Walk with the Mayor to return to Ashland
Community members will have the chance to voice concerns and share opinions and thoughts, as well as just talk with Charles while visiting Ashland neighborhoods. Walks will last about an hour and will start in South Ashland at the intersection of Hackworth and Ashland Avenue, going through neighborhoods including Woodland Avenue, Newman Street, Hampton Street, Hackworth Street, Holt Street, Moore Street, Lynnwood Avenue, Maple Avenue and surrounding areas.
'I hope to help alleviate situations before they become problems,' Charles said. 'This has been a productive program in the past and I look forward to talking with those citizens that we typically are not able to connect with.'
For more information, call (606) 385-3300.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
3 days ago
- Washington Post
White House decor has stirred debate before. Then came Trump.
Almost as long as this has been a nation, there have been disagreements over the grandeur and style in which its leader should live. Pierre Charles L'Enfant, the French-born architect and engineer who laid out the plan for the capital city in 1791, envisioned a spectacular presidential palace. George Washington overruled that idea and chose instead the more modest yet stately Georgian-style design of Irishman James Hoban, which was a quarter of the size of L'Enfant's proposal. Over the centuries, changes to the executive mansion's scale and design have often triggered sensitivity. When Abraham Lincoln learned of the enormous cost overruns his wife, Mary, had incurred for furniture, carpets and drapes, he erupted in fury at what he called 'flub dubs for that damned old house!' And so imagine what the humble lawyer from Springfield, Illinois, might think of the White House makeover that its current occupant has been undertaking. Donald Trump has covered practically every surface of the Oval Office in gold: medallions on the fireplace, urns on the mantle, moldings on the doors and walls, a crowded gallery of gilt-framed portraits. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has called it 'the Golden Office for the Golden Age.' He has turned the famed and historic Rose Garden into a concrete patio, modeled after the one at his beloved gold-themed Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, but drawing social media ridicule as looking like the seating area at a Panera Bread. Most ambitiously, Trump has announced plans to demolish the East Wing to make way for a $200-million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom. That, too, echoes the gold-and-white one he added at Mar-a-Lago, though the White House version will be more than quintuple the size. Questions of taste aside, critics see these projects as exemplars of more significant hallmarks of Trump's presidency. 'I dislike it on its face, but what's much more disturbing is this notion that Trump seems to have, which is, of course, consistent with his general view of government,' said historian John A. Lawrence, who served as chief of staff to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) when she was House speaker. 'I think it speaks to the motive at the same time he is agglomerating power around and within the executive branch, to a manner that we have not seen from any president of either party,' Lawrence added. 'It seems to me this is more than tinkering with design. It's more than putting a little gold leaf on the fireplace of the White House. It's really sending a message of a monarchical, autocratic concept of what the job is and what his role is.' Americans have long felt an ownership of and pride in the White House, which is one of the few residences of a head of state that is regularly open to the public. About 10,000 people take the tour each week. First lady Jacqueline Kennedy complained that the White House she moved into in 1961 'looked like it's been furnished by discount stores.' Few of those furnishings dated back further than the 1940s. When she unveiled her sumptuous renovation on national television a year later, an estimated 80 million viewers tuned in, and she was awarded an honorary Emmy. 'Everything in the White House must have a reason for being there,' Kennedy said in an interview with Life Magazine's Hugh Sidey. 'It would be sacrilege merely to 'redecorate' it — a word I hate. It must be restored, and that has nothing to do with decoration. That is a question of scholarship.' This, however, was in the glow of Camelot. Nancy Reagan, on the other hand, provoked an enormous backlash when she embarked on a similar renovation two decades later. Though the executive residence was threadbare in parts, redecorating it was viewed as frivolous and extravagant at a time when the nation was enduring its worst recession since the Great Depression and her husband was cutting social programs. Even British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made a joke about the first lady's political blunder as she offered a toast at the Reagans' first state dinner in 1981. 'I'm told, Mr. President, that when you and Mrs. Reagan were inspecting your new home to see what refurbishment was needed, you came across some charred areas, vestiges of certain heated events in 1812,' Thatcher said, referring to the British burning the White House during the war that began that year. 'I don't think I need to apologize for them, because I'm relieved to hear that Mrs. Reagan saw in this not a source of historical reproach, but an opportunity for redecoration.' Through the years, the White House has been expanded and adapted to meet the needs of the times. And there are practical arguments to be made, for example, for a ballroom. The State Dining Room holds 140 people, and the East Room just 200. That is too small to accommodate the invitation lists for some official dinners, which are tools of diplomacy as well as entertainment. Bigger gatherings, as Trump has often noted, have to be held in tents. His fixation on a new White House ballroom long predated his presidency. President Barack Obama's former adviser, David Axelrod, recalls in his memoir, 'Believer,' that Trump called him in 2010 and said: 'I see you have these state dinners on the lawn there in these shitty little tents. Let me build you a ballroom you can assemble and take apart. Trust me. It'll look great.' What is crucial with any major change to the White House, preservation experts say, is that it be made in keeping with the style and history of the building and its grounds. As Lawrence noted, 'the original designs of these buildings reflect sort of the underlying confidence in the institutions that they represent.' White House chief of staff Susie Wiles promised in a statement announcing the project that Trump — 'a builder at heart' — would share that commitment. 'The President and the Trump White House are fully committed to working with the appropriate organizations to preserving the special history of the White House while building a beautiful ballroom that can be enjoyed by future Administrations and generations of Americans to come,' Wiles said. But alarms have been raised over the sheer scale of the project and the fact that Trump is rushing to break ground on the ballroom without submitting the project for review to the National Capital Planning Commission, which is required by law and can take years to complete. What no doubt will come under scrutiny are the sources of funding for the project. Trump has said that he 'and other patriot donors' will come up with the money. However, they have provided few details as to how transparent that process will be. The motives for donor generosity will also be questioned. It was noted, for instance, that oil executives chipped in $300,000 toward the cost of the Reagan renovation — more than one-third of the total — shortly after the president deregulated the price of petroleum. Maybe what all of Trump's remodeling of his temporary home boils down to is this: The 47th president may be one of the few Americans who would consider living in the White House a privation. During an interview with The Washington Post at Mar-a-Lago in 2016, Trump gestured around him and said: 'I give up a lot when I run. I gave up a life. I gave up this.' Now, when he looks out the window of a gilded Oval Office at what used to be a Rose Garden, Trump may think he didn't have to after all.
Business Wire
12-08-2025
- Business Wire
Michelle Behnke of Boardman Clark in Madison, Wis., Becomes ABA President
TORONTO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Michelle Behnke of Madison, Wisconsin, a lawyer at Boardman Clark, has assumed the role of ABA president for a one-year term concluding in August 2026 at the ABA Annual Meeting in Chicago. 'As we face these seemingly unprecedented times, I am proud to represent the dedicated lawyers of the American Bar Association as their president,' Behnke said. 'As we face these seemingly unprecedented times, I am proud to represent the dedicated lawyers of the American Bar Association as their president,' Behnke said. 'We must be ready to lead and focus on the mission of defending liberty and pursuing justice every day.' Behnke, a practitioner for more than 35 years, officially joined Boardman Clark, one of Madison's largest and longest-standing law firms, last year, focusing on the areas of business, commercial real estate and estate planning. Prior to joining the firm, she was principal of the firm Michelle Behnke & Associates, which she opened in 1998. Her practice dealt with issues of cross-border asset acquisition, real estate refinancing with insurance companies and annexation of property into city limits. Behnke has a long history of service with the ABA. She previously served as ABA treasurer from 2017-2020 and was chair of the ABA Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession. She has been an instrumental member of the ABA's Strategic Planning Committee and is Wisconsin state chair for the Membership Committee. She was a member of the ABA Board of Governors (2010-2013) and has been a member of the ABA House of Delegates since 2008. She formerly served as chair of the Standing Committee on Bar Activities and Services, and the Standing Committee on Membership. She was also a member of Commission on Governance and a past chair of the Fund for Justice and Education Council. A Madison native, Behnke has been involved in the community since her graduation from the University of Wisconsin (1983) and the University of Wisconsin Law School (1988), serving on nonprofit and corporate boards. She is currently serving on the Board of Directors for the Wisconsin Foundation and Alumni Association and the Law School Board of Visitors. She also serves on the Board of Directors of Capitol Bank and has previously served on the boards of Dean Health Plan, Inc., and SSM Healthcare of Wisconsin. Behnke served as president of the State Bar of Wisconsin from 2004-2005. Behnke has been recognized for her work in the legal profession and her community, receiving the Charles L. Goldberg Distinguished Service Award and the YWCA Women of Distinction Award. In 2015, she was named Real Estate Lawyer of the Year by Best Lawyers in Wisconsin. She also has been listed in both the Best Lawyers in America and Wisconsin Super Lawyers since 2006. A biography of Behnke can be found here. A photo of Behnke can be found here. The ABA is one of the largest voluntary associations of lawyers in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law. View our privacy statement online. Follow the latest ABA news at and on X (formerly Twitter) @ABANews.
Yahoo
12-08-2025
- Yahoo
Trump and California: Court to decide legality of National Guard deployment to Los Angeles
A three-day bench trial will begin Monday over whether President Trump's National Guard deployment to Los Angeles violated a general prohibition on using federal troops as civilian law enforcement. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer will hear testimony from three military and immigration officials as the judge weighs whether sending in troops to combat immigration protests violated the Posse Comitatus Act. It marks a major legal confrontation between Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who has condemned the deployment as political theater and broadly framed himself as the face of resistance against the president's agenda. Only 300 of the nearly 5,000 Guard members sent to Los Angeles in June remain, but the trial is moving ahead as Newsom urges Trump to send the remaining troops home. Marines were also deployed but were released last month. 'It reinforces the litigation strategy,' Newsom told reporters last week. 'Those things are not coincidental,' the governor continued. 'Had we not positioned ourselves, had we not postured with that litigation approach, we would not be in this position with that withdrawal.' Trial to focus on troops' operations Newsom sued Trump in June as the president federalized the California National Guard to combat immigration protests in Los Angeles that sometimes turned violent. The governor has been unsuccessful so far. Breyer ruled Trump illegally federalized the National Guard and ordered he hand back control to Newsom, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals quickly lifted the ruling until it resolves the administration's appeal. That decision is likely still months away. As the appeal over Trump's authority proceeds, it does not address what activities the troops may engage in while on the ground. That's the subject of this week's trial. Newsom asserts the deployment violates the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. Some of the troops have been stationed at several federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles, which is not at issue. But the state has taken aim at troops who have went elsewhere to accompany immigration agents, including during a violent raid at a cannabis farm last month that left one dead. The administration argues the Posse Comitatus Act provides no pathway for California to sue. Even if it did, the administration contends the law is superseded by another statute it argues expressly authorizes the National Guard's efforts. 'Accompanying federal law enforcement officials for their protection as those officials enforce federal immigration laws does not mean that the troops are themselves engaging in law enforcement,' the administration wrote in court filings. But California warned that the administration's position would give Trump unchecked power. 'It simply is not the law that Defendants may deploy standing armies to the streets of California while California is powerless to do anything about that clear violation of the most fundamental principles of our Nation's founding,' California wrote in court filings last week. ICE, military officials to testify The parties are expected to summon a total of three witnesses, court records show. Newsom plans to call Ernesto Santacruz Jr., who leads Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Los Angeles field office. The state also intends to call William Harrington and Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, leaders of an Army task force that has tactical control over the deployed federalized Guard troops. The Trump administration also will call Sherman but did not list any other witness. The parties estimated the combined testimony will last upward of eight hours, not including cross-examination. Breyer has indicated he expects the witnesses to conclude by Tuesday. Then, the judge will then hear legal arguments from both sides. The Justice Department insists the trial is unnecessary. It asked Breyer to forgo the proceedings and immediately toss Newsom's claims, but the judge declined to do so. 'Next week's trial is not cancelled. The Court expects to hear evidence beginning on Monday,' Breyer ruled last week. Among first trials challenging Trump policies This week's proceeding is one of the first full-fledged trials challenging one of Trump's actions since returning to the White House. His administration faces more than 300 lawsuits challenging major policies in total. But most plaintiffs have pressed their claims in truncated, emergency proceedings. Several judges have converted those emergency rulings into final judgments, sending the case to the appeals courts without going through an actual trial. Breyer's trial follows two others held this summer. Last month, a Boston-based federal judge conducted a bench trial challenging the Trump administration's arrests of pro-Palestinian activists on college campuses. He has not yet ruled. The same judge in June held a bench trial on Democratic states and health groups' bid to reinstate nearly $800 million in health grants the administration canceled over links to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The judge ruled for the plaintiffs, and the Justice Department has filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court, which could rule at any time. This week's trial will unfold in Breyer's courtroom in San Francisco. The Justice Department has criticized California for filing its lawsuit there, 'hundreds of miles from the scene.' Breyer was appointed by former President Clinton and is the younger brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The trial marks a major moment for California Attorney General Rob Bonta's (D) office, which is suing alongside Newsom. Bonta has taken pride in the barrage of litigation he has brought against Trump. Last week, he touted that he is a plaintiff in 37 lawsuits against the administration and has restored more than $168 billion in funding to California. 'The moment the Trump administration stops breaking the law and violating the Constitution, we'll stop suing. Simple,' Bonta told reporters last week. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
