A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



October 31, 2023

Transat Jacques Vabre

It was a bit of a hairy start to the Transat Jacques Vabre on Sunday. Really strong winds and the promise of a lot more coming had the race organizers scratching their heads about what to do, so here is the solution that they came up with. 

But first let me tell you that there are 44 Class 40s competing, 6 fifties, 41 IMOCA 60s including some of the top names in offshore sailing, and 5 Ultim maxi multihulls, the ones over 100 feet. It’s a spectacular event going from Le Havre France to Martinique in the Caribbean. 

So here’s the thing. That’s a fleet of 96 boats. More than your average Wednesday evening race, but what to do? This is what they did. They started the Class 40’s, 50’s, and Ultim maxi multihulls and they took off into projectile vomit conditions. I don’t care how much sailing you have done or how much ginger you have swallowed (to avoid seasickness) there is/was a bit of puking going on. They reckoned that the Ultim class would get south of the big winds before the big winds became really big winds. At last check, they were enjoying a brisk 20 knots on the starboard beam. 

The Class 40’s will need to take a sharp left after they round Brest (love that name even though they spelled it wrong…:) and pull into Lorient to take shelter and hunker down. The tricky thing has been for the race organizers to find a marina where they can manage that many boats, but we will see. 

Alla Grand Pirelli is leading the Class 40s – I was going to name the two co-skippers but that would take to much of my intellectual capacity (long French names) but they are just 70 miles short of the docks in Lorient. The Multim’s are rocketing south with SVR Lazarigu leading (that’s a mouthful) doing 35 knots at last check while the IMOCA’s remain tied to the dock in Le Havre waiting for a weather window before they can leave. 

What do you do if you are an IMOCA skipper with time on your hands? I know a great bar just two streets back from the marina. I may or may not have enjoyed a pastis or two there.

That’s sailboat racing folks and it’s as good as it gets! – Brian Hancock.

Two fronts......

Drama unfolds on two fronts Monday as Trump cases enter new phase

Analysis by Stephen Collinson

Americans are about to learn significant new details on the timing and the substance of the trials of Donald Trump, even as the former president and Republican front-runner steps up his effort to alchemize his unprecedented legal peril to boost his White House bid.

Two key hearings on Monday – one in Georgia and one in Washington – are taking the drama over Trump’s quadruple criminal indictments into a new phase, following the extraordinary scenes and political maneuvering that culminated in the release of Trump’s booking mug shot last week.

In Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is sketching the first substantive evidentiary arguments in any of the cases facing Trump in a hearing on ex-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ bid to get his state case moved to federal court. Meadows and Trump have been charged along with 17 other aides, ex-officials and lawyers in a sweeping racketeering case alleging a broad conspiracy to change the result of the 2020 election. The former White House chief of staff was called to testify soon after the hearing opened.

At the same time in Washington, Judge Tanya Chutkan opened a status hearing to consider dueling arguments by special counsel Jack Smith and Trump’s defense team over the date for a trial in the federal investigation into Trump’s alleged attempt to prevent now-President Joe Biden from taking office. Smith previously requested the trial begin on January 2 – two weeks before Trump’s first big test in the 2024 primary race in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. The ex-president’s team asked for much more time and proposed a date of April 2026. Chutkan, who was expected to set a trial date later on Monday, rejected both proposals and noted they were very far apart. She also noted that the timetable for the trial would not depend on Trump’s personal and professional obligations. The former president was not required to be at the hearing.

The two hearings will illuminate critical aspects of Trump’s challenges as he attempts the previously unthinkable feat of winning a major party presidential nomination and then the White House while standing trial in multiple criminal cases. The simultaneous hearings Monday in two cities will preview the strain on Trump and his team and the drain on resources that will unfold next year, when the former president could spend as many critical campaign moments in the courtroom as barnstorming early-voting states. The two hearings also underscore the daunting legal equation bearing down on Trump: Even if he makes progress in one case, he could suffer serious reversals in one of the others, increasing the chances of a conviction before voters go to the polls in November 2024.

Trump escalates attempts to turn criminal indictments into political weapons

The new legal maneuvering, which is just a taste of the extensive pre-trial litigation that will intensify in coming months, will take place as Trump escalates his claims that he is being politically persecuted by the Biden administration.

Almost as soon as Trump left Atlanta after surrendering at the Fulton County jail Thursday, his team began to monetize his mug shot. In fundraising appeals over the weekend, Trump, who often claimed almost unlimited powers as president, said that the Biden administration’s pursuit of him was akin to the tyranny the United States rejected in its battle for independence.

The Trump campaign claimed Saturday it had raised $7.1 million since the former president was booked Thursday. Any attempts to verify that number will have to await the release of the next round of quarterly fundraising accounts.

The drama surrounding the various trials will draw huge attention in the coming days, but as is often the case with Trump, the magnitude of the spectacle could disguise the unique gravity of what is unfolding. Trump is innocent until proven guilty and denies every one of the 91 charges against him. But he is also the first ex-president to be criminally charged – let alone while also being the front-runner in his party’s nominating contest as he seeks another term, which could conceivably begin when he is a convicted felon. And the broad thrust of the charges in both the federal election subversion case and the Georgia case is that Trump used his huge power as president to try to deprive some Americans of the most sacred privilege in a democracy – their vote.

Meadows to provide first major test of Georgia case

The hearing in Georgia that could yield major revelations does not involve Trump directly, but rather Meadows. The former White House chief of staff wants to get his case moved from state court to federal court, where he could have a better chance of getting it dismissed on the grounds that his actions following the 2020 election were within the scope of his duties as a federal official. Meadows and Trump are among 19 co-defendants in a vast racketeering case built by Willis.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who received the January 2021 call in which Trump asked him to “find” the votes to overturn the outgoing president’s loss to Biden in the crucial swing state, and two other lawyers who were on the call have been subpoenaed to testify.

Monday’s hearing is expected to serve as a preview for a later attempt by Trump to get his own case moved to federal court, where he may hope to get a more sympathetic jury pool. Extensive pre-trial litigation in the Georgia case could also end up frustrating attempts by Willis, who initially sought a March 2024 trial date, to bring the case before the 2024 election.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a vehement opponent of Trump in the GOP primary race, said on CBS “Face the Nation” Sunday that Meadows may have grounds for his case – but predicted it wouldn’t impact an ultimate verdict.

“I think that whether Mark Meadows wins that motion or doesn’t is not going to make a substantive difference on how ultimately a jury is going to be asked to make these decisions at the time of trial,” Christie said. Some experts have also warned that whatever the outcome of the Meadows case, it should not be seen as an inevitable foreshadowing of how the courts might respond to a similar request by Trump.

Mark Meadows and Donald Trump

The Fulton County charges against Donald Trump face a major test Monday. Here's what to watch for
Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, a member of the select committee that investigated the January 6 attack on the Capitol in the previous Democratic-run House, said Sunday that Meadows could be unsuccessful in his effort to get his case moved to federal court. “There is no question that the state has the power to prosecute someone who is a federal official or a federal employee,” Raskin told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

“You can just think about a federal official employee who engages in a bank robbery or a murder, obviously the state would get to prosecute them,” Raskin argued. He added that the case would hinge on whether Meadows was “actually engaged in the work of the federal government and he was acting pursuant to a federal policy.”

Judge expected to name date for special counsel’s election subversion trial

Following Smith’s federal probe, Trump earlier this month pleaded not guilty to four criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn the election. The case has already seen significant controversy. Chutkan has warned Trump that his First Amendment rights are not “absolute” and that his status as a criminal defendant must take priority over his activity as a presidential candidate. This followed fierce criticism by Trump – on social media and elsewhere – of both Smith and Chutkan.

The judge has also shown that, while she is known for scrupulously protecting the rights of defendants, she wants to move the case along, though Trump’s team claims the evidence is so voluminous that it will need months or even years to prepare for the trial.

Trump’s attorneys are also arguing that Smith’s proposed timeline for the trial would conflict with other criminal and civil cases in which the former president is embroiled. Trump has pleaded not guilty in a separate case brought by Smith in Florida – over his alleged mishandling of national security secrets among the classified documents he hoarded at his Mar-a-Lago resort – and in a business accounting case arising out of a hush money payment to an adult film star that is due to be tried in Manhattan next year.

Smith wants to start jury selection in the federal election subversion case in December. If he gets his preferred trial date of January 2, the proceedings would begin just days before the third anniversary of the mob attack on the Capitol by Trump’s supporters.

Misrepresented source of appraisals

Trump CFO misrepresented source of appraisals, underwriter says

ByPeter CharalambousandAaron Katersky

Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg provided misleading information about Donald Trump's assets, according to Claudia Mouradian, an insurance underwriter who met with Weisselberg on multiple occasions.

During meetings with Mouradian in 2018 and 2020, Weisselberg claimed that Trump had strong cash assets and stable properties that had been appraised by third parties -- information that Mouradian said she used to determine that the Trump Organization was in "very good financial shape."

"It was a positive factor when he told me that. He was essentially saying the properties don't fluctuate in value during economic cycles," Mouradian testified about Trump's assets during a video deposition played in court today.

However, Weisselberg acknowledged in his own deposition that the Trump Organization did not use outside appraisers to value properties -- contradicting what he told Mouradian.

"I am understanding you correctly that you did not engage appraisers to perform valuations of properties for purposes of that statement of financial condition?" a state attorney asked Weisselberg in a taped deposition.

"Correct," Weisselberg replied, though he said he did not recall that he told Mouradian the opposite.

"It is not consistent with what he told me at the meeting," Mouradian said when shown Weisselberg's testimony.

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day.

Defrauding lenders.

Banker says Trump declined to share financials in Bills' bid

The former president is facing allegations of defrauding lenders.

ByPeter CharalambousandAaron Katersky

After claiming a net worth of $8 billion, Donald Trump declined to share his financial statements with bankers related to his $1 billion bid to purchase the Buffalo Bills football team in 2014, according to documents presented at trial and testimony from Morgan Stanley executive K. Don Cornwell.

Of the 86 parties contacted to potentially bid on the Bills, Trump was one of six parties to make a final bid, according to a Morgan Stanley document shown at trial.

However, when Morgan Stanley attempted a close review of Trump's bid, Trump declined to provide his financial statements.

"We feel it is premature to sign the consent release forms until such time as we know that Mr. Trump is the final bidder," then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen said in a 2014 email shown at trial.

During a management presentation with Bills' leadership, Trump instead handed out a Forbes magazine list to support his bid, according to Cornwell.

"He gave us handouts of the Forbes list of the top-paid entertainers," Cornwell said.

Trump eventually lost his bid to purchase the football team to billionaire Terry Pegula, who outbid Trump by $400 million.

During cross-examination, Cornwell acknowledged that a lawsuit Trump previously brought against the NFL, as well as his affiliation with casinos, also limited the likelihood of his success.

"You thought that President Trump had little chance of being approved by the NFL?" defense attorney Ivan Feris asked.

"Yes," Cornwell replied.

Trump's lawyers have argued that his bid to purchase the Bills -- which has featured prominently in the testimony of other witnesses -- is irrelevant to the conduct alleged in the attorney general's lawsuit.

"It is the defense position that none of this relates to a cause of action in this case," Feris said.

Illegal profits

Judge says fining Trump for illegal profits is 'an available remedy'

ByPeter CharalambousandAaron Katersky
 
Judge Engoron, in an exchange with defense attorneys regarding the state's expert witness, said that levying fines against Trump -- one of the central issues being decided at this trial -- is "clearly an available remedy" despite the defense's contention otherwise.

Engoron already ruled in a partial summary judgment that Trump had submitted "fraudulent valuations" for his assets, leaving the trial to determine additional actions and what penalty, if any, the defendants should receive.

Engoron's observation came during the defense's effort to preclude testimony from the attorney general's expert witness. In denying their effort, the judge also shot down the defense's argument that disgorgement -- fining Trump for illegal profits -- is off the table.

"For reasons this court has explained ad nauseam, that view is simply incorrect," Engoron said. "Disgorgement is a clearly available remedy."

Trump attorney Chris Kise countered that the state has failed to prove that banks would have done anything differently had they known Trump's statements were fraudulent. Kise specifically cited the testimony of Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh, who testified that loaning money to Trump was a "good credit decision."

"Several witnesses have testified that they would have acted differently had they known the statements of financial condition were fraudulent," Engoron responded.

"I think, to a certain extent, the defendants are whistling past the graveyard here," the judge added.

Deepfake

The rise of deepfake pornography is devastating for women

Opinion by Sophie Compton and Reuben Hamlyn

A friend sends you a message with a link. It’s a Pornhub URL, paired with the message: “I’m really sorry but I think you need to see this.” You click, and what pops up is your face, looking back at you, depicted in hardcore pornography. You go numb — you have never acted in porn in your life, and all you can think is who would do this, and why?

This is what happened to Taylor (whose name has been changed to protect her privacy), a 22-year-old engineering student from New England, who is the subject of our new SXSW Special Jury Award-winning feature documentary, “Another Body.” As Taylor discovers, the videos are deepfakes — videos doctored using artificial intelligence to insert one person’s face onto another person’s body.

Taylor’s anonymous perpetrator had uploaded six deepfake videos to several porn profiles, pretending to be her. Chillingly, he also included the names of her real college and hometown, and encouraged men visiting the profile to DM her, with a wink emoji. And they did — she started receiving disturbing messages on Facebook and Instagram from men she didn’t know.

But when Taylor called the police, a detective told her the perpetrator had a right to do it, and that no laws had been broken.

There are currently no federal laws in the United States against the creation and sharing of non-consensual deepfake pornography. We are determined to change this, calling for a federal law that makes non-consensual deepfake porn illegal, and changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from liability over user-generated content. This is the online landscape that has allowed creating and trading non-consensual deepfake pornography to develop into a thriving business.

Taylor is not alone. With advancements in artificial intelligence, deepfake pornography is becoming increasingly common — and it almost exclusively targets women. Researchers at the identity verification company Sensity AI found the number of pornographic deepfakes online roughly doubled every six months from 2018 to 2020. The company also found that a shocking 96% of deepfakes are sexually explicit and feature women who didn’t consent to the videos.

While it once took hundreds of images of a person’s face to create a convincing deepfake, it is now possible with just one or two images. When deepfakes were first created in 2017, they required significant computer processing power and some programming knowledge. Now, there are user-friendly deepfake applications available for iPhones. In other cases, deepfake creators take commissions, charging as little as $30 dollars to create explicit videos of a customer’s favorite celebrity, or ex, or teacher.

As a result, both celebrities and average citizens are finding their faces inserted into pornography without their consent, and these videos are being uploaded to porn sites for anyone to see. One of the most prominent deepfake porn websites is averaging about 14 million hits a month.

This practice is no longer niche — it has hit the mainstream. And with it, we run the risk of a new generation of young people who might consider watching a pornographic deepfake of their favorite actress — or their classmate — the norm.

The impacts on victims can be devastating. For Taylor, not knowing who had created the videos, or who had seen them — her classmates? Her friends? Her boss? — meant she didn’t know who to trust.

This triggered a period of extreme OCD and anxiety, where she reevaluated her social circle, and debated whether she would continue with her studies. Other survivors we spoke to, like Helen, a 34-year-old teacher, started experiencing panic attacks, and told us, “Every time I left the house, I got a sense of dread.”

Amnesty International coined the phrase “the silencing effect” to talk about the way online abuse against women can diminish female participation in public forums. In one report about harassment on Twitter, the organization found that many women shut down their accounts, censor what they post and are discouraged from pursuing public-facing careers, like journalism or politics. We’ve seen a similar response among women who are victims of deepfake abuse.

Danielle Citron, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, notes that Section 230 is the reason that there are 9,500 sites in the US that “are devoted to non-consensual intimate imagery.” She added, “It becomes something that is like an incurable disease. … You can’t get [non-consensual content] down. The sites don’t care. They can’t be sued.”

And it’s not only the deepfake porn creators who are profiting off this abuse. Deepfake porn sites are facilitated and enabled by search engines that drive web traffic toward deepfake content. Internet service providers host them and credit card and payment companies facilitate transactions on their sites, while other companies advertise their products under these videos.

In England and Wales, a new law will criminalize the sharing of pornographic deepfakes without consent. In the US, however, only a handful of states have laws addressing non-consensual deepfake pornography, and many of them are limited in scope.

With Taylor and other survivors, we set up the My Image My Choice campaign, and are calling for federal laws that would target both creators and platforms, criminalizing the creation and distribution of non-consensual deepfake pornography, and forcing sites to remove this content from their platforms.

While these laws alone may not put an end to the problem, they would go a long way in ensuring the entire existing business model that relies on violating women’s consent and privacy is no longer viable.

Religion is the source of all evil... Why put these insane people in charge???

Mike Johnson symbolizes a new turn for the religious right

Analysis by Ronald Brownstein

The arc of Rep. Mike Johnson’s career encapsulates the shifting priorities of the religious right in the era of Donald Trump.

During his first decades in political life, the newly elected House speaker was a vehement opponent of legal abortion and greater legal equality for LGBTQ people. That focus reflected the dominant public focus of religious conservatives on issues of sexuality and gender roles from the 1980s until Barack Obama’s presidency.

Without abandoning those views, Johnson in recent years has embraced key priorities of Trump’s MAGA movement, describing illegal immigration as “the true existential” threat to America’s future and leading congressional efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which he claimed suffered from “credible allegations of fraud and irregularity.”

In his own journey, the Louisiana Republican embodies the merger between different generations of public priorities for the movement of conservative evangelical Christians in which he launched his career and still strongly identifies. Long identified with issues revolving around sexuality, religious conservatives have also become the bedrock supporters of a Trump movement rooted in hostility toward demographic and racial change.

Mike Johnson is well within the mainstream of today’s GOP
Multiple polls now show that the White evangelicals, and other Republican voters, who express the most conservative views on issues relating to sexuality and gender roles also take the most conservative positions on immigration and racial equity – amalgamating all these concerns into one overarching cry of resistance to the changes remaking 21st century America.

Like Trump’s commanding lead in the 2024 GOP presidential race, Johnson’s rapid ascent to the speakership in just his fourth congressional term showcases how this multi-front resistance to an evolving America has become the most powerful force binding the modern GOP coalition.

Johnson’s rise reveals the religious roots of that shift much more clearly than Trump’s ascent. As a twice-divorced New Yorker with a history of affairs and public scandals, Trump has always been an unlikely champion for religious conservatives seeking to impose their definitions of morality on public policy.

But Johnson, an evangelical himself, has been a virulent warrior for conservative cultural causes throughout his career, and has closely identified with far-right Christian nationalists seeking to tear down the separation of church and state. Johnson himself has declared, “The founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state, not the other way around.” His rise to leadership underscores the links in the Trump-era GOP between hostility to social and cultural change and the belief that the founders intended America to operate as an explicitly Christian nation.

In the latest annual American Values Survey released last week by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute, a 52% majority of Republican voters agreed with the statement that “God intended America to be a new promised land where European Christians could create a society that could be an example to the rest of the world.” Only about two-in-ten Democrats and three-in-ten independents agreed. More than half of White evangelicals agreed with that statement as well – the only major religious denomination in which it found majority support.

Robert P. Jones, president and founder of the PRRI, sees the fear that America is straying from explicitly Christian roots as the unifying thread binding the concerns about sexual behavior and gender roles, which preoccupied the first generation of religious right leaders, with the more overt focus on racial and demographic change in the Trump era.

With his embrace of MAGA themes after years denouncing abortion and same-sex marriage, Johnson “is a good symbol of this amalgamation,” said Jones, author of the recent book “The Hidden Roots of White Supremacy.”

“I should say it straight here: it really is this view of a country that is a White Christian country. That’s the vision that is being put forward. In many ways that is the vision that holds this whole thing together.”

As the PRRI’s surveys show, White Christians, after representing a majority of the US population for most of its history, now constitute only a little over two-fifths of the total, with White evangelicals slipping to only about one-in-seven. Yet both groups are much more influential inside the GOP coalition, with evangelicals representing nearly one-third of Republican voters and all White Christians about two-thirds. Mike Podhorzer, the former political director of the AFL-CIO, recently calculated in a Substack post that fully 70% of House Republicans represent districts that rank in the top two quintiles for the largest share of White evangelical residents. “A group that represents less than 15% of the US population commands 70% of the districts comprising the majority party in the House of Representatives,” Podhorzer wrote.

As Jones notes, racial issues were central to the “genesis story of the Christian Right.” Though it is often assumed that the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a nationwide right to abortion was the trigger for the emergence of the religious right in the 1970s, in fact it originally coalesced around opposition to efforts from the Jimmy Carter administration to revoke the tax-exempt status of racially segregated religious schools.

Over the next few decades, though, religious right leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson put much more public emphasis on the issues relating to changing sexual mores than on questions tied to race or identity. That changed, Jones and others believe, earlier in this century, amid the combined pressure of increasing diversity in the population and Barack Obama’s election as the first Black president.

“What is new about Republican leaders like Trump and Johnson is not that they reveal a new blend of sexual culture wars and racial grievance,” Jones said, “but rather a willingness to more fully articulate the long-suppressed key ingredient in that recipe.”

As an attorney for the Dobson-linked conservative Christian advocacy group the Alliance Defense Fund (known today as Alliance Defending Freedom) through the early 2000s, Johnson was an especially zealous advocate on the issues of changing sexual attitudes  that dominated the religious right’s first generation.

Johnson not only opposed same-sex marriage, as many conservatives did in those years, but also supported the criminalizing of gay and lesbian sexual relationships, writing at one point that “States have many legitimate grounds to proscribe same-sex deviate sexual intercourse,” as CNN’s KFile recently reported. Even by the standards of that era, Johnson was especially vitriolic in his denunciations, calling same-sex relations “inherently unnatural” and a “dangerous lifestyle,” and describing gay people as “a deviant group,” as KFile found.

As an elected official, Johnson has generally tempered his rhetoric, but he does not appear to have wavered from those beliefs. As a Louisiana state legislator, he proposed a bill in 2015 that would have prevented the state from applying any sanctions, such as loss of a professional license, on anyone who discriminated against LGBTQ people. In the House of Representatives, he’s proposed a bill to extend nationwide the ban on discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in early public school grades that Florida has imposed under Gov. Ron DeSantis. (Johnson’s bill would also affect public libraries and museums.)

Johnson has also co-sponsored legislation proposed by Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor to extend nationwide the ban on gender-affirming care for minors – a version of which many Republican-controlled states have also approved. At a hearing on the issue this summer, Johnson expressed impassioned alarm about the large number of young people who identify as LGBTQ in recent surveys and alleged it was driven by conscious efforts to steer them toward that identity. “Whether it’s by scalpel or by social coercion from teachers, professors, administrators, and left-wing media, it’s an attempt to transition the young people of our country,” Johnson insisted.

Nor has Johnson slackened in his opposition to abortion. He’s been a co-sponsor of the so-called “Life at Conception Act,” which would declare a fetus as a person under the 14th amendment and create the legal framework for banning abortion nationwide. Johnson’s congressional votes on other abortion-related issues has consistently earned him an “A+” rating from groups that oppose legal abortion and a zero rating from groups that support it.

But in Congress, Johnson has also identified more with some of the party’s Trump-era priorities that revolve around demographic change. He’s described illegal immigration as “the true existential threat to the country” and insisted, “If you don’t have a border, you don’t have sovereignty, you don’t have a nation at all.”

While many Republicans and conservatives have expressed similar views, Johnson has been noteworthy in embracing one variation of the xenophobic and racist Great Replacement Theory. That theory, which originated in far-right White nationalist circles, argues that Democrats and liberals are deliberately importing undocumented immigrants to “replace” the White majority and diminish their political power. While Johnson has not framed that issue in overtly racial terms, he has repeatedly described illegal immigration as “an invasion” and insisted that Democrats are deliberately enabling it for partisan gain. “The Biden administration has done this intentionally,” Johnson declared in an interview on Newsmax earlier this year. “For what reason? Everybody asks me all the time. I think that ultimately they hope to turn all these illegals into voters for their side.”

Johnson, who’s a constitutional lawyer, also played a central role in organizing House Republicans behind Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Those efforts were inextricably bound to conservative fears of racial change as well. The GOP claims of fraud, as I’ve written, were centered on the claims that Democrats were stealing votes in heavily minority large cities rather than the more predominantly White suburban areas where Trump’s performance actually deteriorated the most from 2016 to 2020. Though Johnson was not the most extravagant in his claims of fraud, he echoed some of the key assertions from Trump that the election had been “rigged” against the former president and provided the intellectual and legal arguments that underpin House Republican efforts to reject the results.

In the convergence of these views, Johnson represents the core of the modern GOP coalition. The PRRI provided CNN unpublished results from its new annual survey that show how the same voters most uneasy about changing social mores also express the most discomfort about demographic change.

PRRI found, for instance, that about two-thirds of both Republicans and evangelical Christians who want to ban abortion also agree with a harsh statement that echoes “great replacement theory” language: “Immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background.” Likewise, over four-fifths of Republicans and evangelicals who oppose legal abortion said they support placing physical barriers, including razor wire, along the US-Mexico border to deter illegal immigration “even if they endanger or kill some people.” Among Americans who take liberal positions on abortion and same-sex marriage, there’s much less support for those ideas.

Tresa Undem, who polls for progressive groups, has found a similar correlation in multiple national surveys exploring attitudes toward race, gender and social change. In a national poll last year, she said, her firm found that among Republicans who oppose same-sex marriage or legal abortion, overwhelming proportions also agreed that illegal immigration is a big problem, discrimination against Whites is now as big a problem as discrimination against minorities and that “these days society seems to punish men just for acting like men.” The correlations were similarly powerful among White evangelical Christians: virtually all of them who oppose legal abortion or same-sex marriage also support building a wall at the US-Mexico border.

All of these views, Undem maintains, are the modern expressions of the perennial resistance through American history toward movements that challenge the preeminent societal role of White men, particularly Christians. “It’s a historical and ever-present crushing force against threats to White supremacy and patriarchy,” she argued. “So whether it’s Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, recognizing the humanity of transgender people, voting rights, ending slavery, anti-lynching legislation, women having control over their bodies, or a changing demographic population – the hammer strikes.”

The overwhelming support for exclusionary immigration policies marks a significant, and revealing, shift in evangelical politics over just the past few decades. Large segments of evangelical leadership supported efforts at comprehensive immigration reform that included a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the US under both Republican President George W. Bush and even Obama.

Pete Wehner, who served as a top White House adviser to Bush, said that in those years even many evangelical leaders who were deeply conservative on social issues still supported a welcoming posture toward immigrants. “There was definitely an openness to immigration reform that doesn’t exist today,” said Wehner, now a senior fellow at the Trinity Forum. “It was informed, for a lot of Christians who were involved in politics, on a biblical interpretation of welcoming the stranger and the outsider.”

To Wehner, Jones and other analysts, the near universal turn against immigration reform among religious conservatives reflects that community’s increasing sense of alarm about a changing America. From the start, Trump has centered his political identity around the claim that Democrats and other liberal forces are uprooting the nation from its historic traditions and transforming it into something unrecognizable. Johnson also embodies that belief in his marriage of social conservative sentiments from the early 2000s with the anti-immigrant emphasis of the Trump years.

These fears of “losing” America are perhaps most deeply felt in the corners of the religious conservative movement that most explicitly view the US as a Christian nation and most directly seeks to undermine the traditional barriers between church and state. As NBC News recently reported, Johnson in 2021 spoke at a conference hosted by one of the leaders in that effort, a self-styled historian named David Barton. In arguments dismissed by a wide array of professional historians, Barton has contended for years that it is a myth the founders wanted a separation between church and state; Johnson, at that conference, declared that Barton’s work has had “a profound influence on me, and my work, and my life and everything I do.” (CNN has reached out to Johnson’s office for comment on his current relationship with Barton but did not receive a response before deadline.)

Wehner says the religious conservative circles that believe “America was founded as an explicitly Christian nation” were “the waters in which he [Johnson] swam.” And it is those circles, he notes, that have responded most viscerally to the heightened ferocity and apocalyptic framing of Trump-era Republican politics. “The most important change” in the political engagement of religious conservatives over the past few decades “has not been on the policy agenda, though that’s been important,” Wehner said. “It’s in the temperament and sensibility. There is a ferocity and a cruelty and a dishonesty that characterizes Christian engagement in politics today compared to a generation ago, or even 15 years ago.”

“It doesn’t mean those elements didn’t exist before – if you go through Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, those elements were there,” Wehner added. “But they are more pronounced now and the Trump ethic is one that have imbibed, and they have embraced.”

In his personal demeanor, Johnson is as mild-mannered as Trump is bombastic. But each man appears equally committed to a vision of America that elevates the moral and political preferences of conservative White Christians over any other group. In a podcast recorded immediately after Johnson’s elevation last week, Barton and two colleagues told their listeners not to let the new speaker’s soft-spoken affect confuse them.

“There’s an axiom back from cowboy days that said, ‘Hey, this guy, he’s tough but he’s nice,’” Barton said. “’He’ll make you smile before he hits you in the mouth so he won’t bloody your lips before he breaks your teeth.’”

Turning into hell....

At least 13 killed in Israeli airstrike in central Gaza overnight, doctor says

From CNN’s Kareem Khadder and Manveena Suri

At least 13 people have been killed in an overnight Israeli airstrike in central Gaza, according to a staff member at Al Aqsa Martyrs Hospital.

The strike hit a home in al-Zawaida in Deir al Balah killing all 13 people inside, including children, Dr Khalil Al Dikran, head of nursing at the hospital, told a journalist working for CNN.

The journalist, who was at Al Aqsa Martyrs Hospital on Tuesday morning, counted a total of 44 bodies in the morgue tent being prepared for burial, including the 13 killed overnight.

The other casualties were killed in strikes on Monday afternoon that hit two homes and a wedding hall being used to shelter displaced residents who had fled northern Gaza, according to Al Dikran.

He added that the Monday airstrikes occurred in central Gaza, killing 31 people.

West Bank

Israel demolishes house of Hamas leader in occupied West Bank

From CNN’s Abeer Salman in Jerusalem

The Israeli army demolished the house of Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri in the occupied West Bank Tuesday morning, according to the Israel Defense Forces and eyewitnesses.

Videos of the scene obtained by CNN show several Israeli military vehicles entering the village north of Ramallah. Another video shows the house being struck by an explosion and the aftermath with destruction in the area.

The IDF said in a statement to CNN that forces “operated in the town” overnight to “demolish the residence of Saleh al-Arouri, deputy head of the Hamas terrorist organization’s political bureau and in charge of the Hamas’ activities in Judea and Samaria.”

“During the counterterrorism activity, a violent riot was instigated, including rock and stone hurling at the forces, who responded with riot dispersal means. In addition, the forces responded with live fire toward the air and the rock hurlers. Hits were identified,” the statement added.

Saleh al-Arouri is a senior leader of Hamas. He is considered one of the founding members of the group's military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and is now based in Beirut.

Protesters

Protesters repeatedly interrupt US Senate hearing on funding for Israel and Ukraine

From CNN's Jennifer Hansler

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken's opening remarks at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Tuesday were quickly and repeatedly interrupted by protesters calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Within minutes of speaking, Blinken was interrupted by a man shouting “ceasefire now” and “save the children of Gaza.”

Subsequently, four other solo protesters and another group of protesters interrupted Blinken, shouting, “From Palestine to Mexico, all the walls have got to go!” and “Let Gaza Live!”

There were other protesters in the audience with their hands, painted red, in the air.

Not so fast.....

Why Norway — the poster child for electric cars — is having second thoughts

Electric cars are crucial, but not enough to solve climate change. We can’t let them crowd out car-free transit options.

By David Zipper 

With motor vehicles generating nearly a 10th of global CO2 emissions, governments and environmentalists around the world are scrambling to mitigate the damage. In wealthy countries, strategies often revolve around electrifying cars — and for good reason, many are looking to Norway for inspiration.

Over the last decade, Norway has emerged as the world’s undisputed leader in electric vehicle adoption. With generous government incentives available, 87 percent of the country’s new car sales are now fully electric, a share that dwarfs that of the European Union (13 percent) and the United States (7 percent). Norway’s muscular EV push has garnered headlines in outlets like the New York Times and the Guardian while drawing praise from the Environmental Defense Fund, the World Economic Forum, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. “I’d like to thank the people of Norway again for their incredible support of electric vehicles,” he tweeted last December. “Norway rocks!!”

I’ve been writing about transportation for the better part of a decade, so all that fawning international attention piqued my curiosity. Does Norway offer a climate strategy that other countries could copy chapter and verse? Or has the hype outpaced the reality?

So I flew across the Atlantic to see what the fuss was about. I discovered a Norwegian EV bonanza that has indeed reduced emissions — but at the expense of compromising vital societal goals. Eye-popping EV subsidies have flowed largely to the affluent, contributing to the gap between rich and poor in a country proud of its egalitarian social policies.

Worse, the EV boom has hobbled Norwegian cities’ efforts to untether themselves from the automobile and enable residents to instead travel by transit or bicycle, decisions that do more to reduce emissions, enhance road safety, and enliven urban life than swapping a gas-powered car for an electric one.

Despite the hosannas from abroad, Norway’s government has begun to unwind some of its electrification subsidies in order to mitigate the downsides of no-holds-barred EV promotion.

“Countries should introduce EV subsidies in a way that doesn’t widen inequality or stimulate car use at the expense of other transport modes,” Bjørne Grimsrud, director of the transportation research center TØI, told me over coffee in Oslo. “But that’s what ended up happening here in Norway.”

And it could happen in other countries, too, including in the United States, where transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. The federal government now offers tantalizing rebates to Americans in the market for an electric car, but nothing at all for more climate-friendly vehicles like e-bikes or golf carts (nor a financial lifeline for beleaguered public subway and bus systems).

Ending the sales of gas-powered cars, as Norway is close to doing, is an essential step toward addressing climate change. But a 2020 study found that even the most optimistic forecasts for global EV adoption would not prevent a potentially catastrophic 2 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures. Reducing driving — not just gas-powered driving — is crucial.

As the world’s EV trendsetter, Norway’s experience offers a bevy of lessons for other nations seeking to decarbonize transportation. But some of those lessons are cautionary.

How Norway fell in love with the electric car

At first glance, Norway’s EV embrace might seem odd. The country lacks a domestic auto industry and its dominant export is, of all things, fossil fuels. Nevertheless, Norway’s unique geography and identity helped put it at the vanguard of car electrification.

Historically, Norway has been mostly rural; as recently as 1960, half the nation’s population resided in the countryside. But as the postwar economy boomed, Norwegians migrated to cities, and especially to their fast-growing, sprawling suburbs (much as Americans did at the time). They also fell hard for the automobile.

“The car was this genius idea for Norwegians,” Ulrik Eriksen, author of the book A Country on Four Wheels, told me over dinner in Oslo, after stashing his cargo e-bike. “Because there is plenty of land, cars opened up urban space for people to live in, letting more of them get sizable single-family homes.”

Norway embarked on a road-building binge, constructing bridges over fjords and boring tunnels through mountains to connect downtowns with new neighborhoods on the urban fringe. As Norwegian cities expanded, public transit took a back seat. Bergen, for instance, shuttered its extensive tramway service in the 1960s, dumping some of the trams into the North Sea.

Those decisions cast a long shadow: Norway still has one of Europe’s lowest rates of public transportation usage and a higher car ownership rate than Denmark and Sweden, its Scandinavian neighbors. “Most Norwegian cities now have more of a car-centric, American approach toward transportation than a multi-modal, European one,” Eriksen said.

Norway’s city residents often own an automobile even though they seldom use it, Oslo-based urban planner Anine Hartmann told me. “Norwegians identify as coming from the place where their parents or grandparents come from,” she said. “Many people have a car to return to that place or simply to visit a cabin in the country.”

By the 1990s, the automobile was Norway’s indispensable vehicle. It was then that Norwegian entrepreneurs launched two early electric car startups, Buddy and Think. Though their models were clunky and inefficient by today’s standards, the companies spurred excitement that Norway could become a global hub of EV production. Seeking to give the carmakers a tailwind, the Norwegian government exempted EVs from the country’s steep taxes on car purchases, which today add an average of $27,000 to each sale. Even better, EV owners — who at the time were few and far between — would not pay for tolls, parking, or ferries (over all those fjords) anywhere in the country.

Norway’s dreams of becoming a global hub of EV manufacturing quickly fizzled when the companies ran into financial problems. (This summer, I spotted a tiny, aged Buddy squeezed into an Oslo parking spot, dwarfed by SUVs on either side.) But the incentives remained on the books; since few people were buying EVs, their cost was negligible.

That changed as the global EV market improved in the mid-2010s, with carmakers like Tesla offering stylish, high-performance models that attracted more buyers. Norway’s EV policies were now championed as a centerpiece of the national effort to slow climate change in an economy whose electricity is already clean, produced largely from hydropower. “We want people to buy electric cars,” Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg said in 2019. “It is the most important thing you can do personally and privately to help reduce climate emissions.”

As EV models improved, Norwegians began to realize how valuable the cost savings from government incentives could be, particularly for urban commuters. After an already discounted EV purchase, owners’ ongoing expenses were minimal because Norwegian electricity is inexpensive (due to abundant hydropower), and EVs were exempt from tolls, parking, and ferries. EV owners were even invited to drive in bus-only lanes.

Hundreds of thousands of Norwegians responded to the government’s invitation to buy an EV, seemingly saving money and the planet in one fell swoop. But not every EV purchase replaced a gas guzzler; Grimsrud noted that the Norwegians owned 10 percent more cars per capita at the end of the 2010s than they did at the decade’s outset, in large part due to the EV incentives. “The families who could afford a second or third car ran off to the shop and bought one,” he said.

Norway’s incentives have unquestionably reshaped the country’s car market and reduced carbon emissions. EVs’ share of new vehicle sales surged from 1 percent in 2014 to 83 percent today. Around one in four cars on Norwegian roads is now electric, and the country’s surface transportation emissions fell 8.3 percent between 2014 and 2023.

The national government seems ready to declare victory. “When it comes to electrical vehicles, I’m quite proud,” Cecilie Knibe Kroglund, Norway’s state secretary for transportation, told me at the Oslo headquarters of the Ministry of Transport. “My main lesson is that incentives work. We have succeeded at a large scale.”

But not everyone shares her enthusiasm. Although the EV rush has reduced tailpipe emissions, it has also entrenched car dependence, which inflicts other kinds of damage. “Climate change gave Norway an opportunity to change how we travel,” said Eriksen. “I worry we had this once-in-a-generation chance to fix our transportation network, and we blew it.”

EV subsidies fueled car sales, but Norway’s cities want fewer cars

As electric car sales picked up throughout the 2010s, Norway placed few constraints on its EV incentives. Wealthy Norwegians could buy as many high-end EVs as they liked, receiving a full package of subsidies on each one. Luxury carmakers like Porsche advertised Norway’s promotions in their marketing materials.

Although the EV policies were fueling a car-buying frenzy for affluent residents, they offered little to those of limited means. Many low-income Norwegians do not own a car: In Bergen, for instance, 67 percent of households in the lowest income quartile go without one. One recent study found the likelihood that a Norwegian household would purchase an EV rose 26 percent with each 100,000 Norwegian Krones (around $11,000) in annual income, suggesting that electrification subsidies — which ballooned to $4 billion in 2022, equivalent to 2 percent of the national budget — have redistributed resources toward the rich.

Meanwhile, EV incentives have undermined the shift away from automobiles that Norwegian city officials, like their counterparts throughout Europe, are increasingly encouraging. “Everyone agrees that 100 percent of cars should be electric. That’s not the question,” Tiina Ruohonen, a climate advisor to the mayor of Oslo, told me. “The real question is whether you really need to own a car in Oslo.”

Over the last decade, Oslo has joined Bergen, Trondheim, and Stavanger (Norway’s four largest cities) in committing to meet all future trip growth through transit, biking, and walking — not cars. Seeking to reduce driving, Oslo has removed over 4,000 parking spots since 2016 while also building bike lanes, widening sidewalks, and adjusting traffic patterns to reduce through traffic. Those efforts helped the city achieve a remarkable milestone in 2019: For a full year, not a single pedestrian or cyclist was killed in a crash.

Walking and biking through Oslo helped me understand how it became so safe. The few motor vehicles I encountered within the city center moved carefully through streets thronged with pedestrians (some blocks are entirely car-free). Traffic typically moved at the speed of my e-bike; my one moment of anxiety came when a passing streetcar startled me as I gazed at Oslo’s picturesque harbor.

Many local leaders recognize that reducing car dependence will enhance urban life. “I am certain that when people imagine their ideal city, it would not be a dream of polluted air, cars jammed in endless traffic, or streets filled up with parked cars,” Hanne Marcussen, Oslo’s former vice mayor of urban development, told Fast Company in 2019.

But there are inherent conflicts between cities’ efforts to limit driving and the Norwegian government’s promotion of EVs. Oslo’s elimination of street parking and creation of pedestrian-only streets, for instance, nudge Norwegians away from driving, but they also diminish EVs’ usefulness.

“The way to get people to buy EVs is to make them easy and cheap to use,” said Eriksen. “But cities don’t want driving cars to be easy and cheap.” A recent study of EV subsidies in Bergen underscores those tensions, finding that promoting EV adoption hampers cities’ ability to build dense neighborhoods that shorten trips and strengthen transit.

The effect of EV adoption on public transportation has been a particular concern for Norway’s cities because boosting transit ridership has been a linchpin of local mobility strategies. Bergen, for instance, opened its first light rail line in 2010, and Trondheim overhauled its bus fleet in 2019. But because generous EV incentives make driving cheaper, they make public transportation relatively less cost-competitive.

Worse, EV promotions have shrunk the funding available to invest in transit improvements because Norwegian public transportation budgets are partly funded through the road tolls that the national government exempted EV owners from paying. As more Norwegians purchased EVs, transit revenue fell, threatening major investments like a new metro line in Oslo. “One of my primary concerns is that because we are subsidizing EVs through the cheaper toll roads, we don’t have the money to pay for big transit infrastructure projects,” said Eivind Trædal, an Oslo city councilmember who until a few weeks ago led the city’s council’s environment and transportation committee.

National officials, for their part, have stuck to pro-EV messaging and refrained from discouraging driving. Despite its generous incentives for electric cars, the Norwegian government provides no discounts for those buying e-bikes or e-cargo bikes (Oslo and Bergen offer limited programs for residents). The country’s current 12-year National Transport Plan includes initiatives to catalyze the adoption of zero-emissions vehicles, but none to reduce car trips.

Trædal said that politics led the Norwegian government to downplay reducing transportation emissions through transit, biking, and walking — all of which produce significantly fewer emissions than driving an EV. “Nobody’s mad about getting a cheaper new car, right?” he shrugged. “It’s politically easier to just give them car subsidies.”

When I asked Kroglund, the country’s transportation state secretary, if Norway’s government seeks to reduce total kilometers driven, she said it does not. “We don’t have a specific goal [to reduce driving],” she told me. “Of course, we would like to get more people on public transportation and bikes. But that is more something that cities work on.”

But national policy decisions inevitably affect local transportation efforts — and sometimes undermine them. Last October, the Norwegian Public Roads Administration opened E39, a four-lane highway into Bergen that the city had opposed due to concerns that it would increase driving. Those fears proved justified. Lars Ove Kvalbein, a Bergen city adviser on sustainable mobility, told me that before E39 opened, 30 percent of those traveling into the city from the south had used a car, but after the highway opened that share jumped to 40 percent.

“E39 was part of a national plan that smashed all the positive local plans to pieces,” he said.

Other countries can avoid repeating Norway’s mistakes

In the last few years, Norway has begun to confront the tensions within its push for car electrification. In 2017, the country began requiring EV owners to pay for parking, road tolls, and ferries, although they still receive a discount. As of this past January, only the first $45,000 of a new EV’s purchase price is tax-free. Buyers of the largest (and often priciest) EVs must also pay an additional fee that scales with vehicle weight.

“The argument is to make the tax system more fair,” said transportation state secretary Kroglund, “and not give benefits for things that are unnecessary for the transition to EVs.” As a result of the new policies, Norwegian sales of some high-end EVs, like the enormous Chinese Hongqi SUV, have collapsed.

Looking to the future, TØI’s Grimsrud hopes that Norway’s next 12-year National Transport Plan beginning in 2025 will include a goal of limiting total driving, which could restrain highway expansion plans and direct more investment toward transit. “If you start with a national goal for reducing transportation emissions, it will force you to focus more on public transportation and less on road construction,” he said.

For other countries, a clear Norwegian lesson is that a focus on reducing transportation emissions through electric car adoption can worsen inequality. Capping the price of eligible vehicles and limiting the number of EVs that a household can purchase tax-free are intuitive moves that Norway took only belatedly.

At the same time, Norway offers a warning about the dangers of promoting EVs at the expense of modes that are more beneficial to the environment as well as urban life. The national government’s decision to subsidize electric cars but not e-bikes makes no sense from a climate perspective, although the United States Congress made the same mistake when it passed the Inflation Reduction Act last year. At a minimum, countries should ensure that EV adoption does not deplete resources needed for public transportation investments, as has happened in Norway and could occur in the US, since EVs reduce gasoline tax revenues, a portion of which funds American transit.

With frequent bus and rail service, walkable city centers, and expanding networks of bike lanes (including, in Bergen, the longest purpose-built bike tunnel in the world), Norwegian cities are far ahead of American peers in providing viable alternatives to driving. Nevertheless, over the last decade, US cities have taken significant steps forward: Bike share programs are now a fixture, and new bus rapid transit lines have emerged in places like Madison, Richmond, and Washington, DC. New York City and San Francisco have even experimented with making major thoroughfares car-free. But if local initiatives aren’t matched with supportive federal policies, Norway’s experience suggests that an influx of electric vehicles can hinder efforts to escape the automobile’s urban stranglehold.

“The mistake is to think that EVs solve all your problems when it comes to transport,” said Ruohonen, the Oslo mayoral adviser. “They don’t.”

NGC 7380


Halloween's origin is ancient and astronomical. Since the fifth century BC, Halloween has been celebrated as a cross-quarter day, a day halfway between an equinox (equal day / equal night) and a solstice (minimum day / maximum night in the northern hemisphere). With a modern calendar however, even though Halloween occurs today, the real cross-quarter day will occur next week. Another cross-quarter day is Groundhog Day. Halloween's modern celebration retains historic roots in dressing to scare away the spirits of the dead. Perhaps a fitting tribute to this ancient holiday is this closeup view of the Wizard Nebula (NGC 7380). Visually, the interplay of stars, gas, and dust has created a shape that appears to some like a fictional ancient sorcerer. Although the nebula may last only a few million years, some of the stars being conjured from the gas by the great gravitational powers may outlive our Sun.

It's not anti-semitic, it's anti-murder...

Israeli forces battle Hamas around Gaza City, as military says 800,000 have fled south

By WAFAA SHURAFA and SAMY MAGDY

Israeli troops battled Hamas militants and attacked underground compounds on Tuesday with a focus on northern Gaza. An estimated 800,000 Palestinians have fled south, even though Israeli airstrikes have pounded the entirety of the besieged enclave.

Buoyed by the first successful rescue of a captive held by Hamas, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected calls for a cease-fire and again vowed to crush Hamas' ability to govern Gaza or threaten Israel following its bloody Oct. 7 rampage, which ignited the war.

More than half the territory's 2.3 million Palestinians have fled their homes, with hundreds of thousands sheltering in packed U.N.-run schools-turned-shelters or in hospitals alongside thousands of wounded patients. Israeli strikes have hit closer to several northern hospitals in recent days, alarming medics.

The U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, known as UNRWA, says nearly 672,000 Palestinians are sheltering in its schools and other facilities — four times their capacity. Thousands of people broke into its aid warehouses over the weekend to take food, as supplies of basic goods have dwindled because of the Israeli siege.

There has been no central electricity in Gaza for weeks, and Israel has barred the entry of fuel needed to power emergency generators for hospitals and homes.

UNRWA, which hundreds of thousands of people in Gaza rely on for basic services even in normal times, says 64 of its staff have been killed since the start of the war, including a man killed alongside his wife and eight children in a strike late Monday.

“This is the highest number ever of U.N. aid workers killed in any conflict around the world in such a short time,” spokesperson Juliette Touma told The Associated Press. “UNRWA will never be the same without these colleagues.”

The war has also threatened to ignite even heavier fighting on other fronts. Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah militant group have traded fire on a daily basis along the border, and Israel and the U.S. have struck targets in Syria linked to Iran, which supports Hamas, Hezbollah and other armed groups in the region.

The military said it shot down what appeared to be a drone near the southernmost city of Eilat and intercepted a missile over the Red Sea on Tuesday, neither of which entered Israeli airspace.

The Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen later issued a video statement claiming to have fired ballistic missiles and drones at Israel, saying it was the third such operation. They threatened to carry out more strikes “until the Israeli aggression stops.”

Earlier this month, a U.S. Navy destroyer in the Red Sea intercepted three cruise missiles and several drones launched toward Israel by the Houthis, who control much of northern Yemen, including its capital, Sanaa. Mysterious projectiles have also struck inside Egypt, near the Israeli border.

In the occupied West Bank, where Israeli-Palestinian violence has also surged, the army demolished the family home of Saleh al-Arouri, a senior Hamas official exiled over a decade ago. Ali Kaseeb, head of the local council in the village of Aroura, said the home had been vacant for 15 years.

Jonathan Conricus, an Israeli military spokesman, said ground operations in Gaza are focused on the north, including Gaza City, which he said was the “center of gravity of Hamas."

“But we also continue to strike in other parts of Gaza. We are hunting their commanders, we are attacking their infrastructure, and whenever there is an important target that is related to Hamas, we strike it," he said.

The military said it struck some 300 militant targets over the past day, including compounds inside tunnels, and that troops had engaged in several battles with Palestinian militants armed with antitank missiles and machine guns. Video footage released by the military showed soldiers and a tank moving down a dirt road between two rows of demolished buildings, some of them three to four stories high.

Hamas released its own video showing what it said was a battle in northern Gaza on Sunday. A fighter wearing a GoPro-style camera emerged from a tunnel with a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and ran across sand dunes and shrubs with other militants amid the clatter of gunfire.

It was not possible to independently confirm the reports.

Larger ground operations have been launched both north and east of Gaza City, which before the war was home to over 650,000 people.

Conricus said some 800,000 people have heeded the Israeli military's orders to flee from the northern part of the strip to the south. But tens of thousands of people remain in and around Gaza City, and casualties are expected to mount on both sides as the battle moves into dense, residential neighborhoods.

The window to flee south may be closing, as Israeli forces reached Gaza's main north-south highway this week. Video circulating Monday showed a tank opening fire on a car that had approached a sand berm but was turning around. Gaza's Health Ministry said three people were killed.

Zaki Abdel-Hay, a Palestinian man living a few minutes' walk from the road south of Gaza City, said people are afraid to use it. “People are very scared. The Israeli tanks are still close,” he said over the phone, adding that “constant artillery fire” could be heard near the road.

Dawood Shehab, a spokesperson for Islamic Jihad, a smaller militant group allied with Hamas, told Al Jazeera television that its fighters were battling Israeli forces who were trying to cut off the main highway and a parallel coastal road farther west.

In a news conference late Monday, Netanyahu rejected calls for a cease-fire to facilitate the release of captives or end the war, which he has said will be long and difficult. “Calls for a cease-fire are calls for Israel to surrender to Hamas,” he told a news conference. "That will not happen.”

More than 8,500 Palestinians have been killed in the war, mostly women and minors, the Gaza Health Ministry said Monday, without providing a breakdown between civilians and fighters. The figure is without precedent in decades of Israeli-Palestinian violence.

Over 1,400 people have died on the Israeli side, mainly civilians killed during Hamas' initial attack, also an unprecedented figure. Palestinian militants have continued firing rockets into Israel.

The military said Monday that special forces rescued one of the estimated 240 captives seized by Palestinian militants during the wide-ranging assault. It said Pvt. Ori Megidish, 19, was “doing well” and had been reunited with her family.

Hamas has released four hostages, and has said it would let the others go in return for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, which has dismissed the offer. Hamas released a short video Monday showing three other female captives.

Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, meanwhile, continues to worsen.

The World Health Organization said two hospitals have been damaged and an ambulance destroyed in Gaza over the last two days. It said all 13 hospitals operating in the north have received Israeli evacuation orders in recent days. Medics have refused such orders, saying it would be a death sentence for patients on life support.

Israel says it targets Hamas fighters and infrastructure and that the militants operate among civilians, putting them in danger.

Israel has allowed more than 150 trucks loaded with food and medicine to enter Gaza from Egypt over the past several days, but aid workers say it's not enough to meet rapidly growing needs.

Israel also said it has reopened two main water lines in Gaza, but the U.N. office for humanitarian affairs said one of them had stopped working after operating for two weeks and that the other one was in need of repairs.

Will they ever trust it?

‘Wholly ineffective and pretty obviously racist’: Inside New Orleans’ struggle with facial-recognition policing

Records obtained and analyzed by POLITICO reveal the practice failed to identify suspects a majority of the time and is disproportionately used against Black people.

By ALFRED NG

In the summer of 2022, with a spike in violent crime hitting New Orleans, the city council voted to allow police to use facial-recognition software to track down suspects — a technology that the mayor, police and businesses supported as an effective, fair tool for identifying criminals quickly.

A year after the system went online, data show that the results have been almost exactly the opposite.

Records obtained and analyzed by POLITICO show that computer facial recognition in New Orleans has low effectiveness, is rarely associated with arrests and is disproportionately used on Black people.

The first facial recognition search under the new policy occurred on October 21, 2022, using surveillance footage to help identify a Black man suspected of a shooting by matching his picture with a database of mugshots. The results: “Unable to match, low quality photo.” Over the next year, the NOPD would see a string of largely similar results.

A review of nearly a year’s worth of New Orleans facial recognition requests shows that the system failed to identify suspects a majority of the time — and that nearly every use of the technology from last October to this August was on a Black person.

Although it has not led to any false arrests, which have happened in other cities, the story of police facial identification in New Orleans appears to confirm what civil rights advocates have argued for years, as police departments and federal agencies nationwide increasingly adopt high-tech identification techniques: that it amplifies, rather than corrects, the underlying human biases of the authorities that use them.

“This department hung their hat on this,” said New Orleans Councilmember At-Large JP Morrell, a Democrat who voted last year against using facial recognition and has seen the NOPD data. Its use of the system, he says, has been “wholly ineffective and pretty obviously racist.”

Facial recognition has many uses — you can use it to unlock your phone, to help find yourself in group photos and to board a flight. But no use of the $3.8 billion industry has concerned lawmakers and civil rights advocates more than law enforcement.

Much criticism has focused on the technical side of how facial-recognition systems work. Once trained to match faces, they compare photos captured from surveillance cameras to an existing database of arrest photos — in New Orleans’ case, provided by the state police. Many researchers have warned that facial recognition is technologically biased against Black people, because it’s largely trained on white faces; and that it’s ineffective at promoting safety, as crime rates tend to remain the same with or without the technology in place.

But the New Orleans records reveal there’s a human element as well: A system can land unfairly on the community because it’s selectively used on a particular group.

Lawmakers of both parties on Capitol Hill have attempted to pass regulations limiting how police can use facial recognition for years, but have yet to enact any laws on the subject. Some state lawmakers have also tried to limit facial recognition, but so far have only been able to pass limited rules, like those preventing its use on body cameras in California or banning its use in schools in New York. A few cities with progressive-leaning politics, such as San Francisco and Portland, have fully banned law enforcement use of the technology.

For two years, New Orleans was one of those cities: In the wake of the George Floyd protests, its city council outlawed police use of facial recognition from December 2020 to October 2022.

In the year since the ban was lifted, the NOPD has sent 19 facial recognition requests, according to the records. Those requests were for serious felony crimes, including murder and armed robbery. Two of them were canceled because the city’s police already identified the suspect before the search results came back, and another two were denied because the crimes committed were not eligible for facial recognition use.

In the 15 facial recognition requests that actually went through, records show that nine of them failed to make a match. And among the six matches, three of them turned out to be wrong.

Only one of those 15 requests was for a white suspect.

The first and only arrest based on facial-recognition technology occurred in September, 11 months after the New Orleans City Council lifted the ban.

“The data has pretty much proven that advocates were mostly correct,” said Morell, the city councilor. “It’s primarily targeted towards African Americans and it doesn’t actually lead to many, if any, arrests.”

Politically, New Orleans’ City Council is split on facial recognition, but a slim majority of its members — all Democrats — still support the technology’s use, despite the results of the past year. So do the police, Mayor LaToya Cantrell and a coalition of local businesses.

City councilor Eugene Green, who introduced the measure to lift the facial recognition ban in 2022 and was one of four council members to vote for it, said he still supports law enforcement’s use of facial recognition for the foreseeable future.

“If we have it for 10 years and it only solves one crime, but there’s no abuse, then that’s a victory for the citizens of New Orleans,” said Green, who is Black and represents a majority Black district.

The New Orleans Police Department, presented with POLITICO’s analysis of the data, did not respond to questions on the statistics, but argued that the data shows the agency is following guidelines for using facial recognition. The fact that there were no arrests based solely on positive matches showed that investigators didn’t rely on the technology alone, and sought corroborating evidence, the NOPD said in a statement.

CASE REPORTS FROM THE THREE FALSE MATCHES IN NEW ORLEANS
#1
In a search for a gunman last November, the facial recognition software returned a match that police discovered was wrong after identifying the real suspect through monitoring jail calls, according to the log records.

#2
In a homicide investigation in April, police received a match for a suspect whose photo was provided by a tipster. Police later learned that a person matched from the picture wasn’t even in the area during the murder.

#3
Police investigating an aggravated assault in February sent a facial recognition request to the state police and received a match for a potential suspect. In this case, New Orleans police found the alleged attacker through investigative work without the help of facial recognition. There’s no explanation for the misidentification here, with the logs simply stating, “A subsequent incident revealed the perpetrator was not the subject identified through FRT.”

The department also disagreed with the City Council members’ argument that its usage of facial recognition is racially biased, saying its officers are trained to conduct bias-free investigations.

“Race and ethnicity are not a determining factor for which images and crimes are suitable for Facial Recognition review,” an NOPD spokesperson said when asked about the racial disparity in its use of facial recognition.

Watching the watchers

The reports are available because of a transparency law unique to New Orleans. When the city council reinstated facial recognition as a tool in 2022, it added a set of guardrails, including a requirement that the police document and report their facial recognition requests to the City Council — something no city had done before.

Facial recognition is popular with both police and the public, but has been shadowed by poor disclosure requirements that make it hard to judge its effectiveness.

The three largest police departments in the U.S. — New York, Chicago and Los Angeles — all use facial recognition, as did Washington, D.C.’s police until 2021. A Government Accountability Office survey in 2021 found that 20 out of 42 federal law enforcement agencies use the technology.

A Pew study in 2022 found that most Americans consider law enforcement’s use of facial recognition a public good — even though most believe it won’t reduce crime rates.

However, relatively little data is available on how well it works in practice.

The New York Police Department, one of the largest in the U.S., had used facial recognition since 2011, but only disclosed in 2019 that its facial recognition system made 2,510 potential matches out of 9,850 requests that year. It did not share how many of those matches were false positives.

A 2019 catalog created by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Integrated Justice Information Systems Institute instructed police to publicize the effectiveness of facial recognition, but did not offer any guidelines on providing transparency about the technology’s use to the public.

A handful of private companies offer their facial recognition for police departments, none of which have disclosure requirements. New Orleans uses the facial recognition system run by the Louisiana State Police, which uses IDEMIA, a French software company.

Asked about its work with the Louisiana State police, an IDEMIA spokesperson said its software was an “efficiency and accuracy improvement” for law enforcement agencies. “We stand by the technology and the training and the assistance that we give to law enforcement across the country that are utilizing it,” the spokesperson said.

In New Orleans, when police asked the City Council to lift its 2020 ban, lawmakers asked if they had the data to back up their requests. The NOPD told the City Council that it did not keep track of how it was using the technology, or how useful it was for investigations.

Under its new law, New Orleans requires a suite of details on the entire process: the officer who made the request to use facial recognition, the crime being investigated, a statement of reasonable suspicion to justify the request, the suspect’s demographic, the supervisor who approved the request, any matches and the ultimate result of that investigation.

The police are required to provide monthly reports with those details to the City Council, though in practice, the department has had an unofficial agreement with the City Council to share the data quarterly. POLITICO obtained these reports through public information requests.

“We needed to have significant accountability on this controversial technology,” said council member Helena Moreno, who co-authored New Orleans’ original ban.

The city didn’t have to wait long after restoring the system to learn that facial recognition wasn’t helping solve crimes.

The first quarterly report, between October and December, showed six requests for facial recognition — half of which resulted in no matches, and one false positive. The other two matches are still ongoing investigations nearly a year later.

The second report, showing requests from February to March, also favored poorly: three results with no matches, and another misidentification.

In a meeting on April 5, just 15 days before the NOPD’s facial recognition would make another misidentification, Morrell took aim at the bleak results.

“This council took it upon faith by the administration and a variety of non-public organizations that this was an absolutely necessary thing that we had to have,” he said. “And thus far, we have no proof that it’s actually done anything.”

Jeff Asher, a criminal justice consultant hired by the New Orleans City Council, reached the same conclusion after reviewing the data for the city’s lawmakers.

“It’s unlikely that this technology will be useful in terms of changing the trend,” he said in an interview in September. “You could probably point to this technology as useful in certain cases, but seeing it as a game changer, or something to invest in for crime fighting, that optimism is probably misplaced.”

Deepening disparities

Although the New Orleans system hasn’t yet led to any known false arrests, one expert who has done a nationwide study says that police use of facial recognition can quickly start to have real-world impact on citizens.

Georgia State University’s Thaddeus Johnson published a research paper last October that found police departments reported a 55 percent increase in arrests of Black adults after they started using facial recognition, while having a 21 percent drop in arrests of white adults.

Johnson, who is also a former Memphis police officer, said he didn’t have enough data to make a causal link between the introduction of facial recognition and the increase in arrests of Black adults across multiple police departments.

One potential explanation, he said, is that facial recognition systems rely on criminal databases that are already heavily skewed toward non-white people — meaning that software asked to find “suspects” would be drawing from a database of majority Black people.

“If you have a disproportionate number of Black people entering the system, a disproportionate number being run for requests for screenings, then you have all these disproportionalities all cumulatively building together,” he said.

In nearly every publicized case of a false arrest based on facial recognition, the victim was Black. Twice, Detroit police have arrested a Black person based on a wrong facial recognition match, including a pregnant woman accused of robbery and carjacking. (Detroit’s police chief, James E. White, told the New York Times “We are taking this matter very seriously.”)

In 2020, a Detroit police department report on its facial recognition use disclosed that the technology was used on Black people in 97 percent of cases, reflecting the racial bias that New Orleans’ data also showed.

The City Council members against facial recognition in New Orleans said that they are still outnumbered by the technology’s supporters, and the data hasn’t changed opinions on the tool.

Morrell said that he does not intend to reintroduce a ban without having the necessary votes, noting that there are other political crises in New Orleans that the City Council must address first, like increasing property tax rates and the search for a new police chief.

But he’s prepared to challenge any new police chief candidate who backs facial recognition.

“If you are one of the people that ends up being a finalist for police chief,” Morell said, “are you going to continue to beat this drum?”

Drives wedge

Israel aid drives wedge within Congress

The House GOP's proposal would be paid for by cutting money from the IRS. It's going nowhere in the Senate.

By BURGESS EVERETT, SARAH FERRIS, ANTHONY ADRAGNA and CONNOR O’BRIEN

Speaker Mike Johnson on Monday further roiled Congress’ debate over aiding Israel, deepening divisions between the GOP House and Democratic Senate on an issue that most members of Congress otherwise agree on.

Johnson’s $14.3 billion aid package for Israel — leaving out Ukraine assistance and other bipartisan priorities — drew immediate Democratic condemnation, from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on down. President Joe Biden's party lined up to blast Johnson's plan, noting that it raids IRS funding from last Congress' Democrats-only Inflation Reduction Act and would likely hike spending as a result.

That makes the bill doomed in the Senate from the start, depriving the House of an opportunity to potentially jam the upper chamber with a bill too popular for Democrats to resist.

“That’s a poison pill and non-starter. It’s just not the way we’re going to proceed,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said. “It’s got to be bipartisan. And the House has to realize they can’t work on a bill just with Republicans.”

Cardin said he’s “optimistic” that the Senate can craft its own mega-package, linking Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan and border funding. Even then, though, the House GOP can simply ignore that. Which leaves the forecast for quick aid to any U.S. allied nation quite cloudy at the moment.

It’s not hard to envision a standoff over the dueling aid strategies: The House GOP's limited Israel bill against a more sweeping Senate aid package — if one can even pass. The clash is escalating as a government shutdown looms in less than three weeks, should the two chambers fail to agree on federal funding.

“How this comes together is still an open question. There will probably be a negotiation between the House and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans and probably some of our own members,” Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said.

Despite Johnson’s effort to fund the Israel aid with tax agency cuts, his legislation is still facing scrutiny from conservatives like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who said “we simply can’t afford it.” Some pro-Israel House Democrats may support the bill, which needs only a simple majority to pass — by contrast, the Senate will need 60 votes for any legislation, including at least nine Republicans.

The 13-page bill represents Johnson’s first major piece of legislation to head to the House floor, besides a recent resolution backing Israel's drive to defeat Hamas. Yet it may be ignored entirely across the Capitol, where Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are eying a far larger global aid package that would include funding for Israel and Ukraine.

McConnell said he will address the legislation during his Tuesday briefing with reporters, though on Monday he defended a more sweeping aid approach during an appearance in Louisville, Ky. Schumer bristled at the House GOP’s bill shortly after its release, criticizing its narrow scope as well as its targeting of IRS funds.

"We believe, our Democratic Caucus, we should be doing all of it together: Israel, Ukraine, South Pacific, etc. And obviously a pay-for like that makes it much harder to pass," Schumer said.

Earlier Monday, Johnson told reporters that he intends to speak with Schumer about the Israel-only funding bill this week. He said on Sunday that there are many global issues to address but Israel “takes the immediate” attention.

That approach differs markedly from the Senate's, since both Schumer and McConnell are pushing to bundle the two issues together. It’s possible that an Israel-only aid bill without spending cuts in it could have resonated with more Democratic senators, given the challenges of drafting a version that includes Ukraine and the political urgency on both sides of the aisle to stand with Israel.

But once Johnson's plan emerged, Democratic leadership had little qualms about dismissing it.

“I think things are tied together and should be,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said. As for trying to pay for emergency foreign assistance, he added, “I don't think it's practical, particularly in this circumstance.”

The House Republican bill comes on the heels of Biden’s request for $106 billion in emergency aid, and it matches the president’s request for $14.3 billion for Israel. The administration has also asked for more than $61 billion for Ukraine and about $10 billion in humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, Israel and Gaza.

Many GOP senators are arguing publicly and privately that the Israel piece of the package shouldn’t get bogged down in the massive funding request. The problem for them: They don't control what gets a vote.

“Sen. Schumer’s the one who puts the bill on the floor. Unfortunately he’s the majority leader, so it’s his prerogative. And we’re going to have to have a conversation about how we proceed,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

The House measure includes $4 billion in Pentagon funding to transfer to Israel for Iron Dome and David's Sling, two missile defense systems to defend against rocket attacks. The package also includes $4.4 billion for the Pentagon to replace inventories of weapons and equipment sent to Israel as well as to reimburse the military for training and other services. Another $3.5 billion would go to the State Department in foreign military financing to help arm Israel.

The bill includes $4.4 billion for the Pentagon to use broadly on "attacks in Israel," through next September. The military can also tap into that money to backfill weapons and reimburse itself for training.

It adds $801.4 million for the Army to use on ammunition, $10 million for the Navy to use on weapons, $38.6 million for the Air Force to buy missiles — in addition to $4 billion for the Iron Dome and David's Sling, two missile defense systems to defend against rocket attacks and $1.2 billion that would go toward research and development efforts for Iron Beam, Israel's air defense laser project.