What’s being done to confront the coronavirus and stem the economic fallout from the pandemic are central to this year’s election campaigns. That was clear when the candidates in Minnesota’s 2nd and 6th Congressional Districts met in separate MPR News debates Friday.

The front-runners in Minnesota’s 1st and 3rd Congressional Districts took part in telephone debates on Politics Friday.

The candidates for Congress in Minnesota’s 7th and 8th districts debated the major issues, on Politics Friday with host Mike Mulcahy.

Is there really such a thing as a "shy Trump voter"? Who is contacted to take part in pre-election polls? And are they reliable or not?

NHPR and The Music Hall in Portsmouth present Writers on a New England Stage with i nternational bestselling author and podcast host Malcolm Gladwell, who sat down with Peter Biello to discuss his new book, Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know About the People We Don’t Know .

NHPR's Morning Edition Host Rick Ganley sits down with NH Magazine's managing editor Erica Thoits at the beginning of every month to chat about upcoming events. Here's what's happening this October: Events mentioned here: Annual Powder Keg Beer & Chili Festival at Swasey Parkway, Exeter, Oct. 5 Warner Fall Foliage Festival , Warner, Oct. 11-13 Goffstown Giant Pumpkin Weigh-Off and Regatta , Goffstown, Oct. 19-20 The Porstmouth Halloween Parade , Portsmouth, Oct. 31 You can find a full list of October events from NH Magazine here .

Traveling from Concord to Lebanon along Route 4, you’re likely to see people walking or biking on the Northern Rail Trail. While Potter Place Station has been preserved, that 50 plus mile stone dust path is really all that remains of the once thriving Northern Railroad.

It’s a gloomy, rainy Sunday in downtown Portsmouth. I’m hanging out in a dark basement beneath a bookstore waiting to see a creepy Halloween music show for kids. Dozens of children dressed in their Halloween finest crowd the room. There are princesses and superheroes. An elephant finds a seat next to a dinosaur as the show is about to begin. (Editor's note: we highly recommend listening to this story.) Doctor Gasp is dressed in a long black cape with a white skeleton mask covering his face. Jack-o-lanterns cast orange light across a makeshift stage. He gives a lively performance, jumping and dancing while playing his guitar. The kids get up to dance along with him. Monster Mash is a crowd favorite of course. I sat down with Doctor Gasp after the show to find out who he is behind the mask. Dan Blakeslee is actually a folk singer for most of the year. When he first started writing Halloween music, he would play under his own name at his regular shows. “But then it got to be at the point

NHPR's Morning Edition Host Rick Ganley sits down with NH Magazine's managing editor Erica Thoits at the beginning of every month to chat about upcoming events. Listen to find out what's happening in November: Events mentioned in the interview: NH Open Doors, statewide, Nov. 3-4 Women of Whiskey and Spirits at the Manchester Country Club, Nov. 6 Veterans Day Ceremony at state cemetary, Boscawen, Nov. 7 Veterans Day Service at Cathedral of the Pines, Rindge, Nov. 7 Thanksgiving Farm Fare at Stonewall Farm , Keene, Nov. 22-23 Portsmouth Holiday Arts Tour , Nov. 22-24 Harvest Your Own Christmas Tree at The Rocks Estate, Bethlehem, starting Nov. 23 You can find a full list of November events from NH Magazine here .

We’ve all thrown pennies in fountains or wished upon stars. In this recollection, NHPR’s Sean Hurley recounts the way his son Sam came up with his own way of wishing - and his own special thing to wish for. Editor's note: As with all stories by Sean Hurley, we highly recommend listening to the broadcast version About ten years ago, around this falling time of year, everything dropping down, leaves, pine needles, apples, the sky, the temperature, a little snow, my wife and I took our four year-old son Sam for a short walk to the sandpits near our house. Sam had just discovered leaves – jumping in them, smelling them, tossing them into the air like his own possible feathers - and he found a leaf in our yard and carried it with him down the street like a pinwheel that didn’t spin. Where our road breaks for the woods there’s a small apple tree and Sam found an apple below it and brought that along too. Now, these were wishing years for us. We wished upon shooting stars and upon the first

Award-winning author Ann Patchett - herself a seasoned literary interviewer - joined All Things Considered & The Bookshelf host Peter Biello to discuss her latest novel, The Dutch House , writing, bookselling, and how much she hates the Amazon Echo. The interview was part of our occasional series, In the Spotlight, produced in partnership with Gibson's Bookstore and the Capitol Center for the Arts. This interview was taped live at the Capitol Center for the Arts on October 2, 2019. Listen to the full interview below.

The holiday season is in full swing. And with December approaching, there's lots of ways to celebrate in the Granite State. NHPR's Morning Edition Host Rick Ganley sits down with NH Magazine's managing editor Erica Thoits at the beginning of every month to chat about upcoming events. Here's what's happening in December: Events mentioned here: Light Up Laconia , Dec. 1 Judy's Scary Little Christmas , Majestic Theatre in Manchester, Dec. 5-8 The Great American Trailer Park Christmas Musical , M&D at Eastern Slope Inn Playhouse, North Conway, Dec. 5-15 30th Annual Christmas in Strafford Craft Fair , Strafford, Dec. 7-8 The Christmas Revels , Lebanon Opera House, Lebanon, Dec. 21-23

We’ve been hearing a lot about Ukraine recently. From where it is on the map to its debunked involvement in the 2016 election. Even so, photographer Joseph Sywenkyj says we’ve heard very little about the people of Ukraine.

After winning the “Best Comedy” award at last year’s Melbourne Fringe Festival in Australia, New Hampshire native Gemma Soldati and comedy partner Amrita Dhaliwal are now taking their two-woman clown show, The Living Room , on the road. The show, which they describe as “a comedy about death, devised in grief,” will be touring major cities across the United States, Canada, and Australia.

A recent documentary centers on Boston’s WBCN radio, a 40-plus year fixture on the New England airwaves. Rock radio is fading out in many cities around the country. Last month, WAAF, a rock radio station in Massachusetts, was sold and abruptly changed its format after 50 years. It’s been more than a decade since WBCN left the air. Both stations were widely heard in New Hampshire. We could focus on the demise, but Bill Lichtenstein, a filmmaker and one-time ‘Rock of Boston’ staffer, decided to tell the story of the beginning of WBCN. He started back in 1968, as a 14-year-old kid answering the station’s listener line. This transcript of Rick Ganley's conversation with Bill Lichtenstein has been lightly edited. Lichtenstein: People were told call with anything – questions, your roommate's having a bad acid trip, whatever, and we'll be happy to try to help you. And so I started answering the listener line. I was one of a number of young people that were recruited to do that. Ganley: And I

With bars, restaurants and venues closed down indefinitely, it's harder than ever to be a working musician. But that doesn't mean New Hampshire artists aren't performing. NHPR's Morning Edition Host Rick Ganley spoke with Campton musician Jim Tyrrell to ask what he's doing while he can't play on stage. You can watch Jim Tyrrell and other local New Hampshire musicians play live shows here . Jim Tyrrell: This is pretty unprecedented for me, certainly, and for a lot of people. You know, we're all just kind of adjusting on the fly, but that's true of any industry, I suppose. Rick Ganley: Yeah, you're part of a group of, I think, pretty tight musicians in central New Hampshire that play a lot of the same venues different nights of the week. What are you hearing from your friends and your fellow musicians? Jim Tyrrell: Oh, I think we're all -- it is a pretty tight community, as you mentioned, and we're all connected on social media. So we're very supportive of one another. And we're just

In a normal year, theaters around the state would be preparing for their summer seasons. With gatherings currently forbidden and uncertainty hanging over their heads, many are simply canceling the whole season. Others are postponing or, as NHPR’s Sean Hurley found out, discovering new ways to reach an audience. Sign up for NHPR's email newsletter for more coverage of coronavirus in N.H.

With statues coming down around the country in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, NHPR’s Sean Hurley recently heard about one town in New Hampshire that is considering putting one up.

A new documentary by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick is coming to PBS this month , and it's all about Ernest Hemingway. NHPR's Morning Edition host Rick Ganley sat down with both Burns and Novick to talk about the new film, their process and what makes a good documentary. [Editor's note: this is a transcript of one small part of the full interview.] Rick Ganley: But why Hemingway? Ken Burns: He's a hugely important writer and he's got a very complicated life, and we like to try to wrestled to the ground these complicated stories. And boy, this is about as wonderfully difficult as any project we've undertaken. Rick Ganley: What strikes me the most is how it goes way beyond that mythic Hemingway. This is the man's man writer image that kind of, you know, gets thrown around a lot. What surprised you most about him as you dug into the project? Lynn Novick: Kind of everything in a way, you know, in that we had some understanding of his work. We could give it like the Cliff's Notes version of his

New Hampshire artists have suffered a lot during the pandemic, but they've also helped people get through these hard times. For NHPR's series, The Show Goes On , we're talking with artists across the state to hear what inspiration they've found throughout this year and what's kept them going.

Many artists have had a difficult time during the pandemic, while they've also brought joy to other people who are struggling. For NHPR's series, The Show Goes On , we're talking with artists across New Hampshire about how they're making it through the pandemic. NHPR's Morning Edition host Rick Ganley spoke with Rhonda Besaw , a beadworker from Whitefield, about her work and what's she's learned this past year.

All this week, NHPR is talking with artists about their work and how the past year has changed the way they create art. For the latest installment of “ The Show Goes On ," All Things Considered host Peter Biello explores the colorful streetscape of Nashua.

For NHPR's series, The Show Goes On , we've been talking with artists across New Hampshire about what inspiration they've found and how they've been making it through the pandemic. Jim Tyrrell is a musician based here in New Hampshire. NHPR first reached out to him about a year ago to ask how he was doing when everything was first shutting down. Morning Edition host Rick Ganley checked in with him recently to find out what he's been up to since then.

The Currier Museum of Art 's latest exhibition features the work of Philadelphia-based potter Roberto Lugo. Lugo finds inspiration for his work in his upbringing and his cultural heritage. His new collection, Te traigo mi le lo lai -- I bring you my joy , will be on display at the Currier Museum through September. Lugo will also be in Manchester this summer for a residency with the museum, where he'll be teaching pottery classes. Below are some excerpts from Robert Lugo's conversation with NHPR's Rick Ganley. On Lugo’s inspiration: “ I've always found that it's important for me as a person to not forget where I'm from. I'm from Philadelphia in a really impoverished neighborhood, mostly made up of Black and Latinx people. And so I identify and associate that as a culture and as almost its own society. And so in the tradition that people have represented their cultures in pottery, I do that.” On his new exhibition, Te traigo mi le lo lai -- I bring you my joy : “ One of the reasons why I

Russian people will be able to learn more about the vehicles used by top officials of the country. A new book titled "First Persons' Cars" is to be released under the auspices of the Federal Guard Service (FSO). According to the author of the foreword, FSO Director, Lieutenant-General Dmitry Kochnev, readers will learn exclusive details not just about cars, but also about most protected vehicles that the Soviet Union and Russia have ever seen. It stands the reason that the vehicles that top officials use for their work play a very important role in the security of the state leader. The cars that are used today for officials taking top positions in the country were developed on the basis of decades of experience. The book is illustrated with pictures taken in the Kremlin, in the Dacha of Joseph Stalin and other prominent locations. The authors wanted to place every vehicle in the entourage for which it was created. However, the FSO director believes, all the cars that one can see in the book have one common feature: they look majestic.

Source: REX/Shutterstock Alexander Rutskoy, Russian Air Force General, was the man who brought Boris Yeltsin to power. Rutskoy has unveiled a few interesting facts from the history of Russia. The general said that Boris Yeltsin was drinking a lot during the coup in 1991 and tried to escape to the US Embassy. Rutskoy also said that after the collapse o the Soviet Union, Yeltsin called George H. Bush to report the news to the USA. When serving as vice president, Rutskoy defended independence and Constitution of the Russian Federation, especially in the days of the State Emergency Committee. Later, however, he changed his opinions. In an interview with the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, Alexander Rutskoy spoke about the days, when the Soviet Union stopped its existence. He said that there was an urgent need to remove Mikhail Gorbachev from power, appoint Nikolai Ryzhkov as acting president of the USSR, prepare a new candidate and then hold popular elections for the President of the USSR and the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR.Rutskoy said that he did not have even a shadow of doubt about whom to support in the situation of those days. "I swore as an 18-year-old boy to serve the Motherland and the people, and I have never showed disloyalty to the oath," he said.Today, Rutskoy does not conceal the fact that he had believed Yeltsin's promises about the defense of Russian interests. The vice president of the RSFSR, unlike those, who signed the Belavezha Accords, virtually had no access to the governance of the country. During the interview, Rutskoy said that Boris Yeltsin had tried to escape to the US Embassy. He also said that Gorbachev was not isolated from the world during the days of the State Emergency Committee. Gorbachev could be contacted via secret communication channels, and he was perfectly aware of what was going on. Rutskoy said that Gorbachev simply escaped prior to the signing of the new Unified Treaty. Gorbachev, Rutskoy stated, was executing the mission to destroy the country. It was Rutskoy, who escorted Yeltsin to Minsk,  only to find out later that the USSR would be dissolved. Rutskoy wrote a notice to terminate his powers of the vice president, but his initiative did not move forward. During the ratification of Belavezha Accords, he voted against it. Rutskoy and Yeltsin went separate ways when the latter appointed Gaidar, Chubais and Nechayev for key economic positions in the country. The three officials eventually made Russia experience an economic collapse. According to Rutskoy, the putsch in 1991 took place because Gorbachev betrayed his homeland and the people who were close to him in his team. The State Emergency Committee made a humble attempt to keep the Union afloat. The putsch in 1993 was a coup, which took place with the support of the United States and Europe. "There was an intelligence report saying that the White House in Moscow would be attacked. Yeltsin suddenly decided to go to the US Embassy. I was trying to stop him, I was telling him that he should not be doing it. I was asking him whether he was aware of the things that he was doing.  When they signed the Belovezha  Accorda, the first person, whom Yeltsin informed that the Soviet Union was no more, was George H. Bush," Rutskoy admitted. "Yeltsin was maintaining a contact with the US leadership to inform the Americans about successes of the unilateral surrender in the Cold War," he added.The book of memoirs by George H.W. Bush titled "A World Transformed" also says that Boris Yeltsin was cooperating with the USA for the collapse of the Soviet Union. "On December 8, 1991, Boris Yeltsin from a hunting lodge near Brest, in Belarus. Only recently elected President of the Russian Republic, Yeltsin had been meeting with Leonid Kravchuk, President of Ukraine, and Stanislav Shushkevich, President of Belarus. "Today, a very important event took place in our country," Yeltsin said. "I wanted to inform you myself before you learned it from the press." Then he told me the news: the Presidents of Russia, Belarus and ukraine had decided to dissolve the Soviet Union," George H.W. Bush wrote. According to George H.W. Bush, Yeltsin's tone changed after he finished reading his text. The signed documents, he continued, formulated the provisions that the USA had been advocating. Bush was unwilling to express either his approval or disapproval, so he simply responded with "I understand." 

Source: REX/Shutterstock Boris Yeltsin lied when he said that he had been looking for a successor in the person of Vladimir Putin for a long time, historian Andrei Fursov told Pravda.Ru.Declassified transcripts of Bill Clinton's phone conversations with Boris Yeltsin in 1999 show that the late Russian president says that it took him long to find the man who would be in charge of Russia in 2000. "I came across him eventually, this is Putin. You will work with him," Yeltsin told Clinton promising that Putin would continue his line of Russia's democratic development and expand Russias contacts. Historian and political scientist Andrei Fursov noted in an interview with Pravda.Ru that Boris Yeltsin was reporting his decisions and ideas to Bill Clinton. "He informed his boss about his choice. It brings up the memory of Yeltsin's call to George H. Bush after the decision to disintegrate the Soviet Union. Bush was the first man whom Yeltsin called. Gorbachev was hurt by that. In another episode, Yeltsin tried to assure US Congress that communism would never be back on the Russian territory. This transcript is another evidence to prove the fact that Russia used to be a semi-colony during Yeltsin's presidency," the expert said. "I think that Yeltsin lied when he said that he had been searching for a successor for a long time. From what I know about the events of the late 1990s, Yeltsin did not intend to quit his job, but there were several aspects that forced American masters to put pressure on him. First, there was a conspiracy in the army led by Rokhlin to remove Yeltsin from power. Rokhlin's murder ruined the plan, and people in Yeltsin's team realised that there was serious discontent brewing in the army. "Secondly, not long before that, the parliament had nearly impeached Yeltsin. In addition, Russia suffered a default in 1998. Those three events drew the line under Yeltsin's rule, and he had to quickly search for a successor. Apparently, he counted on Stepashin at first, but then it turned out that the latter was ready to compromise with the Primakov-Luzhkov team, so a need in another candidate arose. "Today, the Russian leadership should give a moral assessment to Yeltsin's rule. In today's Russia, many tend to despise Gorbachev a lot, but they dislike Yeltsin to a lesser degree. Yeltsin was a product of Gorbachev's rule. Yeltsin was working within the corridor of opportunities set by Gorbachev. Gorbachev is still alive, and the man who destroyed the USSR should be held accountable for that. At the same time, I understand that Putin does not want to criticise Yeltsin because it was Yeltsin who made Putin his successor," the expert told Pravda.Ru. 

The Chernobyl nuclear explosion was undoubtedly one of the biggest tragedies that the Soviet Union had seen. Few in the world know that there were other major disasters in the USSR, the scale of which was just as mortifying. The Kyshtym accidentIt is also known as Chelyabinsk-40 accident. Today, this town is called Ozersk; it used to be a secret settlement during the times of the Soviet Union. It was the first man-made disaster that the USSR had seen. In 1957, an explosion of tanks with radioactive waste occurred at Mayak chemical factory. No one was injured as a result of the explosion. However, there were about 270,000 people living in the affected area. The military were evacuated first - they were attracted to liquidation works. Civilian people were evacuated two weeks later.A reserve called East-Ural Radioactive Trace was created on the site of the accident many years afterwards. The site is still closed to the public - the level of radiation there is still high.Krasnoye SormovoThe radioactive accident in Red Sormovo (Krasnoye Sormovo) occurred 16 years before the Chernobyl disaster - in 1970. The accident took place during hydraulic tests on a new nuclear submarine at the plant in the Nizhny Novgorod region. The reactor started up accidentally, and the Krasnoye Sormovo workshop was filled with radioactive vapors immediately. Twelve people were killed on the spot, about 200 others received a huge dose of radiation. The workshop was isolated from external environment, which made it possible to avoid the danger of radioactive contamination of the area. The work to liquidate the consequences of the accident took four months.Only 200 out of 1,000 employees of the factory had stayed alive by January 2012. All of them became first- and second-degree disabled individuals. Explosion at Baikonur CosmodromeMore than 100 people were killed as a result of the explosion that took place on Baikonur Cosmodrome in 1960.Shortly before the accident, Soviet engineers were developing a new intercontinental ballistic missile at the facility. Marshal Nedelin was supervising the tests as the chief commander of missile forces of the USSR. Many safety rules were violated as the team was in a rush to have the report ready for the anniversary of the October Revolution. At one point, the engine of the missile was launched earlier than expected, which caused fuel to explode. The information about this tragedy has long been classified.Kurenyovskaya tragedyThis tragedy took place in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1961. The causes of the accident started forming ten years earlier. The Kiev authorities decided to build a landfill of liquid waste from nearest factories and plants in Babi Yar. In 1961, the dam, which was holding the dump, burst, sending an avalanche of dirt 14 meters high and 20 meters wide. The avalanche turned as many as 81 buildings into ruins. Sixty-eight of those buildings were residential. About 1,500 people became homeless as a result of the disaster, about 200 were killed. The authorities decided not to distribute the information about the accident. The victims were buried quickly. Kiev disconnected itself from international communication the day when the tragedy occurred not to leak any information. These are just a few disasters that the USSR had seen in its history, but there were more.

It is an open secret that the Russian Empire, holding the position of benevolent neutrality, provided enormous assistance to the United States during the Civil War. What kind of role was it exactly, though?One should recollect here the person, who contributed a lot to Russia's decision to support Abraham Lincoln, rather than his opponents from the Confederation. It goes about Cassius Marcellus Clay. That was an outstanding person indeed. Clay, who owned plantations in Kentucky, liberated his slaves, but allowed them to continue working for money. His act was unprecedented for that time, and Cassius Clay instantly made a huge amount of enemies. They attacked him several times. At one point, Clay had to fight six Turner brothers and he won the fight having killed one of the brothers. Russian Emperor II saved Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln found such an ardent abolitionist to be suitable for the post of US Ambassador to Russia. Clay had not had time to leave when the Civil War broke out. He did not leave Washington, but started forming a group of volunteers to defend the White House. Cassius Clay left for St. Petersburg with his family only after the federal army arrived. The Russian Empire was going through the abolition of serfdom right at that time. One may say that the Russian leadership was sympathetic to what Abraham Lincoln was doing in the United States. Clay was pleased to report to Washington that Russian Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov hoped for an early suppression of the "revolt in the south."Russian Emperor Alexander II ordered to send warships to the East and to the West coast of the United States. Their captains received secret instructions in case Britain and France decide to take the side of the Confederation. The Russian fleet was ordered to support the US government.Washington appreciated Russia's move. Upon the arrival of Russian ships in New York's harbor, U.S. Navy Secretary Gideon Wells wrote in his diary: "The Russian fleet has come out of the Baltic and are now in New York, or a large number of the vessels have arrived. They are not to be confined in the Baltic by a northern winter. In sending them to this country at this time there is something significant. What will be its effect on France and the French policy we shall learn in due time. It may moderate; it may exasperate. God bless the Russians."

Poland and Ukraine continue to square off with each other because of the Stepan Bandera banner that was hung for his 111th anniversary in Kiev. Earlier, Polish and Israeli ambassadors Bartosh Tsikhotsky and Joel Lion condemned the hanging of the Stepan Bandera banner by the Kiev City State Administration. Ukraine summoned the Polish ambassador and asked him "not to interfere into internal affairs of Ukraine." Poland decided to formally establish equal responsibility of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union for the outbreak of World War II. Inna Novikova, Pravda.Ru editor-in-chief, talked about issues of Nazism in Ukraine in an interview with Vyacheslav Polosin, Doctor of Philosophy, Ph.D. in Politics, political scientist and Daria Mitina, Secretary of the United Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Nazism in Ukraine "On January 1, Ukraine celebrated the birthday of Stepan Bandera, a Nazi accomplice and executioner his own people. Europe has always had a loyal approach to this issue, turning a blind eye to Nazi marches and saying that it was an internal affair of Ukraine. Not that long ago, Putin spoke on the subject. There were historical documents presented, including those confirming that a Polish ambassador pledged to erect a monument to Hitler if he could hope with the Jews." Daria Mitina: "Indeed, the ambassador said that 70-80 years ago." "The Polish Jews rushed to defend that ambassador saying that the story was different. However, Poland and Ukraine have their disagreement on the matter of the Bandera banner in Kiev and Poland expresses its concerns on a regular basis. Do you think this is just a tribute to the moment, or does Poland wants to remember its war victims? Can Poland show influence on Ukraine at this point?" "Poland has never forgotten them. One needs to realize that the things that state officials say can be very different from the things that the people say."

Mikhail Gorbachev, the first president of the USSR, turned 89 years old on March 2, 2020. Gorbachev is probably the most notorious politician in Russia, and many Russians still have mixed feelings about him. Of course, we all wish him good health to be able to celebrate his 90th anniversary next year. However, as time goes by, he will inevitably become a myth character. When he passes away, he will become the character of the myth about a man, who managed to single-handedly destroy the most powerful empire in history, having accomplished either a heroic feat or a terrible act of betrayal. According to opinion polls, more than 50 percent of Russians share a negative attitude about Gorbachev's role in the history of the USSR. A much smaller amount of Russians - ten percent - are grateful Gorbachev for destroying the Soviet Union that they despised. As many as eight percent of the polled said that they share a neutral attitude towards Mikhail Gorbachev. It was Gorbachev who nailed the USA to the wall It was Gorbachev who reprimanded the West for violating all agreements of his time. It was Gorbachev, who had every right to do so. Not so long ago, Mikhail Gorbachev said: "Crimea is Russia and let someone prove otherwise." When asked whether Putin had "imperialistic ambitions", taking into account the "annexation of the Crimea" and Russia's interference in the Syrian conflict, Gorbachev answered with a strong "no."

Carnival confetti fall to kill the most important thing about Victory Day - the perception of the Great Patriotic War as the greatest tragedy. In today’s Russia, even 30-year-olds, let alone youngsters, increasingly associate Victory Day with something like Halloween at the state level. Fuhrer as a hero of the Great Patriotic War I personally was very moved by the idea of ​​the Immortal Regiment. This is probably the most important and humane part of the format of Victory Day celebrations. This is very sincere and humane indeed, and such things always echo in people’s hearts.  Of course, with the introduction of restrictive measures in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, all activities were moved online not to violate the regime of self-isolation. In addition to the federal "Immortal Regiment", corporate ones also appeared on the Internet. 

During the late 1950s, the Soviet administration decided to design a helicopter with the world's largest carrying capacity. The tests of the new helicopter began ten years later. However, it just so happened that no one wanted to replicate the potential pride of Soviet engineers.The helicopter is known as B-12, and it is unofficially known as Mi-12. Its unsuccessful story has proved that world records may at times be reductive. During the 1960s, the production of helicopters was thriving, and military requirements were getting increasingly demanding. It was during those times when engineers designed the first intercontinental missile. First-generation intercontinental missiles were too heavy to be transported on any means other than trains. A R-7 warhead could only be delivered by plane or train because the warhead without fuel weighed 26 tons. First Lockheed U-2, then B-12 Needless to say that railway transportations could be easily tracked. The USSR found that out after a story with the American reconnaissance aircraft.After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, the United States took every effort to prevent such attacks in the future. Thus, the Lockheed U-2 appeared in 1955. The aircraft was carrying various modules, including those using ray tracing and ultra-precise lenses.The camera of the US reconnaissance aircraft was so powerful that it was possible to count cows in a photograph of a field, taken from an altitude of 18 km.The aircraft was flying quietly over the USSR for more than five years, until one of them was shot down and its pilot was taken hostage in 1960. However, 24 previous flights helped the Americans find out the whereabouts of Soviet military facilities, including missile ranges.It was easy to track down those facilities on the ground with the help of conspicuous railway tracks. The USSR was convinced that it was about time to develop aerial means of transportation for missiles. By 1963, the largest Mi-6 helicopter could lift 12 tons, but it was not good to carry a 26-ton cargo.  This prompted Soviet engineers to start working on the B-12 helicopter. At first they simply wanted to upscale the Mi-6, but it then became clear that one huge rotor could not be adapted to the laws of physics. Soviet designers decided that it would take them too long to stabilise the new technology. They opted for a different variant, in which they took 35-meter rotors with a total capacity of 26,000 horsepower from the Mi-6 helicopter and arranged them to the sides of the hull.The rotors moved in the opposite direction to balance each other, while the rear wing was stabilizing the swing.We can now see this solution in the design of modern-day drones, but there were no helicopter models with this type of rotors in the past. In terms of the size of the hull, it was larger than the Boeing 737, which can house up to 189 people. The B-12 could carry a record 192 passengers. As for equipment, the new helicopter could fit a nuclear intercontinental missile.

Since 1478, Russia has taken part in 138 wars and suffered defeat in 18 of them. Three of those wars led to most severe territorial and human losses for Russia.  Livonian War (1558 - 1583) The conflict sparked after the Livonian Confederation refused to pay tribute that Russia had imposed  since the previous war in 1481. The Livonians actively obstructed the development of Russian trade in the Baltic Sea and concluded an offensive-defensive treaty with Poland and Lithuania. Having realised that the war with the Baltic would be inevitable, Ivan the Terrible organised a crusade to Livonia. At first, Russia was winning, and both Livonia and Lithuania were completely defeated. However, the European countries joined their forces in the face of the threat from the Russian army. 

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev once had to beg Joseph Stalin for mercy. The episode in Khrushchev's biography took place before he came to power in the USSR. Khrushchev had to kneel in front of Stalin, begging him not to punish his son Leonid, who had shot an officer by accident.  Professor, biophysicist, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Andrei Malenkov, the son of one of Khrushchev's competitors in the struggle for power, Georgy Malenkov, said in an interview with Lenta.ru that Khrushchev came to Stalin and was crawling on his knees in front of him because his son was supposed to be executed for shooting an officer. Moreover, it was the second time when Khrushchev's son committed such a crime (he was forgiven for the first one), Malenkov said.   With this landmark report at the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union "On the cult of the personality and its consequences" Nikita Khrushchev wanted to take revenge on Stalin for his unfortunate son Leonid, the professor also said, adding that Khrushchev was a "very vindictive little man."

June 30, 1971, was the day when the largest tragedy in the history of Soviet cosmonautics took place. It was the day, when the entire crew of the Soyuz-11 spacecraft was killed during the return mission: Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov and Viktor Patsaev. When returning to Earth, the crew of the Soyuz-11 spacecraft - Vladislav Volkov, Georgy Dobrovolsky and Viktor Patsaev - were killed as a result of the depressurization of the descent vehicle. The cosmonauts were buried underneath the Kremlin wall. This was the second and the last disaster in the history of manned space flight for both the USSR and Russia. Soyuz comes to replace Gagarin's Vostok Soyuz is a family of disposable manned transport spacecraft, which was designed and built by Design Bureau OKB-1 (currently known as Energia Rocket and Space Corporation named after Korolev). 

The Russians love to win. Unfortunately, other countries often take advantage of our victories, whereas we easily forget about our military prowess. Today, during the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, few people in Russia may remember that it was the Soviet army that put an end to the worst war in the history of mankind - World War II, or the Great Patriotic War, as it is known in Russia. It was on September 3rd, when it happened.  September 3rd is the official date of the end of World War II in the Soviet Union. It used to be celebrated as a non-working day and had been officially called the National Day of Victory over Imperialist Japan until 1947. One can still find posters at history museums in the Far East of Russia that say: Victory Day over Japan - September 3rd. The day of September 3rd was officially approved as the red date of the calendar by the decree from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of September 2, 1945. USSR's first and, unfortunately, the only parade of victory over Japan took place on September 16, on the territory of Harbin, where the Chinese still take care of Soviet burials.

At the beginning of the last century, the news about the death of Afghan Emir Abdur-Rahman made headlines all over the world. It was reported that his death could lead to most unpleasant consequences for both Russia and England, and, consequently, for the whole world politics. Kabul - Russia - Kabul Everything flows, but nothing changes. The topic of the Afghanistan crisis has become important again, especially for Russia. England is no longer the same, and the successor - the United States - is a far cry from the current rulers of Afghanistan. After Shir Ali Khan's accession to the throne in 1864, Abdur-Rahman participated in the troops of his father, Afzul Khan, and uncle Azim Khan in the fight against his other uncle, the powerful Emir Shir Ali. He conquered Kabul in 1866, where his father established himself.

In distant past, people did not think about such issue as the humane treatment of criminals. Quite on the contrary, people would invent most sophisticated types of torture to make suspects speak. Executions would be conducted in public to horrify and intimidate others.   Rack This is probably the most widely known type of torture. It is believed that the rack was first used in around 300 AD on Christian martyr Vincent of Zaragoza. Subsequently, the rack was widely used by the medieval Inquisition. A person would be put on a special bed with rollers at both ends. Ropes would be wound around the rollers to hold the victim's wrists and ankles. As the rollers would rotate, the ropes would stretch in opposite directions, severing ligaments in upper and lower extremities of the victim and displacing their bones. 

Thirty years ago, on December 8, 1991, the Belovezha Accords, signed in Belarus, led to the collapse of the USSR. Yuri Voronin, Chairman of the Commission of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR on Budget, Plans, Taxes and Prices, First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation (in 1991) recalls the events of 30 years ago. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, the collapse of the USSR was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. After the collapse of the USSR, as many as 25 million Russian people found themselves abroad overnight.

According to international experts, the world has returned to the Cold War, but this time, the state of affairs is even more dramatic than it used to be. Airplanes with nuclear warheads on board are on duty again, like 30 years ago. The danger of such flights lies not only in the possible use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear bombs may go missing, as it had repeatedly happened in the past. Atomic bombs for Spain Several years ago, a Canadian diver, while diving into the sea near the Haida Gwaii archipelago, was horrified to find something that looked like an air nuclear bomb. The diver was right. In 1950, an American B-36 bomber was forced to jettison an atomic bomb into the Pacific Ocean due to a fire on board.

Queen Elizabeth II died peacefully in Scotland on September 8. The crown passed to her son, Prince Charles, who took the throne name Charles III. His name is translated into Russian as Karl III, which is due to historic peculiarities of name translations. Elizabeth II and Boris Yeltsin Despite the fact that Elizabeth II ascended the throne back in 1952, the Queen was in no hurry to pay an official visit to the Soviet Union and then Russia. Her historical trip to Russia took place only after the collapse of the USSR. On October 17, 1994, Elizabeth II landed in Moscow. First deputy chairman of the government, Oleg Soskovets, welcomed the Queen. Directly from the airport, they went to the Kremlin in a royal Rolls-Royce, where Russian President Boris Yeltsin was waiting for them.

Russia has a very extensive history of military operations and wars. Russia has been successful in most of its wars, but the price was too high as too many lives had been lost. Therefore, our descendants need to remember the lessons that our ancestors left for us as a legacy. Most of the threats that Russia had to deal with were coming from the south and the southwest. One of those campaigns took place in 1827-1828, when France and England pushed Russia into the flames of another war with Turkey. General Nikolai Yepanchin combined his service in the army ranks with extensive scientific and teaching activities. He was also a member of the Military Historical Commission of the General Staff for compiling a description of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878. He repeatedly criticised the military component of the Russian Empire, dwelling in detail on how the Russian army was prepared for military campaigns.

A major crisis broke out in Russia in the beginning of October 1993. It was the most serious crisis in post-Soviet history. Disagreements between President Boris Yeltsin and parliamentary leaders led to bloody massacre on the streets of Moscow.  The number of victims of the Black October crisis remains unknown even 30 years after. According to various departments and commissions, the number of victims varies from 124 to 158 people. Witnesses say, however, that hundreds were killed and thousands of others were injured.  After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the 1978 Constitution of the RSFSR was still in force vesting supreme powers on the Supreme Council and the Congress of People's Deputies.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that low-level crack cocaine offenders cannot benefit from a 2018 federal law.; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that some crack cocaine offenders sentenced to harsh prison terms more than a decade ago cannot get their sentences reduced under a federal law adopted with the purpose of doing just that.

At issue in the case was the long and now notorious history of sentencing under the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established harsh mandatory prison sentences based on the amount of drugs that the defendant possessed or sold. The triggering amount, however, was different for crack cocaine used most often by Black people, and powder cocaine, used most often by whites.

Indeed, the ratio was 100-to-1, so that a five-year mandatory minimum penalty, for instance, was triggered by possession of 5 grams of crack, whereas the same penalty was triggered by 500 grams of powder cocaine.

Nine years after enactment of these mandatory penalties, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found these disparities unjustified, and by 2010 Congress passed new legislation to reduce the disparity to from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. But that left everyone previously sentenced under the old regime stuck with the harsher penalties. And in 2018, Congress passed and then-President Donald Trump signed into law a bipartisan bill to make the new ratios retroactive.

That allowed thousands of crack offenders who were serving prison sentences to be resentenced under the new law and new sentencing guidelines, with an average reduction of six years in their sentences. But while the new law allowed even drug kingpins to be resentenced, some prisoners were left out — a number now in the low hundreds, according to the Biden administration.

One of those was the prisoner at the center of Monday's case, Tarahrick Terry, sentenced to nearly 16 years in prison for possession with intent to distribute 3.9 grams of crack cocaine, less than the weight of four paper clips.

He claimed that his sentence, like others, should be revised in light of the 2018 law, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument. Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that Terry had been sentenced under a section of the law that applied to "career criminals," those who had two previous drug or violent convictions. Terry did, in fact, have two previous drug convictions as a teenager — for which he spent 120 days in jail.

So, as Thomas observed, Terry was sentenced under the provision of the law that was not included in the 2018 revision.

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Cory Booker and Republican Sens. Charles Grassley and Mike Lee — the sponsors and drafters of the act — warned in a friend of the court brief filed in the case that excluding low-level offenders from the act's reforms would mean ignoring its purpose. "Had Congress intended to exclude individuals with low-level crack offenses from relief," they wrote, "Congress of course could have done so."

Thomas and the rest of the court rejected that argument. "We will not convert nouns to adjectives and vice versa," wrote Thomas, which is what he said Congress was asking the court to do. The 2018 law, he said, did not change the section of the law under which Terry was sentenced, so the argument that the revision modified the whole law just wouldn't wash.

Although the decision was unanimous, it included an interesting back-and-forth about race between Thomas, the only African American on the court and arguably its most conservative member, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, its only Hispanic and arguably most liberal member. Specifically, their disagreement was about the role race played in the adoption of mandatory minimum sentences that were wildly more harsh for possession or sale of crack cocaine than for powder cocaine.

As Thomas saw it, the 100-to-1 ratio for crack cocaine was enacted "with near unanimity" by Congress, because of two concerns expressed by Black leaders at the time: First, that crack "was fueling crime against residents in the inner cities who were predominantly black," and second that "prosecutors were not taking these kinds of crimes seriously enough because the victims were disproportionately black." Moreover, he quoted a 1995 U.S. Sentencing Commission report that concluded the 100-to-1 ratio created "a perception of unfairness," even though there was no reason to believe that "racial bias or animus undergirded the initiation of the federal sentencing law."

In a concurring opinion, Sotomayor declined to join that part of Thomas' opinion, because "it includes an unnecessary, incomplete, and sanitized history of the 100-to-1 ratio," including "race-based myths" about crack cocaine.

"The full history is far less benign," she said. It ignores the fact that Black leaders were promised federal investment in longer term solutions — including in job training and education programs — but that help never arrived. Nor, she noted, did the majority opinion mention that the bill containing the 100-to-1 ratio was "rush[ed] through to pass dramatic drug legislation before the midterm elections," and that the legislative history of the bill offered no justification for the 100-to-1 ratio, "save that it was the highest ratio proposed."

"Most egregiously, the Court barely references the ratio's real-world impact" — one so profound and unjustified, as demonstrated by subsequent research — "that the [Congressional Black Caucus] came together in unanimous and increasingly vocal opposition to the law."

In the end, however, Sotomayor agreed that "unfortunately," the reading of the law urged by the primary sponsors of the 2018 revision is not born out by the text. "Fortunately," she added, "Congress has numerous tools to right this injustice."

As for prisoner Terry, who brought Monday's case, he is now in the final months of his prison term, and according to the Biden administration is serving his remaining time in home confinement.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A customer walks behind a sign at a Nordstrom in Coral Gables, Fla., store seeking employees in May.; Credit: Marta Lavandier/AP

Two organizations filed a lawsuit against Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb in an attempt to block the state's push to end pandemic unemployment benefits on June 19.

Indiana Legal Services, an organization providing free legal assistance, and the Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis filed the lawsuit on behalf of five unnamed plaintiffs who are set to lose their jobless benefits. The complaint was filed Monday in Marion County Superior Court.

This lawsuit may be the first of its kind that aims to stop states from ending these benefits earlier than Congress mandated.

The unemployment insurance program "has served as a vital lifeline for thousands of Hoosiers," the complaint, reviewed by NPR, says. "By prematurely deciding t0 stop administering these federal benefits, Indiana has violated the clear mandates 0f Indiana's unemployment statute—to secure all rights and benefits available for unemployed individuals."

Indiana is one of 25 Republican-led states that decided to end jobless aid in an effort to get people to return to work. Indiana and seven other states are set to end expanded unemployment benefits as soon as this weekend. This is despite Congress's authorization for extra payments until early September.

Those benefits include the extra $300 a week in federal aid and the special pandemic program for gig workers that allows them to receive jobless benefits. Ordinarily, independent contractors wouldn't be eligible.

Plaintiffs, as well as many other Indiana residents, rely entirely on the unemployment benefits to pay for food and rent and to care for their families, the complaint alleges.

Attorneys in this case are requesting the judge approve a preliminary injunction that would allow people to receive their benefits while the case continues.

Holcomb says it's time to get back to work

Holcomb told The Indianapolis Star that people no longer need unemployment benefits as the state has a plethora of jobs open.

"Eliminating these pandemic programs will not be a silver bullet for employers to find employees, but we currently have about 116,000 available jobs in the state that need filled now," he said.

According to the governor's office, Indiana's unemployment rate has recovered to 3.9% after climbing to 17% at the height of the pandemic.

The lawsuit challenges Holcomb's assertion.

Each of the five plaintiffs say they are unable to return to work due to lingering injuries or disability, health conditions that put them at risk for COVID-19 exposure, dependent children at home and no childcare available, or no positions that are available in their career field.

Workers of color feel the loss of unemployment the most

The National Employment Law Project says ending these jobless benefits early threatens the livelihoods of workers of color the most.

Millions of Americans still heavily rely on jobless aid as the country slowly reopens from pandemic-induced lockdowns, according to the organization.

As of May 22, more than 15.3 million people still needed some form of unemployment benefit—nearly twice the number who received payments when the aid programs began in late March 2020, NELP said.

According to its analysis, over 46% of unemployment insurance recipients in the states ending the programs early are people of color.

"The brunt of the impact will be felt by Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and other people of color," NELP says.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A demonstrator holds a sign in support of the Affordable Care Act in front of the U.S. Supreme Court last November. On Thursday, the justices did just that.; Credit: Alex Brandon/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act for the third time on Thursday, leaving in place the broad provisions of the law enacted by Congress in 201o. The vote was 7 to 2.

The opinion was authored by Justice Stephen Breyer who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision threw out the challenge to the law on the grounds that Texas and other objecting GOP-dominated states were not required to pay anything under the mandate provision and thus had no standing to bring the challenge to court.

"To have standing, a plaintiff must 'allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,' " the majority wrote. "No plaintiff has shown such an injury 'fairly traceable' to the 'allegedly unlawful conduct' challenged here."

The mandate, the most controversial provision of the law, required that people either buy health insurance or pay a penalty. In 2012, it was upheld by a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the decisive fifth vote, on the grounds that the penalty fell within the taxing power of Congress.

In 2017, Congress got rid of the penalty after the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the law would continue to function effectively without it. That prompted the challengers to go back to court, contending that because the penalty had been zeroed out, it was no longer a tax or a mandate. What's more, they contended, because the mandate was so interwoven with the rest of the ACA, the whole law must be struck down.

Over 31 million Americans have access health insurance through the ACA — a record high since the law's inception, the White House said last week. In addition, the Urban Institute reported in May that ACA premiums have gone down each of the last three years.

Many of the provisions of the ACA are now taken for granted. Up to 135 million people are covered by the ban on discrimination against those with preexisting conditions.

Young adults are now permitted to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26; copays are not permitted for preventive care; and insurance companies can no longer put lifetime caps on benefits, are required to spend 80% of premiums on medical coverage and are barred from discrimination based on factors like gender.

In addition, Medicaid coverage was greatly expanded after all but a dozen states took advantage of the ACA to expand federally subsidized coverage under the program. Among those who have benefited are many who lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs in the COVID-19 pandemic.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Police tape blocks access from a street leading to the building complex where the Capital Gazette is located on June 29, 2018, in Annapolis, Md. The suspect barricaded a back door in an effort to "kill as many people as he could kill," police said.; Credit: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

Jury selection in the trial of the gunman who fatally shot five employees at the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Md., on June 28, 2018 gets underway on Wednesday.

Jarrod Ramos, 41, has pleaded guilty — but not criminally responsible for reason of insanity — in the killings of John McNamara, Rob Hiaasen, Gerald Fischman, Wendi Winters and Rebecca Smith. The mass shooting was one of the deadliest attacks on journalists in modern U.S. history.

"There is a sense that you don't want this to be the thing that makes your life change," Phil Davis, the paper's former criminal justice reporter who now works at the Baltimore Sun, told NPR.

Davis was hiding under his desk while live tweeting the shooting that day. Later, he was part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning team that put out a paper the very next day.

"That's kind of what drove me to continue as a criminal justice reporter. Once I got the feeling of like, 'no we're going to get back to exactly what we do. We're going to tackle this how we would even if it wasn't us and try to go at it from the perspective of a local community newspaper,'" Davis said.

Bruce Shapiro, the executive director of the Columbia University's Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma, said what made this shooting reverberate in newsrooms across the U.S. was "the idea of a newsroom full of colleagues being murdered just because they are journalists. It's an identity based attack."

Attacks on journalists in the U.S. haven't stopped there. During his time in office, President Donald Trump tweeted that the news media is the enemy of the people. Associated Press journalists were threatened and had their equipment damaged by supporters of Trump during the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6. And last year, during the protests in Minneapolis over the murder of George Floyd by police, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker reported at least 160 threats to journalists across the country in one week--mostly by police.

Shapiro says the trial is a reminder to the public of the risks and costs local reporters take daily.

"The reality is that local newsrooms all over the country cover extraordinarily difficult events affecting their own families, neighbors, kids, schools whether that is wildfires, whether that is mass shooting, whether that is COVID-19," Shapiro said.

The Capital Gazette trial has been delayed several times due to COVID-19, turnover in the public defender and state's attorney's offices, and rounds of court hearings. Davis says he hopes the long-awaited trial brings some closure.

"Certainly for the families of the victims themselves, I look forward to being on the other end of this trial," he said. "And whatever the outcome is, being able to embrace them and support them just to bring them some sort of closure."

Today, less than a week before the third anniversary of the shooting, the judge has called a pool of 300 people to determine the 12 that will sit as jurors. They will then determine Ramos's mental sanity during the attack.

Steve Mercer, a former Maryland public defender, said the defense has the burden to prove Ramos's sanity. He said that in cases like these, the defense will look at motive and intent. One possible motive, Mercer says, is Ramos' "long-simmering feud with the paper."

Ramos sued the paper for defamation in 2012 after reporters wrote about his guilty plea on charges of criminal harassment and 90-day suspended jail sentence. But that motive might not hold up.

"I think there's a big gap between sort of being upset about a story that's published ... and then going in and committing a mass shooting," Mercer said.

Mercer adds what presents a challenge to both the defense and prosecution is Ramos's conduct after the shooting. He was found by police under a desk at the scene of the shooting with a pump-action shotgun which was purchased legally a few years before.

"The defense may point to it and say that it shows just a disconnect from reality and a lack of awareness of what was going on," Mercer said.

Circuit Court Judge Judge Michael Wachs will ultimately decide if he ends up in prison or a state psychiatric hospital.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with students on Wednesday, ruling that a former cheerleader's online F-bombs about her school is protected speech under the First Amendment.

By an 8-1 vote, the court declared that school administrators do have the power to punish student speech that occurs online or off campus if it genuinely disrupts classroom study. But the justices concluded that a few swear words posted online from off campus, as in this case, did not rise to the definition of disruptive.

"While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B. L.'s interest in free expression in this case," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court's majority.

At issue in the case was a series of F-bombs issued in 2017 on Snapchat by Brandi Levy, then a 14-year-old high school cheerleader who failed to win a promotion from the junior varsity to the varsity cheerleading term at her Pennsylvania school.

"I was really upset and frustrated at everything," she said in an interview with NPR in April. So she posted a photo of herself and a friend flipping the bird to the camera, along with a message that said, "F*** the school ... F*** cheer, F*** everything."

Suspended from the team for what was considered disruptive behavior, Brandi and her parents went to court. They argued that the school had no right to punish her for off-campus speech, whether it was posted online while away from school, as in this case, or spoken out loud at a Starbucks across the street from school.

A federal appeals court agreed with her, declaring that school officials have no authority to punish students for speech that occurs in places unconnected to the campus.

The decision marked the first time that an appeals court issued such a broad interpretation of the Supreme Court's landmark student speech decision more then a half century ago. Back then, in a case involving students suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, the court ruled that students do have free speech rights under the Constitution, as long as the speech is not disruptive to the school.

Although Brandi Levy is now in college, the school board in Mahanoy, Pa., appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that disruption can come from outside the campus but still have serious effects on campus. It pointed to laws in 47 states that require schools to enforce anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies.

The high court, however, focused on the facts in Levy's case, concluding that while her posts were less than admirable, they did not meet the test of being disruptive.

"We do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus," Breyer wrote. "The school's regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "If today's decision teaches any lesson, it must be that the regulation of many types of off-premises student speech raises serious First Amendment concerns, and school officials should proceed cautiously before venturing into this territory."

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the school was right to suspend Levy because students like her "who are active in extracurricular programs have a greater potential, by virtue of their participation, to harm those programs."

"For example, a profanity-laced screed delivered on social media or at the mall has a much different effect on a football program when done by a regular student than when done by the captain of the football team," Thomas wrote. "So, too, here."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

In a case originating with a California Highway Patrol officer's pursuit of a vehicle and ultimately entering the driver's home, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police may not enter homes without a warrant for minor crimes.; Credit: Chris Carlson/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime.

By a unanimous vote, the court declared that police violated the rights of a California man by pursuing him into his garage for allegedly playing loud music while driving down a deserted two-lane highway late at night.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Elena Kagan said police had no right to enter the man's home without a warrant for such a trivial offense.

"On many occasions, the officer will have good reason to enter – to prevent imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home," she wrote. "But when the officer has time to get a warrant, he must do so – even though the misdemeanant fled."

The court's ruling came in the case of Arthur Lange, who was playing loud music in his car late one night, at one point honking his horn several times. A California highway patrol officer, believing Lange was violating a noise ordinance, followed him, and when the motorist slowed to enter his driveway, the officer put on his flashing lights.

Lange, who later said he didn't notice the police car, drove into his garage. The officer, in "hot pursuit," got out of his car and put his foot under the closing garage door sensor to force the door open again. He had no warrant to enter the home, but once inside, he said, he smelled liquor on Lange's breath and arrested him, not only for the noise violation, but also for driving under the influence.

Lange appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, contending that the officer had no right to enter his home without a warrant and that the DUI evidence had been illegally obtained.

The Supreme Court has long held that police may conduct a warrantless search when pursuing a fleeing felon. The question in Lange's case was whether police are free to do the same thing when pursuing someone suspected of a minor offense like playing loud music.

"[P]ursuit of a misdemeanant does not trigger a categorical rule allowing a warrantless home entry," she wrote.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.