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.



March 28, 2024

Where are you going to move to?

Sinking Shores and Rising Seas Will Inundate 24 US Coastal Cities

Flooding could plague 1 in 50 residents, a new study estimates.

MORIAH MCDONALD

Flooding could affect one out of every 50 residents in 24 coastal cities in the United States by 2050, a study led by Virginia Tech researchers suggests.

The study, published this month in Nature, shows how the combination of land subsidence—in this case, the sinking of shoreline terrain—and rising sea levels can lead to the flooding of coastal areas sooner than previously anticipated by research that had focused primarily on sea level rise scenarios. 

“One of the things we wanted to do with this study is really emphasize the impact of land subsidence, which is often not reflected in most of the discussion around sea level rise,” said Leonard Ohenhen, the lead author of the study and a graduate student at Virginia Tech’s Earth Observation and Innovation Lab.

The study combines measurements of land subsidence obtained from satellites with sea level rise projections and tide charts, offering a more holistic projection of potential flooding risks in 32 cities located along the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. 

The satellites bounce signals off the Earth and measure the time it takes for them to return, allowing the researchers to determine whether the distance between the ground and the satellites is increasing or decreasing. Less distance between the ground and the satellites would mean that the land is rising, while increases in that distance would show that the land is sinking. 

The study found that out of the 32 coastal cities examined, 24 are sinking more than 2 millimeters per year. Half of these cities have specific areas that are sinking faster than the global sea levels are rising.

Up to 500,000 individuals living in these regions may be impacted in the next 30 years, with potentially one in every 35 private properties facing flooding damages.

Most conversations around climate change impacts involve projections for the end of the century, Ohenhen said. The team’s goal with this study was to look at the short term and show the existing hazards.  “We tend to think of the consequences of climate change as a long term effect,” he said. “Which makes people feel like you cannot really account for all of the changes or the things that will happen before that time. And that often leads to underpreparation.”

The year 2050, often cited in climate discussions, is not an end point but rather a marker of the immediacy of the issue, said Robert Nicholls, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and professor at the University of East Anglia in the UK, who was a contributing author to the study.

The research anticipates that the 32 cities under consideration will collectively house approximately 25 million people and 10 million properties by 2050. It found ethnic minorities, especially in the Gulf Coast region, could face disproportionate impacts.

Minorities constitute roughly 43 percent of the population in the 11 Gulf Coast cities the study includes. However, they are expected to represent between 64 to 72 percent of the population at risk of flooding by 2050, the research shows. African Americans, in particular, are projected to make up over half of this vulnerable population.

The first step in tackling the challenge of flooding isn’t necessarily adaptation, but rather recognizing that it’s a problem, said Nicholls.

“It’s really a wake up call to think about how we’re going to live with this changing interface between the land and the sea,” Nicholls said of the study.

Structural adaptation strategies vary widely, from building protective walls to raising buildings on stilts or elevated mounds of earth, a more common practice in many areas of the US, Nicholls said. These strategies can help protect properties from flooding.

Natural habitats and coastal ecosystems have some degree of protection against sea level rise hazards, but they won’t protect communities from all of the challenges that sea level rise could pose, Siddharth Narayan, an assistant professor at East Carolina University, said. 

“So it’s going to be a combination of long-term structural adaptations and solutions wherever possible and conserving and maintaining our natural spaces to add a little bit of a buffer,” Narayan said.

Marsh restoration, coral reefs and dunes can provide a natural barrier, said Andra Garner, an assistant professor at Rowan University.

It’s still uncertain what sea level rise impacts might look like in the future, Garner said. That uncertainty, she said, comes from a lot of places—including human behavior. 

Garner was the lead author of a 2023 study published in Earth’s Future, which surveyed 54 coastal locations in the US and found that more than half underestimated the future sea level rise projections by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

“It’s important that these communities that are at risk really are using the tools available to try to plan for sea level rise and to be working towards solutions that can benefit those that are exposed,” Garner said.

To stupid to know they are the problem........

They Make Viral Gun Videos—With Hardline Christian Values

T.Rex Arms sells gun accessories. According to one expert, “The product is ideology, too.”

LILA HASSAN

At the start of a slickly produced 19-minute YouTube video titled “How T.Rex Arms Got Started,” Lucas Botkin, the company’s 30-year-old founder, runs through an obstacle course. A guitar-­heavy soundtrack plays as Botkin, decked out in tactical gear and filtered through overwrought video effects, picks off targets with a variety of handguns and rifles. We briefly see the course from his eyes, first-person-shooter style.

When the drums bang to a halt, the video cuts to an interview where Botkin explains his company’s mission. “We try to produce thought-provoking content and educational content that inspires people to understand their obligations to God and country and their responsibilities,” he says, over more shooting footage. “Then we equip them with the equipment necessary so they can fulfill those obligations and those responsibilities with maximum effectiveness.”

T.Rex Arms, a Tennessee-based, family-­run, Christian firearms accessory company—think holsters, body armor, and the like—is at the forefront of what extremism researchers call GunTube, an ecosphere of gun influencers whose videos peddle a wide range of conservative content. The company has more than 1.5 million YouTube subscribers; its origin story video has been viewed more than 900,000 times. Botkin, who can cut a nerdy presence when digging into gun minutiae, has nearly half a million Instagram followers and enough right-wing cachet to have been an ambassador for Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA and have earned an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show the month before he left the network.

“They are jacks of all trades,” says Meghan Conroy, who monitors extremist influencers for the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab. What separates T.Rex Arms from the rest of the gun community, she says, is its “masterful ability to create content that appeals to so many different people.” While some of its most popular videos offer product reviews and shooting tips, they are accompanied by a wide range of political content, including interviews with conservative officials and activists. In weekly “T.Rex Talks,” Lucas and his brothers sit in a dimly lit studio to discuss America in decay, and how like-minded, God-oriented people can save it. They often reference the end times and urge their viewers to seize control before things get worse. “They’re selling products,” says Max Rizzuto, another Atlantic Council researcher, “and the product is ideology, too.”

For example, in the days following the 2020 election, Lucas and his older brother, Isaac, a designer at the company who frequently appears on T.Rex Talks, discussed journalism. “We’re at a place right now where a lot of people don’t trust the mainstream media,” Isaac said, to which Lucas quickly replied, “Reasonably so.” The brothers argued reporters should be held accountable for their coverage of topics like Covid-19 and Black Lives Matter protests. “I’m starting to wonder when a news network will be actually prosecuted for things that they say that result in the death of people, which I think has happened in the past four years,” Lucas said. “It results in people getting killed, or businesses just getting burned, looted. Theft. And they’re not being held responsible for it.” Lucas went on to predict that economic collapse was “very likely” in his lifetime: “The way we live can be radically different 30 years from now.” In another stream, he warned of the “apocalyptic” prospect of a nationwide gun ban.

“They were pushing every single one of the narratives that we’ve seen emerge out of the right-wing space,” says Jon Lewis, a research fellow at the Program on Extremism at George Washington University, who reviewed T.Rex Arms’ videos at Mother Jones’ request. By pairing Second Amendment fearmongering with broader culture war issues, he says, the Botkins have identified a “common enemy” for their large, mostly male audience: “It’s laying it out there that tyranny is coming and needs to be resisted with arms.”

Their core messages, Lewis adds, are similar to what 70-year-old family patriarch Geoffrey Botkin has also promoted on YouTube—but to a much smaller audience. The elder Botkin is a preacher and author who adheres to a hardline version of Christianity and is an advocate of the fundamentalist Quiverfull movement, which encourages women to live with their parents until marriage, after which they are meant to give birth as much as possible so Christians can rule over society. He and his wife, Victoria, have seven children, including two “stay at home daughters” whose own website features discussions of “proper” womanhood and Christianity. (“Put simply, we’re two very unworthy daughters of a merciful Heavenly Father,” they explain.) On Instagram, Lucas has called his father, who serves on the company’s board, “the man responsible for much of the backbone and principles behind T.Rex Arms.”

Geoffrey was once a senior consultant to the Western Conservatory of the Arts and Sciences, an organization offering advice on family building and religious living; Lucas, Isaac, and other family members have held positions with the organization. He also is the author of several self-published books, including Father to Son: Manly Conversations That Can Change Culture—which features a young Lucas on the cover. In it, Geoffrey argues that Jesus commands men be armed to resist “tyranny,” that gun control laws lead to dictatorships and genocide, and that boys have “militant natures” and a “natural desire to fight” that fathers should nurture.

In 2020, at the height of the pandemic lockdowns and their cultural upheaval, Geoffrey launched “Stand Up and Lead,” a series of videos and podcasts responding to topics like critical race theory, the Covid vaccine, and election fraud. But his view counts can’t compare to those racked up by the videos put out by his sons’ company. And while Lucas has said he doesn’t agree with all of Geoffrey’s opinions, T.Rex Arms content is infused with an ideology that jibes with his father’s beliefs. “Weapons are a part of my religion—not in a ceremonial way,” Isaac says in a video where he claims the Founding Fathers drew on “scriptural tradition” when framing the Second Amendment. “Using tools to fulfill the responsibilities that I believe that I have because of my religion is very important…weapons are sometimes the tools required.”

These sorts of messages fit into a larger Christian nationalist framework, says University of Oklahoma sociologist Samuel Perry. “Along with the support for authoritarian violence is undeniably a view that ‘we have been persecuted, done wrong, that we are hated, that the left is in control of our society and we have to take it back,’” Perry says. “It’s difficult to talk about guns and the celebration of gun culture without talking about the patriarchy, the fascination with high-fertility families, and the fascination with violence and the broader populist movement. It’s all in there.”

Despite the Botkins’ avowed distaste for the state, Lucas has boasted on various platforms, mostly in now-deleted posts, that T.Rex Arms offers drills and training to law enforcement and the military. While the Botkins did not respond to requests for comment, Mother Jones found no evidence to back these claims. Spending records confirm local governments do purchase T.Rex Arms equipment—like batteries for swat gear and uniforms.

T.Rex Arms also encourages its fans and customers to play an active role in state politics. In a video titled “How to Pass Pro-2A Legislation,” the T.Rex Arms team outlines the lobbying strategy it deployed to successfully press Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee to repeal the state’s ammunition tax in 2019, and pushed viewers to engage in the same kind of work.

During his March 2023 interview with Carlson, Lucas claimed he uses T.Rex to educate people on why “communism is a bad idea, and why capitalism can be a good thing.” He added: “That’s really where the conversation needs to be. A lot of people focus on the gun part, which is frustrating to me, when it really should be a focus on culture in general, and principle in general. The gun is just a piece people bring up as a talking point.”

When Lucas later suggested his company might eventually sell ammunition, Carlson praised him as “smart” and said that T.Rex Arms was a “multimillion-dollar company.”

“Your parents,” Carlson added, “did an amazing job at transmitting their values.”

Why does it always come down to a few people in a shit state making the discission?

Ruben Gallego’s Battle Against Kari Lake Could Decide the Fate of the Senate—And Our Democracy

No pressure.

ABBY VESOULIS

In the afternoon of January 6, 2021, as election deniers armed with Tasers and tomahawks overran the US Capitol, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) handed his colleague and close friend Eric Swalwell a pen. “Here,” he said to the California Democrat. “Stick this in their neck if they get close to you.”

The Marine veteran, who’d seen combat in Iraq, leaped on a table and began issuing instructions to other panicked lawmakers, showing them how to don the gas masks secured under their chairs: “Tear gas will not kill you. But it’s important to remain calm. If you hyperventilate, you may pass out.” If necessary, Gallego told himself, he could use his own pen as a weapon to take a more lethal one from a rioter.

Three years later, the battle for American democracy continues, and Gallego, locked in one of the most pivotal contests of the 2024 election, is again attempting to hold the line. Along with close matchups in Ohio and Montana, his Senate race in Arizona for the seat Kyrsten Sinema is vacating could be one of a handful that decide control of the upper chamber and, with it, the future of our republic. Donald Trump, facing 88 criminal counts, has promised to usher in MAGA on steroids if reelected, including mass deportation and sweeping bans on gender-affirming care. A Democratic-­led Senate would be one of the last fortifications against his agenda.

As if to further underscore the stakes, Gallego’s opponent is the former TV news anchor turned Trump sycophant Kari Lake. A prolific purveyor of conspiracy theories, Lake claims not only that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump but also that she was robbed of the Arizona governorship in her 2022 race. If Trumpism is akin to a religion, Lake views herself as one of its martyrs. “You can call us extremists. You can call us domestic terrorists,” she declared during one campaign event in 2022. “You know who else was called a lot of names his whole life? Jesus.”

Lake’s loss two years ago is just one indicator that Arizona is turning away from Trump-style conservatism. Though Trump won the state by 3.6 percent in 2016, he lost it in 2020 by about half of a percent. In 2022, all of the major statewide candidates Trump endorsed were defeated. But the state is certainly not a Democratic stronghold, either. Of roughly 4.1 million registered voters, there are some 236,000 more Republicans and 197,000 more independents than there are Democrats. To win, Gallego “has to appeal to a cross ­section of voters,” says former Arizona Democratic Party Chair Jim Pederson, “particularly moderate Republicans.”

Doing so will require Gallego to walk a nuanced line on the border crisis; the crisis raises drug and crime concerns for many Republican voters, but migrants also fuel the state’s economy. The high-profile race will also force Gallego to confront controversies from his past. The same wartime experiences that prepared him for January 6­ left him with PTSD that has led to angry outbursts and the collapse of his first marriage while his then-wife was pregnant with their child.

Gallego’s mental health struggles may be good fodder for his opponent to leverage against him, but his allies counter that his history of hardships is not a liability—it may even be an asset.

“I was on the floor with him on January 6. I was sitting right next to him,” Swalwell says. “And I saw, actually, not somebody with a temper, but somebody very much in control.”

Gallego never had it easy. Both of his parents immigrated to the United States as teens, his father from Mexico and his mom from Colombia. His parents divorced around the time Gallego was in junior high. His now-estranged dad, who worked in construction, would eventually be convicted on felony drug charges. His mom raised Gallego and his three sisters in a small apartment outside of Chicago, where Gallego slept on the living room floor and helped the family make ends meet through odd jobs as a line cook, a janitor, and a cashier. From his makeshift bedroom, he plotted an escape route out of poverty by way of a college education. His dream school, Harvard, ultimately offered him a scholarship.

In Cambridge, Gallego had a dorm room with a bed—something he hadn’t had in six years. He majored in international relations, thinking he might work for the State Department one day, and experienced some culture shock. “We both were finding our way in this new environment,” says Shailesh Sahay, Gallego’s fraternity brother and future best man, who is also the son of immigrants. “We both went to public high schools and kind of socialized in a normal public school way. To contrast that, there were kids like Jared Kushner in school with us. His budget for going out on Saturday night was significantly higher than our budget was.”

But Gallego could hobnob with anyone, friends say. “Was he absolutely the coolest kid in class? No, but he definitely knew a lot of people,” says Jean-Pierre Jacquet, another Harvard classmate and fraternity brother in Sigma Chi. He “had a lot of self-confidence, which is, you know, not unusual in Cambridge.”

During his sophomore year Gallego’s college career was nearly derailed after his grades declined and he broke some campus rules. (“Underage drinking” was involved, he told the Boston Globe.) Harvard administrators kicked him out of school, saying he could reapply in a year. A few months later, Gallego enlisted as a Marine reservist and completed basic training in South Carolina. He was readmitted to Harvard for the winter 2001 semester.

That fall, Gallego watched on a laptop screen as two hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center towers, changing the country’s future—and his.

In 2003, during what would have been Gallego’s final semester at Harvard, his unit was sent to Okinawa, Japan, for an uneventful deployment. But the next one wouldn’t be. After graduating from Harvard in 2004, Gallego followed his college girlfriend, Kate Widland, to New Mexico. He did fieldwork for John Kerry’s presidential bid until he was called up again, this time to Iraq with a battalion that would send home 48 flag-draped caskets, more than any other since 1983’s Beirut bombing.

After six bloody months in Iraq, Gallego settled in Phoenix, where Kate had moved to work in Democratic politics. “Coming back to ‘normal’ life was disorienting. The goals were nebulous, the relationships far less intense, and therefore less meaningful,” he writes in his 2021 memoir, They Called Us “Lucky.”

Not long after his homecoming, Gallego landed a job at a public relations firm, and work became a soothing distraction. “I was immediately impressed, especially when I heard his story,” says Joe Yuhas, the firm’s managing partner who remembers meeting Gallego while in line for the bar at a charity event. “He’s energetic and tenacious and he listens. Those were important features in the work that we did.”

One of Gallego’s first projects was battling a state ballot proposition banning gay marriage. During this campaign, Gallego clashed with one of the local politicians leading it, then–state Rep. Sinema.

Gallego’s role included recruiting volunteers, many of them members of the same LGBTQ community as Sinema, who is bisexual. Even so, she considered it a mistake to place queer people at the center of the campaign—she wanted to focus on how the proposition would also make it more difficult for straight and unmarried­ ­couples to access insurance and legal protections. After Gallego argued she was alienating their most effective advocates, Sinema eventually requested his removal from the campaign. Yuhas chalks it up to a “personality conflict,” adding that “neither one of them lacks in personality.”

Sinema’s strategy was necessary—they won by a 4-point margin—given the state’s conservative politics at the time, Yuhas says. And he notes that Gallego thrived working on other projects, including the successful campaign of Phoenix City Council Member Michael Nowakowski, who poached Gallego as his chief of staff.

Nowakowski and Gallego had an odd-couple relationship—Nowakowski a soft-spoken manager of a Spanish-­language radio station who once dreamed of becoming a priest, and Gallego a hard-charging war veteran. “I want to throw down some hail and brimstone, and this guy’s like, ‘It’s not how I operate,’” Gallego told the Arizona Republic in 2008.

Gallego’s fiery temperament caused a local scandal the following year when he sharply upbraided a council intern, “yelling and pounding his desk,” according to the Republic. Less than an hour after the incident, Gallego emailed two city council staffers: “When you have a chance I would like to talk to you about [the aide],” he wrote. “Her time as an intern is up.”

The intern claimed Gallego “was aggressive towards me” and filed two complaints with the city. She was let go shortly after. The city ultimately cleared Gallego of the harassment accusations and noted that the intern was previously slated to be dismissed due to budget cuts. Gallego touches on the episode in his memoir, attributing his behavior to trauma from his military service. “I’d never lost my cool before the war,” he writes. “Now I did, snapping and yelling at people for little reason.”

Gallego resigned from Nowakowski’s office in late 2009 to run for a state House seat representing a liberal portion of Phoenix. In this new role, he prioritized legislation that benefited fellow military service members, specifically a bipartisan bill granting veterans in-state tuition in Arizona. But soon he was looking for his next break, and after the US House member who represented his district announced his retirement, Gallego jumped into the race. After a competitive primary, Gallego handily won the general election.

Gallego’s demons persisted as he climbed the political ladder in DC. “I still drank more than I should. Smoked more than I should. Lost my temper more than I should,” he writes in his book. “I had nightmares. I thought about my dead friends. I wondered why I was alive. I couldn’t seem to find anything to cheer me up.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs lists many of these symptoms in its criteria for PTSD, a diagnosis Gallego received after three years of medical evaluations. Yet by then, his relationship with Kate, whom he married in 2010, had unraveled; they announced their separation in 2016 when she was in the third trimester of her pregnancy with their son. Now the mayor of Phoenix, she and Gallego co-parent their 7-year-old, who often joins his dad on the campaign trail. Kate also endorsed her ex-husband’s Senate bid in December, though Gallego’s critics have seized on the timing of their split. (Kate Gallego declined an interview with Mother Jones.) The Washington Free Beacon has filed a motion to unseal ­Gallego’s­ divorce records, and Lake has attacked him over the issue. Referring to Gallego’s pro-choice views, she said she would “not be lectured on motherhood” by someone who “left his wife when she was nine months pregnant.”

Gallego’s mental health struggles have also bled into his congressional life. A former Arizona state lawmaker describes a meeting, not long after Gallego first came to Capitol Hill, in which a veteran who had been injured by an IED lobbied Gallego to oppose the Iran nuclear deal. “When this guy came in and told Ruben, ‘If you don’t vote against the bill, you’re gonna have the blood of American servicemen and women on your hands,’ [Gallego] blew up and he started screaming,” the former lawmaker, who was present, recalls. (A congressional aide who was also in the room disputes that Gallego yelled.) “He took a stern tone,” says the aide, who adds Gallego’s frustration was in response to “how aggressive and confrontational the veteran was.”

Gallego’s sometimes-salty disposition, the former lawmaker points out, might contrast sharply with the camera-ready persona of his opponent, especially if they square off in a debate. “Lake has had 30 years of television experience and can be very poised,” the former lawmaker says. “And he could come off as an angry short man yelling at the woman who might be saying outrageous and insane things but is looking composed.”

With Lake, political disinformation and deceit are masked by a perfect pixie cut and gleaming white smile. With Gallego, his allies say, what you see is what you get. “Sometimes I’m out with him, and he’ll meet somebody new. And I expect politician Ruben to come out. And it doesn’t,” says Swalwell. “I’ve seen people tell him they’re in Washington working on whatever issue. And he’ll say, ‘Well, that’s a bad idea.’ He’s not afraid to tell people how he feels—not in a rude way. But if you’re expecting a polished politician, that’s not Ruben, and that’s refreshing.”

In mid-December, Gallego’s forthright nature is on display during a visit to Yuma County to judge Somerton’s 16th annual Tamale Festival.

“Good spice,” he writes on a blue scorecard next to a four-star entry.

Entry number 24 is “too dry,” but the tamale from contestant 25 is “amazing.”

“I don’t know about this, y’all,” Gallego says as he bites into a spinach one. “No, no, no, no.” He shakes his head as he pushes the green mush to the side of his plate.

He jokes that after sampling two dozen contenders, he may have to cross the border to sample something else: Ozempic.

As we walk by various food vendors, Gallego is approached by at least a dozen festival attendees, including a squad of young cheerleaders seeking a group picture and a woman from the Cocopah Indian Tribe, who has Gallego’s ear on and off throughout the day. “You’ll never see Sinema or Kari Lake doing any of this, like talking to people, trying to actually understand what’s going on with their lives,” he says.

In addition to festivals, parades, and rallies—the meat-and-potatoes campaign schedule for any conventional candidate—Gallego is also on a mission to visit all 22 federally recognized Native tribes in Arizona. Part of this is personal. Gallego says two of his closest friends are Navajo brothers with whom he served in Iraq. And one of the few bills he’s successfully navigated to passage in the House provides resources to Native tribes to help them prevent and investigate child abuse. Gallego’s strategy is also politically astute. The massive turnout of Native people, who make up roughly 5 percent of the state population, proved critical for Democrats in 2020, when Biden won the state by fewer than 12,000 votes.

While Lake already boasts national name recognition, experts say Gallego’s go-everywhere-talk-to-everyone approach is critical to broadening his appeal outside of Phoenix. “If the Republicans or Democrats were winning by a huge landslide, then maybe it’s not necessarily going to make much of a difference to try to engage with all these low-population counties,” says Samara Klar, a political science professor at the University of Arizona and an expert on independent voters. “But that’s not the way in Arizona. We have extremely razor-thin margins of victory.”

The thin margins have something to do with the unique politics of Arizona, where a third of registered voters claim no political party. One of the state’s most revered politicians was the late John McCain, the Republican elder statesman of the Senate known as a partisanship-bucking maverick. A year before his death, McCain famously gave a forceful thumbs-down as he cast the deciding vote against a GOP-led attempt to repeal part of the Affordable Care Act. Sinema, who was elected to the Senate shortly after McCain’s death, also rejected a pivotal measure with the same hand gesture. In her case, she was one of a handful of Democrats blocking an increase of the federal minimum wage.

Sinema’s obstructionism, especially her refusal in 2022 to support reforming the filibuster to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act by a simple majority, convinced Gallego to run for her seat. “The filibuster isn’t a tool to encourage sophisticated debate, it’s a tool to kill legislation that the vast majority of Americans support,” Gallego said at the time. Later that year, Sinema became an independent and filed initial paperwork to run for reelection as such. Gallego’s announcement that he would challenge Sinema from the left both elated and alarmed liberals who worried they would divide the moderate-to-liberal vote and tip the scales toward a Lake victory—and perhaps a GOP-led Senate.

Sinema’s March announcement that she would instead retire at the end of her term relieved Democrats, taking a messy three-way race off the table. Arizona Democrats won big in 2022, electing a Democratic governor, secretary of state, and attorney general. But if the results suggest a repudiation of Trumpism, mounting concerns over immigration could hamper Gallego’s chances. An October survey of registered Arizona voters, for example, found they trusted Trump more than Biden on immigration by a margin of 54 to 41 percent.

The issue is personal to Gallego. His parents immigrated through family reunification and worker visas, he says. He supports increasing funding for both humanitarian aid and Border Patrol personnel. But he also argues that today’s crisis stems largely from the dismantling of the pathways his parents took to enter the country legally.

It’s not simply that migrants need us, he argues, but that we need them. Just 12 miles from Somerton is the Mexican border, which tens of thousands of migrants cross during peak season to work the Yuma County fields that produce about 90 percent of the country’s lettuce every winter. Throngs more opt for less safe and less legal—but more permanent—solutions.

They are “doing all these illegal or abusive things because they want to get here and we’re not making it easier,” he says, “and we do need people to come work.”

Two months after the tamale festival, I catch up with Gallego on Capitol Hill. While he waits to vote on some procedural measures, we take brisk laps between the entrance to the House chamber and Statuary Hall. These days, this is how Gallego gets in his steps, as he juggles legislative and child-rearing duties. Last summer, Gallego and his second wife, Sydney, a Democratic lobbyist whom he met at the 2018 annual congressional baseball game, welcomed a baby girl. A member of the Congressional Dads Caucus, Gallego took a few weeks of parental leave over the summer.

On our walk, we talk about television shows (he is hooked on Netflix’s Griselda), Mexican food (don’t make him pick a favorite dish), and which chores he contributes to his household. (“The real answer is I don’t do enough,” he admits.)

We also discuss the day’s legislative agenda—namely, what wasn’t on it. Earlier that week, Democrats and Republicans seemed close to consensus on a border bill. The deal, initially backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, would have barred migrants with criminal histories from applying for asylum, quickened hearing timelines, and more. Then Trump weighed in. “Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill,” he posted to Truth Social. “Don’t be STUPID!!!”

That was that. The bill was dead.

Republicans “really had nothing else to run on, and it was going to be taken away, and that’s when Donald Trump and his minions called it in and sunk it,” says Gallego. “It was one of the most cynical political moves I’ve seen since I’ve been in Washington, DC.”

There is some competition for that distinction of course—notably Trump’s effort to overturn the election, which culminated in the insurrection that sent Gallego into combat mode three years earlier not far from where we stand. That Gallego is now facing Lake, one of the biggest promoters of the Big Lie, in this pivotal Senate race is oddly fitting, and its outcome will say much about where the nation may be headed.

One candidate amplified the election lies that motivated thousands of Trump zealots to ransack the citadel of American democracy. The other prepared to repel this onslaught—and preserve the sanctity of the democratic process—with a ballpoint pen. In November, democracy is again on the line. And Gallego is up for the fight.

Topple Johnson

How Greene’s bid to topple Johnson could blow up the House — or in her own face

One House Republican summed up the fear: Her move could “deliver aid to Ukraine” by giving Johnson no choice but to seek common cause with Democrats.

By OLIVIA BEAVERS, JORDAIN CARNEY and NICHOLAS WU

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bid to vote on firing Speaker Mike Johnson risks throwing the House back into leaderless paralysis for the second time in six months.

But it also holds real peril for the frustrated conservatives whom she claims to represent — with some worried she could possibly push Johnson into working with Democrats on Ukraine aid.

The Georgia Republican last week introduced a resolution ousting Johnson that she hasn’t said when she will force a vote on, portraying it as an early warning to the speaker after he pushed through a government funding deal that his right flank loathed. Should Greene decide to tee up that vote later next month, after Johnson’s margin shrinks to just one vote, she might need only a single colleague on her side in order to fire him — so long as Democrats unite against saving his job.

“You should take her very seriously,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who voted to oust Kevin McCarthy as speaker last year but said he “isn’t there yet” on joining Greene’s anti-Johnson push.

“Marjorie is playing chess, not checkers. She’s looking at the long game, and she’s holding all the cards on this one,” Burchett added. “And I think it’s an attempt on her part to move the Republican party to a more conservative area — where our base is.”

Yet as Johnson increasingly looks to Democrats to help pass major bills, including a $1.2 trillion spending plan that most of his conference opposed, Greene’s latest chess move could backfire spectacularly. There’s no guarantee any Republicans will join her in ousting Johnson, since even many conservatives are disinterested in firing another speaker. Still, some haven’t ruled it out — and Johnson has no room to maneuver in his thin majority.

So the speaker could end up answering her threat by giving Democrats floor time for Ukraine, as the Louisiana Republican actively decides a path forward on the foreign aid package. That may well be enough to lock in a few Democratic votes for saving his job.

One House Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly, summed up the fear: Greene’s move could “deliver aid to Ukraine” by giving Johnson no choice but to seek common cause with Democrats. “Wouldn’t that be rich,” that member added sarcastically.

Interviews with more than a dozen GOP members and aides point to a clear division between Johnson’s allies and his critics on the right. The speaker’s supporters dismiss Greene, arguing that there’s little appetite within the conference to relive another divisive leadership fight that would plunge the House into chaos during an election year.

A smaller number of conservatives, like Burchett, warn that Greene’s move poses real danger to Johnson as he approaches two big policy fights next month — one on foreign aid and the other on renewing contentious government spy powers. Both of those issues promise to drive a wedge through the already fractured GOP conference.

But for now, even some of the Republican rebels who had no qualms about ousting McCarthy are swatting down Greene.

“She’s on the McCarthy revenge tour,” House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good (R-Va.), one of the eight GOP lawmakers who voted to remove McCarthy, said at a campaign stop Tuesday. “We don’t talk about removing the speaker. We’re trying to influence him to do the right thing.”

Another House Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly about Greene, described her Johnson ouster push as “the narcissist wanting more attention.”

Besides Good, five of the other six Republicans currently in office who booted McCarthy from the speakership are either presently opposed to or holding out on any moves against Johnson.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), a chief McCarthy foe, recalled during the campaign event with Good that he had told Johnson he’s “increasingly disappointed in his performance as speaker.” But, Biggs added of ousting the Louisianan, “I don’t think it’s going to happen, regardless of whether we want it to.”

Greene, however, has claimed she has silent supporters. Conservatives have soured on Johnson’s leadership in growing numbers, believing he’s either getting bad advice or that he isn’t willing to fight for their priorities the way they’d hoped when they helped elect him.

Johnson’s relationship with his right flank is notably different from McCarthy’s, however, which could help his chances of survival. Several hardliners have said they saw McCarthy as willing to lie to them — unlike Johnson, whom they generally like as a person.

And much of the private chatter from Johnson’s biggest critics has focused on next year’s leadership slate, including floating speaker alternatives if the GOP holds the majority in November.

Still, some could be staying strategically quiet to see how Johnson navigates the foreign aid debate in particular. The Georgia firebrand moved up her own timetable for filing a so-called motion to vacate the speaker’s chair, at first saying she would do so if Johnson took up a Ukraine bill — and then moving her goalposts after the spending deal passed.

Once Greene seeks to attach “privilege” to her resolution ousting Johnson, should she make good on her vow last week to do so, GOP leaders will have 48 legislative hours to bring it up on the floor. Greene has declined to say when she will trigger a vote, saying that she wants to give her conference time to come up with alternatives and avoid the weeks of chaos that followed McCarthy’s ouster.

But whenever that might happen, Johnson could get help from Democrats, who refused to lend the same hand to McCarthy.

That’s because, while the conservative speaker doesn’t have much ideological overlap with Democrats, a sizable number of people in the House minority are loath to repeat the frenetic vacuum of the post-McCarthy period. Some in the party are also watching what Johnson does with the long-awaited foreign aid package and are likely to vote to protect him if it gets a floor vote.

‘We’re going to get a Republican speaker anyway. And I figure, why would you want to go through that nightmare we went through before because they can’t get their act together?” said Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.). He urged Republicans to change the one-person threshold to force a vote on ousting the speaker, because it is “affecting all of us.”

Yet Peters’ prediction that the House will keep a Republican speaker regardless isn’t ironclad. And House Democrats are unlikely to get ahead of their own leaders on an anti-Johnson vote; the caucus is expected to hold a conversation before deciding on any course of action.

If Democrats hang together and withhold any support from Johnson after his margin shrinks to one vote, Greene’s push could even result in a speaker from their party or a coalition government.

It’s an outcome clearly identified by Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who was initially noncommittal about Greene’s effort before ruling out a Johnson ouster.

“I don’t agree with what Marjorie did. We got a one-seat majority … If you want to put [House Minority Leader] Hakeem Jeffries in, then do just what she’s doing,” Norman said in an interview.

Telegram

Kremlin delivers warning to Telegram boss after Moscow terror attack

Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson called out Pavel Durov and flagged that the platform is being “used for terrorist purposes.”

BY ŠEJLA AHMATOVIĆ

Vladimir Putin’s press secretary on Thursday urged Russian-born Telegram boss Pavel Durov to monitor the messaging app more closely, claiming that terrorists use it.

“We would have expected more attention from Pavel Durov,” Dmitry Peskov said in an interview with Russia's pro-government outlet Life.

“Because this unique and phenomenal resource from a technological point of view, which grew up before our generation's eyes, is increasingly becoming a tool in the hands of terrorists — used for terrorist purposes,” Peskov said, but added that Russia currently had no plans to ban Telegram.

On Friday, at least 143 people were killed in an attack on a concert hall in Moscow. According to the Russian state-controlled news agency RIA, the attackers were recruited in a Telegram channel belonging to ISIS-K, an Islamic State group affiliate, which emerged in late 2014 as a breakaway faction of the Pakistani Taliban. 

Up to 49 million people — 40 percent of Russia's internet users — used Telegram in 2023, which makes it the country's most popular platform.

Critics accuse Telegram of tolerating the spread of conspiracy theories and hate speech, which often find a home — and proliferate — on the app.

The platform's founder Durov addressed the criticism in a blog post in October 2017, arguing that Telegram defends freedom of speech.

“Criticizing local authorities, challenging the status quo and engaging in political debate are OK,” Durov wrote. “Meanwhile, promoting violence and calling for actions that can harm innocent people are not OK. This is a rule of thumb we’re always applying when moderating public channels."

In a recent interview with the Financial Times, Durov said when asked about Putin and the Kremlin's war on Ukraine: “Let’s not go there," adding that it is “very important for the world to retain Telegram as a neutral platform.”

Over?

Is the UK election already over? 

With the polls stubbornly refusing to turn, is there anything Rishi Sunak can do to move the dial and avoid electoral wipeout?

BY ESTHER WEBBER

The starting gun has yet to be fired on the next U.K. election, and yet it’s hard to escape the feeling it’s already over. 

With potentially another six months before Britain goes to the polls, and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak having had almost no luck shifting the dial on any of his political set-pieces — a mood of fatalism is setting in among his MPs. 

The Conservatives have been stuck 20 points behind in the polls for months as a growing number of MPs from different wings and generations of the party have announced they won’t stand again at the next election. 

The sense of a foregone conclusion deepened when John Curtice, one of the country’s most respected polling authorities, told POLITICO there was now a “99 percent chance of Labour forming the next administration.”

One long-serving Conservative MP, granted anonymity to speak frankly, hinted at the pessimism among his colleagues in saying of Curtice’s analysis: “It just doesn’t feel like news.”

Sunak still hopes he can win some credit for an improving economy, but looks increasingly isolated in that view. By contrast, one of the main fears of Labour’s election planners is complacency.

Writing on the wall

At this time two years ago, the average poll numbers of the main parties were within five points of each other. Following the ouster of Boris Johnson from 10 Downing Street that July, however, and the chaotic blink-and-you’ll-miss-it 49-day premiership of Liz Truss, the numbers headed south for Sunak and have never fully recovered. 

As the months passed, some Tories consoled themselves that the polls would narrow closer to an election and that a sizable chunk of current “don’t knows” would split for the Conservatives. 

The pollsters beg to differ.

YouGov’s Anthony Wells cautions that while the polls may narrow they are unlikely to move enough to deliver the “leap” required to close the gap. 

Westminster watchers say the election result could instead be a historic wipeout for the Conservatives, with even the party’s grassroots bible, ConservativeHome, pondering the possibility of a rout.

Against this backdrop, many Tory MPs are considering their options and deciding they’d rather not be part of the anticipated bloodbath.

So far, 63 Conservative MPs have confirmed they won’t stand again, against just 17 for Labour. The total includes James Heappey and Robert Halfon, loyal ministers seen as effective in their jobs, but who quit their posts this week ahead of standing down at the election.

They each gave their own reasons for leaving, but the wider impression is that many don’t fancy a spell in opposition.

The Labour Party, meanwhile, faces a very different problem, with Keir Starmer’s team constantly warning MPs and candidates not to rest on their laurels lest their lead slip away.

As Pat McFadden, Labour’s election chief, posted after one poll predicting a massive Labour victory: “Ignore this poll. Fight like we are behind. Fight like every vote matters. Change will only come for the country if people vote for it, and not a single vote has been cast.”

No way back? 

Sunak isn’t giving up without a fight. After toying with a “change” message last year, the PM appears to have settled on a more traditional sell: that only the Tories can be trusted with the economy. 

Speaking after a recent drop in inflation, Sunak told the BBC that 2024 will “prove to be the year that the economy bounces back.” He has repeatedly urged voters not to go back to “square one” with Labour. 

Yet while some economic indicators do encourage optimism — particularly the hope of lower interest rates for mortgage holders later this year — Sunak is unlikely to be rewarded while voters are still feeling the pinch. 

James Smith, research director at the Resolution Foundation think tank, pointed to reasons why talk of a bounce might feel misplaced, including “weak growth long-term and stagnation of living standards, with average wages still below the level they were before the financial crisis.”

This picture is reflected in focus groups run by Public First, a public opinion consultancy. The firm’s director, James Frayne, said: “People feel they’ve been beaten up financially for five years — almost everyone feels poorer.”

He added that while long-term incumbents often try to persuade voters that change isn’t worth the risk, “this time around that’s not viable — there’s no mileage in trying to scare people that change would be worse.”

Joe Twyman, director of the firm Deltapoll, points to its polling over the last nine months in which the proportion of voters who said they trusted the Conservatives most on the economy had been no higher than 34 percent and no lower than 28 percent. 

“If you think about all the stuff that’s happened over that time, the autumn statement, the budget [fiscal events], all the economic indicators good and bad — it has made statistically no difference,” Twyman said.

Sunak’s other big pitch to voters is claiming to have taken decisive action to bring down illegal migration by enacting his plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. 

However, what was originally sold as “emergency legislation” has faced trenchant opposition in the House of Lords, the upper chamber of parliament, and is not expected to pass until late April, meaning those flights to Rwanda may not take off until June.

The hard sell

Sunak, along with the more upbeat of his troops, refuses to accept he’s doomed. 

He has urged voters to “stick” with the Tories in the next general election, saying that his plan for recovery is “starting to deliver.”

A senior Tory MP on the right of the party cast doubt on Curtice’s words, saying: “I’ve been around long enough to know that nothing is ever certain in politics.” 

A minister challenged Curtice to “come knocking on some doors and then he’d see how many voters out there are still undecided and open to persuasion.”

On that score, the sentiment of those close to Sunak matches that of the higher-ups in Labour as they try to eradicate complacency ahead of the election. 

A senior Labour aide described Curtice’s verdict as “nonsense” and warned party colleagues not to be sucked in by such predictions. 

But unless something fundamental shifts, it will become ever harder for activists on both sides to believe those who insist there really is something still to play for.

Death spiral......

MyPillow, owned by election denier Mike Lindell, evicted from Minnesota warehouse

But Lindell said it is not actually as bad as it looks.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

A court ordered the eviction Wednesday of MyPillow from a suburban Minneapolis warehouse that it formerly used, but company founder and prominent election denier Mike Lindell said that it’s just a formality because the landlord wants to take the property back.

Lindell denied in an interview with The Associated Press that the eviction was another sign of his money woes. He said his financial picture is actually improving after a credit crunch last year disrupted cash flow at MyPillow after the company lost one of its major advertising platforms and was dropped by several national retailers.

“We’re fine,” he said.

Lindell faced a setback last month when a federal judge affirmed a $5 million arbitration award in favor of a software engineer who challenged data that Lindell said proves China interfered in the 2020 U.S. presidential election and tipped the outcome to Joe Biden. Lindell acknowledged in January that Fox News stopped running MyPillow commercials amid a billing dispute.

Lindell confirmed Wednesday that MyPillow owes around $217,000 to Delaware-based First Industrial LP for rent for the facility in Shakopee. He said MyPillow no longer needed the space and removed its remaining property from the warehouse last June before subleasing the space to another company through December.

Another company was going to start subleasing the space in January but backed out and “left us all stranded,” he said. MyPillow offered to find another tenant, he said, but the landlord just wanted to take back control of the warehouse instead. The $217,000 is for unpaid rent for January and February, he said. He also said MyPillow continues to lease space elsewhere.

The Star Tribune reported that a Scott County judge held a hearing Tuesday on the warehouse owner’s request to formally evict MyPillow, which did not contest the landlord’s request.

Decriminalizing drugs

Why Portland failed where Portugal succeeded in decriminalizing drugs

Oregon lawmakers gave it three years. Portugal’s program took longer to show results.

By CARMEN PAUN and AITOR HERNÁNDEZ-MORALES

America’s first experiment in treating hard drugs as a public health problem, rather than one for the police, looks like it’s about to end.

The Oregon Legislature has voted to repeal the state’s three-year-old law decriminalizing drug possession for personal use this month, joining cities from San Francisco to Washington, D.C., that are adopting new tough-on-drugs policies. Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek is expected to sign the bill, passed after a surge in fatal overdoses and public drug use, in the coming days.

But public health advocates behind the law say the repeal is coming before decriminalization had a chance to work. They point to Portugal, which saw a 75 percent drop in drug deaths since it adopted the same strategy in 2001 through 2022, as evidence that Oregon is giving up too quickly. Portugal’s success, they point out, wasn’t achieved overnight or even in three years.

Oregon’s experiment “was not given the time that it needed,” said Tera Hurst, the executive director of Oregon’s Health Justice Recovery Alliance. “This is a political response to a serious problem,” she said of the measure’s likely repeal. “This is life and death.”

In response to sky-high overdose rates in the late 1990s, Portugal’s parliament decriminalized drugs in 2000 and reoriented the country’s response to the opioid crisis by reframing it as a public health — and not a crime — crisis starting in 2001.

In an interview in Portugal’s capital, Lisbon, João Goulão, the official who has overseen its drug treatment system since, said the Oregon Legislature’s decision seemed premature.

“Above all, you have to be consistent in your approach and give it time to provide results,” he said. “When you’re taking on something as complex as the opioid crisis, you can’t really expect to see dramatic changes from one day to the next.”

Oregon’s lawmakers voted to once again impose criminal sentences for drug possession because of a surge in fatal overdoses and public drug use.

But Hurst and other decriminalization advocates said the law didn’t succeed because of problems with implementation: a failure to fund new treatment services for 18 months after the law passed, a failure to train police on their new role in addressing addiction, and a failure to direct drug users to treatment.

The decriminalization effort also came as the Covid pandemic drove a nationwide spike in addiction as deadly fentanyl simultaneously arrived in the Pacific Northwest. And the state’s longstanding housing problem, worsened by the pandemic, led to more people living on the streets, with some of them using drugs in public, advocates said.

Proponents of the repeal, which will allow police to arrest people for drug possession while offering options to avoid jail by seeking treatment, said they aren’t abandoning a public health-led approach. Rather, they said they are pursuing the needed fixes.

“We knew we had to intervene in public drug use. And we needed to make sure that it wasn’t just easy to be a drug addict on the streets of Portland,” said Kate Lieber, a Democrat who’s the majority leader in the Oregon State Senate. “We couldn’t do that without recriminalization.”

Debating the data

It was Oregon voters who decided to decriminalize drugs when they passed Measure 110 in a decisive 58 percent to 42 percent vote in November 2020.

At first glance, the decision now looks spectacularly bad.

Drug overdose deaths spiked almost 50 percent, from 1,171 in 2021, when possession of drugs for personal use was decriminalized, to 1,683 in October 2023, according to the latest data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Opioids, particularly fentanyl, caused most of the deaths, according to the Oregon Health Authority.

The number of homeless people in Portland, the state’s largest city, also rose to nearly 6,300 in 2023, a 65 percent hike since 2015.

And public drug use grew rampant in the city, leading state and local leaders to declare a 90-day fentanyl emergency in January.

“Fentanyl wreaks havoc on the people in its grips, often rendering them lifeless on our sidewalks,” Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler told reporters when he announced the emergency on Jan. 30.

“It also begets violence among those who bring this deadly poison into our city. This devastation and trauma unfolds on the doorsteps of homes, businesses and in the streets, impacting nearly everyone in some way,” Wheeler, a Democrat, said.

The new legislation aims to make Portland safer by cracking down on public drug use and giving police more power to respond while investing in improving treatment for substance use disorder.

But decriminalization advocates said the ballot measure is unfairly blamed for rising drug use and homelessness. The spike in overdose deaths and public drug use were in their view caused by an unaffordable housing market exacerbated by the pandemic and the arrival of illicit fentanyl on the West Coast in 2020, years after it had hit other parts of the country.

“It’s a conflation of multiple circumstances that are increasing the probability of people being outside on the street using drugs,” said Kassandra Frederique, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, an advocacy group that funded the ballot measure.

The rise in overdose deaths is consistent with national and regional trends, according to data from RTI International, a research institute. Deaths from overdoses spiked nationwide during the pandemic, reaching the record level of nearly 110,000 in a year for the first time. And deaths in Washington state rose more than in Oregon since 2019, even though hard drug possession is still a crime there, according to RTI International’s Alex Kral, an epidemiologist with expertise in drug policy.

The study was supported by Arnold Ventures, a philanthropy that backed the ballot measure, but Kral said it “has absolutely no input into any aspect of our research or dissemination.”

The ballot measure aimed to improve care for people suffering from addiction by allocating some $150 million a year from the state’s cannabis tax revenue to improve and expand treatment access. Oregon ranked last in the nation in its capacity to provide addiction treatment when it decriminalized drug possession.

However, funding for new treatment services did not roll out until some 18 months after decriminalization. The Oregon Health Authority, which was in charge of the rollout, had to implement the new law while responding to the pandemic and working with volunteers from the substance use disorder recovery community to award grants.

“One of the things that people miss in the conversation is the context in which this intervention is being played. It’s not like the state was doing great and the state got worse. The state had nothing,” Frederique said.

By contrast, Portugal had an expansive and trusted public health network that was reinforced by adding addiction treatment clinics during the 1990s.

Portugal’s decriminalization went into effect in the summer of 2001. Goulão believes it was effective in moving drug users into treatment from the start, while reducing overdoses, but he said it took three to four years to prove it was.

“For you to be able to claim something works, scientifically, you have to let it exist, you have to collect data, have it contrasted ... These things take time.”

Given the confounding factors affecting drug overdoses in the state, Oregon’s secretary of state warned in January 2023 that the state health authority needed to collect more data to assess whether decriminalization was working.

But by late 2023, lawmakers had lost patience, as constituents pressured them to stem the rise in deaths and public drug use.

“Almost five people a day in Oregon die from fentanyl. So inaction was not an option,” said Lieber, the state Senate majority leader.

Lieber took issue with the comparison decriminalization activists make with Portugal, where fentanyl use is inexistent.

“That is a game changer for us. It’s cheap. It’s available. It’s deadly,” she said.

Course correction or retreat?

Under the decriminalization law, Oregon police issued $100 tickets to people caught using drugs, waivable if the person called a hotline to get treatment.

The Oregon secretary of state reported in December that the hotline was receiving only about 10 calls a month and that staffing the line was costing $7,000 a call.

Lawmakers who led the recriminalization legislation said they’re adding a big stick to encourage drug users to get treatment — the threat of up to six months in prison — but that they’re not giving up on the treatment-first approach.

If Kotek signs their bill, people arrested for drug possession can avoid jail if they agree to treatment.

“We have tried to create a system where law enforcement has the ability to intervene when they see something happening on our streets and confiscate drugs, but signal to our law enforcement and district attorney and court partners that we want people directed towards a behavioral health system and to treatment,” said Democratic Rep. Jason Kropf, who worked on the bill with Lieber.

That will bring Oregon closer to Portugal’s system, advocates of the recriminalization bill said.

Portugal doesn’t put drug users in jail: Instead, police officers are used to encourage them into treatment by dissuading public consumption and issuing tickets to those who are found to be doing so.

“Portugal has been able to be more coercive, more able to interfere with someone’s liberty to encourage or motivate them to engage in treatment,” said Kevin Barton, the district attorney for Washington County, west of Portland.

Goulão disputed that characterization, pointing out that Portuguese authorities can no longer threaten users with jail time and that fines are symbolic at best. He instead credited Portugal’s success to the persistent street presence of police officers and social workers who work together to guide users toward treatment.

“The social workers we deploy are there every step of the way. They set up appointments, they take people to the appointments by hand if need be, and if they refuse treatment they do everything they can to keep them as safe as possible,” he said.

In Oregon, Measure 110 has funded similar outreach projects, which can continue under the new bill.

Max Williams, a former state lawmaker who also ran Oregon’s prison system, said the legislation would also put hundreds of millions of dollars into building treatment facilities that the state needs to respond to the demand for care.

“Despite our rollback of this issue, Oregon has the most progressive drug laws of any state in the United States,” he said.

A stalled movement

That’s not the lesson the rest of America will take from what’s happened in Oregon, though, other critics of the decriminalization law said.

Oregon Sen. Tim Knopp, the Republican minority leader, called the idea underlying the decriminalization movement — that people will seek treatment on their own — a fantasy and rejected the argument that the policy needed more time to show results.

“The only thing that was happening with more time is our overdose deaths were on a skyrocketing trajectory,” he said.

Knopp’s advice to other jurisdictions: Get tough on drugs, while building treatment infrastructure.

“The new compassion can’t be that we’re going to let people die more slowly,” he said.

Democrats increasingly see things similarly. Tough-on-drugs policies are taking hold again in Democrat-led cities.

Voters in progressive San Francisco earlier this month approved a proposal by Mayor London Breed to screen and mandate addiction treatment for people receiving welfare.

Washington, D.C., revived a 1990s law allowing the police to designate drug-free zones for up to five days to stop drug trafficking and loitering.

And states, including California, have passed or are considering laws increasing penalties for fentanyl dealers.

If “people feel like public order and public safety are deteriorating around them, you will lose the citizenry and you will lose the politicians,” said Brandon Del Pozo, an adjunct professor teaching international drug policy at Georgetown University.

“Nationwide now, decriminalization is going to be off the table for a while,” he said.

Uprising Against

What the Uprising Against Ronna McDaniel Really Means

The staff revolt at NBC News underscores how the balance of power has shifted away from management.

By JACK SHAFER

Newsrooms have always been battlegrounds, with reporters staging sorties against editors and editors smiting reporters they considered to be out of line. But in nearly all of these skirmishes, there has never been much doubt about who held the real power. With the exception of formal labor disputes about pay and working conditions, newsroom bosses have held the upper hand. Reporters have had little recourse when angry other than to grumble or leak their dissatisfaction to other publications.

But over the past generation, huge packets of power have transferred from those bosses to their workers. This shift — made palpable this week by NBC News’ abrupt dismissal of former Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel after NBC News reporter Chuck Todd and the newsroom protested her hiring — has dramatically altered newsroom dynamics.

“In 35 years of covering the media, I have never seen a newsroom revolt like the one at NBC/MSNBC,” tweeted press critic David Zurawik. It was a little bit of an overstatement, but what is true today is that top editors, who once assigned and published pieces, hired and fired journalists, and set newsroom policy with minimal pushback from the staff, now face wild uprisings if they steer a course that riles enough newsroom employees. The bosses haven’t lost control, but they’re no longer completely in charge, and that is changing the way journalism gets done.

The roots of today’s prolific dissents can be traced back to the removal of New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd by management in 2003. Raines had had a rough 20 months in the slot. He had drawn scorn for overhyping the Augusta National Golf Club’s refusal to enlist female members as if it was a human rights travesty. His pet reporter, Rick Bragg, resigned shortly after the paper ran an editors’ note about his overreliance on a stringer’s work. And, significantly, the Jayson Blair scandal erupted on his watch. But none of these embarrassments justified Raines’ departure as the paper’s top editor. Rather, they catalyzed a newsroom mutiny in the making by a staff that had grown to despise Raines’ tyrannical ways. Unlike his predecessors, Max Frankel and Joseph Lelyveld, who had screw-ups of their own, Raines had no personal capital to trade when the newsroom mutinied against him. As Times veteran Jack Rosenthal told writer Seth Mnookin for his book Hard Times, a Times staff town hall “exploded with applause” when an employee asked Raines if he would be resigning.

Other more modest revolts flared here and there in the years that followed, but then a momentous shift took place, as social media and Slack became a real part of the newsroom mix starting in the next decade.

Prior to those technological innovations (or catastrophes), it was nigh on impossible for disgruntled newsrooms to broadcast their discontent. Their beefs were obviously not going to appear in their own pages. The only viable outlets for their gripes were city magazines and alternative weeklies (notably the Village Voice “Press Clips” column), and Spy magazine’s “J.J. Hunsecker,” who pilloried the Times. But as the 2010s rolled in, Facebook and Twitter afforded journalists and their comrades a new and efficient way to poke the bear.

And if the Raines implosion was more due to issues of personality, an ideological shift was also emerging (perhaps not coincidentally as Donald Trump also rose to power). A new generation of reporters began arriving, bringing with them a disdain for traditional journalistic norms, such as “objectivity,” and a willingness to clash with their superiors. (The news business is not alone here: See the recent anonymous petition assembled by White House staffers about Gaza and forwarded to the president.)

A few notable episodes in recent years:
  • In 2017, a reader and staff uprising ensued at the New York Times over what protesters thought was a “normalizing” profile of a white nationalist and Nazi sympathizer in Ohio. The paper defended its coverage but also apologized meekly for having “offended so many readers.”
  • In 2017, newly hired conservative columnist New York Times Bret Stephens was greeted by Twitter raspberries from readers and staffers alike. Stephens survives to this day.
  • In 2018, the Atlantic hired and fired conservative literary ruffian Kevin D. Williamson after the staff and “the Twitter mob” ( Williamson’s words) took issue with his previous writings, including his 2014 tweet that women who have abortions should be hanged.
  • In 2019, CNN reversed its decision to hire former Trump administration official Sarah Isgur as a political editor amid an avalanche of criticism; instead, she became a political analyst.
  • In 2020, Washington Post journalist Wesley Lowery left the paper after he said his editors had “threatened” him for expressing his views on Twitter about the press’ failure to “properly cover and contextualize race.”
  • In 2020, New York Times opinion editor James Bennet resigned following his publication of an op-ed by GOP Sen. Tom Cotton that urged the military be called in to quell George Floyd protests. Slack accounts at the Times and Twitter disparaged Bennet around the clock, with staffers claiming the op-ed put Times workers in danger. The newspaper’s union, the NewsGuild of New York, took the unusual move to protest the column.
  • In 2021, members of the POLITICO newsroom protested the guest assignment of conservative writer Ben Shapiro to write its flagship “Playbook” newsletter, and made their feelings known in a newsroomwide Zoom session.
  • In 2022, Washington Post reporter Felicia Sonmez was fired by the paper after a long-running battle with editors over her expressions on Twitter about Post policies, which she considered discriminatory.
There have been other dust-ups, but the McDaniel furor seems to be on its way to planting the flag of newsroom dissent as a permanent fixture at news outlets. Chuck Todd wasn’t the only high-profile NBC News employee to holler about McDaniel’s hiring. NBCers Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough and Joy Reid also criticized management on the air, as did the network’s union.

What the newsroom might think of a story or a news policy or a new hire has always mattered at the margins. However, without judging who is right and who is wrong in the above disputes, a trend has emerged that would paralyze journalists from earlier eras. Yes, editors still police the social media comments of their staffers, but they seem powerless to block these outpourings when great numbers in the newsroom take umbrage.

Robert G. Kaiser, who worked at the Washington Post for more than 50 years, including a long stint as the paper’s managing editor, expresses astonishment at the journalistic sea change we’re witnessing.

“If you had told [Carl] Bernstein and me in 1967 that we had no right to speak out about anything, we’d just say, OK, got it,” he told me. “The idea that you would defy Ben Bradlee to do something selfish in your own interest was inconceivable.” Bradlee was the paper’s charismatic top editor, and his word was law.

But Kaiser, who is 81, concedes that times have changed, and what seem right and natural in an earlier world might no longer apply.

“One of the lessons of a mentally healthy old age is that you kind of stop second-guessing your successors,” he says. “It’s just a different universe with different standards, different rules, different expectations. It’s hard for you and me to recognize profound changes when they’re happening.”

Writer Daniel Okrent, who served as the New York Times’ first public editor, finds it ironic that newsrooms originally urged staffers to use social media to build an audience for their publications. (Kaiser says he was urged to join Facebook by the paper’s owner, Don Graham, something he didn’t want to do.) Editors ultimately recoiled when some staffers started to voice their political opinions. But then they sent them back on social media, “because social media became an essential way to market a newspaper to market a brand,” Okrent says. “There are rules in place, clearly in many places, about what you can or cannot say. But it can’t really be policed.”

Okrent allows that he might be a “dinosaur,” stuck to the old ways of doing journalism, but he finds himself disturbed by the growing trend of editors giving in so easily to protesting staffs and chatter in the web.

“Just watching this collapse in this series of concessions that news management has been making over the past several years is really dispiriting. And I don’t want to watch it anymore,” he says. “The new way makes the case that even fairness, in our old definition, no longer matters. What matters, it seems to be, more and more, is, ‘Are you on the right side or on the wrong side?’ And that’s been defined in the newsrooms by, yes, web designers and the like, but also by a new generation who didn’t come from where we came from. Or at least where I came from.”

Asked how he’d run one of the fractious newsrooms today, Kaiser says he would have done what Post Executive Editor Marty Baron did when challenged by Lowrey and Somnez. “We don’t do this here because we respect each other,” he says he would have told them. “We have ways of dealing with our problems that don’t involve bringing the whole world.”

“But could I get away with that? I have no idea,” Kaiser says.

The web and its subsets of social media and Slack channels have probably relegated editorial dictatorships to the waste bin of history. Unless editors are willing to expend vast energies facing down “rebellious” staffers, as Baron did, we’re likely to see similar flare-ups at news outlets in the future. It’s no longer a simple matter of newsroom bosses cracking down on dissenting voices when they cross the red line of conduct that has been laid down in an outlet’s standards manual. If enough voices protest long enough and hard enough, the best that bosses can hope for is a stalemate.

The web, social media and Slack have given staffers the power to petition their grievances in a public forum that’s brand new. For the time being, power has shifted away from editors and toward newsroom employees. As the Ronna McDaniel episode enters the managerial crisis manual, not every newsroom boss will tread more softly, second-guess his own hiring practices and think twice about embracing controversy. Editors, after all, never march in lockstep. But the McDaniel story has awakened the newsroom to how much power there is for the taking.

As Kaiser says, it’s going to be a different universe.

No trust.........

Putin on attacking NATO: ‘Complete nonsense’

Just trust him.

BY SEB STARCEVIC

Russia has no plans to invade the rest of Europe, President Vladimir Putin said late Wednesday, despite numerous warnings to NATO by Russian officials and Putin's own musings about nuclear war.

As the Kremlin’s all-out conflict in Ukraine enters its third year, Putin vigorously rejected speculation that Russia could attack other countries in Eastern Europe next.

“This is complete nonsense — the possibility of an attack on some other countries, on Poland, the Baltic states, the Czechs are scared. It's just nonsense,” he said, adding that Russia has “no aggressive intentions toward these states.”

Several top European military officials have over the past few months raised the alarm that an increasingly belligerent Kremlin could order an attack on a NATO country within the next few years.

Putin made the comments at a meeting of military pilots in Tver Oblast, northwest of Moscow. A transcript of the conversation was released by the Kremlin and published by state media on Thursday.

In the months and weeks leading up to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia’s foreign ministry and other officials repeatedly denied Moscow had any plans to attack its neighbor.

In a familiar narrative, Putin this week also accused NATO of provoking Russia by expanding eastward.

"Were we moving toward the borders of those countries that were part of the NATO bloc? We didn't touch anyone! They were moving toward us,” he said.

“Did we cross the ocean to the borders of the United States? No,” he added. Putin has pointed to NATO's expansion in recent decades to excuse waging war in neighboring Ukraine.

Finland and Sweden have also joined the transatlantic military alliance, after security fears were sparked in Helsinki and Stockholm by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Russia has repeatedly issued threats and used revanchist rhetoric about its neighbors. In December last year, one of Russia’s top diplomats vowed Finland would be “the first to suffer” if war broke out with NATO.

Meanwhile, outspoken Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, who is also Russia’s former prime minister and president, referred to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia as "our Baltic provinces" and said Poland was "temporarily occupied” in a post on social media in May last year.