Morehouse School of Medicine names building after former State Rep. Calvin Smyre
On Thursday, Morehouse School of Medicine dedicated a new building to former State Rep. Calvin Smyre, who has supported the institution since it started.
Channel 2′s Karyn Greer was there as Governor Brian Kemp and Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens cut the ribbon for the dedication of the Calvin Smyre Education Conference Center.
'Having a building that houses our future generation of doctors named after you is a wild moment,' Smyre said.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
Smyre was 26 in 1974 when he was first elected to the Georgia State House where he served for 48 years before stepping down in 2023 at the age of 74.
Now decades later, Smyre's contributions to the state is literally being etched in stone.
'To be involved in this process and to have been involved with the Morehouse School of Medicine since 1975, and it's 2025, that's 50 years. And to see these young students, you know, it just brings joy to you,' he said.
Gov. Kemp said he's proud to have closely worked with Smyre for so many years.
'Calvin Smyre is just a great American, a great Georgian, great member of the House of Representatives and somebody that I've worked very closely with,' the governor said. 'And I think you saw that, saw the affection he had for our past governors and how closely he worked with them and appreciated them.'
TRENDING STORIES:
Young Thug's attorney says rapper didn't violate his probation over social media repost
Dow drops nearly 1,680 in biggest wipeout since 2020 as fears of fallout from tariffs shake markets
'Speedy Gonzalez' arrested in string of Walmart thefts
First Lady Marty Kemp says she has a special relationship with Smyre, who served in the State House with her father, Bob Argo.
'When Brian did his first day at the state, they let me sit in dad's seat, and I turned around, and [Smyre] was like, 'That's Mr. Bob's seat.' And it just meant so much,' she said.
Building the Calvin Smyre Education Conference Center took three years and $14.5 million. Morehouse School of Medicine President Dr. Valerie Montgomery-Rice says she proud of the work that went into it, and to get to recognize Smyre.
'This is a special day, this is a three-year dream come true. And it is the culmination of really acknowledging the work of someone who's been our champion,' Dr. Montgomery-Rice said.
Smyre is still a board member emeritus at the school and continues to tout the work they've done to legislators and community leaders.
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
6 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump promised Ukraine 'security guarantees': Here's what they could look like
On the face of it, talks on Monday between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders went well. The U.S. and Ukrainian leaders were pictured looking jovial and smiling together — a far cry from the extraordinary shouting match and public humiliation inflicted on Zelenskyy during his last trip to the White House in February. Monday's talks, which involved a raft of European leaders, appeared to make progress toward ending the protracted war between Russia and Ukraine, with Trump saying a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy would be arranged, followed by a trilateral meeting that he would join. The most significant development result for Kyiv and Europe, however, was Trump's statement that security guarantees for Ukraine would be "provided" by European countries in "coordination with the U.S." Describing that as a "major step forward," Zelenskyy said later that the package of security guarantees for Ukraine — highly coveted by Kyiv's leadership and seen as a deterrent to future Russian aggression — will include a massive purchase of American weapons, with financing reportedly supported by Europe. The agreement would be "formalized on paper within the next week to 10 days," he said. As for what the security guarantees could include, the detail is still scant. Trump commented at a post-talks press conference that Europe would "take a lot of the burden" for these, but said the U.S. would help and would make it "very secure." In any case, security guarantees likely mean that Europe, and the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" of countries offering to oversee a peace deal, is on the hook to fulfill what they've previously promised. French President Emmanuel Macron hinted Tuesday that the "first security guarantee we are working on — and it is the most important — is a strong Ukrainian army, composed of several hundred thousand men, well equipped, with defense systems and higher standards." "The second is to have reassurance forces, the British, the French, the Germans, the Turks, and others ready to carry out these operations — not on the front line, not in a provocative way, but reassurance operations in the air, at sea, and on land. The goal is to send a strategic signal: peace in Ukraine is also our concern," he told French broadcaster TF1-LCI, in comments translated by NBC News. Jaroslava Barbieri, research fellow at Chatham House, told CNBC Tuesday that the overall mood from the talks on Monday was one of "cautious optimism," but there are many unknowns. "However, we have to say that the Kremlin's maximalist demands on Ukraine have not changed and so there's still a number of uncertainties about the security guarantees, the details, who is going to be doing what, if there are any troop deployments then where will they be stationed and for how long, which countries will be contributing?" she asked. European leaders have voiced misgivings over the lack of a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine before a peace deal is negotiated, but they seem willing to acquiesce, for now, with the end goal of peace and Ukraine and Europe's security in mind. Gabrielius Landsbergis, Lithuania's former foreign minister, told CNBC Tuesday that Europe still appeared to be struggling to be heard, saying the bloc had not yet found its strength and "ability to create leverage." "What came out of the meeting yesterday was that Europe was asking the U.S. yesterday to continue its assistance, to ask for a ceasefire, to assist any stationing of troops, and then some of the leaders were even saying, 'Well, some of the Ukrainian territories might be lost, but that's a reality.' Well, that doesn't sound like Europe finding it's strength," he said. "It's more like Europe agreeing that, 'we are in a very weak position and we have to please President Trump as much as we can and we have nothing to put on the table'," he noted. What's more, it's unclear whether the Kremlin will even agree to direct talks with Zelenskyy. Putin's presidential aide Yuri Ushakov stated Monday that Trump and Putin had discussed "that it would be necessary to study the possibility of raising the level of representatives of the Ukrainian and Russian sides," but that no firm decision was made. The proposed future summits between Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy would keep a process towards a possible resolution of the conflict alive, but it would still follow the Russian script of a no-ceasefire scenario, Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg Bank, cautioned. "Putin may already set difficult conditions for a meeting with Zelenskyy. And in a meeting with Zelenskyy, Putin's major goal may be to pin the blame for any failure on Zelenskyy instead of agreeing to a truce or a final deal. The outcome remains very uncertain," he noted.
36 minutes ago
Russia launches largest attack of August on Ukraine after Trump-Zelenskyy meeting
LONDON -- Ukraine's air force reported a major Russian attack on Monday night and into Tuesday morning -- the largest overnight barrage for weeks, coming while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with President Donald Trump and a delegation of European leaders in Washington. The air force said Russia launched 270 drones and 10 missiles into Ukraine, of which 30 drones and six missiles were intercepted or suppressed. The air force reported the impacts of 40 drones and four missiles across 16 locations, with debris reportedly falling in three locations. Monday night's attack was the largest attack since Russia launched 309 drones and eight missiles into Ukraine on July 31, according to the daily figures published by the Ukrainian air force and analyzed by ABC News. Russia's Defense Ministry, meanwhile, said its forces shot down 23 Ukrainian drones overnight into Tuesday morning. Thirteen of the craft were downed over the Volgograd region, the ministry said. Regional Gov. Andrey Bocharov said on Telegram that falling debris set fires at an oil refinery and on the roof of a hospital building, though added there were no casualties. The overnight exchanges bookended a day of high-level talks in Washington. Trump, Zelenskyy and a host of European leaders met in the capital on Monday to discuss a possible roadmap to end Russia's full-scale invasion, which began in February 2022. Monday's summit followed a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, during which Putin refused an immediate ceasefire and demanded that Ukraine cede the entirety of its eastern Donetsk region in exchange for an end to the fighting, two sources told ABC News. Ahead of Monday's meetings, Trump appeared to be pressuring Zelenskyy into making a deal. "President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight," Trump wrote on social media on Sunday. The president also said Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO and would not be able to regain Crimea -- occupied by Russia in 2014. Such remarks raised concerns of another fractious Oval Office meeting, akin to Zelenskyy's February visit when the Ukrainian leader was publicly lambasted by Trump and Vice President JD Vance for his alleged ingratitude for American wartime support. But Monday's meetings were cordial, though the parties still appeared to be some way apart on key issues. Trump, Zelenskyy and European leaders all confirmed their support for a direct bilateral meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin -- a proposal the Russian president has repeatedly dodged. Such a meeting would be followed by a trilateral meeting involving Trump, the president said. Zelenskyy said Ukraine is "ready" for a trilateral discussion. Trump remarked, "I think it's going to be when, not if." Later, Trump posted to social meda saying he had spoken by phone with Putin "and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy." The Kremlin is yet to explicitly confirm Putin's readiness to attend such a meeting. Yuri Ushakov, a top Kremlin aide, said in a statement that Trump and Putin "expressed their support for the continuation of direct negotiations between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations." "In this regard, in particular, the idea was discussed that the level of representatives from the Ukrainian and Russian sides should be increased," Ushakov said. "This refers to the representatives who participate in the aforementioned direct negotiations." On the question of security guarantees for Ukraine, Trump said during his meeting with Zelenskyy, "We're going to be discussing it today, but we will give them very good protection, very good security." The president later confirmed that Putin would accept security guarantees for Ukraine, though Russian officials on Monday said that the presence of NATO troops in the country would be unacceptable. Zelenskyy and his European partners again stressed their desire for a full ceasefire, only after which peace negotiations could take place. Trump has repeatedly demanded a ceasefire since returning to office in January, but appeared to drop the idea after last week's meeting with Putin. "I don't think you need a ceasefire," Trump told Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on Monday. "I know that it might be good to have, but I can also understand strategically, like, well, you know, one country or the other wouldn't want it." Trump added that he likes "the concept of a ceasefire for one reason, because you'd stop killing people immediately." Zelenskyy expressed his gratitude to Trump for hosting the meeting, and wrote on Telegram afterwards thanking the White House for "the important signal from the USA regarding readiness to support and be part of" post-war security guarantees. "The leaders personally came to support Ukraine and discuss everything that will bring us closer to real peace, a reliable security architecture that will protect Ukraine and all of Europe," Zelenskyy wrote. Post-meeting comments from European leaders, though, hinted at unresolved obstacles to peace. "You have an American president, European presidents and a Ukrainian president all wanting peace," French President Emmanuel Macron said. "For my part, I have the greatest doubts about the reality of a desire for peace on the part of the Russian president, because as long as he thinks he can win through war, he will do so," Macron added. "His ultimate objective is to take as much territory as possible, to weaken Ukraine and to have a Ukraine that is not viable alone or is within the Russian fold." German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that the thorny issue of Ukrainian territorial concessions was not discussed. "The Russian demand that Kyiv give up the free parts of Donbas is, to put it in perspective, equivalent to the U.S. having to give up Florida," he said. "A sovereign state cannot simply decide something like that. It is a decision that Ukraine must make itself in the course of negotiations," Merz added.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Courts keep shredding campaign finance laws. It's time to amend the Constitution.
Advertisement Things weren't always this bad. Generations ago, voters demanded laws to reduce the power of special interests, curtail corruption, and ensure that every citizen could speak freely and had equal representation. But over time, the Supreme Court has taken a sledgehammer to those safeguards. The crusade began in the mid-1970s with a case called Buckley v. Valeo, in which the Supreme Court invented a new legal theory: Individuals are entitled, under the First Amendment, to freely spend money to influence election outcomes, no matter how extravagant or obviously corrosive. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The idea that the First Amendment's free speech guarantee applies to money in politics isn't grounded in the text of the Constitution. Nevertheless, over the past 50 years, lawyers and judges have pushed that 'money equals free speech' doctrine to its absolute limits, dismantling basic anticorruption measures and enabling an elite class of big spenders to consolidate political power. In 2010, the Supreme Court unleashed a new flood of anonymous 'dark money' with its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which held that individuals and corporate interests can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. This July, the United States Court of Appeals in Boston Advertisement The consequences for American freedom and self-government have been grave. It's no wonder that nearly Despite the overwhelming demand for change, no meaningful legislation can survive the current judicial precedent. The Supreme Court has decided that almost any policy meant to level the playing field is inherently unconstitutional. That means there is only one way to end the corruption crisis: We must unite citizens and lawmakers around a constitutional amendment. Related : Nearly a decade ago, I cofounded American Promise, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Concord. In the years since, we have built a national movement behind the how legislators should fix the problem. Rather, it gives Americans and our elected officials the freedom to do whatever makes sense for their states, such as more effective disclosure requirements, Advertisement Americans have already amended our founding document 27 times, often to correct an injustice. In fact, the 19th Amendment was eventually adopted in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett in 1874, which ruled that the 14th Amendment did not provide women the equal right to vote. The 19th Amendment effectively overruled the Supreme Court's decision by explicitly stating that women have the right to vote. The same would hold true for this new constitutional amendment, which would clarify that the First Amendment should not be interpreted to mean that money is synonymous with free speech when it comes to our elections. Together, these reforms would transform our political system for the better. Lawmakers could spend far less time fundraising and more time engaging with their constituents, preparing for hearings, and developing new legislation. The electoral incentives would also shift, and voters, for their part, could expect more competitive primary elections; better candidates with more diverse skills and experiences; and, over time, less ideological extremism. Many state lawmakers and their constituents want to reduce the influence of money and outside spending in their elections but are repeatedly thwarted when they take action. Just days after a federal court struck down Maine's election-security law, another federal judge invalidated a popular Maine law that limited donations to super PACs. Similarly, when Alaska sought to limit out-of-state contributions, federal judges struck down those efforts, citing First Amendment concerns. These outcomes are a key reason why many states are calling on Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to restore their ability to regulate campaign finance. In the early years of American Promise, people questioned whether a constitutional amendment was realistic. After all, it's a grueling process. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also need to win the support of 38 state governments. But momentum is on our side. Advertisement A new revolution is underway, and we have a once-in-a-generation chance to deliver on the founding promise of this country: a government by the people, for the people. It won't be easy. After all, we are fighting the most powerful forces in the world — but we have been in this situation before, and we have emerged victorious.
