Florida lawmakers consider ousting mockingbird as state bird after 97 year run
It's being called the "Battle of the Birds."
The northern mockingbird migrated to Florida like many residents. The bird is known for mimicking the calls of other birds.
Florida named the mockingbird its state bird back in 1927, when the state was much more agricultural and less populated on the coasts. It may not be quite as representative of today's bustling, modern Florida — and four other states also call it the state bird.
This legislative session isn't the first time it's
met a challenge
, but it has always prevailed.
The birds are now forced to defend their reign again as lawmakers want to crown the Florida scrub jay the state songbird.
"It's found here and nowhere else in the world. It is the only bird that is truly endemic to Florida," Johnson said.
A title it would share alongside the American flamingo as Florida's state bird.
"This is still the only state in the country where you can see them regularly," Oscar Johnson, an assistant professor of ornithology at Florida Gulf Coast University, said.
The matter is now up to state lawmakers, and the governor will have to sign the bill designating the birds' new titles.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith
It's enraging. More than a decade after the Obama administration first tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy contraception including abortifacient drugs for employees, states are still hounding the nuns in court. At its heart, ObamaCare was a massive welfare program meant to redistribute health-care costs to the middle class. But it was also a social engineering project aimed at coercing religious organizations and businesses to adopt progressive values. The Affordable Care Act mandated employers, including nonprofits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for contraceptives in their worker-provided health insurance as an 'essential health benefit' under the euphemistic category of 'preventative and wellness services.' There was no 'religious exemption.' It's worth taking a step back and thinking about that term: The very idea that an American citizen should be impelled to ask the state for an 'exemption' to practice their faith is an assault on the fundamental idea of liberty. Imagine having to ask the state for an exemption to exercise your free speech? What makes the case even more unsettling, of course, is that the state is demanding citizens engage in activity that is explicitly against their faith. Now, there may well be numerous theological disputes within the Catholic Church. The use of contraception and abortion aren't among them. There is absolutely no question that nuns hold genuine, long-standing religious convictions. And there is no question that liberals want to smash them. Nevertheless, the Little Sisters spent years in court, working their way up to the Supreme Court and winning protections against the federal government (twice). In 2017, the Trump administration exempted religious groups like the Little Sisters from the ObamaCare mandate entirely. The government, however, bolstered with unlimited taxpayer funds, can hunt its prey in perpetuity. So states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania began their own lawsuits against the Little Sisters. This week, in a nationwide ruling, Judge Wendy Beetlestone, chief judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the Trump administration's expansion of religious exemptions from the contraception mandate was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Religious nonprofit groups and businesses will again have to ask for special accommodations from the Department of Health and Human Services to avoid buying abortifacients. Even if the Trump administration grants every one of them, one day there will be authoritarians in charge who won't — and nonprofit employees will still be guaranteed contraception through health plans paid for by employers. Beetlestone, incidentally, was the same judge who issued a nationwide injunction against the contraception exemption back in 2017, arguing it was 'difficult' to think of any rule that 'intrudes more into the lives of women.' The Supreme Court overturned it in 2020 by a 7-2 majority. Because no one has a right to free condoms. Indeed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds that the state must have a 'compelling interest' and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious practice. Free birth control isn't a compelling interest. And fining religious organizations millions of dollars to pressure them into abandoning their beliefs is perhaps the most restrictive means of action, short of throwing nuns in prison. You'd think attacking a group of nuns who offer end-of-life care for the elderly would be a public relations nightmare for Democrats. Yet they've never really shied away from it. Because the point is to intimidate others. In many ways, the Little Sisters' struggle is reminiscent of the travails of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refuses to create unique message cakes for gay weddings. Phillips is now embroiled in his umpteenth court case over his crimes. The message: Dissent from those who practice their faith will be punished. Take the Catholic Charities adoption agencies, which shuttered in numerous states due to laws and policies compelling them to place children with same-sex couples. The attacks will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment and religious liberty. It's already punted once: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in favor of Jack Phillips, the court barred the state's attacks only if state officials openly demeaned their target's faith — a ruling so narrow as to be largely useless. But it shouldn't matter why the state is steamrolling the religious liberty of nuns, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that the ObamaCare mandate is authoritarian and unconstitutional. And the only way to fix that problem is to overturn it. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi
Boston Globe
11 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Russia and Ukraine agree: A Trump summit is a big win for Putin
Related : For Russia, 'this is a breakthrough even if they don't agree on much,' said Sergei Mikheyev, a pro-war Russian political scientist who is a mainstay of state television. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, iced out of the Alaska talks about his own country's future, has come to the same conclusion, telling reporters Tuesday: 'Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos. He needs a photo from the meeting with President Trump.' Advertisement But it is more than a photo op. In addition to thawing Russia's pariah status in the West, the summit has sowed discord within NATO — a perennial Russian goal — and postponed Trump's threat of tough new sanctions. Little more than two weeks ago, he vowed that if Putin did not commit to a ceasefire by last Friday, he would to punish Moscow and countries like China and India that help Russia's war effort by buying its oil and gas. Advertisement The deadline passed with no pause in the war — the fighting has in fact intensified as Russia pushes forward with a summer offensive — and no new economic penalties on Russia. Ukrainian firefighters and rescue personnel at the site of a Russian bombing in the area in Kharkiv, Ukraine, on July 24. Friday's summit in Alaska pull the Russian leader out of diplomatic isolation from the West, and Ukrainian and European leaders fear it gives him an opening to sway the American president. DAVID GUTTENFELDER/NYT 'Instead of getting hit with sanctions, Putin got a summit,' said Ryhor Nizhnikau, a Russia expert and senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. 'This is a tremendous victory for Putin no matter what the result of the summit.' Before Alaska, only two Western leaders — the prime ministers of tiny Slovakia and Hungary — had met with Putin since he ordered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and was placed under an international arrest warrant for war crimes in March 2023. Many in Europe have been flabbergasted by Trump's decision to hold a summit on Ukraine that excluded Zelenskyy, and the continent's leaders have pressed the president not to strike a deal behind Ukraine's back. Trump tried to allay those fears in a video call with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, on Wednesday. The Europeans said they had hammered out a strategy with Trump for his meeting with Putin, including an insistence that any peace plan must start with a ceasefire and not be negotiated without Ukraine at the table. A peace deal on Ukraine is not Putin's real goal for the summit, said Tatiana Stanovaya, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. 'His objective is to secure Trump's support in pushing through the Russian proposals.' For Putin, she said, the meeting is a 'tactical maneuver to turn the situation in his favor' and calm what had been increasing White House anger over the Kremlin's stalling on a ceasefire. Advertisement On the eve of the summit Thursday, the Kremlin signaled that it planned to inject other issues beyond Ukraine into the talks, including a potential restoration of economic ties with the United States and discussions on a new nuclear weapons deal. The arms idea plays into Russia's long-standing efforts to frame the war in Ukraine as just part of a bigger East-West conflict. Trump has called his rendezvous with Putin just a 'feel-out meeting' from which he will quickly walk away if a peace deal looks unlikely. President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine during a heated exchange in the Oval Office on Feb. 28. On Trump and Putin's meeting, Zelensky said, "Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos." DOUG MILLS/NYT Neither the White House nor the Kremlin has publicly stated what kind of peace deal they are looking for. But Trump has said it could involve 'some land-swapping,' something he feels he is well equipped to negotiate as a onetime New York property developer. Zelenskyy has rejected any land swap, insisting he has no authority under the Ukrainian Constitution to bargain away parts of the country. Agreeing to do so would be likely to trigger a serious political crisis in Kyiv and advance one of Putin's long-standing objectives: toppling Zelenskyy. Ukraine's surrender of its eastern regions would also torpedo Trump's hopes that the United States will one day benefit from Ukraine's reserves of rare earth minerals, most of which are in territory that Russia claims as its own. 'The worst-case scenario for Ukraine and more broadly is that Putin makes some sort of offer that is acceptable to the United States but that Zelenskyy cannot swallow domestically,' said Samuel Charap, a political scientist and the co-author of a book about Ukraine and post-Soviet Eurasia. Advertisement Putin, a veteran master of manipulation, will no doubt work hard in Alaska to cast Zelenskyy as an intransigent obstacle to peace. 'Trump thinks he can look into Putin's eyes and get a deal. He believes in his own talents as a negotiator,' said Nizhnikau, the Finnish expert on Russia. 'The problem is that Putin has been doing this his whole life and is going into this summit with the idea that he can manipulate Trump.' Trump's last summit meeting with his Russian counterpart, held in 2018 in Helsinki during his first term, showcased his propensity to accept Putin's version of reality. He said then that he saw no reason to doubt the Russian president's denials of meddling in the 2016 presidential election. President Trump and Russian President Putin arrived for a one-on-one-meeting at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland, in July 2018, the last time the two world powers held a summit. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press Trump suggested this year that Ukraine was responsible for the invasion of its own territory and refused to join the United States' traditional Western allies in voting for a United Nations resolution condemning Russia's aggression. On Sunday evening, Zelenskyy worried aloud that Trump could be easily 'deceived.' Trump responded testily Monday to Zelenskyy's insistence that he could not surrender territory. 'He's got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap?' Trump snapped. 'There'll be some land swapping going on.' Still, said Charap, the political scientist, 'Putin can't really count his chickens yet.' Despite his iron grip on Russia's political system and its major media outlets, he has his own domestic concerns, particularly on the issue of land, if the sort of swap floated by Trump advances. 'Territory is a third rail politically, especially for Ukraine but also for Russia.' This article originally appeared in . Advertisement
Buzz Feed
41 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Jillian Michaels Has Meltdown During CNN Slavery Talk
Biggest Loser coach and Donald Trump supporter Jillian Michaels had a stunning meltdown Wednesday night while defending white people during a fiery debate about the president's efforts to rewrite US history. Michaels appeared on a CNN NewsNight panel with conservative commentator Scott Jennings, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky, and legal analyst Elie Honig to discuss Trump's pick for Kennedy Center honoree. The conversation took a sharp turn when Roginsky, discussing changes Trump has spearheaded at the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian Institution, accused the president of 'trying to change culture' and revise history so it does not offend his MAGA base. 'Can you address some of those things in there? Because have you looked at some of the things in there?' Michaels asked, referring to historical displays at the Smithsonian Institution. 'Yeah. Yes, slavery was a bad thing we should talk about,' Roginsky said before Michaels interrupted. 'He's not whitewashing slavery,' the fitness guru argued. 'And you cannot tie imperialism and racism and slavery to just one race, which is pretty much what every single exhibit does.' Michaels: You cannot tie imperialism and racism and slavery to just one race, which is pretty much what every single exhibit does… Only less than 2% of white Americans own slaves. You realize that slavery is thousands of years old? Phillip: I'm very surprised you are trying to… — Acyn (@Acyn) August 14, 2025 @Acyn/ CNN / Via The CNN panel erupted in cross-talk, and Michaels turned to Torres and asked, 'Do you realize that only less than 2% of white Americans owned slaves?' citing a contested figure. 'But it was a system of white supremacy,' Torres responded. As people continued to talk over each other, Michaels added that slavery is thousands of years old, but was interrupted by a stunned Phillip, who said she was 'surprised' that her guest was 'trying to litigate who was the beneficiary of slavery.' 'In the context of American history, what are you saying is incorrect by saying it was white people oppressing Black people?' Phillip asked. 'Every single thing is like, oh, no, no, no, this is all because 'white people bad,' and that's just not the truth,' Michaels said. Michaels then characterized a Smithsonian exhibit as claiming that people 'migrated from Cuba because 'white people bad,'' before accusing Roginsky of not knowing what's in the museum. But the exhibit Michaels called out didn't actually appear to make that argument. Later that night, she posted a photo of an exhibit that names US foreign policy as a contributor to political instability in Cuba and the Dominican Republic. The pictured exhibit did not expressly mention white people at all, except to note that some of the first Cubans to immigrate to the US were 'wealthy White Cubans.' Ok... so for anyone watching me on @CNN tonight battling it out on Abby Phillip's show... this is one of the Smithsonian exhibits I was referencing. Trump is not trying to "erase slavery" by suggesting some of the instillations there are inaccurate and bias. Notice how it omits… — Jillian Michaels (@JillianMichaels) August 14, 2025 @jillianmichaels / Via During her appearance on CNN, the fitness influencer also griped about other elements of the Smithsonian.'Do you know that when you walk in the front door, the first thing you see is the gay flag?' asked Michaels, who is married to a woman. She then started to criticize an exhibit that touches on gender testing in sports before Phillip interjected, 'We don't have time to litigate all of this.' CNN / Via 'Of course we don't, because then you're going to lose the argument, and if everything is racialized, just like you're trying to do to me now,' Michaels told Phillip. 'Excuse me? Jillian, you brought up race,' Phillip said. 'This was a conversation about the arts, and you brought up race.' — Acyn (@Acyn) August 14, 2025 @Acyn/ CNN / Via
