ReportWire

Tag: Ronald Reagan

  • Nostalgia Is Not a Strategy: Rethinking Competitiveness in 2026

    [ad_1]

    In a world of geopolitical rivalry, supply-chain vulnerability and rising costs, competitiveness has become a strategic balancing act. Unsplash+

    Competitiveness is not a new concept. It is likely embedded in our DNA, much like other fundamental instincts such as cooperation, survival, reproduction and mobility. What has changed over time is its geographical scope: once local, then national, competitiveness has now become global. That shift has fundamentally transformed how we understand prosperity, business, work and everyday life.

    At its core, competitiveness is the ability to solve problems better than others. “Better” may mean cheaper, faster or, most importantly, with greater added value for the user. Competitiveness applies to everyone. A plumber is competitive if he fixes your sink quickly and reliably; a doctor if she cures you efficiently; a company if it consistently creates value and earns a profit. Historically, competitiveness was constrained by geography. A local plumber could not repair a sink in Beijing. But globalization has changed that equation. Today, even small, locally rooted companies may be tempted—or forced—to compete far beyond their original markets. Within a few decades, barriers to trade, communication and capital flows have fallen dramatically, opening global markets to firms of all sizes and origins. 

    The golden age of competitiveness

    The era of openness can be dated quite precisely. It began on December 18, 1978, when Deng Xiaoping announced China’s open-door policy. That decision triggered a four-decade-long expansion of the global economy that lasted until the Covid-19 pandemic struck. During this period, unique in human history, it became possible to travel, communicate, invest and conduct business in virtually every country. 

    For companies, access to previously closed markets meant the possibility of supplementing an export strategy with direct investments. Such a change also implied greater knowledge of local markets, legislation, government policies, customers and value systems. Globalization rewarded scale, specialization and efficiency. 

    This period of openness also promoted multilateralism. Conflicts, at least in principle, were managed through international institutions rather than unilateral force. As President Reagan once observed, “Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means.” 

    Vulnerability steps in

    While this period delivered remarkable economic growth, it also produced structural vulnerabilities. Globalization encouraged specialization and, in turn, specialization created dependency. Certain nations came to dominate strategic minerals, key technologies or critical manufacturing capacities that could not easily be replaced.  

    China’s trade surplus has exceeded $1 trillion. This has been driven by expanding exports in critical minerals such as rare earths, renewable energy technologies like solar and wind, biotechnology and automobiles. For example, in 2001, China began investing in electric vehicle technologies, aiming to enhance competitiveness in an area where it struggled to match the U.S., Germany and Japan in traditional internal combustion engine and hybrid vehicle manufacturing. In 2009, with the support of financial subsidies from the Chinese government, fewer than 500 electric vehicles were sold. However, by 2022, following over $29 billion in tax breaks and subsidies since 2009, China sold more than 6 million EVs, accounting for over half of the global EV market. Projections suggest that by 2025, China will have sold well over 11 million electric vehicles. 

    With domestic consumption accounting for just 39 percent of China’s GDP, compared to roughly 70 percent in the U.S. and Europe, exports, in part, fill the production gap. The result is mounting international trade tension.  

    The empires strike back

    Today, the U.S., China and Europe together account for over 60 percent of global GDP. What’s more, they are also political, technological and military powers. In 2025, the U.S. and China account for nearly half of global defense spending. Military procurement has become one of the fast-growing business sectors worldwide, rising by 9 percent to a total of $2.7 trillion in 2024.  

    Thus, the empires are back. As Henry Kissinger wrote in his book Diplomacy, “Empires are not interested in an international system; they want to be the international system.” Multilateralism is under strain, and geopolitical confrontation is increasingly replacing cooperative governance.

    The politicization of conflict

    The proliferation of tariffs and industrial policies is rightly alarming. However, these tools often mask another reality: access to markets is threatened. Or at least it is subject to political interference. “Geo-economy” is the new policy. It means transforming economic strength into political and diplomatic goals.

    In the past, conflicts between nations largely centered around employment and economic fairness, and were resolved within multilateral frameworks such as the World Trade Organization. Today, international disputes increasingly invoke national security. The recent cases involving Huawei and TikTok in the U.S. illustrate this shift. When security is invoked, debate becomes more emotional, less evidence-based and firmly sovereign. Each nation claims the final say. 

    How does a fractured world economy function?

    A fractured economy does not imply deglobalization. The world economy will remain interconnected, but its rules will no longer be universal. For example, transaction platforms such as SWIFT for payments or global credit card networks may no longer be universally accepted. Instead, countries will increasingly develop parallel institutions to retain control. 

    At the same time, multilateral institutions have not disappeared, and some will continue to operate to the greatest extent possible. According to the World Trade Organization, a majority of global trade still operates under multilateral agreements. Despite pressure from the U.S., non-American trade accounts for 86 percent of global commerce. 

    Alternatively, bilateral agreements continue to expand rapidly, either between economic blocs, such as the European Union and Mercosur, or between countries. China continues to forge bilateral agreements, notably with many nations in the Global South.

    Between multilateralism and bilateralism lies a third model: ad hoc coalitions. These involve limited groups of countries aligning around defense policy, economic strategy or shared values. Examples include Europe’s SAFE program and the Coalition of the Willing, which bring together countries concerned about military security in Europe. Their aim is to make decisions and implement them quickly without being hampered by the need for broad consensus. 

    What strategies for companies in 2026?

    Navigating this environment is extraordinarily complex. Companies must contend with several layers of political interference, market disruptions and profound technological change, from teh electrification of the economy to the rise of A.I. Nevertheless, four strategic axes are emerging for 2026. 

    Diversification. Companies are reducing excessive dependence on a limited number of suppliers, markets or customers. It is a quiet revolution taking place under the radar, but with a profound impact on nations and companies alike. China is redirecting its business towards Europe and the Global South while companies worldwide seek alternative energy and technology partners. Managing vulnerability has become a strategic imperative. 

    Resilience. The world will not stop interfering with corporate strategies. Thus, even if the future is more unpredictable, decisions must still be made, often under uncertainty and risk. Resilience is the capacity to adapt quickly as conditions change. As Carl von Clausewitz noted, “Strategy is the evolution of a central idea through continually changing circumstances.”

    Reliability. In a fractured economy, a company’s competitiveness also depends on strengthening confidence in its relationships with business partners. When the environment is in turmoil, a few things, precisely, should not change. Trust is one of them. Reliability implies transparency and efficiency. The ease of doing business is critical. As Peter Drucker said: “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently something that nobody needs.”

    Pricing power. In 2026, operating costs will inevitably rise. Political barriers and national priorities leave limited room for cost reduction. Price increases often become unavoidable. Competitiveness, then, depends on a firm’s ability to convince customers that value justifies price. Warren Buffett’s advice remains apt: “Price is what you pay; value is what you get.” 

    Optimism for 2026?

    Business leaders must remain optimistic—whether by choice or necessity. Their primary role is to solve problems and motivate people toward success. Nostalgia, however comforting, is not a strategy. The world of 2026 will not return to a reassuring past. Nor does it have to be worse. It will simply be different. When Mark Twain was asked what he thought after listening to an opera by Richard Wagner, he replied: “It’s not as bad as it sounds.” 

    That, perhaps, is the most realistic mindset for planning 2026. 

    Stephane Garelli is Professor Emeritus at IMD and the University of Lausanne, the founder of the World Competitiveness Center, and a former managing director of the World Economic Forum and the Davos Annual Meetings. His latest book, World Competitiveness: Rewriting the Rules of Global Prosperity is published by Wiley.

    Nostalgia Is Not a Strategy: Rethinking Competitiveness in 2026

    [ad_2]

    Stéphane Garelli

    Source link

  • Susie Wiles’s Big Slip Is a Test of Her Power

    [ad_1]

    Susie Wiles and the Boss.
    Photo: Eric Lee/The Washington Post/Getty Images

    For all the chaos the second Trump administration has generated, it appears to be remarkably calm at its center, thanks largely to Susie Wiles. The current White House chief of staff differs dramatically from her four first-term predecessors precisely because of the lack of drama surrounding her. There have been relatively few leaks, high-level resignations, or credible reports of internal turmoil in the second Trump White House despite Donald Trump’s impulsiveness and the menagerie of outlandish characters in his orbit.

    Considering her powerful role in the administration, it’s remarkable how much Wiles has kept herself out of the spotlight. Axios’s description of her at the beginning of Trump 2.0 has rung true:

    Incoming White House chief of staff Susie Wiles tells Axios in an interview that she aims for the West Wing to be a no-drama zone for staff. If that works, it won’t be the chaotic den of self-sabotaging that stymied the early days of President-elect Trump’s first term.

    “I don’t welcome people who want to work solo or be a star,” Wiles, whose boss calls her the Ice Maiden, said by email. “My team and I will not tolerate backbiting, second-guessing inappropriately, or drama. These are counterproductive to the mission.”

    It’s intensely ironic, then, that Wiles is the source for the first explosive media exposé of the internal dynamics of this White House. On Monday, Vanity Fair published an article by Chris Whipple, the author of a book on White House chiefs of staff, who interviewed Wiles 11 times in the past year. While much of the material presents Wiles as a defender of the president’s motives, agenda, operating style, and historical significance, this paragraph has put her in a world of potential trouble:

    One time we spoke while she was doing her laundry in her Washington, DC, rental. Trump, she told me, “has an alcoholic’s personality.” Vance’s conversion from Never Trumper to MAGA acolyte, she said, has been “sort of political.” The vice president, she added, has been “a conspiracy theorist for a decade.” Russell Vought, architect of the notorious Project 2025 and head of the Office of Management and Budget, is “a right-wing absolute zealot.” When I asked her what she thought of Musk reposting a tweet about public sector workers killing millions under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, she replied: “I think that’s when he’s microdosing.” (She says she doesn’t have first-hand knowledge.)

    There are other problematic excerpts disclosing Wiles’s low opinion of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files; her indulgent attitude toward her “junkyard dog” deputies, Stephen Miller, Dan Scavino, and James Blair; and her efforts to convince Trump himself to put a rein on his pursuit of personal vendettas.

    Tellingly, in her initial public comment on the Whipple article, Wiles did not contradict any of the specifics but simply denounced it as a “hit piece” in which “significant context was disregarded” and lots of positive stuff she said about the president and his team was “left out of the story.” It’s a classic non-denial denial.

    It’s unclear at this early juncture whether Wiles is in any trouble with Trump. But his initial reaction was to defend her “alcoholic’s personality” remark.

    “No, she meant that I’m — you see, I don’t drink alcohol. So everybody knows that — but I’ve often said that if I did, I’d have a very good chance of being an alcoholic. I have said that many times about myself, I do. It’s a very possessive personality,” Trump told the New York Post.

    The explosiveness of Wiles’s comments immediately reminded veteran political observers of a parallel moment early in Ronald Reagan’s presidency, as the New York Times notes:

    The off-script comments felt reminiscent of a similar episode in President Ronald Reagan’s first term when his budget director, David A. Stockman, likewise gave a series of interviews to what was then called The Atlantic Monthly with candid observations that caused a huge stir.

    Stockman was famously “taken to the woodshed” by White House chief of staff James Baker for revealing to the world the backstory of the struggle within and beyond the White House over Reagan’s highly controversial initial budget and tax proposals, which among other things depicted the well-meaning 40th president as being manipulated by his underlings. But the incident really wasn’t much like the one we are witnessing now. In his interviews, Stockman was mostly talking about intense policy disagreements within the administration and the Republican Party. Wiles doesn’t much engage with policy arguments; her interviews make it clear she shares some of Trump’s most controversial policy initiatives (particularly the assault on the deep state) while leaning over backward to rationalize his current warmongering toward Venezuela. And for all her casual slurs about Team Trump, she refers, incredibly, to his inner circle as “a world-class Cabinet, better than anything I could have conceived of.”

    Stockman, moreover, was a huge celebrity in the early days of the Reagan administration and a living symbol of his domestic agenda; Wiles was a noncelebrity until now and apparently had no idea her talks with Whipple would create a stir, notes the Times:

    While Mr. Stockman kept his interviews secret from the White House (and nearly got fired), the broader Trump team cooperated with Vanity Fair. Mr. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave interviews and along with top aides like Stephen Miller and Karoline Leavitt posed for glamour photographs by Christopher Anderson.

    So the question now is whether Susie Wiles can go back to being a noncelebrity and dismiss her indiscretions as the product of a quietly malicious writer trying to disrupt the calm at the center of the White House. If she does survive this furor without significant damage to her position, then we’ll know she is even more powerful than anyone realized.


    See All



    [ad_2]

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Former AP photographer’s vintage images of Ireland capture a world before it disappeared

    [ad_1]

    BERLIN (AP) — Rare photographs of Ireland from 1963 show a world about to disappear, a country before it took its first steps toward modernity.

    Black and white images captured by a young German photographer, Diether Endlicher — who later spent four decades covering the Olympics and major global events for The Associated Press — are being shown at the Irish embassy in Berlin, where Endlicher, now 85, was honored last weekend for his role in documenting moments of Irish life from another era.

    The photos feature boatmen, fishermen, workmen, herders taking their animals to markets, women transporting milk by donkey cart, a funeral, devout worshippers praying to relics in stone-walled fields, ruined abbeys, dramatic landscapes, children looking at TVs through a shop window, an evocation of a time before modern conveniences arrived to convert all.

    The pictures lay unseen and forgotten in Endlicher’s attic until recently, when he rediscovered them after deciding to go through his archive. He scanned the now 62-year-old negatives and contacted the embassy to see if there was any interest. There was.

    Maeve Collins, the Irish ambassador to Germany, praised the photographs’ “beautiful detail” and historical importance.

    “They bring a vivid expression to the lived experience of people on the west coast of Ireland in the early 1960s,” she said.

    Photos are record of a road trip

    Endlicher was 22 when he traveled with a friend from Germany to the west coast of Ireland in a tiny Fiat 500, a two-door bubble car known as the “Bambino” that was not designed for road trips. He carried a Leica M2 and three lenses to places where few had seen cameras before.

    Once they got to Ireland’s west coast, they found a man transporting turf to Inishmaan, one of the Aran Islands in Galway Bay, in a large sailing vessel with no motor. They decided to go with him and Endlicher took photos as they went.

    “I thought we’d never arrive there because the wind was not so strong. The boat traveled very slow,” Endlicher told the AP. “It was an interesting trip there and then when we landed on Inishmaan, that was a different world.”

    He saw fishermen at work, and peasants threshing barley by beating stalks on stones. Their clothes were home-spun from tweed. Electricity hadn’t reached the island. Turf from the mainland was used for heating and cooking.

    Many of the locals made clear they didn’t want their photos taken. The Aran Islands are still part of the Gaeltacht, the Irish-speaking area, and on Inishmaan at the time, most did not speak any English.

    “Inishmaan was a different world, even from the mainland,” Endlicher said. “Europe was very different then and so the difference between Ireland and Europe, mainland European countries was not so big. The agriculture was about the same. Farmers worked with horses. The only thing that was different in Ireland was donkeys. There were many donkeys at the time.”

    Return to work for the AP

    Endlicher returned to Ireland in 1984 to cover U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s visit for the AP. He worked for the news agency from 1965 to 2007.

    “I covered 29 Olympics altogether, Winter and Summer Olympics. I covered many Winter Olympics. As a Bavarian, I almost grew up on skis,” said Endlicher, who would ski the slopes before big races to find the best positions for photos.

    Endlicher was at the 1972 Olympics in Munich where 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were killed after being targeted by the Palestinian group Black September.

    He traveled to Israel for news assignments in the 1980s and 90s and did several stints in Gaza, where he saw the first intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

    He remembers Israeli soldiers forcing him to hand over his film after he took photos of them beating a child who had been running with a Palestinian flag in Khan Younis, in Gaza.

    “I had no chance, I had to give them the film,” he said.

    Endlicher covered the changes unleashed by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union, as well as uprisings in Georgia and Armenia.

    “I remember in Moscow, there was this uprising when the communists tried to occupy the parliament, that was after (former Russian President Boris) Yeltsin, there were a lot of shootings in Moscow,” he said. “I was undercover, under a truck, and next to me was a TV cameraman in a telephone cell, and they shot at the telephone cell and he was wounded.”

    Endlicher was also embedded with American troops during the Gulf War in 1991, and had been in Prague, Czechoslovakia for the Soviet invasion in 1968, when he relied on a taxi driver driving to and from Vienna, Austria to get his films out to be processed and transmitted.

    “He must have had some deal with the border police or the Russian army,” he said.

    Job presents dangers

    Reflecting on the dangers he faced over a 42-year career with the AP — Endlicher also previously worked for German news agency DPA – he said he believes there is a necessity to take pictures, to bear witness.

    “It’s necessary that some people are willing to take the risk. Like Anja Niedringhaus, she paid with her life,” he said of his former AP colleague who was killed in Afghanistan in 2014. “The thing is you have to be independent, I think. If you’re married and have kids, it’s a different story. If you are single and have no obligations … It’s also difficult to keep up friendships. I had also a time when the job was the most important thing to me. And I neglected some of my family life. It’s a conflict.”

    Endlicher’s son, Matthias, accompanied him to the embassy’s tribute on Saturday, and they were joined by his wife, Andrea, at the ambassador’s residence for dinner that evening.

    “I’m very happy that they saw the value of these pictures,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The White House’s history with Thanksgiving, and how the turkey pardon came to be

    [ad_1]

    Two turkeys are traveling Tuesday from the posh Willard Hotel to the White House, becoming the latest turkeys to be pardoned by an American president in a tradition that officially dates back to President George H.W. Bush.

    The history of White House Thanksgiving traditions date back more than 160 years to President Abraham Lincoln, who established the national holiday. 

    During his time in office, Lincoln issued a proclamation calling for the celebration of Thanksgiving, triumphing over similar efforts of presidents who came before him, according to the National Park Service

    The official designation of the annual national holiday is due, in part, to writer Sarah Josepha Hale. The NPS notes that in 1827 — as editor of “Boston’s Ladies Magazine” — Hale began writing essays calling for the national holiday. Finally, on Sept. 18, 1863, she wrote to Lincoln asking him to use his presidential powers to create the holiday. 

    Lincoln obliged and a few weeks later, on Oct. 3, 1863 — during the height of the Civil War — he issued the Thanksgiving Proclamation. Ever since, the country has celebrated Thanksgiving Day. 

    But it wasn’t until after a bill passed by Congress on Dec. 26, 1941, that made the holiday fall annually on the fourth Thursday in November. 

    Thanksgiving at the White House is usually relatively quiet and includes the tradition of pardoning lucky turkeys from their doomed fate of the dinner table. 

    In this black and white photograph, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt watches as President Franklin D. Roosevelt carve the traditional Thanksgiving turkey during supper at Warm Springs, Georgia, on November 29, 1935. 

    Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum/NARA


    Presidential turkey pardons

    The first turkey pardon ever issued is believed to have been by Lincoln as recorded by White House reporter Noah Brooks in an 1865 dispatch, according to the White House Historical Association

    Lincoln had granted clemency to a turkey named Jack belonging to his son Tad Lincoln, that had originally been slated to be gobbled up at the family’s Christmas dinner in 1863. 

    President Dwight D. Eisenhower turkey pardon

    President Dwight D. Eisenhower holds the neck of a 40-pound Thanksgiving dinner turkey presented to him by the National Turkey Federation on Nov. 19, 1956. 

    Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum/NARA


    But the annual practice in which the White House sent pardoned presentation turkeys to a farm to live out their days did not occur until Ronald Reagan’s presidency in the 1980s, the WHHA says. In decades prior, presidents would occasionally receive turkeys from the poultry industry and decide not to eat them without an official pardon. 

    The WHHA notes the practice of sending presentation turkeys to the president became a norm in 1981, and the pardoning ceremonies quickly became a national sensation. By 1989, the annual tradition materialized with President George H.W. Bush — as documented by the association — speaking to the pardoned turkey, saying the line his successors still reprise at ceremonies today: “He’s granted a presidential pardon as of right now.”

    President George H. W. Bush turkey pardon

    President George H. W. Bush laughs during the turkey pardoning ceremony on November 14, 1990, while his grandson, Sam LeBlond, gets caught in the shot. 

    George Bush Presidential Library and Museum/NARA


    On Tuesday, President Trump will be presented with two turkeys, Waddle and Gobble, from the National Turkey Federation. 

    Gathering with family and friends

    Aside from the turkey pardoning spectacle, presidents spend Thanksgiving in the same fashion as households across the country. 

    The first documented Thanksgiving gathering at the White House dates back to Nov. 28, 1878, according to the WHHA. Then-President Rutherford B. Hayes held a large Thanksgiving dinner gathering with his family and private secretaries, singing hymns in the Red Room afterward and inviting African-American staff to enjoy their own Thanksgiving meal in the State Dining Room. 

    The tradition has since withstood the test of time. Through economic hardship and times of wars, presidents have carved out time for family. The WHHA notes that President Woodrow Wilson’s first Thanksgiving meal during World War I on Nov. 29, 1917, was an economical one — and one without cranberries. 

    In recent decades, presidents have taken to the tradition of celebrating the holiday outside the White House at their so-called “go-to” vacation spots. President Ronald Reagan in 1985 traveled to the family ranch in Santa Barbara, California. 

    Mr. Trump will be traveling to Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday, as he did nearly every Thanksgiving in his first term. Former President Joe Biden, meanwhile, traveled to Nantucket over the weekend, per his daughter’s Instagram, a Biden family tradition for over 40 years.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump says a Canadian ad misstated Ronald Reagan’s views on tariffs. Here are the facts and context

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump pulled out of trade talks with Canada Thursday night, furious over what he called a “fake’’ television ad from Ontario’s provincial government that quoted former U.S. President Ronald Reagan from 38 years ago criticizing tariffs — Trump’s favorite economic tool.

    The ad features audio excerpts from an April 25, 1987 radio address in which Reagan said: “Over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer.’’

    Trump attacked the ad on Truth Social Friday posting: “CANADA CHEATED AND GOT CAUGHT!!! They fraudulently took a big buy ad saying that Ronald Reagan did not like Tariffs, when actually he LOVED TARIFFS FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND ITS NATIONAL SECURITY.″

    The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute criticized the ad on X Thursday night posting that it “misrepresents the ‘Presidential Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade’ dated April 25, 1987.”

    While Trump called the ad fake, Reagan’s words were real. But context is missing.

    Here’s a look at the facts:

    Reagan, who held office during a period of growing fear over Japan’s rising economic might, made the address a week after he himself had imposed tariffs on Japanese semiconductors; he was attempting to explain the decision, which seemed at odds with his reputation as a free trader.

    Reagan did not, in fact, love tariffs. He often criticized government policies – including protectionist measures such as tariffs – that interfered with free commerce and he spent much of 1987 radio address spelling out the case against tariffs.

    “High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars,’’ he said. “The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.’’

    But Reagan’s policies were more complicated than his rhetoric.

    In addition to taxing Japanese semiconductors, Reagan slapped levies on heavy motorcycles from Japan to protect Harley-Davidson. He also strong-armed Japanese automakers into accepting “voluntary’’ limitations on their exports to the United States, ultimately encouraging them to set up factories in the American Midwest and South.

    And he pressured other countries to push down the value of the currencies to help make American exports more competitive in world markets.

    Robert Lighthizer, a Reagan trade official who served as Trump’s top trade negotiator from 2017 through 2021, wrote in his 2023 memoir that “President Reagan distinguished between free trade in theory and free trade in practice.’’

    In 1988, an analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute even declared Reagan “ the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover, the heavyweight champion of protectionists.’’

    Reagan, though, was no trade warrior. Discussing his semiconductor tariffs in the April 1987 radio address, he said that he was forced to impose them because the Japanese were not living up to a trade agreement and that “such tariffs or trade barriers and restrictions of any kind are steps that I am loath to take.’’

    Trump, on the other hand, has no such reticence. He argues that tariffs can protect American industry, draw manufacturing back to the United States and raise money for the Treasury. Since returning to the White House in January, he has slapped double-digit tariffs on almost every country on earth and targeted specific products including autos, steel and pharmaceuticals.

    The average effective U.S. tariff rate has risen from around 2.5% at the start of the 2025 to 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University.

    Trump’s enthusiastic use of import taxes — he has proudly called himself “Tariff Man’’ — has drawn a challenge from businesses and states charging that he overstepped his authority. The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes, including tariffs, though lawmakers have gradually ceded considerable authority over trade policy to the White House. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the case early next month.

    Trump claimed Thursday that the Canadian ad was intended “to interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts.’’

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Says He Will Raise Tariffs on Canada by 10% Over Ontario Ad

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. will impose an additional 10% tariff on Canada, President Trump said on Saturday, a punitive measure in response to an ad campaign that he said misrepresented comments by former President Ronald Reagan.

    “Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Saturday.

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    [ad_2]

    Gavin Bade

    Source link

  • Did a Canadian ad mislead on Reagan’s tariffs comments?

    [ad_1]

    After the government of the Canadian province of Ontario released an anti-tariff ad taking aim at U.S. trade policy, President Donald Trump said the United States was cutting off trade negotiations with its northern neighbor.

    In an Oct. 23 Truth Social post, Trump referenced a statement from The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute. 

    Trump wrote, “The Ronald Reagan Foundation has just announced that Canada has fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs.” The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute is a nonprofit based in Simi Valley, Calif., created by Reagan to advance his legacy and principles. 

    The Reagan Foundation said the Canadian ad — which featured Reagan’s April 25, 1987, radio address — used “selective audio and video” and “mispresents the Presidential Radio Address.”

    The one-minute ad included some of Reagan’s remarks out of chronological order. It also omitted that Reagan recorded the address after imposing duties on some Japanese products. A duty is a tax imposed on goods; a tariff is a type of duty imposed on imported or exported goods.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    However, the ad’s overall message doesn’t misrepresent Reagan’s views on tariffs. Reagan said he believed that in the long-term tariffs would lead to trade wars and hurt Americans.

    We asked the Reagan Foundation how the ad misrepresented Reagan’s address, but we did not receive a response by publication.

    When we asked the White House what was fake about the ad, spokesperson Kush Desai said, “Even The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute is calling out Ontario’s misleading and selective editing of President Reagan’s remarks.” 

    Ontario Premier Doug Ford said Oct. 14 that a $75 million ad buy was planned and would air on major networks. On Oct. 24 — after Trump canceled trade talks with Canada — Ford said the ad would continue to air during the first two World Series games but will pause after that, “so that trade talks can resume.”

    The clips from Reagan’s address used in the ad

    The ad shows Reagan delivering the address. In the ad, he says: 

    “When someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,’ it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And, sometimes for a short while, it works, but only for a short time. But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer.

    “High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens: markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industries shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs.

    “Throughout the world, there’s a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. America’s jobs and growth are at stake.”

    Some sentences in the ad are not in the same order as Reagan delivered them, but the reordering did not change his meaning.  (The sentence, “But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer,” was actually delivered earlier in Reagan’s remarks. The ad also edited in the word “but.” Reagan said, “And in a moment I’ll mention the sound economic reasons for this: that over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer.”)

    In its edit, the ad also omitted additional comments Reagan made in the same address. Reagan also said that he had recently placed new duties on some Japanese products because Japan had not been enforcing a trade agreement on semiconductors. Reagan said he would discuss trade disagreements with Japan’s Prime Minister, Yasuhiro Nakasone, at the White House the week after the address. 

    Reagan framed the action against Japan as an unusual case of leveraging trade policies to counteract specific behavior by one trading partner on one group of products.

    In another part of the address not quoted in the ad, Reagan said the actions involving “Japanese semiconductors were a special case” to “deal with a particular problem, not begin a trade war.” 

    Reagan also said, “Now, imposing such tariffs or trade barriers and restrictions of any kind are steps that I am loath to take.”

    He said the result of a trade war would be “more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying.”

    Ad did not capture additional Reagan tariff history 

    Like the address, Reagan’s overall trade record often supported free trade, but was at times nuanced.

    Reagan pushed for several international free-trade agreements, including the 1988 U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which later incorporated Mexico and evolved into the North American Free Trade Agreement. 

    Reagan’s administration “launched the most comprehensive set of global trade-barrier-reducing negotiations yet completed — the Uruguay Round, which eventually established the World Trade Organization,” I.M. Destler, a University of Maryland public policy professor, told us in 2016; Destler died in 2025. That negotiation continued under President George H.W. Bush and was concluded and ratified, with large bipartisan margins, under President Bill Clinton.

    In a 1985 address to business leaders, Reagan said, “Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets — free trade.” 

    He also spoke about the merits and drawbacks of free trade. “I believe that if trade is not fair for all, then trade is free in name only,” he said. “I will not stand by and watch American businesses fail because of unfair trading practices abroad. I will not stand by and watch American workers lose their jobs because other nations do not play by the rules.”

    Reagan sometimes bent to public pressure for more protectionist measures, as he did with Japanese semiconductors.

    In 1982, Reagan imposed quotas on sugar, which resulted in higher prices. His administration negotiated more stringent provisions for textile and apparel imports, though not as tight as the industry wanted. And the administration set import quotas on machine tools from South Korea and imposed tariffs on Canadian lumber.

    His most significant protectionist trade moves were a pair of “voluntary export restraints” on steel and on cars. These policies limited how many units foreign producers could ship to the United States, giving domestic producers some breathing room from foreign competition so they could retool their businesses. (The policies also raised prices for U.S. consumers and sometimes led to shortages.)

    Our ruling

    The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute said Ontario’s ad “misrepresents” Reagan’s 1987 address about tariffs.

    The ad edits together some sentences from a 1987 address, and it leaves out that in the address, Reagan said he would levy duties on some Japanese products. 

    However, Reagan’s address framed the actions against Japan as exceptions to his general support of free trade, a position he championed not only in the parts quoted in the ad but also throughout much of the address. 

    We rate this statement Mostly False.

    RELATED: MAGA-Meter: Trump’s second term promises including about tariffs

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks about trade

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Is Attacking Canada When He Should Be Attacking Reagan

    [ad_1]

    The Gipper loved him some free trade.
    Photo: The Independent

    One of Donald Trump’s most interesting political achievements has been to force a Republican Party that had embraced free-trade orthodoxy for many decades into supporting, or at least tolerating, his own vintage 19th-century protectionist views. Like his harsh criticism of the Iraq War launched by the last GOP president, Trump’s frequently savage words about free trade and globalization have clearly embarrassed a lot of Republicans who are old enough to remember when that kind of talk was associated with lefty union types and cranky Old Right figures like Pat Buchanan. The fact that he has now made tariff-driven trade wars the centerpiece of his second-term economic policies is often ignored by old-school Republicans, or rationalized as merely a rhetorical weapon he deploys in cutting commercial deals with other countries.

    But at least one of the Canadians who are so often an object of Trump’s protectionist belligerence is drawing attention to the 180-degree turn the 47th president executed in conservative international economic thinking, or the lack thereof. Ontario premier Doug Ford ran an ad on U.S. television networks featuring clips in which the unquestioned patron saint of pre-Trump conservatism, Ronald Reagan, loudly and proudly embraces free trade:

    Here’s what the Gipper says in the ad, which is from a 1987 speech:

    When someone says, “Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,” it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while, it works — but only for a short time.

    But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer.

     

    High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars.

    Then the worst happens. Markets shrink and collapse. Businesses and industry shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs.

    Throughout the world, there’s a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition.

    America’s jobs and growth are at stake.

    Trump promptly pitched a fit at Truth Social and suspended trade negotiations with Canada:

    CANADA CHEATED AND GOT CAUGHT!!!They fraudulently took a big buy ad saying that Ronald Reagan did not like Tariffs, when actually he LOVED TARIFFS FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND ITS NATIONAL SECURITY…. Thank you to the Ronald Reagan Foundation for exposing this FRAUD.

    Actually, the Reagan Foundation complained that Ontario hadn’t asked for permission to use the clip and said it “misrepresented” the overall speech, which indeed justified the imposition of tariffs on Japan. But there’s nothing fake about the clip; Reagan was making it clear that the measures he was taking against Japan were unfortunate and temporary expedients that did not detract from his more general commitment to free trade. The 40th president did not “love tariffs for our country and its national security.” Like nearly every pre-Trump Republican leader who remembered the disastrous effects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which helped exacerbate the Great Depression, Reagan only used trade restraints sparingly and grudgingly.

    Trump, on the other hand, has called “tariffs the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary” and believes in them not as a temporary measure or negotiating ploy but as the foundation of a good economy. He dreams of replacing the federal income tax with tariff revenues. He is precisely the sort of demagogue Reagan was speaking of as a misguided advocate of tariffs as “patriotic.”

    You can debate whether Trump is right or (as most economists believe) wrong. But you can’t debate whether he’s taken the free-trade policies of Ronald Reagan (who was particularly devoted to dismantling barriers to trade with Canada) and tossed them in a wastebasket. That may embarrass him and other Republicans, but it’s no excuse for blaming those with better memories.

    This post has been updated.

    [ad_2]

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Trump Says He Is Terminating Trade Negotiations With Canada

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON—President Trump said late Thursday he was terminating trade negotiations with Canada, contending the country had run an advertisement featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about tariffs.

    “Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED,” Trump wrote on social media shortly before 11 p.m.

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    [ad_2]

    Alex Leary

    Source link

  • Reagan-appointed judge slams Trump’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian students

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump often channels former President Ronald Reagan, down to his signature slogan, “make America great again.” But Judge William Young, who was appointed by Reagan himself, cited Reagan’s legacy as a total rebuke to Trump’s ruling philosophy. “Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction,” Young wrote in a ruling filed on Tuesday, quoting a speech by Reagan.

    “I’ve come to believe that President Trump truly understands and appreciates the full import of President Reagan’s inspiring message—yet I fear he has drawn from it a darker, more cynical message,” Young warned. “I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected.”

    Young’s ruling came in response to one of the Trump administration’s signature policies, its attempts to shut down Palestinian solidarity protests by deporting Palestinian students and their supporters. The American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association sued a few days after the arrest of Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, arguing that the policy violates freedom of speech, both by intimidating foreign academics in America and preventing American academics “from hearing from, and associating with, their noncitizen students and colleagues.”

    Ruling that administration officials indeed “acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target non-citizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech,” Young promised to hold a hearing on the specific measures he will order. He wrote that “it will not do simply to order the Public Officials to cease and desist in the future,” given the current political environment.

    What seems to have set off Young was a postcard from a hater: “Trump has pardons and tanks…What do you have?” Young attached a photocopy of the postcard to the top of his ruling, and dedicated the ruling to disproving the writer. “Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States—you and me—have our magnificent Constitution. Here’s how that works out in a specific case,” he wrote, inviting the letter writer to visit his courthouse at the end of the ruling.

    The ruling itself meticulously outlined how several different activists—Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Mohsen Mahdawi, Yunseo Chung, and Badar Khan Suri—were targeted for deportation and how the administration justified it, both internally and publicly. Although Secretary of State Marco Rubio repeatedly claimed in the media that the deportations were meant to target “riots” on campus, Young shows that the students were often targeted based on their opinions alone, with vague chains of association linking them to violent protests.

    For example, the Department of Homeland Security noted in an intelligence analysis that “Hamas flyers” were handed out during a March 2025 protest that Khalil and Chung attended. But as Young pointed out, there was “neither an allegation nor evidence” that either Khalil or Chung themselves were involved in distributing the flyers.

    In another case, Öztürk was a member of Graduate Students for Palestine. Because that group cosigned a call for boycotting Israel with Students for Justice in Palestine, a group that was banned from Tufts University for allegedly using violent imagery, the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence analysts tried to tie Öztürk to Students for Justice in Palestine, which she was not a member of. Young, exasperated, called the logic “hard to follow.”

    He wrote that “there is no evidence that Öztürk did anything but co-author an op-ed that criticized the University’s position on investments with Israel, that she criticized Israel, and that the organization of which she was member joined in that criticism with an organization that was banned on Tufts campus, with which she was not affiliated.”

    Particularly striking was the way that the administration used anonymous online blacklists as a basis for investigation. In March 2025, the Department of Homeland Security ordered its intelligence office to review all 5,000 names on Canary Mission, a controversial website that lists allegedly antisemitic students, Assistant Director Peter Hatch testified. The office also relied on names provided by Betar, an Israeli nationalist organization that has bragged about getting its opponents deported, Hatch testified.

    “Those names that were passed up the chain of command by the investigating subordinates were almost universally approved for adverse action, and, again, the reasons for being passed up the chain of command included any form of online suggestion that one was ‘pro-Hamas,’ including Canary Mission’s own anonymous articles,” Young wrote.

    The judge directly addressed Rubio’s claim that, because a visa or green card is a privilege, the government has unlimited power to remove non-citizens.

    “This Court in part must agree: non-citizens are, indeed, in a sense our guests. How we treat our guests is a question of constitutional scope, because who we are as a people and as a nation is an important part of how we must interpret the fundamental laws that constrain us. We are not, and we must not become, a nation that imprisons and deports people because we are afraid of what they have to tell us,” he wrote.

    And, Young argued, the decision to go after students for activism they did before Trump took office made the policy especially “arbitrary” and “capricious.” Students across America “have all been made to understand that there are certain things that it may be gravely dangerous for them to say or do, but have not been told precisely what those things are,” he wrote, noting that many of the arrests were designed to be as intimidating as possible.

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents snatched Öztürk off the street while wearing masks. “ICE goes masked for a single reason—to terrorize Americans into quiescence,” Young wrote, calling ICE officials “disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable” for trying to argue otherwise. “In all our history we have never tolerated an armed masked secret police. Carrying on in this fashion, ICE brings indelible obloquy to this administration and everyone who works in it,” he added, citing Abraham Lincoln.

    Young moved from a discussion of the case into a broadside against the way immigration enforcement is used in America.

    “ICE has nothing whatever to do with criminal law enforcement and seeks to avoid the actual criminal courts at all costs. It is carrying a civil law mandate passed by our Congress and pressed to its furthest reach by the President. Even so, it drapes itself in the public’s understanding of the criminal law though its ‘warrants’ are but unreviewed orders from an ICE superior and its ‘immigration courts’ are not true courts at all but hearings before officers who cannot challenge the legal interpretations they are given,” he wrote.

    The Department of Homeland Security responded publicly to Young’s ruling—ironically, by accusing him of dangerous speech. “It’s disheartening that even after the terrorist attack and recent arrests of rioters with guns outside of ICE facilities, this judge decides to stoke the embers of hatred,” department spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement, accusing Young of “smearing and demonizing federal law enforcement.”

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Petti

    Source link

  • ‘Make Me Famous’ Reminds Us That Ed Brezinski, and All Artists, Deserve Better

    [ad_1]

    Edward Brezinski in 1979. ©Marcus Leatherdale

    “Everyone kind of started out on the street, and then certain people became very successful and very hierarchical, and Edward just wasn’t having it,” painter Frank Holliday tells filmmaker Brian Vincent in the documentary Make Me Famous. The story Holliday sketches in that one sentence portrays 1980s East Village neo-expressionist Edward Brezinski as a quintessential starving artist—a painter of integrity whose refusal to sell out precluded his own stardom.

    Vincent doesn’t argue with Holliday, and his film at least entertains this mythic version of Brezinski, who is compared in passing to Van Gogh. As the title Make Me Famous indicates, the documentary also acknowledges Brezinski’s ambition and his dreams of getting off the street and grasping some of that success for himself. In the end, the story Vincent tells is not really about an overlooked genius. Instead, it’s about how our insistence on framing genius as a yes or no question reliably and efficiently destroys the human beings who make art.

    Brezinski (born Brzezinski in 1954) grew up in Michigan. His father was probably an alcoholic, his mother was distant and support for gay children in that time and place was minimal. He studied at the San Francisco Institute of Art and then moved to Manhattan’s Lower East Side, where he lived across from a men’s homeless shelter and became part of the growing arts scene.

    Brezinski’s moment of greatest notoriety came in 1989, when he attended a solo exhibit for Robert Gober at Paula Cooper Gallery. One of the pieces on display was an exact replica of a bag of donuts; Brezinski reached inside and ate one. Gober had treated the donuts with a toxic preservative, and Brezinski had to be rushed to the hospital. Afterward, he contacted the press, and the story became an art world legend.

    An unfinished, rough-textured painted portrait shows a man’s face in muted colors with visible brushstrokes and patches of exposed canvas.An unfinished, rough-textured painted portrait shows a man’s face in muted colors with visible brushstrokes and patches of exposed canvas.
    Edward Brezinski, Self Portrait, 1976. © Edward Brezinski

    The incident, in the context of the documentary, neatly encapsulates the combination of fierce commitment, shallow envy, failure and substance abuse that characterized Brezinski’s career. A passionate painter in surprisingly traditional modes (he is perhaps best known for his portraits and his crucifixion scenes), he was enraged to see the success of Gober’s pop art/Dada-inspired work. Probably drunk, he ate the donut as a kind of protest; he claimed, tongue-in-cheek, that he couldn’t tell them from the refreshments. Effectively, Brezinski participated in Gober’s commercial pop art spectacle; the only way he could become known was to appropriate someone else’s concept, turning his back on his own talent and work in an alcohol-fueled fugue of arch disavowal and despair.

    Brezinski was very disillusioned by the end of the ‘80s. But even earlier in the decade, the documentary chronicles the push/pull between his hatred of sellouts and his desire to become one. Numerous acquaintances talk about his incessant, pushy, gauche self-promotion; at openings, he would pass out self-made invites to his own gallery shows, and he asked virtually anyone who visited his apartment/studio to buy his paintings. At the same time, he was a perfectionist who would often destroy his own work if he thought it didn’t measure up. Since he was a portrait painter, this often meant asking other artists and art world people—colleagues and potential connections—to sit for him for hours before trashing the paintings without even letting them see them.

    No one in the documentary is exactly willing to say that the art Brezinski did finish was groundbreaking or Important with a capital I. Yet many of his efforts are eye-catching and impressive. An expressionist painting of Nancy Reagan, for example, has a striking, Warhol-esque quality with a mocking, evocative edge—Brezinski seems to be celebrating Nancy as a kind of gay icon even as he sneers at her for her and her husband’s callous indifference to gay people and the AIDS crisis. The Nancy painting isn’t remembered as a defining image of the era, but it could have been. “What’s the great difference between a Kenny Scharf painting and an Ed Brezinski painting?” curator Annina Nosei asks.

    Maybe the difference is that Brezinski once tossed a glass of wine on Nosei in revenge after she failed to show up for a gallery appointment. Being an asshole can lose you gigs, though Brezinski was hardly the only asshole, or the only drunk, in the East Village. So maybe the difference is just luck and being in the right place at the right time. Fame and fortune are a roll of the dice; get the right number and you’re everybody’s darling. Get the wrong one and you’re nobody.

    A nighttime black-and-white photo shows a crowded scene outside B-Side Gallery with dozens of people gathered on the sidewalk.A nighttime black-and-white photo shows a crowded scene outside B-Side Gallery with dozens of people gathered on the sidewalk.
    A B-Side Gallery Opening in 1984. © Gary Azon

    The film itself chronicles this calculus and occasionally questions it. “These people [with money] went out and exploited these people [artists], and if they could make them pay off, then fine, and if they couldn’t pay off, then they dumped them,” actor and curator Patti Astor comments with cheerful bitterness. When the filmmaker asks her why no one wanted to exploit Brezinski, she laughs.

    Perhaps the laugh is because Astor thinks Brezinski wasn’t worth exploiting. Or maybe she laughs because she is aware that Brezinski was, in fact, exploited. An art scene, after all, requires sub-superstars: people who contribute ideas, passion and venues; people who show your work and lend you their work to show; people who argue about what’s good and what isn’t; people who serve as muses and take you for your muse; people who create a community around art and dreams, hope and vision.

    A black-and-white photo shows a man painting a large nude figure on canvas while surrounded by models in striking outfits and theatrical poses.A black-and-white photo shows a man painting a large nude figure on canvas while surrounded by models in striking outfits and theatrical poses.
    Edward Brezinski and CLICK models for NY TALK Magazine in 1984. © Jonathan Postal

    Brezinski participated enthusiastically in the scene that launched Keith Haring and Basquiat and his friend David Wojnarowicz to fame. And for his pains, he got little respect, little love and a pauper’s grave in France, where he died penniless and alone in 2007 at the age of 52. The Reagan administration’s callous disregard of AIDS was merely an extension of the administration’s, and the culture’s, indifference to the lives of creators and gay people. We learn late in the film that Brezinski’s money troubles might have been solved by an inheritance had he not been estranged from his family. But of course, queer people are often estranged from their families, which is why queer people are disproportionately poor.

    If the U.S., or New York State, or New York City, had a real arts policy and valued all artists rather than the select few who could be turned into investment opportunities, maybe Brezinski would still be alive. Instead, the U.S. has elected a president who hates the arts and LGBT people even more than Reagan did. Rather than cultivating and celebrating creators with talent, drive and dreams, we seem determined to create an endless carousel of Brezinskis, each of whom we are determined to strangle with the entrails of their own dreams.

    Make Me Famous is a sad film because Brezinski wanted to be famous and was not. It’s an enraging film because it shows the extent to which we devalue and despise the arts and all the non-famous people who create them.

    More in Artists

    ‘Make Me Famous’ Reminds Us That Ed Brezinski, and All Artists, Deserve Better

    [ad_2]

    Noah Berlatsky

    Source link

  • FACT FOCUS: A look at false and misleading claims made during Trump and Harris’ debate

    FACT FOCUS: A look at false and misleading claims made during Trump and Harris’ debate

    [ad_1]

    In their first and perhaps only debate, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris described the state of the country in distinctly different ways. As the two traded jabs, some old false and misleading claims emerged along with some new ones.

    Here’s a look.

    Trump overstates his economic record

    TRUMP: “I created one of the greatest economies in the history of our country. … They’ve destroyed the economy.”

    THE FACTS: This is an exaggeration. The economy grew much faster under Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan than it did under Trump. The broadest measure of economic growth, gross domestic product, rose 4% a year for four straight years under Clinton. The fastest growth under Trump was 3% in 2018. The economy shrank 2.2% in 2020, at the end of Trump’s presidency. And a higher proportion of American adults had jobs under Clinton than under Trump. During the Biden-Harris administration, the economy expanded 5.8% in 2021, though much of that reflected a bounce-back from COVID.

    Trump’s record on manufacturing jobs examined

    HARRIS: “We have created over 800,000 manufacturing jobs. … Donald Trump said he was going to create manufacturing jobs. He lost manufacturing jobs.”

    THE FACTS: Those statements are missing context.

    There were 12,188,000 manufacturing employees in the U.S. when Biden took office in January 2021, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Preliminary numbers for August 2024 put that number at 12,927,000. That’s a difference of 739,000 — close to the 800,000 number Harris has cited.

    Also of note is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of manufacturing employees dropped steeply in April 2020, by more than 1.3 million. Discounting that decline, there were only 206,000 more manufacturing employees in August than there were in March 2020, prior to the pandemic.

    Inflation has gone down

    TRUMP: “They had the highest inflation perhaps in the history of our country, because I’ve never seen a worse period of time.”

    THE FACTS: While praising the strength of the economy under his presidency, Donald Trump misstated the inflation rate under Biden. Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 after rising steadily in the first 17 months of Biden’s presidency from a low of 0.1% in May 2020. It’s now seeing a downward trend. The most recent data shows that as of July it had fallen to 2.9%. Other historical periods have seen higher inflation, which hit more than 14% in 1980, according to the Federal Reserve.

    Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025

    HARRIS: “What you’re going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025 that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again.”

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    THE FACTS: Trump has said he doesn’t know about Project 2025, a controversial blueprint for another Republican presidential administration.

    The plan was written up by many of his former aides and allies, but Trump has never said he’ll implement the roughly 900-page guide if he’s elected again. He has said it’s not related to his campaign.

    Trump on abortions ‘after birth’

    TRUMP: “Her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth, it’s execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born, is okay.”

    THE FACTS: Walz has said no such thing. Infanticide is criminalized in every state, and no state has passed a law that allows killing a baby after birth.

    Abortion rights advocates say terms like “late-term abortions” attempt to stigmatize abortions later in pregnancy. Abortions later in pregnancy are exceedingly rare. In 2020, less than 1% of abortions in the United States were performed at or after 21 weeks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Trump’s taxing and spending plan examined

    HARRIS: “What the Wharton School has said is Donald Trump’s plan would actually explode the deficit.”

    THE TRUTH: The Penn-Wharton Budget Model did find that Trump’s tax and spending plans would significantly expand the deficit by $5.8 trillion over ten years. But it also found that Harris’ plans would increase the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the same period.

    Harris’ record on fracking examined

    TRUMP: “If she won the election, fracking in Pennsylvania will end on Day 1.”

    THE FACTS: Trump’s statement ignores the fact that without a law approved by Congress, a president can only ban fracking on federal lands.

    The federal government owns about 2% of Pennsylvania’s total land, and it is not clear how much of that is suitable for oil or gas drilling.

    Republicans have criticized Harris for “flip-flopping” on the issue, noting that Harris said in the 2020 campaign that she opposed fracking, a drilling technique that is widely used in Pennsylvania and other states.

    Harris has since said repeatedly that she won’t ban fracking if elected, and she reiterated that in Tuesday’s debate.

    Trump shares inflated numbers around migrants and crime

    TRUMP: “When you look at these millions and millions of people that are pouring into our country monthly — whereas, I believe, 21 million people, not the 15 people say, and I think it’s a lot higher than the 21 — that’s bigger than New York State … and just look at what they’re doing to our country. They’re criminals, many of these people are criminals, and that’s bad for our economy too.”

    FACTS: Trump’s figures are wildly inflated. The Border Patrol made 56,408 arrests of people crossing the border illegally from Mexico in July, the latest monthly figure available. Since Biden took office, the Border Patrol made about 7.1 million border arrests, though the number of people is considerably lower because many of those arrests were repeat crossers.

    The Biden administration also permitted legal entry for about 765,000 people on an online app called CBP One at land crossings in Mexico through July. It allowed another 520,000 from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to come by air with financial sponsors. Additionally, an unknown number of people crossed the border illegally and eluded capture.

    That doesn’t come close to “millions and millions of people” monthly. …. It is also unproven that “many of these people are criminals.”

    There have been high-profile, heinous crimes committed by immigrants. But FBI statistics do not separate out crimes by the immigration status of the assailant, nor is there any evidence of a spike in crime perpetrated by migrants. In 1931, the Wickersham Commission did not find any evidence supporting a connection between immigration and increased crime, and many studies since then have reached similar conclusions.

    Trump repeats false claims that noncitizens are being sought to vote

    TRUMP: “A lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they’re trying to get them to vote. They can’t even speak English. They don’t even know what country they’re in practically and these people are trying to get them to vote, and that’s why they’re allowing them to come into our country.”

    THE FACTS: In recent months, Trump and other Republicans have been repeating the baseless claim that Democrats want migrants to come into the country illegally so they will vote.

    There’s no evidence for this, nor is there any evidence that noncitizens illegally vote in significant numbers in this country.

    Voting by people who are not U.S. citizens already is illegal in federal elections. It can be punishable by fines, prison time and even deportation. While noncitizens have cast ballots, studies show it’s incredibly rare, and states regularly audit their voter lists to remove ineligible voters from the rolls.

    Trump’s comments suggest that not speaking English is somehow prohibitive for voting in the U.S. — and that’s also not the case. In fact, the Voting Rights Act requires certain states to provide election materials in other languages depending on the voting-age population’s needs.

    Trump misrepresents crime statistics

    TRUMP, criticizing the Biden administration: “Crime is through the roof.”

    THE FACTS: In fact, FBI data has shown a downward trend in violent crime since a coronavirus pandemic spike. Violent crime surged during the pandemic, with homicides increasing nearly 30% in 2020 over the previous year — the largest one-year jump since the FBI began keeping records

    Violent crime was down 6% in the last three months of 2023 compared with the same period the year before, according to FBI data released in March. Murders were down 13%. New FBI statistics released in June show the overall violent crime rate declined 15% in the first three months of 2024 compared to the same period last year. One expert has cautioned, however, that those 2024 figures are preliminary and may overstate the actual reduction in crime.

    Trump endorses false rumor about immigrants eating pets

    TRUMP: “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats… They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

    THE FACTS: There’s no evidence to support the claim, which Trump and his campaign have used to argue immigrants are committing crimes at a higher rate than others.

    Authorities in Ohio have said there are no credible or detailed reports to support Trump’s claim.

    Jobs created under the Biden administration

    “TRUMP: “Just like their number of 818,000 jobs that they said they created turned out to be a fraud.”

    THE FACTS: This is a mischaracterization of the government’s process of counting jobs. Every year the Labor Department issues a revision of the number of jobs added in a 12-month period from April through March in the previous year. The adjustment is made because the government’s initial job counts are based on surveys of businesses. The revision is then based on actual job counts from unemployment insurance files that are compiled later. The revision is compiled by career government employees with little involvement by politically appointed officials.

    National Guard soldiers on Jan. 6

    TRUMP, speaking about the Jan. 6 insurrection: “I said I’d like to give you 10,000 National Guard or soldiers. They rejected me. Nancy Pelosi rejected me.”

    THE FACTS: That’s false. Pelosi does not direct the National Guard.

    Further, as the Capitol came under attack, she and then-Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell called for military assistance, including from the National Guard.

    The Capitol Police Board makes the decision on whether to call National Guard troops to the Capitol. It is made up of the House Sergeant at Arms, the Senate Sergeant at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol.

    The board decided not to call the guard ahead of the insurrection but did eventually request assistance after the rioting had already begun, and the troops arrived several hours later.

    There is no evidence that either Pelosi or McConnell directed the security officials not to call the guard beforehand.

    Trump falsely claims China is building ‘massive’ auto plants in Mexico

    TRUMP: “They’re building big auto plants in Mexico, in many cases owned by China.”

    THE FACTS: It’s not the first time Trump has claimed the Biden administration is allowing Chinese automakers to build factories just across the border in Mexico.

    At present, though, industry experts say they know of no such plants under construction, and there’s only one small Chinese auto assembly factory operating in Mexico. It’s run by a company called JAC that builds inexpensive vehicles from kits for sale in that country.

    Trump falsely claims evidence shows he won in 2020

    TRUMP: “There’s so much proof. All you have to do is look at it.”

    THE FACTS: The election was not stolen. The authorities who have reviewed the election — including Trump’s own attorney general — have concluded the election was fair.

    Biden’s victory over Trump in 2020 was not particularly close. He won the Electoral College with 306 votes to Trump’s 232, and the popular vote by more than 7 million ballots. Recounts in key states affirmed Biden’s victory, and lawsuits challenging the results were unsuccessful.

    Trump claims Putin endorsed Harris

    TRUMP: “Putin endorsed her last week, said ‘I hope she wins.’”

    THE FACTS: Russian President Vladimir Putin did wryly claim last week that Harris was his preferred candidate, but intelligence officials have dismissed the comment as not serious.

    U.S. intelligence agencies have said Russia favors Trump, who has openly praised Putin, suggested cutting funds to Ukraine and repeatedly criticized the NATO military alliance.

    Harris takes Trump’s ‘bloodbath’ comment out of context

    HARRIS: “Donald Trump, the candidate, has said in this election there will be a bloodbath if this and the outcome of this election is not to his liking. Let’s turn the page on that.”

    THE FACTS: Trump delivered the line at a speech in March in Ohio in which he was talking about the impact of offshoring on the American auto industry and his plans to increase tariffs on foreign-made cars. It was in reference to the auto industry that he warned of a “bloodbath” if his proposals aren’t enacted.

    “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country,” Trump said.

    Trump inflates numbers around new military equipment left in Afghanistan

    TRUMP, on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan: “We wouldn’t have left $85 billion worth of brand new, beautiful military equipment behind.”

    THE FACTS: That number is significantly inflated, according to reports from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, which oversees American taxpayer money spent on the conflict.

    The $85 billion figure resembles a number from a July 30 quarterly report from SIGAR, which outlined that the U.S. has invested about $83 billion to build, train and equip Afghan security forces since 2001. That funding included troop pay, training, operations and infrastructure along with equipment and transportation over two decades, according to SIGAR reports and Dan Grazier, a defense policy analyst at the Project on Government Oversight.

    Only about $18 billion of that sum went toward equipping Afghan forces between 2002 and 2018, a June 2019 SIGAR report showed.

    No one knows the exact value of the U.S.-supplied Afghan equipment the Taliban have secured, defense officials have confirmed it is significant.

    Trump misrepresents key facts of the Central Park Five case

    TRUMP: “They admitted, they said they pled guilty and I said, ’well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately … And they pled guilty, then they pled not guilty.”

    THE FACTS: Trump misstated key details of the case while defending a newspaper ad he placed about two weeks after the April 1989 attack in which he called for bringing back the death penalty. Trump wrongly stated that the victim was killed and that the wrongly accused suspects had pleaded guilty.

    Trump appeared to be confusing guilty pleas with confessions that the men — teenagers at the time — said they made to police under duress. They later recanted, pleaded not guilty in court and were convicted after jury trials. Their convictions were vacated in 2002 after another person confessed to the crime.

    The victim, Trisha Meili, was in a coma for 12 days after the attack but ultimately survived. She testified in court against the wrongly accused suspects, who are now known as the Exonerated Five. In 2002, Matias Reyes confessed to the crime and said he was the lone assailant. DNA testing matched Reyes to the attack, but because of the statute of limitations he could not be charged in connection with it.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Melissa Goldin, David Klepper, Ali Swenson, Matthew Daly, Chris Rugaber and Tom Krisher contributed to this story.

    ___

    Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Patt Morrison: California transplant has been a destroyer of agriculture and scourge of politicians for 50 years

    Patt Morrison: California transplant has been a destroyer of agriculture and scourge of politicians for 50 years

    [ad_1]

    In this business of ours, there are stories, and there are Stories.

    Small-s stories come and go, usually as fast and forgettable as that family-sized bag of potato chips you ate all by yourself as you binge-watched the night away.

    But Stories — Stories have legs, and this was a Story.

    It checked all the boxes, and made some new ones: Conspiracy theories. Sex. Helicopters thwapping low over nice little neighborhoods in the dead of night. A one-legged Green Beret captain chugging a beaker of pesticide. Trippy protesters. TV comedians’ jokes. Tacky souvenirs.

    And bugs.

    Innumerable bugs, each one less than half the size of a housefly, but primed to chaw their way through a $16-billion California industry exactly like you did to that bag of chips.

    The Story was, most of all, war — wars, plural. In the early 1980s, in the 1990s, returning like a malarial fever, the enemy was the Medfly, the Mediterranean fruit fly — pest, parasite, glutton for our golden harvests, despoiler of sunny citrus and rosy peaches, murderer of guacamole avocados.

    And for most of this year, it was back. Then, in the deep-fryer depths of this summer, L.A. County agriculture officials ended a months-long quarantine of fruit coming out of Leimert Park, along with parts of Inglewood, Hawthorne and Culver City.

    Didn’t even know there was a quarantine? Well, if you’d been around here in the ‘80s and ‘90s, “Medfly” would have been all you needed to hear to know just how serious this can get.

    You do not want to see one of these in your yard.

    (Stephen Osman / Los Angeles Times)

    Ninety-one degrees — way above what a new autumn day should be, even here. It’s Thursday, Sept. 25, 1975, and in a backyard citrus tree on South Glencoe Avenue in Venice, a Medfly is showing its foul face, its blue eyes and yellow belly.

    For years, as an early-warning alert system, the county agricultural people had been hanging Medfly traps hither and thither among our pretty, fructiferous trees — little A-frame-shaped cardboard doohickeys with a dab of fly attractant.

    This was no idle, make-work program. The Medfly, ceratitis capitata, had eaten its way through Iberia at the turn of the century, and in 1910 managed to reach Hawaii. In 1929, it rampaged through Florida’s ag business like Visigoths sacking Rome. The Medfly is not a finicky eater; its menu is as long as a Cheesecake Factory’s: 200-plus fruits and veg from every climate.

    Like aliens and “Alien,” the mama Medfly makes a slit in the skin of a ripening piece of produce, lays her eggs inside, and deposits her spawn there to eat the fruit to death, from the inside out, leaving a hollow skin that plops to the ground like a zombie husk.

    So when that little trap yielded its six-legged killer on Sept. 25, the county ag commissioner was not at all overreacting when he said, “I can think of no pest that sends chills down my spine like this one does.”

    A few zombie fruits soon turned up nearby. It all made a good case for the Medfly having been brought in by some traveler packing a juicy souvenir.

    The ag patrols jumped right on it. They laid out a quarantine map, banned commercial nurseries inside its perimeter from selling fruit trees, and stripped off what fruit they were bearing. They plucked the produce out of family gardens. They began spot-spraying with a pesticide called malathion, which was about to become a household word.

    They drove around neighborhoods in trucks, dumping millions of sterile male fruit flies from cardboard Kentucky Fried Chicken buckets. The male Medflies were chilled to a stuporous 40 degrees, so by the time they thawed, they’d be ready for action, yet any lady Medflies they knocked up would be laying their only-once-in-a-lifetime offspring as sterile, harmless larvae.

    To the massive relief of the state’s agribusiness, this outbreak and most of those to come — unlike the desolation of Florida’s commercial agriculture — were aggressively confined pretty much to small-scale commercial growers and to gentlemen cultivators with backyard trees, the kind of pocket orchards that had enticed Midwestern immigrants here with the promise that you could just step off your back porch to pluck your morning orange.

    And so matters stayed, uneasily but alertly, until 1980.

    Rows of plans at a quarantined nursery in Baldwin Hills.

    A worker at C&S Nursery in Baldwin Hills works near a section of quarantined citrus trees in October 2023.

    (Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

    You say the names now — Sunnyvale, Cupertino — and they mean software and tech and billionaires in hoodies.

    But for long, long decades before, Santa Clara County was “the Valley of Heart’s Delight,” a bee-and-blossom Eden of fragrant fruit: cherries, apricots, and mostly plums for prunes. Santa Clara County’s prune crop kept one-third of the world regular.

    The orchards were still flourishing in 1980, during the first week of June, when bad news flew in on two wings and six legs: two small insects stuck in a backyard trap in San Jose.

    The drill began anew: quarantine, fruit-stripping, ground-level pesticide spraying, more buckets of frosty male Medflies.

    This time, the drill didn’t work.

    California and D.C. had already begun some preliminary beat-downs over the Medfly. The new president was Ronald Reagan, and as governor, Reagan had been the Republican meat sandwiched between two California Democratic governors, Pat Brown, who had lost to Reagan, and his son, Jerry, who succeeded Reagan.

    The Supreme Court had already decided that yes, indeed, Texas — which spent a hundred million buckaroos a year on California produce — could throw up its own quarantine on Golden State goods. Other states and other nations would do the same if this Medfly thing wasn’t stopped, and pronto.

    As far as the feds were concerned, that meant dropping pesticide on the little buggers from the air — the same advice Brown was getting from his state ag officials.

    The environmentally minded Brown argued with himself in public about whether aerial malathion spraying was the safe thing to do, and landed on “no.”

    The great Medfly cafeterias of the Central Valley and the Imperial Valley, the fecund cornucopias of the nation, lay vulnerable — but arguably out of reach, Brown calculated. “Those flies,” he reasoned, “could reach Nevada a lot quicker than they could get to the Imperial Valley.”

    That didn’t wash in Washington.

    Unless California began aerial spraying, the feds would quarantine the entire state. And the feds threatened to take over the Medfly war themselves if Brown wouldn’t do it their way.

    Politics won. Brown ordered the flying fleet aloft. The first aerial sorties went up at midnight on Bastille Day, July 14.

    The public displeasure that would only swell over the next couple of years was obvious from the get-go: We don’t believe no stinkin’ studies about malathion being harmless in these doses. We’re being poisoned!

    A state worker trying to send up a balloon to guide the spray helicopters had his arm slashed by a protester with a knife (it would have been smarter to slash the balloon). The state health department set up a hotline for reassurance.

    Within a couple of weeks of the first spraying sorties, Palo Alto police heard what sounded like gunshots as the helicopters passed overhead. A bullet hole found in one copter had already prompted the CHP to send up an escort helicopter to accompany the flying formation of malathion sprayers.

    In the meantime, the young people of the California Conservation Corps were the ones on the ground in the quarantine zone, stripping off fruit, hand-spraying with the malathion recipe. Some of them were worried, some were afraid, and some of them said they were actually sick.

    And so, on the night that the aerial spraying began came what was, for my money, one of the greatest political PR moments in the history of that devilish art. There were hundreds of witnesses — but alas for the world, evidently no TV news cameras, which would never happen now, in the age of cellphone videography.

    B.T. Collins headed the CCC. He was already a legendary character in an administration of outsize figures. He was a Green Beret captain and Vietnam veteran with a fake right leg and a hook as a right hand, standing in for the real ones he lost to a grenade in a Mekong Delta firefight nearly 15 years before.

    He was a Republican of the Lincoln mold — honest, fearless, witty and ecumenically beloved. He had shaped this CCC into a model agency, and if his kids were worried, well, he’d do something about it.

    So standing in front of a meeting of about 900 of them on that Tuesday night in the auditorium of a state mental hospital in Santa Clara, he held up a glass of the malathion recipe — and chugged it down. “I drank it because you don’t ask your troops to do anything you wouldn’t do.”

    I know you are wondering, so no, he didn’t die until 1993, 13 years later, and then he was felled by a couple of massive heart attacks after long years of drinking and smoking.

    Gov. Jerry Brown leans on a box of confiscated fruit at a Medfly in 1981.

    Gov. Jerry Brown leans on a box of confiscated fruit at a Medfly checkpoint south of San Jose in 1981.

    (Sal Veder / Associated Press)

    As the malathion mix drifted down, so did Brown’s poll numbers. Even though he protested that his hand had been forced by the Reagan administration, ag people blamed him for not acting faster, and others blamed him for agreeing to aerial spraying at all.

    The malathion-Medfly warfare illuminated a shift in the nature of California and Californians. I have a turn-of-the-century California map that describes each county by the things it grew. The figure of the woman on the state seal in one corner is Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom. It could just have as easily been Demeter, the Greek goddess of agriculture. By the 1980s, in counties like Santa Clara and Los Angeles, the wealth was coming more from real estate profits, not so much from agriculture. Into the 1950s, L.A. County had been the single most profitable agricultural county in the nation. The new crop now was subdivisions.

    The residents of this new California were urbanized people who probably felt more threatened by bug spray than by the more abstract prospect of the state’s $14-billion annual ag business being laid waste by Medflies.

    Anyway, back to the early ‘80s Northern-ish California battle:

    To meet the demand for irradiated, sterile male Medflies to confound the female of the species, California had ordered several million from Peru. The state pretty quickly was aghast to realize that many tens of thousands of the Peruvian Medflies weren’t sterile at all; they were fertile, horny ringers.

    But when California tried to cancel its orders, the Reagan administration stepped in: California had to keep buying Peruvian bugs, it insisted, to spare Peru any diplomatic embarrassment.

    The 1981 quarantine perimeter spread like a gourmand’s belt size: 450 square miles in August, to 3,100 by September. Medflies were turning up farther afield; one in the East Bay, and another in San Joaquin County, which was tantamount to seeing gold thieves approach Fort Knox with a full set of keys.

    Since the Medfly can’t fly any farther than a couple of city blocks from its larval cradle, it had to be getting human help. Roadblocks and checkpoints were set up on half a dozen highways at the quarantine’s edges. Five million cars and trucks were stopped.

    Somehow, something broke through the blockade, and the Medfly made its appearance hundreds of miles to the south. Which is to say, here.

    On Aug. 27, 1981, the big headlines appeared too: SOUTHLAND BATTLES THE MEDFLY. In the venerable citrus belt of the San Gabriel Valley, maggots turned up in a Baldwin Park garden, eating their way through their favorite peaches, and doing the same not far away, in a pineapple guava tree.

    This time, the spraying began virtually at once. No messing around. Japan, the biggest foreign market for California fruit, was already banning imports from the quarantine zone, and considering a full ban on California green goods.

    The protesters weren’t messing around either. A few days after the first spraying foray, some kids clustered in a Baldwin Park parking lot and cursed the helicopters, which passed overhead in a flotilla, outnumbered by news choppers.

    Caltrans ringed the now 105-square-mile quarantine zone with freeway signs: “LEAVING MEDFLY QUARANTINE AREA. NO FRUITS/VEGETABLES TO GO BEYOND THIS POINT.” This time, there was no inspection of cars leaving the zone.

    Plans were afoot to hang more Medfly traps, a lot more. Until now, they’d been sparse, partly because some study suggested that Medflies couldn’t hack it in chilly weather, which turned out not to be true. So about 120,000 traps, each with a drop of lure at the bottom, and costing 17 cents each, would now be found at 100 per square mile.

    Now we arrive at the stage of kitsch, which is an absolute requirement for any story to become a Story.

    In 1981, Johnny Carson costumed himself as a Medfly for this exchange with sidekick Ed McMahon.

    Ed McMahon: “Don’t you think the federal government should protect Florida’s fruit?”

    Mediterranean Fruit Fly: “Not according to Anita Bryant, no — they shouldn’t.”

    To get the joke, you need to know two things. Anita Bryant, a singer and former beauty queen, was making commercials for a brand of Florida orange juice when, in the 1970s and ‘80s, she also crusaded against gay rights and, as a forerunner to the current “grooming” madness, warned ominously about gay “recruiting.” Millions boycotted the orange juice, and Carson mocked her regularly on his show.

    Second thing: “fruit” was then in pretty free use as a synonym — now it’s regarded as a slur — for a gay person.

    A button with Jerry Brown's face on a Medfly body. Text: Fruit Fly of the Year. Governor Moonbeam,

    Kitsch indeed.

    (Patt Morrison / Los Angeles Times)

    The knick-knacks churned forth: anti-malathion spraying and anti-Jerry Brown T-shirts, buttons and bumper stickers. Also in 1981, Chris Norby, a future mayor of Fullerton, Orange County supervisor and Republican Assembly member, created “The Medfly Game” for two players — Jerry Brown and the Medfly.

    As for the conspiracies, in December 1989, people calling themselves “The Breeders” wrote anonymously to newspapers, state legislators and to L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley.

    We did it, they claimed. We’re spreading around Medflies to protest the state’s agricultural policies. “Every time the copters go up to spray, we’ll go into virgin territory or old Medfly problem areas and release a minimum of several thousand blue-eyed Medflies. We are organized, patient and determined.”

    In the fall of 1982, after two wearying years of quarantines that ultimately extended through six counties and some 3,000 square miles, California declared victory. The Medfly had been eradicated.

    Hubris, right? Wait for it.

    A year later, Jerry Brown was termed out, and the Medfly seemed to have been sprayed out.

    But in 1989, there was a flare-up in Whittier. The new governor, first-term Republican George Deukmejian, had learned from Brown not to let anyone hang this buggy albatross around his neck, and left it to his ag folks to spray and protect.

    Malathion-spraying helicopters cruise over a Camarillo neighborhood where a car is covered with a plastic tarp.

    Malathion-spraying helicopters cruise over a Camarillo neighborhood where many residents covered their cars with plastic tarps during anti-Medfly spraying in October 1994.

    (Alan Hagman / Los Angeles Times)

    The spraying created a boomlet for carwashes and the plastic sheeting trade. A woman driving her 5-day-old Nissan Maxima was caught in a malathion shower on her way home to Rowland Heights, where her equally new car cover awaited. She filed a claim for $2,754.14 (Earl Scheib would have painted that car for only $99.95).

    The most serious claim I found came from a 14-year-old Los Angeles boy named Juan Macias. On March 28, 1990, he had run outside to tell his dad to be sure to cover his truck because the spray helicopters were coming. He was hit by the malathion, his lawsuit claimed, and went blind. Five years later, the suit was still going forward.

    Other kinds of pests pretty regularly turned up here and there around the state, but none as dangerous, as omniphagous, as the Medfly. That’s why counties like Los Angeles have kept up vigilant monitoring and fly-murdering programs, sometimes with new tools, to protect the state’s agricultural cordon sanitaire from Napa and Sonoma to the Mexican border.

    At Christmastime in 2016, a Medfly appeared in Panorama City, and 101 square miles of the San Fernando Valley were briefly quarantined. This time, the pesticide of choice was Spinosad, an organic pesticide made from soil bacteria, not chemicals.

    As for malathion, a 2000 federal review found it posed no threat to people when used correctly.

    That may be fine for people. But in 2013, the feds decided that the pesticide family that includes malathion was indeed dangerous — even toxic — to many species of fish, plants, insects and animals, including the Mississippi sandhill crane and bees.

    Four years later, the Trump administration asked a federal judge for a two-year delay in the pesticide review — another piece of the Trump administration’s top-to-bottom kneecapping of science and rollback of scores of environmental measures.

    PBS reported that the EPA eventually threw in the towel, backtracking on its conclusion that malathion can imperil all manner of species, in exchange for a promise from pesticide makers to change their labels to exhort consumers to be more careful when they use it. It sounds like very weak medicine indeed.

    In October 2023, the Medfly reappeared in L.A., in a persimmon tree and a pomegranate tree in Leimert Park. A quarantine of about 90 square miles of the city and county went into force, and nearly 2 million sterilized male Medflies, all dyed Laker-ish purple, were shoved out of planes over the nine-square-mile Medfly ground zero. This drop was to be replayed every three or four days for months. Again — not messing around.

    UC Davis entomology professor James Carey, who has decades of Medfly study on his resume, told The Times: “Nowhere in the world are fruit fly invasions as frequent, recurrent, persistent, continuous, contiguous, widespread, and taxonomically diverse as those that have occurred in California.”

    So we’re really left with three options on the persistence of the Medflies among us:

    One, that there’s now a low-grade, permanent localized Medfly population that shows itself to us every now and then; two, that Medflies are still finding obliging humans to bring them in from places yonder; or three, that that there’s so little agriculture left hereabouts that, however they get here, Medflies just can’t find much to infest anymore.

    Explaining L.A. With Patt Morrison

    Los Angeles is a complex place. In this weekly feature, Patt Morrison is explaining how it works, its history and its culture.

    [ad_2]

    Patt Morrison

    Source link

  • Trump enters GOP convention with bandage covering ear

    Trump enters GOP convention with bandage covering ear

    [ad_1]

    MILWAUKEE (AP) — Former President Donald Trump, two days after surviving an attempted assassination, appeared triumphantly at the Republican National Convention’s opening night with a bandage over his right ear.

    Delegates cheered wildly as Trump appeared onscreen backstage and then emerged, visibly emotional, as Lee Greenwood sang “God Bless the USA.” Trump did not address the convention.

    Trump’s appearance came hours after jubilant and emboldened delegates nominated the former president to lead their ticket for a third time and welcomed Ohio Sen. JD Vance as his running mate.

    “We must unite as a party, and we must unite as a nation,” said Republican Party Chairman Michael Whatley, Trump’s handpicked party leader, as he opened Monday’s primetime national convention session. “We must show the same strength and resilience as President Trump and lead this nation to a greater future.”

    But Whatley and other Republican leaders made clear that their calls for harmony did not extend to President Joe Biden and Democrats.

    “Their policies are a clear and present danger to America, to our institutions, our values and our people,” said Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, welcoming the party to his battleground state, which Trump won in 2016 but lost to Biden four years ago.

    Saturday’s shooting at a Pennsylvania rally, where Trump was injured and one man died, was not far from delegates’ minds as they celebrated — a stark contrast to the anger and anxiety that had marked the previous few days. Some delegates chanted “fight, fight, fight” — the same words that Trump was seen shouting to the crowd as the Secret Service ushered him off the stage, his fist raised and face bloodied.

    “We should all be thankful right now that we are able to cast our votes for President Donald J. Trump after what took place on Saturday,” said New Jersey state Sen. Michael Testa as he announced all of his state’s 12 delegates for Trump.

    The scene upon Trump’s formal nomination reflected the depths of his popularity among Republican activists. When he cleared the necessary number of delegates, video screens in the arena read “OVER THE TOP” while the song “Celebration” played and delegates danced and waved Trump signs. Throughout the voting, delegates flanked by “Make America Great Again” signs applauded as state after state voted their support for a second Trump term.

    Multiple speakers invoked religious imagery to discuss Trump and the assassination attempt.

    “The devil came to Pennsylvania holding a rifle,” said Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. “But an American lion got back up on his feet!”

    Wyoming delegate Sheryl Foland was among those who adopted the “fight” chant after seeing Trump survive Saturday in what she called “monumental photos and video.”

    “We knew then we were going to adopt that as our chant,” added Foland, a child trauma mental health counselor. “Not just because we wanted him to fight, and that God was fighting for him. We thought, isn’t it our job to accept that challenge and fight for our country?”

    “It’s bigger than Trump,” Foland said. “It’s a mantra for our country.”

    Another well-timed development boosted the mood on the convention floor Monday: The federal judge presiding over Trump’s classified documents case dismissed the prosecution because of concerns over the appointment of the prosecutor who brought the case, handing the former president a major court victory.

    The convention is designed to reach people outside the GOP base

    Trump’s campaign chiefs designed the convention to feature a softer and more optimistic message, focusing on themes that would help a divisive leader expand his appeal among moderate voters and people of color.

    On a night devoted to the economy, delegates and a national TV audience heard from speakers the Trump campaign pitched as “everyday Americans” — a single mother talking about inflation, a union member who identified himself as a lifelong Democrat now backing Trump, among others.

    Featured speakers also included Black Republicans who have been at the forefront of the Trump campaign’s effort to win more votes from a core Democratic constituency.

    U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt of Texas said rising grocery and energy prices were hurting Americans’ wallets and quoted Ronald Reagan in calling inflation “the cruelest tax on the poor.” Hunt argued Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t seem to understand the problem.

    “We can fix this disaster,” Hunt said, by electing Trump and “send him right back to where he belongs, the White House.”

    U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt of Texas said rising grocery and energy prices were hurting Americans’ wallets and quoted Ronald Reagan in calling inflation “the cruelest tax on the poor.” Hunt argued Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris didn’t seem to understand the problem.

    “We can fix this disaster,” Hunt said, by electing Trump and “send him right back to where he belongs, the White House.”

    Scott, perhaps the party’s most well-known Black lawmaker, declared: “America is not a racist country.”

    Republicans hailed Vance’s selection as a key step toward a winning coalition in November.

    Trump announced his choice of his running mate as delegates were voting on the former president’s nomination Monday. The young Ohio senator first rose to national attention with his best-selling memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy,” which told of his Appalachian upbringing and was hailed as a window into the parts of working-class America that helped propel Trump.

    North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, who had been considered a potential vice presidential pick, said in a post on X that Vance’s “small town roots and service to country make him a powerful voice for the America First Agenda.”

    Yet despite calls for harmony, two of the opening speakers at Monday’s evening session — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and North Carolina gubernatorial nominee Mark Robinson — are known as some of the party’s most incendiary figures.

    Robinson, speaking recently during a church service in North Carolina, discussed “evil” people who he said threatened American Christianity. “Some folks need killing,” he said then, though he steered clear of such rhetoric at the convention stage.

    Trump’s nomination came on the same day that Biden sat for another national TV interview the 81-year-old president sought to demonstrate his capacity to serve another four years despite continued worries within his own party.

    Biden told ABC News that he made a mistake recently when he told Democratic donors the party must stop questioning his fitness for office and instead put Trump in a “bullseye.” Republicans have circulated the comment aggressively since Saturday’s assassination attempt, with some openly blaming Biden for inciting the attack on Trump’s life.

    The president’s admission was in line with his call Sunday from the Oval Office for all Americans to ratchet down political rhetoric. But Biden maintained Monday that drawing contrasts with Trump, who employs harsh and accusatory language, is a legitimate part of a presidential contest.

    Inside the arena in Milwaukee, Republicans did not dial back their attacks on Biden, at one point playing a video that mocked the president’s physical stamina and mental acuity.

    They alluded often to the “Biden-Harris administration” and found ways to take digs at Vice President Kamala Harris — a not-so-subtle allusion to the possibility that Biden could step aside in favor of Harris.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Yes, Joe Biden Is Old: 8 Amazing Achievements by People Older Than 77

    Yes, Joe Biden Is Old: 8 Amazing Achievements by People Older Than 77

    [ad_1]

    Updated: 7/15/2024

    Originally Published: 9/21/2020

    Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was born on November 20th, 1942.

    And Joe Biden is old. He’s so old that “Robinette” probably seemed like a reasonable thing to put in the middle of your kid’s name back when he was born.


    The fact that our two options in the 2024 election to lead us are men who are both more than 35 years older—and about 40% whiter—than the average American, is a damning indictment of our political system. But with both men widely accused by their critics of losing a step and declining into senility, should age be a defining issue in this election? Is Joe Biden, 77, so much older than Donald Trump, 74, that he should be disqualified?

    The question of age — old age, to be precise – is garnering a lot of attention lately. And for good reason: the fate of the Western world very possibly hinges on it.

    This autumn, Americans will most likely have to choose between two old white men for President of the United States. One is in his early 80s. The other is in his late 70s. Both are showing signs of physical and mental aging. Both claim to be in great shape and ready for the Herculean demands required of the most powerful leader in the world. Both claim the other isn’t.

    Whether you think this is a clash of the Titans or merely a pillow fight in a senior care facility, there’s no denying that our nation’s oldsters have accomplished some amazing things. Here are only a few of the performers, politicians, athletes, tycoons, and scientists who saw no reason to rest on their laurels. They can inspire us all.

    Betty White – Won a Grammy at 90

    Betty White had been a working actor since the 1940s, but she didn’t win her first Emmy until 1975 for her role as Sue Ann Nivens on The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Ten years later she was starring in the sitcom classic The Golden Girls. Eighteen years after that she was appearing in Hot in Cleveland. When she was a kid of 90, she was honored at the 54th annual Grammy Awards for Best Spoken Word Album for the narration of her audiobook If You Ask Me (And of Course You Won’t).

    Tao Porchon-Lynch – Taught yoga at 101

    Of French and Indian descent author and yoga teacher Porchon-Lynch was also a model, an actor, a cabaret performer mentored by Sir Noel Coward, a ballroom dancer, a social activist, Hollywood actress, wine expert, and magazine publisher. At 93 she was named the world’s oldest yoga teacher by the Guinness Book of World Records. She was also one of the best.

    It’s a life of such variety and depth it could only be true. You wouldn’t believe it in a novel!

    John B. Goodenough – Won a Nobel Prize at 97

    Chemist and Materials scientist John B. Goodenough is noted for his contributions to the development of Random Access Memory in computing and Lithium-Ion battery technology. In 2019 the Nobel Prize committee presented him with the Nobel Prize in chemistry.

    Goodenough was still working at the age of 98, developing new battery technology at the University of Texas. When his Nobel prize was announced, his advice to young scientists was “don’t retire too early.” Good advice whether you’re in the laboratory or not.

    Christopher Plummer – Won an Academy Award at 82

    Beginners exemplified how much living can be done later in life. Christopher Plummer plays Hal Fields, a gay man who lived his life in the closet until coming out after the death of his wife.

    Fields discovers new love and how to live his authentic self in his 80s.

    At 82, Plummer was awarded the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor – and became the oldest person to ever win the award. In 2018, at 88, he became the oldest person to be nominated for the same award for his role in All the Money in the World.

    Ed Whitlock – Ran a Sub-4-Hour Marathon at 85

    Could you run a marathon? If your answer’s yes, could you do it in less than 4 hours? Ed Whitlock did exactly that. He ran the 2016 Toronto Waterfront Marathon in 3 hours, 56 minutes, 34 seconds, at the age of 85.

    He ran a distance famous for killing an ancient Greek messenger after surviving the Great Depression, World War II, and 24 James Bond movies. He ran 26 nine-minute miles in a row…again, after also traveling around the sun 85 times. Ed Whitlock passed the next year, probably moments after deciding he was finally ready to retire from running.

    In a piece about Whitlock’s career as an older athlete, the Services for Runners website referred to “the prime of the ancient marathoner.” A witty description of an indomitable figure.

    Jimmy Carter – Building Houses at 95

    Several years ago former president Jimmy Carter fell in his home, sustaining a black eye and a cut that required 14 stitches. Days later, he returned to the construction site where he was building homes for those in need. He was 95 years old at the time.

    It’s been said that Carter accomplished more out of office than he did as the main resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That may or may not be accurate, but Carter’s dedication to Habitat for Humanity, his modesty and concern for his fellow citizens stands in stark contrast to the criminal buffoons who view the Presidency as nothing but a giant ATM card. According to his grandson, Carter is nearing the end of his life. Plains, Georgia’s most famous son has proven how much difference one person can make.

    Bernie Sanders – Transformed American Politics at 78

    For fans of Bernie Sanders, the coalescing of the entire Democratic party around moderate candidate Joe Biden in March of 2020, just when it seemed like Sanders was about to secure frontrunner position, was heartbreaking.

    Consolation can be found in Sanders’ effect on the nation’s progressive politics. He’s been a consistent voice for Medicare
    for All, a livable minimum wage, cannabis decriminalization, and bold climate legislation. It’s clear he’ll keep fighting the good fight until his last breath. He is anything but shy – and Democrats could use a dose of his feisty approach to politics.

    Aida Germanque – Ran in Olympic Torch Relay at 106

    In 2016, Aida Germanque participated in the Olympic torch relay in Brazil in the lead-up to the 2016 Olympic games in Rio. At 106 years old, Germanque was the oldest person to ever take part in the ceremony. She reportedly broke the record for oldest skydiver at 103.

    But while it’s true that Germanque didn’t exactly sprint through her portion of the relay, the significance of her achievement is in the symbolism of the relay. It’s about passing the torch to the next runner. And as Joe Biden has already hinted, that’s what he intends to do with the presidency—serving one term, before passing it to the next generation of Democratic politician, whether that’s Kamala Harris or (fingers crossed) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who will be eligible to run for president in 2024.

    It should be clear by now that age needn’t be an impediment to a healthy and productive life. How this plays out in November is something we’ll all be watching closely. Age will certainly be a factor in the presidential race. It shouldn’t automatically disqualify a candidate for office. Leave that to other, far less savory things like inciting violence, threatening to open concentration camps, and “joking” about running for a third term.

    The moral of the story is a simple one.

    Lay off the Big Macs. Help others. You’ll live longer and enjoy it more!

    So, clearly, being 77 or 81 does not mean you’re done doing amazing things. That said, there is such a thing as “biological age.” If a person were to work out five times a week —as opposed to living off Big Macs and (allegedly) amphetamines and only working up a sweat by ranting from the podium and on Twitter — that person could be much “younger” than someone born a few years after them.

    From Your Site Articles

    Related Articles Around the Web

    [ad_2]

    Keith Baldwin

    Source link

  • Will Biden drag Americans into a war in Lebanon?

    Will Biden drag Americans into a war in Lebanon?

    [ad_1]

    It was September 1983, and a young senator named Joe Biden had a message for President Ronald Reagan. “I would not support any authorization for troops in Lebanon of any duration absent much more clearly defined goals and a reasonable prospect of attaining those goals,” Biden said, commenting on a proposed congressional war powers resolution.

    U.S. Marines had been deployed to Lebanon as part of peacekeeping mission in the wake of an Israeli invasion aimed at destroying Palestinian militias, and Congress was debating whether to continue the mission. A month after Biden’s warning, a truck bomb killed 241 American and 58 French peacekeepers in their barracks, and Reagan pulled out the Americans.

    Today, Biden is considering sending U.S. forces back into the fray—not as bystanders but as direct combatants—with far less permission from Congress.

    Since the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, a parallel border conflict has been raging in the north. The Lebanese militia Hezbollah and the Israeli army are shelling into each other’s territory, forcing around 100,000 people on each side of the border out of their homes. Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, has said that it will continue until an Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire is reached in Gaza. Israeli officials are considering a “blitzkrieg” offensive to neuter Hezbollah.

    Last year, Biden dissuaded Israel from launching an invasion of Lebanon. He has also dispatched U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein, an Israeli army veteran who previously secured an Israeli-Lebanese border agreement, to mediate between the two sides. But while he’s discouraging an Israeli invasion, Biden is also promising to back one up if it happens.

    CNN reported on Friday that the Biden administration was offering “assurances” of U.S. military support to Israel if a major war breaks out, “though the US would not deploy American troops to the ground in such a scenario.” Then, on Monday, Politico reported that Biden was contemplating “more direct military support” if Israel comes under “severe duress.”

    And that’s a real likelihood. Separately, a U.S. official told CNN last week that Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system “will be overwhelmed” in the event of a full-on missile war, according to U.S. assessments. A week ago, Hezbollah published a video of one of its drones hovering over the Israeli port city of Haifa.

    The Politico report “has been my understanding of how Biden specifically would like to react,” says Sam Heller, an American who lives in Lebanon and works as a fellow at Century International, a nonprofit New York–based research institute.

    “Israel’s performance since October has really indicated that to sustain this [war], they will require a substantial and continuous input from their American partner, inputs of many kinds,” Heller adds. “It seems U.S. intervention along those lines will also be a real mess and will also invite reprisals against U.S. forces around the region.”

    Over the past six months, U.S. forces have already come under attack from Iraqi and Yemeni militias. Publicly and privately, pro-Iran forces from around the region are offering to send troops in defense of Lebanon.

    Biden’s support for Israel has been steadily escalating. At the beginning of the war, the Biden administration rush-shipped American weapons to Israel. In November, the U.S. military began sharing targeting intelligence with the Israeli army. In April, after Israel bombed an Iranian consulate in Syria, the U.S. military shot down most of the drones and missiles that Iran launched in retaliation.

    In May, Biden eventually held up a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, arguing that this type of weapon had harmed too many civilians. “Israel doesn’t need them for Gaza, but it would if the conflict in Lebanon escalates further,” CBS News reported, citing a U.S. official.

    Ironically, the Israeli-Lebanese conflict is pitting American taxpayer-funded weapons against American taxpayer-funded weapons. For years, the United States has tried to finance and train Lebanese government forces in order to reduce Hezbollah’s influence. During recent talks, Hochstein proposed that Hezbollah could withdraw from the border and the U.S.-funded Lebanese troops could take its place.

    But Israeli forces struck Lebanese government troops at least 34 times between October and December, according to CNN. (The Israeli army denied that these were intentional attacks.) The White House’s National Security Council told CNN that it “do[es] not want to see this conflict spread to Lebanon and we continue to urge the Israelis do all they can to be targeted and avoid civilians, civilian infrastructure, civilian farmland, the [United Nations], and the Lebanese Armed Forces.”

    Although Congress has approved aid to both Israel and Lebanon, it did not intend to fund a war between the two countries. Nor did it ever discuss U.S. forces getting involved themselves. The National Security Council and the State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Direct U.S. involvement would “raise significant issues” with the president’s war powers, says Brian Finucane, a former U.S. State Department lawyer and adviser to the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit research organization. “The White House would cite Article II of the Constitution as authority for something like providing air defense to Israel, and may try to skirt the War Powers Resolution, as it did back in April,” he adds.

    A younger Biden had a lot to say about that notion.

    “I hope what we have learned from our encounters in Southeast Asia is that a foreign policy, absent the consent of the governed, is not likely to last very long,” he commented during the debate over the 1983 resolution, “so it is best to get as many people on board at the outset.”

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Petti

    Source link

  • Weed In The White House

    Weed In The White House

    [ad_1]

    The President’s home is known as the White House – but occasionally there has been a bit of green there.

    It is pretty clear the US presidents are not big public champions of marijuana use. And while the Biden/Harris administration has clearly made it known they are not a fan, what about recent past presidents and their families? Who has had weed in the White House.  The west and east wings are full of people helping run the government, especially the younger crowd, but what about the residence part with the commander-in-chief and his family.

    RELATED: People Who Use Weed Also Do More Of Another Fun Thing

    In recent memory, the first president to use marijuana in the White House was John F. Kennedy (JFK). According to Michael O’Brien, JFK’s biographer, the president used to smoke cannabis with Mary Meyer, one of his mistresses. JFK suffered chronic back pain beginning in his early 20s. He underwent a total of 4 back operations and pain plagued him for life. Cannabis is known to help chronic pain and he looked for relief in a variety of places.  In fact, the hunt for to numb the pain included Max Jacobson, the first Dr. Feelgood.

    Lyndon B Johnson drank but didn’t use and while Gerald Ford didn’t consume weed, his wife drank and use opiates. Ford’s son Jack did confess to using marijuana and most likely consumed while they were in residence. He was the first adult son to live in the White House since F.D.R.’s days, and the pressure was immense. His desire is understandable.

    Jimmy Carter confirmed the rumors about marijuana’s most famous moment in the White House, the time Willie Nelson smoked a joint with the President’s son atop the White House roof.

    “When Willie Nelson wrote his autobiography, he confessed he smoked pot in the White House,” Carter says. “He says that his companion was one of the servants in the White House. Actually, it was one of my sons.”

    Savvy individuals started putting two and two together and realized exactly which Carter boy smoked a joint with Nelson — Chip Carter, Jimmy’s middle son. Chip had developed a personal friendship with NORML founder Keith Stroup and was “a marijuana smoker himself”.

    The Reagans amped up the reefer madness with the Say No To Drugs campaign. First Lady Nancy become a huge advocate against all drugs. Despite the campaign and Nancy’s aversion to drugs (and apparently) drinking, Ronald Reagan was a big fan of wine.  Their successors, who they were notoriously not close to the Reagan, the George H.W. Bushes, were old school drinker with vodka martinis and bourbon. But not green or gummies.

    Clinton’s famous “I didn’t inhale” caused a buzz about his trying marijuana. He was the first president to come clean about it, but by the time he was president, he didn’t consume.  George W. Bush had reformed by his election and nether used drug or drank after an unfortunate period in his life.

    The next president shared he consumed cannabis in college and as a young adult seeing it more as a rite of passage. President Barack Obama said smoking marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, but seems have to stopped as his political career took off.  His successor does not drink or consume any drugs.

    Biden, who is famously old school, does not use marijuana at all, but could be the first to take large step toward legalization.

    [ad_2]

    Amy Hansen

    Source link

  • Patt Morrison: California settled no-fault divorce decades ago. Why is it back in the news?

    Patt Morrison: California settled no-fault divorce decades ago. Why is it back in the news?

    [ad_1]

    Ugly? You have no idea.

    Every nasty little private thing a marriage could churn up, every infidelity, every insult and threat, every drunken episode and squandered paycheck, every crying child — there they all were, spilled out from a witness stand in a courtroom.

    Then and only then, after wife or husband had exhausted the litany of the other’s transgressions, could a judge declare them no longer a couple.

    And that was the nature of divorce before no-fault divorce laws.

    Not every divorce was that emotionally gruesome — not by a long shot — but almost everywhere in the country, a divorce required a wronged spouse, a sinning spouse, and some kind of proof to a legally satisfactory standard. That proof often took sleazy turns, which we’ll get into later.

    California, ever the pioneer, was the first state to legalize no-fault divorce in 1969. Other states followed suit — New York, the last, in 2010, about two whole generations later.

    Thereafter, at-fault divorces could still happen, and they still can. But with no-fault divorces, a couple could split amiably, without accusing or proving anything like bigamy or fraud or abandonment. Under California no-fault law, breakups weren’t even called “divorce” anymore, but “dissolution of marriage.” One becomes two; go in peace.

    And now, some conservatives — including House Speaker Mike Johnson — want to end no-fault divorce; they believe it has contributed to making ours what Johnson once called a “completely amoral society.”

    Ronald Reagan was governor of California when, a few days after Labor Day 1969, he signed the nation’s first no-fault law. His statement: “I believe it is a step towards removing the acrimony and bitterness between a couple that is harmful not only to their children but also to society as a whole.” Divorce is a “tragic thing,” but the new law will “do much to remove the sideshow elements in many divorce cases.”

    Many years before, Reagan had starred in the sideshow. His first wife, actress Jane Wyman, went to court to end their eight-year marriage. She claimed one of the standard grounds for at-fault divorce: an elastic legal term, “extreme mental cruelty.”

    Politics came between them, she told the judge — his, as president of the Screen Actors Guild. He’d drag her along to meetings and to conversations with friends about guild politics, but her ideas “were never considered important. … Finally, there was nothing in common between us, nothing to sustain our marriage.” (Wyman had already served a term on the SAG board of directors.)

    The papers took pains to note that Wyman came to court “hatless, her hair in a pageboy bob. She wore a tangerine gabardine shirt-maker dress.”

    Court reporters and a reading public were avid for all the dirt on movie star divorces.

    In March 1955, 14 hours after he had picked up the best picture Oscar for “On the Waterfront,” producer Sam Spiegel found himself divorced from his actress wife (“blue-tailored dress, ash-blond hair in shoulder-length curls”), who’d accused him of leaving her penniless in Beverly Hills when he’d gone off to make “The African Queen.”

    This is not the place for a history or consequences of divorce, before or after no-fault. Divorces have historically been hard to get; through the 1600s, the Massachusetts and Connecticut colonies each approved about one divorce per year. In countries where marriage was as much religious as contractual, getting a divorce was an eye-of-the-needle undertaking. And divorce could be monstrously expensive, which put it out of reach of almost everyone.

    Even as divorce got easier, the word “easy” was relative.

    When Wyman won an Oscar for playing the title character in the movie “Johnny Belinda,” Reagan remarked that “I think I’ll name ‘Johnny Belinda’ as co-respondent.”

    “Co-respondent” is a word almost every grown American once knew. It meant the third party in an adultery accusation in divorce court. (Think of Diana, the Princess of Wales, saying, “There were three of us in this marriage.”) When you wanted an at-fault divorce, you had to show specific “grounds,” reasons, and adultery was a common one — sometimes real, and sometimes faked.

    The routine was that a husband would be “caught” in a compromising position with some woman, either his actual girlfriend or a woman who’d been paid to go along with the put-up job.

    Often, they bedded long enough in a hotel for a room-service waiter or a private detective with a camera to catch them and voila, exhibit A. Usually it was the husband; either he was actually cheating, or he chivalrously volunteered to the charade because men’s reputations were not besmirched by adultery the way women’s were.

    The newspapers’ divorce stories of the 1950s were flat-out lurid. The Times reported — with photos of the unhappy couple and the co-respondent — on a woman whose aggrieved husband wanted custody of their little daughters, because his wife took the girls to a San Bernardino motel room where she was staying with another man. In a different case, an Air Force sergeant said his wife was pregnant by another man after they coupled in a parked car, and she in turn complained that he waved guns and knives at her “for purposes of obtaining her concessions and favors.”

    Just … ugh.

    Michael J. Higdon is a professor and associate dean at the University of Tennessee’s law school, and he can go as super-law-nerdy as you like on the topic of divorce laws. He remembers running across a 1934 New York Mirror newspaper headline from at-fault days, “I Was the ‘Unknown Blonde’ in 100 New York Divorces!”

    And he shows his students a 1935 Bette Davis tear-jerker called “Dangerous,” about an on-the-skids actress who wants to marry the kind man who restored her to health and talent. She asks her husband for a divorce, but he refuses. So she tries to kill him in a car crash. It only cripples him and, spoiler, she eventually gives up on her kind lover and devotes her life to caring for the husband she couldn’t kill.

    Reno, Nev., was known as the divorce capital of the world. A woman could establish residency there in six weeks, divorce her wayward husband and return home free. Unclear who is seeking the divorce on this vintage postcard from Patt Morrison’s collection. Maybe both of them.

    The more I thought about this, the more movies I remembered about at-fault divorce — some comic, like Cary Grant’s “The Awful Truth,” and some dramatic, like “Kramer vs. Kramer.” In the legendary 1939 film “The Women,” New York wives trundle off to Reno, where a six-week residency law lets them divorce their wayward husbands and return home free. (It amused me to read that among the fiercest objectors to California’s no-fault divorce law was Nevada, worried that it would lose its quickie-divorce trade. As matters turned out, it’s made a mint on quickie marriages.)

    Higdon can dish the actual facts about what (to the Mike Johnson adherents) looked like the good old days of at-fault divorce, but in fact were not (just ask Bette Davis).

    “If you don’t think deeply about what all this means, it could sound good — hey, it’s just too easy to end marriage, and we all agree marriage is a society building block, and we want to make sure people going into it really think about it and commit to it.

    “It sounds good, right?” he asks. “The point is, we had that for a long time.”

    And for a long time, he says, “we kind of needed it because women had so few rights.”

    A man and woman wearing black hold the hand of a child in red while walking away from a judge in "Divorce Court."

    This 1912-postmarked postcard from Patt Morrison’s collection depicts a grim scene.

    What changed, at about the same time no-fault began, was that a couple of decades of legal and cultural shifts — which many conservatives deplore — began making life different, larger and better for married and unmarried women.

    In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that married couples could legally use contraceptives, in spite of states’ blue-nose “Comstock” laws banning that. In 1972 the right to contraception was extended to unmarried women.

    Title IX gave women equal protection from college, workplace and legal discrimination (an unfinished project). And in 1981, the court dumped a law — from Louisiana, Johnson’s home state — that gave a husband “head and master” unilateral control over the couple’s joint property.

    A weakness that emerged in no-fault is that fault-based divorces with evidence of abuse or adultery theoretically gave some power to the woman, who was usually the “injured party,” says Higdon. “Often alimony was awarded on the basis of that,” because typically “the economically weaker party is going to be the most harmed by divorce.”

    But that was a time when a married woman’s property was often legally her husband’s property. Women were excluded wholesale from many trades, professions and university programs. Women who could get jobs could not — and still don’t — get equal pay to men doing the same jobs. And not until 1974 could women get credit cards on their own, in their own name.

    So sometimes a woman’s only leverage in at-fault divorce was her passive power to get compensated for being wronged, and being awarded arguably enough money to support herself and any children, which didn’t always actually turn out that way.

    At-fault divorce offered some protection for women at a time when almost every other law did not. (Of course penalties have fallen harder on women caught in adultery. It’s they, and rarely their male partners, who get put to death, historically and even today. And the bar for sexual misbehavior was often lower for women. In Kentucky, Higdon told me, a man could divorce his wife for “lascivious behavior.”)

    “The reason we went to no-fault actually supports traditional conservative values,” is what Higdon thinks. “Around the late 1960s, early 1970s, people weren’t getting married as much, because they didn’t have to, because things were changing in society.”

    The dwindling stigmas on illegitimacy and on unmarried sexual partners, legal contraception, more laws supporting women’s access to the workplace — things that some conservatives want to reverse — “made at-fault divorce look more and more off-putting.”

    “No-fault was a way to get people to marry. If you’re in a marriage, there’s lots of protection. Say at the end of 30 years, it’s better if [couples] were married than not, because with marriage comes property protection. Imagine 30 years with someone, and they drop dead — and you’re not protected. Marriage protects in ways that cohabitation does not.”

    And no-fault divorce still offered legal protections to divorcing couples, but without the trauma of “guilty” and “innocent” parties. A judge has only to be satisfied that the couple’s differences were irreconcilable.

    There’s no end to the debate and studies about who suffers more in a divorce, economically, personally and socially. Men’s rights groups have sprung into existence in the wake of changes in family law. And divorced women may find themselves fighting to get their court-ordered child support, and winding up as principal breadwinner and primary parent.

    Yet Time magazine has reported that 70% of divorces are initiated by women, and a 2004 Stanford business school study concluded that while divorce traditionally leaves women worse off than men financially, it delivers women an unexpected and “life-preserving” benefit: In no-fault states, the study found that women’s suicide rates dropped by a startling 20%, and wife-beating fell by as much as 12.8%.

    Higdon has looked ahead to the fallout we could be in for if we end no-fault divorce, and he worries that making divorce harder once more will make more people reluctant to get married.

    And if people think common-law marriage is a good alternative, think again. First, he says, there’s all kinds of misinformation and urban legend, like, “My mom told me that after prom if me and my boyfriend check into a hotel, then we’re legally married.” Not.

    Only eight states recognize common-law marriage, and California is not one of them. And “no state,” says Higdon, “allows common-law divorce. [Society] wants you to go through the court, to make sure no one is getting screwed in the dissolution process.”

    Several law websites point out that in many states, an unmarried couple’s children don’t automatically get the same benefits as the children of married couples, like inheritance or child support, and they need paternity agreements or even paternity tests.

    Vintage postcard depicts a caveman pushing a woman off a cliff. Text: "Pre-historic courtship: Divorce."

    There’s nothing but an addressee (a mister, if you’re wondering) on the back of this vintage postcard from Patt Morrison’s collection. The card bears a 1908 postmark.

    There’s still a grotesque reality television show called “Divorce Court.” It thrives on the rowdy spectacle of real divorcing couples fighting over the same red-meat sins of at-fault divorce — adultery, extravagance, neglect, anger, all with vulgar language and shouting that no real courtroom would tolerate.

    It’s the natural grandchild of TV’s original “Divorce Court.” That show premiered in 1957, here on local station KTTV, then owned by the L.A. Times — K-Times-T-V — and those three-hanky episodes were actors’ reenactments of actual divorce cases.

    And if you ever go looking for some real deterrents to marriage, just try binge-watching those.

    Explaining L.A. With Patt Morrison

    Los Angeles is a complex place. In this weekly feature, Patt Morrison is explaining how it works, its history and its culture.

    [ad_2]

    Patt Morrison

    Source link

  • D.A.R.E. Officer of the Year Discusses Relative Using Medical Cannabis for Cancer | High Times

    D.A.R.E. Officer of the Year Discusses Relative Using Medical Cannabis for Cancer | High Times

    [ad_1]

    The Drug Abuse Resistance Education, aka D.A.R.E., has been teaching kids about substance abuse since 1983 with a mission of delivering science and evidence-based curricula. Recently, a D.A.R.E. documentary published by Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan on April 12 spoke with numerous individuals regarding the D.A.R.E. program and discussed the failure of the War on Drugs. Callaghan attended D.A.R.E.’s annual conference, which was held in Las Vegas, Nevada last July. An estimated 500 attendees were present for D.A.R.E. officer training.

    Part of the conference included presenting awards for 2023 D.A.R.E. Student of the Year and 2023 D.A.R.E. Officer of the Year Mark Gilmore, from Kosciusko, Mississippi. Gilmore commented on his ability as a D.A.R.E. officer to apprehend any students who possess any amount of drugs, which includes even the smallest amount of weed.

    D.A.R.E.’s 2022 Officer of the Year, Alex Mendoza of the Irvine Police Department spoke with Callaghan about shifting D.A.R.E.’s approach to drug prevention deterring kids from using drugs. “For me, it’s really about educating the youth that are out there,” Mendoza said. “To give them the tools necessary to navigate whatever pain that they’re going through. I think that if you don’t have that self-love for yourself and that resiliency, then you’re gonna go to that external source, whatever that might be.”

    Callaghan asked, “Do you feel the same way about alcohol?” to which Mendoza replied, “Absolutely. I mean, alcohol is a gateway drug.” Callaghan then asked Mendoza if he drinks alcohol, and Mendoza confirmed that he does so rarely, or “maybe once or twice within a month period of time.” He gave an example, stating that he recently had an alcoholic drink at his daughter’s wedding during a toast.

    Callaghan addressed this issue in the documentary, citing the validity of calling alcohol a gateway drug. He asked Mendoza if he felt cannabis could be treated in the same way as alcohol. “You know, there’s so many things about marijuana that go far beyond, I guess, really our understanding, right?” said Mendoza. “From a lot of the statistics that are out there, obviously, they say that it can be more dangerous than tobacco products.”

    However, he did note that there are many instances where cannabis is being used to help patients to deal with the symptoms of their condition. “I think the problem that you run into is that you have the people that truly legitimately have a need and a purpose behind it and will use it to help them navigate their pain,” said Mendoza. “My brother-in-law recently passed away of cancer, and he didn’t want to go with any type of prescription medication. He wanted something natural and he resulted to using THC to deal with his pain. And it helped him. He passed away, but it helped him navigate that, right? And then you have, unfortunately, people that will use that as an excuse to try to use that product for recreational purposes.”

    D.A.R.E. President and CEO Francisco Pegueros, who formerly worked for the Los Angeles Police department, concluded the conference with a speech. In a one-on-one interview, Callaghan mentioned that people being critical of the War on Drugs, Pegueros said “Well, there was some evidence that certain governmental agencies were involved in a lot of activity that were kind of contrary to the whole concept of the war on drugs,” Pegueros said. Callaghan called the “CIA giving crack to Freeway Ricky Ross,” or how the federal government was supplying Ross with cocaine for illegal sales. “It’s an unfortunate part of our history. But evidently, it’s reality,” Pegueros said.

    The documentary also interviewed one individual named Hailey, who was the only protester outside of last year’s D.A.R.E. conference last year. “We don’t try to outlaw sex. We don’t try to outlaw driving. We don’t try to outlaw guns,” Hailey stated. “We don’t try to outlaw all these things that come with risk but can be easily have these safety measures put in place, much like we do with pharmaceuticals.”

    Callaghan briefly spoke with Bill Russel, also known as RETRO BILL, who has spoken to kids across the country for more than 25 years in partnership with D.A.R.E. to warn kids about how drugs, including cannabis, are harmful and dangerous.

    The documentary stated that the D.A.R.E. program cost American taxpayers up to $750 million per year in the 1990s, up until a 1998 University of Michigan study showed that drug use continued to rise between 1992-1995, despite the nationwide prevalence of D.A.R.E.

    It also reviewed the rise of the War on Drugs through actions from former presidents Richard Nixon and later, Ronald Reagan. Former President Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994, and D.A.R.E. lost its federal funding in 1998.

    [ad_2]

    Nicole Potter

    Source link

  • Are Gen Z Men and Women Really Drifting Apart?

    Are Gen Z Men and Women Really Drifting Apart?

    [ad_1]

    Judging by recent headlines, young men and women are more politically divided now than ever before. “A new global gender divide is emerging,” the Financial Times data journalist John Burn-Murdoch wrote in a widely cited January article. Burn-Murdoch’s analysis featured several eye-popping graphs that appeared to show a huge ideological rift opening up between young men and young women over the past decade. The implications—for politics, of course, but also for male-female relations and, by extension, the future of the species—were alarming. A New York Times opinion podcast convened to discuss, according to the episode title, “The Gender Split and the ‘Looming Apocalypse of the Developed World.’” The Washington Post editorial board warned, “If attitudes don’t shift, a political dating mismatch will threaten marriage.”

    But nearly as quickly as the theory gained attention, it has come under scrutiny. “For every survey question where you can find a unique gender gap among the youngest age cohort, you can find many other questions where you don’t find that gap,” John Sides, a political-science professor at Vanderbilt University, told me. “Where we started with this whole conversation was that there’s this big thing happening; it’s happening worldwide. Then you just pick at it for a few minutes, and it becomes this really complex story.” Skeptics point out that, at least as far as the United States goes, the claims about a new gender divide rest on selective readings of inconclusive evidence. Although several studies show young men and women splitting apart, at least as many suggest that the gender gap is stable. And at the ballot box, the evidence of a growing divide is hard to find. The Gen Z war of the sexes, in other words, is probably not apocalyptic. It may not even exist at all.

    The gender gap in voting—women to the left, men to the right—has been a fixture of American politics since at least the 1980 presidential election, when, according to exit polls, Ronald Reagan won 55 percent of male voters but only 47 of women.

    Some evidence suggests that the divide has recently widened. In 2023, according to Gallup data, 18-to-29-year-old women were 15 percentage points more likely than men in the same age group to identify as liberal, compared with only seven points a decade ago. Young men’s ideology has remained more stable, but some surveys suggest that young white men in particular have been drifting rightward. The Harvard Youth Poll, for example, found that 33 percent of white men aged 18 to 24 identified as Republican in 2016, compared with 41 percent in 2023. This trend has begun appearing in new-voter-registration data as well, according to Tom Bonier, a Democratic political strategist. “Believe me, as a partisan Democrat, I would prefer that it’s not the case—but it appears to be true,” he told me. “We’re still generally arguing about if it’s happening, which to me is silly. The conversation hasn’t moved to why.”

    Why indeed? Several factors present themselves for consideration. One is social-media-induced gender polarization. (Think misogynistic “manosphere” influencers and women who talk about how “all men are trash.”) Another, as always, is Donald Trump. Twenty-something-year-old women seemed repelled by Trump’s ascendance in 2016, John Della Volpe, who heads the Harvard Youth Poll, told me. They were much more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton. Then there’s the #MeToo movement, which emerged in 2017, soon after Trump took office. Daniel Cox, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a free-market-conservative think tank, argues that it durably shaped young women’s political consciousness. A 2022 poll found that nearly three-quarters of women under 30 say they support #MeToo, the highest of any age group. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade also seems to have been a turning point. Going into the 2022 midterm election, 61 percent of young women said abortion was a “critical” concern, according to a survey conducted by AEI. “Young women increasingly believe that what happens to any woman in the United States impacts their lives and experiences as well,” Cox told me. “That became really salient after Roe was overturned.” Gen Z women are more likely than Generation X or Baby Boomer women—though slightly less likely than Millennial women—to say that they have been discriminated against because of their gender at some point in their life.

    Not so fast, say young men. Gen Z men are also more likely than older generations to say that they’ve been discriminated against based on gender. “There’s this kind of weird ping-pong going on between Gen Z men and women about who’s really struggling, who’s really the victim,” Richard Reeves, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told me. Reeves, who founded the American Institute for Boys and Men, argues that although men still dominate the highest levels of society in the U.S., those on the lower rungs are doing worse than ever. They are far less likely than women to go to college or find a good job, and far more likely to end up in prison or dead. These young men feel—rightly, in Reeves’s view—that mainstream institutions and the Democratic Party haven’t addressed their problems. And, in the aftermath of #MeToo, some seem to believe that society has turned against men. Survey data indicate that Gen Z men are much less likely to identify as feminists than Millennial men are, and about as likely as middle-aged men. “I really do worry that we’re trending toward a bit of a women’s party and a men’s party in politics,” Reeves told me.

    But if young men and women really were drifting apart politically, you would expect to see evidence on Election Day. And here’s where the theory starts showing cracks. The Cooperative Election Study, a national survey administered by YouGov, found that nearly 68 percent of 18-to-29-year-old men voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, compared with about 70 percent of women in that age group—the same percentage gap as in 2008. (The split was larger—nearly seven points—in 2016, when Trump’s personal behavior toward women was especially salient.) Catalist, a progressive firm that models election results based on voter-file data, found that the gender divide was roughly the same for all age groups in recent elections. In the 2022 midterms, according to Pew’s analysis of validated voters, considered the gold standard of postelection polling, the youngest voters had the smallest gender divide, and overwhelmingly supported Democrats.

    Many of the polls that show a widening gender divide ask about ideology. But research shows that many people don’t have a clear idea of what the labels mean. Gallup, whose data partly inspired the gender-gap frenzy, notes that only about half of Democrats identify as liberal. Ten percent describe themselves as conservative, and the remainder say their views are moderate. The ideological lines are only slightly less scrambled among self-identified Republicans. “Everything here hinges on what characteristics or questions we are trying to measure,” Sides told me. “When you ask people if they identify as liberal or as a feminist, you learn whether people believe that label describes them. But you didn’t ask how they define that label.” People might dislike the term liberal but still support, say, abortion access and high government spending. Indeed, 2020 polling data from Nationscape, which assesses people’s positions on individual issues, indicated that young men and women are no more divided than older generations. In every age group, for example, women are more in favor of banning assault rifles and providing universal health care than men are, by a comparable margin.

    Or perhaps the unique Gen Z gender divide just hasn’t shown up electorally yet. Most 2024 election polling doesn’t break down different age groups by gender—and even if it did, trying to draw firm conclusions would be foolish. Twenty-somethings are just hard to study. Young people are less engaged in politics, with high rates of independent and unaffiliated voters. Their worldviews are still malleable. Many of them are reluctant to answer questions, especially over the phone. Under those circumstances, even high-quality polls show wildly, even implausibly divergent possibilities for the youth vote. A recent USA Today/Suffolk University poll found that, in a hypothetical 2024 rematch, Trump beat out Biden among registered voters under 35—an almost-unheard-of shift within four years. In October, a New York Times/Siena poll suggested that the youngest generation is equally split between Trump and Biden, whereas last month’s Times survey showed Biden winning young voters by double digits even as he lost ground overall.

    Whatever is going on inside all of those young minds, the old people studying them have yet to figure it out. The biggest chasm, as always, may be not between young men and young women, but between young people and everyone else.

    [ad_2]

    Rose Horowitch

    Source link