“There is no ice where there is almost always ice,” The Washington Post’s weather experts tweeted yesterday, referring to an area north of Greenland.
Lars Kaleschke, a German physicist, explained: “There is open water north of Greenland where the thickest sea ice of the Arctic used to be. It is not refreezing quickly because air temperatures are above” freezing.
How different are this year’s temperatures? “In 2018, there have already been 61 hours above freezing at Cape Morris Jesup, Greenland,” writes Robert Rhode, a climate scientist. “The previous record was 16 hours before the end of April in 2011.”
This is scary stuff.
Something different. How did a decorated sportswriter end up as a blogger for a high-school basketball team in Morton, Ill.? The answer is in the best story I read yesterday.
N.R.A. discounts. FedEx announced yesterday that it would keep its discounts for N.R.A. members. FedEx essentially claimed that it had no choice — that it could not offer discounts to one organization and not another. But this explanation appears, at least on my initial reading, to be misleading.
Other companies, like Delta and United, have made a different decision. They’ve ended discounts for the N.R.A. without eliminating their discount programs. FedEx, by contrast, has apparently decided to become one of the country’s more pro-N.R.A. companies.
I understand why a company may be reluctant to distinguish among different groups. But I understand more why many companies have decided they don’t want to be a partner of the N.R.A. If my understanding of the story changes, I’ll follow up in another newsletter.
Labor unions in trouble. The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in one of the most consequential cases of the current term. It involves labor unions for government workers and could significantly reduce the money available to those unions.
Neil Gorsuch — President Trump’s choice for the court, who “almost certainly holds the decisive vote” in the case, Adam Liptak of The Times wrote — asked no questions during the arguments. His silence leaves uncertain his leanings. But there are many reasons to believe Gorsuch will rule against the unions. He’s been a deeply, reliably conservative justice since joining the court, and the other four conservative justices voted against the unions in a similar 2016 case before Gorsuch joined the court.
A conservative victory in what is known as the Janus case would be one of the first big effects of the Republicans’ success in blocking President Barack Obama from filling a court vacancy during his last year in office, as The Times editorial board argues.
Because of the magnitude of that move — and the unprecedented nature of it — I’ve argued that Democrats can’t simply let bygones be bygones. The Republicans have effectively changed the rules of Supreme Court nominations: Only a party that controls both the White House and Senate will be able to fill a vacancy, until the two parties can come to a negotiated settlement that returns the nominating process to a less partisan place.
As for the Janus case itself: A ruling against the unions would deny them “the resources they need to negotiate good contracts, fight for higher wages, defend members and protect pensions,” Yvonne Walker, a labor leader, writes.
Moshe Marvit, a labor scholar, explains why some conservatives are urging the court to leave the law as it is: the unintended consequences of judicial activism.
And Noam Scheiber and Kenneth Vogel of The Times look at the big-money business groups that have helped bring the case to the Supreme Court.
Source: The New York Times