said in a statement.

The federal appeals court in San Francisco will hear the administration’s appeal in a process that will play out over several months at least. All the while, though, the transgender ban will remain in place under the Supreme Court order.

In 2016, during Barack Obama’s presidency, a Defense Department policy permitted transgender people to serve openly in the military. During Trump’s first term in the White House, the Republican issued a directive to ban transgender service members, with an exception for some of those who had already started transitioning under more lenient rules that were in effect during Obama’s Democratic administration.

The Supreme Court allowed that ban to take effect. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, scrapped it when he took office.

The rules the Defense Department wants to enforce contain no exceptions.

The policy during Trump’s first term and the new one are “materially indistinguishable,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices, though lawyers for the service members who sued disagreed.

Thousands of transgender people serve in the military, but they represent less than 1% of the total number of active-duty service members.

Mississippi Pot Roast

Mississippi Pot Roast

Mississippi Pot Roast

Photo Courtesy of BeefItsWhatsForDinner.com

Mississippi Pot Roast Recipe from Beef It’s What’s For Dinner

Prep time: 5 minutes

Cooking time: 8 hours

Serving size: 8 servings

Ingredients

  • 1 beef Cross Rib Roast, Chuck Arm Roast or Chuck Shoulder Roast (about 2-1/2 pounds)
  • 1 packet ranch dressing mix
  • 1 packet dry onion soup mix
  • 1 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
  • 2 teaspoon granulated garlic
  • 4 to 6 pickled pepperoncinis
  • 1 cup water

Directions

  1. Place beef Cross Rib Roast in a 4-1/2 to 5-1/2-quart slow cooker. Add ranch dressing mix, onion soup mix, black pepper, garlic, pepperoncinis and water. Cover and cook on HIGH 6 to 7 hours or on LOW 7 to 8 hours or until beef is fork-tender. (No stirring is necessary during cooking.)
  2. Turn off slow cooker and remove roast. Shred roast and return to slow cooker; combine. Serve warm over couscous, mashed potatoes or noodles. 
Federal judge says results of North Carolina court race with Democrat ahead must be certified

Federal judge says results of North Carolina court race with Democrat ahead must be certified

By GARY D. ROBERTSON Associated Press

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Disputed ballots in the still unresolved 2024 race for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat must remain in the final count, a federal judge ruled late Monday, a decision that if upheld would result in an electoral victory for Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs.

U.S. District Judge Richard Myers agreed with Riggs and others who argued it would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution to carry out recent decisions by state appeals courts that directed the removal of potentially thousands of voter ballots they deemed ineligible. Myers wrote that votes couldn’t be removed six months after Election Day without damaging due process or equal protection rights of the affected residents.

Myers also ordered the State Board of Elections to certify results that after two recounts showed Riggs the winner — by just 734 votes — over Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin. But the judge delayed his order for seven days in case Griffin wants to appeal the ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The board “must not proceed with implementation of the North Carolina Court of Appeals and Supreme Court’s orders, and instead must certify the results of the election for (the seat) based on the tally at the completion of the canvassing period,” wrote Myers, who was nominated to the bench by President Donald Trump.

More than 5.5 million ballots were cast in what has been the nation’s last undecided race from November’s general election. Griffin, himself a state Court of Appeals judge, filed formal protests after the election in hopes that removing ballots he said were unlawfully cast would flip the outcome to him.

Incumbent celebrating, challenger evaluating

Griffin’s legal team was reviewing Myers’ order Monday night and evaluating the next steps, Griffin campaign spokesperson Paul Shumaker wrote in an email.

Riggs was more assured in her statement: “Today, we won. I‘m proud to continue upholding the Constitution and the rule of law as North Carolina’s Supreme Court Justice.”

Griffin wanted Myers to leave undisturbed the state courts’ decisions, which also directed that most of the voters with otherwise ineligible ballots get 30 days to provide identifying information for their race choices to remain in the tally.

Riggs, the state Democratic Party and some affected voters said Griffin was trying to change the 2024 election outcome after the fact by removing ballots cast by voters who complied with voting rules as they were written last fall.

Judge: You can’t change rules for a game that’s over

Myers wrote that Griffin’s formal protests after the election, which were rejected by the State Board of Elections, constituted efforts to make retroactive changes to the voting laws that would arbitrarily disenfranchise only the voters who were targeted by Griffin. Griffin’s challenges over voters not providing photo identification only covered at most six Democratic-leaning counties in the state.

“You establish the rules before the game. You don’t change them after the game is done,” Myers wrote in a 68-page order.

“Permitting parties to ‘upend the set rules’ of an election after the election has taken place can only produce ‘confusion and turmoil'” that “‘threatens to undermine public confidence in the federal courts, state agencies, and the elections themselves,'” he added while citing other cases.

Democrats and voting rights groups raised alarm about Griffin’s efforts. They called it an attack on democracy that would serve as a road map for the GOP to reverse election results in other states.

Monday’s order “must bring an end — once and for all — to Republicans’ attempts to overturn a free and fair election,” Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said.

The state Republican Party, which didn’t immediately comment Monday, has said Griffin was seeking to ensure that only legal votes are counted.

Two categories of ballots at issue

One category of ballots that state appeals courts were found to be ineligible covered military or overseas voters who didn’t provide copies of photo identification or an ID exception form with their absentee ballots. A state rule exempted them from the requirement. The appeals courts had permitted a “cure” process for these voters so their ballots could still count in the race.

The other category of ballots that the appeals courts declared violated the state constitution were cast by overseas voters who have never lived in the U.S. but whose parents were declared North Carolina residents. A state law had authorized these persons to vote in state elections. While these people had no substantive right to have their votes counted, Myers wrote, there is “sufficient evidence” that some people are mistakenly on the list and have no opportunity to contest their ineligibility, which “represents a unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.”

Griffin filed formal protests that appeared to cover more than 65,000 ballots. Ensuing state court rulings whittled down the total to as few as 1,675 ballots or perhaps as many as 7,000, according to court filings.

Riggs is one of two Democrats on the seven-member state Supreme Court, and winning an eight-year term would improve the party’s efforts to retake a majority on the court later in the decade. Griffin and Riggs have not participated in deliberations in their respective courts about their election.

From debate to dialogue: In a contentious era, ‘Ethics Bowl’ offers students a gentler alternative

From debate to dialogue: In a contentious era, ‘Ethics Bowl’ offers students a gentler alternative

By TRAVIS LOLLER Associated Press

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (AP) — A contrast:

At the National Speech and Debate Tournament, two high school students take the stage. The first articulates the position he has been assigned to defend — people should have a right to secede from their government — and why it is correct. Another student, assigned the opposite position, begins to systematically tear down her opponent’s views.

A year later and 800 miles away, two teams of high school students convene at the University of North Carolina for the National High School Ethics Bowl finals. A moderator asks about the boundaries of discourse — when a public figure dies, how do you weigh the value and harm of critical commentary about their life?

Teams have not been assigned positions. One presents their ideas. The opposing team asks questions that help everyone to think about the issue more deeply. No one attacks.

Many a young debater may learn the rhetorical skills to become a successful lawyer or politician, subduing an opponent through wit and wordplay. But are they learning skills that will make them better citizens of an increasingly complex and contentious republic?

In an age when many Americans are wondering whether it is still possible to have a principled, respectful disagreement over important issues, proponents of Ethics Bowl say it points the way.

Discussion replaces contentiousness

Ethics Bowl may resemble debate. After all, it’s two teams discussing a controversial or difficult topic. But they are very different.

In Ethics Bowl, teams aren’t assigned a specific position on an issue that they have to defend regardless of their beliefs. Instead, members are given cases to discuss and make their own decisions about what they consider the best position. Teams can, and often do, come to similar conclusions. It is — and this is important — OK for them to agree. Scoring is based on how deeply they explore the issues, including other viewpoints.

Robert Ladenson, who developed the Ethics Bowl as a college philosophy classroom exercise back in 1993 and went on to lead the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl for decades, explains what he considers an ethical understanding of an issue in an oral history for the University of Illinois in 2023.

It means “having some capacity to view, from the inside, the ethical outlooks of people who disagree with you. That means not simply being aware of what they’ve said or what they’ve written, or being able to develop a nifty debaters’ responses to the viewpoints they hold — but really looking inside the other view and trying to understand it from the other person’s way of looking at the world.”

It’s a reach for understanding and common ground

That plays out at Ethics Bowl. Take the case “See Spot Clone,” about whether it is ever ethical to clone a beloved pet.

Harpeth Hall from Nashville starts the discussion with six minutes to present their thoughts. There are millions of homeless pets, so the ethical choice is to adopt, they believe. Cloning is self-serving for the human. The pet cannot consent to being cloned. Also, cloning may involve unknown health issues for the cloned pet, as in the renowned case of Dolly the sheep. The team also believes that death is a part of life, and it is important for people to confront death.

Now it is the turn of team B, Miami’s Archimedean Upper Conservatory — not to attack and refute, but to ask questions that expand the discussion. What about pet breeders? Where do they fit on the ethical continuum? Also, what’s so wrong with cloning a pet for your own happiness? Are all selfish pursuits bad?

Team A responds that breeding is better than cloning but worse than adopting a stray. They point out that a cloned pet will not have the same personality, and that could bring the owner pain instead of comfort.

Next the judges ask questions. What if there were no possible health problems for the cloned animal? What if the animal is not cloned to comfort an owner but for a more noble purpose? Would it be ethical to clone a skilled search-and-rescue dog?

Cloning is still a threat to the “natural cycle of life,” Team A contends. And there is no guarantee that the temperament and personality that make an excellent service animal would be retained in a clone.

Once the round is complete, the moderator introduces a new case.

Easy answers are avoided

In a society awash in shortcuts and simple solutions, simply setting the ground rules for contentious conversations can be a high hill to climb. At the Ethics Bowl, though, it’s part of the point: The process of conversation is as important as the outcome. And subtlety matters.

A good Ethics Bowl case is one where “two well-meaning individuals can take in all of the same facts and information and come to diametrically opposite, value-driven answers,” says Alex Richardson, who directed the National Bowl for five years.

The cases students grapple with include real-life scenarios pulled from the headlines, like the less-than-respectful response to the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. There are also more philosophical issues, like whether humans should pursue immortality. And there are dilemmas that teenagers deal with every day, like whether not posting on Instagram about a hate crime in your community makes you complicit.

That last case was a difficult one for the team from Harpeth Hall, they say, but it helped them clarify some of their thoughts around social media.

“We came to the conclusion that no one is obligated to share information,” says Katherine Thomas. “But then there was a difference like when you’re talking about Taylor Swift, when she actually could register 500,000 people to vote but she decides not to. Is she actually complicit in that? She has the actual power to make change, where I don’t, really, with my 200 followers.”

Another case considered whether to confront an uncle who makes sexist remarks at the dinner table. Discussing the issue with her Harpeth Hall teammates helped Thalia Vidalakis think through when it might be good to speak up and when “it’s good to just be there for your family and recognize that there’s going to be differences.”

It unfolds in a low-key way

A group of teenagers sits at a table with sticker-covered water bottles and the occasional Red Bull. They are allowed only pens and blank paper, no previous notes, but their backpacks litter the room. Their opponents sit at a neighboring table. In between is a moderator. Facing them are three judges pulled from the UNC philosophy department, Ethics Bowl leaders from other states, even the community at large. There is no dress code, so the teens come in whatever they consider nice clothes.

The teams have been discussing a group of cases for weeks, but they don’t know which they’ll be asked about. Once the question is read, they are given a few minutes to discuss. That’s when one or two of the teammates generally scurry around the table to huddle. Intense whispering and furious scribbling ensue.

It’s clearly a contest. There is a winning team and a trophy. But students say it is not competitive in a traditional sense.

“We’re all sad that it has to end. But I agree that it’s not about beating people,” says Lizzie Lyman, whose first-year team from Midtown High School in Atlanta lost in the semifinals of the national championship. “When it becomes about winning and beating the other team, it gets hostile and … just unsavory. When it’s about constructively answering a question and just having a really interesting, engaging conversation, that’s where you get to have all these amazing conversations.”

Competitiveness isn’t only beside the point. It can even be counterproductive in achieving the desired goal. That’s how Mae Bradford of the winning team BASIS Flagstaff from Arizona sees it. Her assessment: “Something that’s rare and unique about Ethics Bowl is that those who don’t focus on winning and instead focus on truth and respect and getting to the moral heart of the issue will win.”

Changing minds, one kid at a time

Part of the point of the Ethics Bowl is to create well-rounded students who ingest other viewpoints and engage without arguing. A 2022 survey of participants in nationals found that 100% believed that their critical thinking skills had improved. A large majority said their ethical or political beliefs had changed.

There is clearly a thirst for a different kind of competition. The National High School Ethics Bowl is only 12 years old, and this year saw 550 teams competing in regional bowls around the country.

Sona Zarkou, also on the BASIS Flagstaff team, sees herself as a case study in Ethics Bowl benefits. When she practiced debate, she says, she was “kind of a jerk” — “very quick to attack and very rude” about opposing views. In Ethics Bowl she sees herself “turn the discussion to something a lot more respectful, a lot more truth-oriented.”

Rhiannon Boyd, a judge at this year’s competition as well as a high school teacher and coach and the organizer of the Virginia High School Ethics Bowl, has seen the positive changes as well. Two of her students last year were on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Their disagreement was great. Could they be on the same team together? In the end, both joined and made it all the way to nationals.

Their differing opinions remain. But now, Boyd says, they are “really good friends.”

“They can see each other’s strengths because they were sitting side by side at nationals in a huddle trying to build off of each other’s ideas,” she says. “They could see that leveraging those differences was actually the thing that made them strong.”

Ethics Bowl: Lesson learned.

___

AP National Writer Allen G. Breed contributed to this report.

Hurricanes sign goaltender Frederik Andersen to a 1-year. $2.75M contract extension

Hurricanes sign goaltender Frederik Andersen to a 1-year. $2.75M contract extension

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The Carolina Hurricanes have signed goaltender Frederik Andersen to a one-year contract for next season that is worth $2.75 million.

General manager Eric Tulsky announced the deal Saturday, a little over 48 hours before his team starts the second round of the playoffs against Washington.

Andersen could earn up to $750,000 in incentives for games played and his participation in a potential run to the Eastern Conference final next year. He would get $250,000 for playing 35 or more games, another $250,000 for getting to 40 and $250,000 if the Hurricanes reach the East final and he plays in at least half of the playoff games.

“Frederik has played extremely well for us and ranks in the top 10 all-time for winning percentage by an NHL goalie,” Tulsky said. “We’re excited that he will be staying with the team for next season.”

Extending Andersen could give the team a goaltending tandem with Pyotr Kochetkov for less than $6 million combined.

Anderson, a 35-year-old from Denmark who previously played for Anaheim and Toronto, has become coach Rod Brind’Amour’s most trusted option in net. He is expected to return to the starting role for Game 1 of the Capitals series after getting injured in the first round against New Jersey.

NPR stations targeted for cuts by Trump have provided lifelines to listeners during disasters

NPR stations targeted for cuts by Trump have provided lifelines to listeners during disasters

By JOHN RABY and JAMIE STENGLE Associated Press

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — After Hurricane Helene devastated Asheville, North Carolina, the sound coming from open car windows as residents gathered on a street at the top of a ridge trying to get cell service last fall was Blue Ridge Public Radio. And as they stood in line for water or food, the latest news they had heard on the station was a frequent topic of conversation.

“The public radio station was alerting people what was going on,” said Lisa Savage, who volunteered at an area church after the hurricane.

Now public radio stations are being targeted for cuts by President Donald Trump. This week, he signed an executive order aimed at slashing public subsidies to NPR and PBS, alleging “bias” in the broadcasters’ reporting.

Public radio stations have been a lifeline for residents during natural disasters that take out power, the internet and cell towers. And in many remote and rural areas across the U.S., they can be a lone source of local news.

About a week after she had volunteered in the Asheville area, Savage recalled driving through another hard-hit community and hearing updates on Blue Ridge Public Radio on where residents could pick up water.

“So that was crucial,” Savage said.

In the West Texas desert, Marfa Public Radio provides listeners with a mix of local and national news and music. It is based in Marfa, a city of about 2,000 that draws tourists to its art scene.

“Marfa Public Radio is the only radio service in a lot of the geographic area that we cover,” said Tom Livingston, the station’s interim executive director. “So it’s really essential in terms of if there’s news events, if there’s safety things that happen in the community.”

Funding has widespread impact

Trump’s order instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other federal agencies “to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS” and further requires that they work to root out indirect sources of public financing for the news organizations. The broadcasters get roughly half a billion dollars in public money through the private CPB, which has said that it is not a federal executive agency subject to Trump’s orders.

The heads of PBS, NPR and CPB all suggested Friday that the order was illegal, and a court fight seems inevitable.

The White House has also said it will be asking Congress to rescind funding for the CPB as part of a $9.1 billion package of cuts. Local stations operate on a combination of government funding, donations and philanthropic grants, and stations in smaller markets are particularly dependent on the public money.

WMMT, based in the eastern Kentucky community of Whitesburg, can be heard in parts of five Appalachian states. The station’s general manager, Teddy Wimer, said listeners “want to hear people that sound like folks that they know from Appalachia,” and the station, which currently operates from a renovated Winnebago called the Possum Den, relies on CPB funding.

“We’re in an economically disadvantaged area of the country,” Wimer said. “Most of our listeners who really rely upon our programming don’t have the funds to ramp up their support.”

Livingston said about 30% of their funding comes from the CPB. Right now, he says, it’s too early to know if the cuts will actually happen or what they would impact if they do come through.

Local flavor is a factor in listenership and credibility

Along the West Virginia-Virginia border, more than three hours from Washington, D.C., residents can pick up signals from radio stations far away. But those “aren’t going have the local flavor and impact that we do,” said Scott Smith, general manager of Allegheny Mountain Radio. “This is the only game in town for that sort of thing.”

In his home base of Monterey, Virginia, Smith said there’s about a 4 -square-mile (10.3-square-kilometer) area of cell coverage with one cell tower. The station has proven to be a vital source of information during natural disasters. In 2012, residents relied on it after a derecho knocked out power to 680,000 customers across West Virginia and it took nearly two weeks for some areas to get their service restored.

“Yeah, we play music. Yeah, we get on the air and joke around,” he said. “But we’re here providing basic level services of information, emergency information, that sort of thing, to our communities. And as part of that, we’re a pretty critical link in this area for the emergency alert system.”

Smith has a staff of 10 people at Allegheny Mountain Radio, which receives 68% of its annual budget from CPB.

“What CPB does fund the most is small rural radio,” Smith said. “When you take 60% of our income away, that’s not readily or easily replaceable.”

Smith calls it a “wait-and-see game” on whether Congress will act on the CPB funding.

“The answer to how we move forward is vague,” Smith said. “We will still continue to be here as long as we can be.”

___

Stengle reported from Dallas. Jeffrey Collins contributed to this report from Columbia, South Carolina.

Recent News

Powered By SoCast