March 26, 2017

No Image

The Final Four: UNC-Chapel Hill v. Oregon and South Carolina v. Gonzaga

The #FinalFour is set! https://t.co/4qp7y4HAdkpic.twitter.com/eIgaEaKakD

— Bleacher Report (@BleacherReport) March 27, 2017

Stare hard at your March Madness brackets because the weekend is over and we are down to the Final Four:

When South Carolina faces Gonzaga in the NCAA final four playoffs in Arizona on Saturday, it will be the first time both the seventh-seeded Gamecocks and the No. 1 seeded Bulldogs have played their way into the semifinals.

The Oregon Ducks, which haven’t been to the final four since they won the very first tournament back in 1939, will have to outplay the UNC Tarheels who were last in the Final Four, well, last year, and has, according to the Los Angeles Times, made more Final Four appearances than any other team.

2? that have never been there
?
1? that hasn’t been since 1939
?
1? that’s been there the most
———————————-#FinalFourpic.twitter.com/wHCYc9oifd

— NCAA March Madness (@marchmadness) March 26, 2017

A lot of unexpected teams in the mix this year and many people didn’t see the basketballs bouncing this way, including Gary Parrish of CBS Sports:

I had Duke, Gonzaga, Kansas and UCLA heading to Phoenix. So this is not the Final Four I expected. But let’s be honest. This is not the Final Four you expected either.

South Carolina?

Who had South Carolina winning the East?

Oregon?

Who had Oregon winning the Midwest?

I mean, when a school some have forever insisted would never make a Final Four finally making the Final Four is among the least surprising things, you have, by definition, a surprising Final Four. So, absolutely, this is a surprising Final Four — even though it’s a Final four featuring three league champions and two No. 1 seeds.

But, as Zach Helfund wrote in the LA Times, “this year’s collection of teams is an ode to quiet toil.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Words You'll Hear: Freedom Caucus' Role In Health Care Bill Withdrawal

We look at the House Freedom Caucus, a key Republican faction that opposed the American Health Care Act. The GOP healthcare bill was later withdrawn over lack of support.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

Now for the regular segment we call Words You’ll Hear. That’s where we try to understand stories we’ll be hearing more about in the coming days by parsing some of the words associated with them. Today our word or phrase is Freedom Caucus, also known as the House Freedom Caucus. You probably heard about it during the failed – during the health care debate. The Republican-backed bill failed in the House of Representatives, largely because members of the Freedom Caucus refused to support it.

Just this morning, President Trump tweeted that Democrats are smiling because the Republican Freedom Caucus helped save Obamacare. So if you’re wondering what exactly it is and what the members want, Domenico Montanaro is here to explain. He’s NPR’s lead editor for Politics. Welcome back. Thanks so much for coming.

DOMENICO MONTANARO, BYLINE: Hi there, Michel.

MARTIN: So what exactly is the House Freedom Caucus? Who’s in it?

MONTANARO: So this is a group of almost 40 members. It’s not exactly clear who they are exactly because they’re invitation only. They’re a little bit private about that. So they’re almost 40 House members who are the most conservative members – hardline, ideological. And when you look at their vote ratings, for example, if you want to actually quantify this, they are almost a third more conservative in their voting than regular Republicans.

MARTIN: Why does it exist? I mean, how did this all start? Because presumably, I would imagine that everybody in the House of Representatives and the Senate for that matter would say that they believe in freedom.

MONTANARO: Sure. So on their Twitter handle, they say (reading) we support open, accountable and limited government, the Constitution and rule of law and policies that promote liberty, safety and prosperity of all Americans.

So those are some grandiose kinds of terms, but you can read between the lines there and see what they stand for. They’re kind of an outcrop of the Tea Party from 2010. They’ve started to kind of become more – a little bit more powerful. And in 2015, they formally formed themselves and were frankly responsible for the ousting of House Speaker John Boehner.

MARTIN: Is that where they first asserted themselves or came to public attention because of the…

MONTANARO: Yeah.

MARTIN: …John Boehner – well, he would say he stepped down.

MONTANARO: He would say he stepped down, but he was facing pressure from this right-wing, hardline faction. You might remember the thing called the grand bargain that John Boehner was trying to strike with President Obama when it came to tax reform and other measures. They weren’t able to get it done largely because of this same faction of folks. They stuck together, and then they became more formal.

Mark Meadows, who is a congressman from North Carolina, is their chairman. And he’s the one who took out what’s known as a motion to vacate – first time it was used since 1910 – to be able to say that they wanted to have an open vote to get John Boehner out as speaker of the House. And to give you a sense of the kind of nostalgia, the kind of Tea-Party-foundational-founding-fathers kinds of thinking that they have, Mark Meadows talks about this moment that he decided that he was going to go for it with this motion to vacate.

His son Blake had sent him a text and with part of a speech from Teddy Roosevelt that said, it’s not the critic who counts. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly. Meadows – that brought tears to his eyes and says he still keeps it on his phone and was the reason why he was able to go forward.

MARTIN: Does it seem as if this group has the ability to guide legislation or policy beyond stopping things they don’t like? Is there any record of advancing things that they do like?

MONTANARO: Well, inherent in that is a fundamental question that has divided Americans generally, and that’s the role and scope of government. And for these folks, they don’t want to have the government involved and do a lot of things. It’s to the point of frustration for someone like Boehner and Paul Ryan and allies of theirs, someone like Devin Nunes, who is the House intelligence chairman, who had said, when they were first coming to prominence, described them as lemmings with suicide vests.

So if they’re lemmings with suicide vests, in leadership’s view, do you think they really care whether or not they’re able to govern?

MARTIN: We’ll leave that there. That’s NPR political editor Domenico Montanaro. Domenico, thank you so much.

MONTANARO: Thank you.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

In Conflict With Trump Agenda, California Sets Stricter Auto Emissions Standards

California put itself on a collision course with the Trump Administration as the state’s clean air agency moved forward with stricter emissions requirements for trucks and cars.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

California’s state regulators voted unanimously to go ahead with tough fuel standards setting up a potential conflict with the Trump administration. Now, California has been a leader in the world of cars and environmental regulations. The Golden State’s clean air laws, for example, were precursors to the Federal Clean Air Act.

Now with the Trump administration’s appointment of a climate change skeptic to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, California is positioning itself as the opposition especially when it comes to cars. NPR’s Sonari Glinton covers the auto industry and was nice enough to pull over from his Sunday test drive to tell us more. Sonari, Welcome back. Thanks for joining us once again.

SONARI GLINTON, BYLINE: It’s good to be with you as always.

MARTIN: So what just happened in California?

GLINTON: Well, the California Air Resources Board which sort of predates the EPA voted unanimously to go ahead with its clean car program and that mandates a certain percentage of cars in the fleet be zero emissions or essentially electric. And the state already has about half of the electric cars. Though, their sales are going pretty slowly right now.

But what it did was it doubled down against the administration who voted to look back into tough fuel standards that the Obama administration put into place.

MARTIN: Now, Scott Pruitt is the Trump administration’s new head of the Environmental Protection Agency. He was on the ABC News program “This Week” talking about his plans to re-evaluate fuel standards. Let’s play a short clip.

(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, “THIS WEEK”)

SCOTT PRUITT: We ought to focus on efficiency – fuel efficiency – for cars that people really want to buy. This process of building cars that no one purchases in order to meet these standards that were previously said – actually it’s counter helpful to the environment because people don’t buy the new cars…

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But will you let California go forward?

PRUITT: They keep older cars.

MARTIN: If you couldn’t hear what he was just saying, he says because – Scott Pruitt saying because people don’t buy the new cars, they keep the older cars. But help me understand what he’s saying. I mean, Secretary Pruitt says that the focus on fuel efficient cars isn’t that helpful because people are going to keep their older cars. But don’t consumers want more fuel efficient cars?

GLINTON: They absolutely do. The number one thing that consumers want improved on their vehicles is fuel efficiency. However, at the same time, people are buying more and more SUVs. Though, those SUVs are more fuel efficient. What the standards are saying is that we are going to need to have far more electric cars on the road.

But what’s interesting about the electric car, it’s the only consumer product that I’ve heard of where the companies say build an interest first, and then we’ll sell them. I mean, electric vehicles are really on the bubble here. And if these fuel standards are relaxed, many people in the industry see the electric car dying yet again. And that’s really important when it comes to getting these big fuel savings.

MARTIN: So remind us again of why California gets to have its own rules and is the Trump administration saying something about that?

GLINTON: Well, California has the dirtiest air and the most cars, and that was what brought about the creation of the California Air Resources Board. And when the Clean Air Act came along, Congress allowed California to have a waiver to make its standards tougher than the national standards. Now, this is a wrinkle that really, really bugs the auto industry because essentially they have to deal with regulators in Washington and in the state of California.

And about 13 states sign on to California’s tailpipe rules which means that about 40 percent of the country adheres to California’s standards, so regulatory-wise California has a really, really big role. Though, the Trump administration so far says it’s not about to get into this fight. Now, this is such a huge fight that almost every single environmental group or consumer group says that they would weigh in with a lawsuit.

MARTIN: What does this mean for the future of hybrid and electric cars? Because on the one hand, we keep hearing so much about them and yet what are you saying?

GLINTON: A lot of these cars are not making money, so even some of the more aggressive car companies look like if these fuel standards are rolled back, they will sort of drop some of their electric car programs. However, the wedge is California, China and Europe which all sort of are mandating right now that car companies have more and more zero emissions vehicles. So there’s kind of this standoff right now, and it’s going to play out over the next couple of years between the EPA and California.

MARTIN: That’s NPR’s Sonari Glinton. Sonari, thank you.

GLINTON: Always a pleasure.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)