tardigrada

Luke Radel, a student journalist at Syracuse University, asked Johnson (R-La.) about Trump's recent comments that the CHIPS and Science Act is "so bad."

"You voted against it," said Radel. "If you have a Republican majority in Congress and Trump in the White House, will you guys try to repeal that law?"

"I expect that we probably will, but we haven't developed that part of the agenda yet," said Johnson before attempting to pivot to talking about Rep. Brandon Williams, a Republican who represents New York's 22nd District, where a $100 billion Micron Technology chipmaking facility has benefited from the CHIPS and Science Act.

[...]

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) echoed the congresswoman [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's] sentiment, saying Johnson's plan to repeal the CHIPS Act would impact "tens of thousands of IBEW jobs created by this administration."

"We are NOT going back," said the union.

Johnson's remark got the attention of other politicians whose states have benefited from the law, including [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)], Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

[...]

Historians in China need to play a dual role. Not only do they contribute to the advancement of knowledge, but they also need to actively defend their country’s national interests in the South China Sea. According to a report by the South China Morning Post, Chinese scholars gathered at the end of June were urged to “give a forceful response to false narratives” to strengthen their nation’s claims in the South China Sea.

At the seminar held in Hainan Province, China, Wu Shicun, founder of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, emphasised the critical importance of “narrative construction and discourse building” for China. He said that the strategy would effectively defend the nation’s rights and interests in the South China Sea.

China asserts its claim to more than three million square kilometres of the Sea through the “nine-dash line” concept – contrary to international law. History has become a battleground in the dispute waters. Beijing has sought to draw upon the Western Han dynasty (200BCE to 9CE) to illustrate that China has historically fished in the waters for thousands of years. Yet a 2016 international tribunal decision on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea did not concur, concluding that there was no legal basis for China’s historic rights claim.

[...]

Propaganda based on China’s history may also be directed at individuals who are not Chinese citizens. It is reasonable to anticipate that China’s interpretation of the South China Sea history will be taught in mainland China’s universities, where international students are pursuing their degrees. China may also choose to communicate this interpretation to the international community through public diplomacy channels that it has established globally.

[...]

An internal whistleblower complaint at Trump Media calls for CEO Devin Nunes to be fired, alleging he has “severely” mismanaged the company and opened it to “substantial risk of legal action” from regulators, according to a copy reviewed by ProPublica.

The letter also says that former President Donald Trump’s company is hiring “America Last” — alleging that Nunes imposed a directive to hire only foreign contractors at the expense of “American workers who are deeply committed to our mission.”

“This approach not only contradicts the America First principles we stand for but also raises concerns about the quality, dedication, and alignment of our workforce with our core values,” the letter says.

Trump’s promise to “stop outsourcing” and “punish” companies that send jobs abroad has been a centerpiece of his political career, including his current campaign for president.

The letter also accuses Nunes, a former Republican congressman, of hiring unqualified members of his inner circle and being dishonest with employees at the company, which runs the social media platform Truth Social.

Historians in China need to play a dual role. Not only do they contribute to the advancement of knowledge, but they also need to actively defend their country’s national interests in the South China Sea. According to a report by the South China Morning Post, Chinese scholars gathered at the end of June were urged to “give a forceful response to false narratives” to strengthen their nation’s claims in the South China Sea.

At the seminar held in Hainan Province, China, Wu Shicun, founder of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, emphasised the critical importance of “narrative construction and discourse building” for China. He said that the strategy would effectively defend the nation’s rights and interests in the South China Sea.

China asserts its claim to more than three million square kilometres of the Sea through the “nine-dash line” concept – contrary to international law. History has become a battleground in the dispute waters. Beijing has sought to draw upon the Western Han dynasty (200BCE to 9CE) to illustrate that China has historically fished in the waters for thousands of years. Yet a 2016 international tribunal decision on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea did not concur, concluding that there was no legal basis for China’s historic rights claim.

[...]

Propaganda based on China’s history may also be directed at individuals who are not Chinese citizens. It is reasonable to anticipate that China’s interpretation of the South China Sea history will be taught in mainland China’s universities, where international students are pursuing their degrees. China may also choose to communicate this interpretation to the international community through public diplomacy channels that it has established globally.

[...]

Australia will increase its missile defence capability after China’s test of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in the South Pacific raised “significant concerns” and as the Asia Pacific region enters a “missile age”.

[...]

Australia has previously said it would spend 74 billion Australian dollars ($49bn) on missile acquisition and missile defence over the next decade, including 21 billion Australian dollars ($13.7bn) to fund the Australian Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise, a new domestic manufacturing capability.

“We must show potential adversaries that hostile acts against Australia would not succeed and could not be sustained if conflict were protracted,” Conroy said in the speech.

Historians in China need to play a dual role. Not only do they contribute to the advancement of knowledge, but they also need to actively defend their country’s national interests in the South China Sea. According to a report by the South China Morning Post, Chinese scholars gathered at the end of June were urged to “give a forceful response to false narratives” to strengthen their nation’s claims in the South China Sea.

At the seminar held in Hainan Province, China, Wu Shicun, founder of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, emphasised the critical importance of “narrative construction and discourse building” for China. He said that the strategy would effectively defend the nation’s rights and interests in the South China Sea.

China asserts its claim to more than three million square kilometres of the Sea through the “nine-dash line” concept – contrary to international law. History has become a battleground in the dispute waters. Beijing has sought to draw upon the Western Han dynasty (200BCE to 9CE) to illustrate that China has historically fished in the waters for thousands of years. Yet a 2016 international tribunal decision on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea did not concur, concluding that there was no legal basis for China’s historic rights claim.

[...]

Propaganda based on China’s history may also be directed at individuals who are not Chinese citizens. It is reasonable to anticipate that China’s interpretation of the South China Sea history will be taught in mainland China’s universities, where international students are pursuing their degrees. China may also choose to communicate this interpretation to the international community through public diplomacy channels that it has established globally.

[...]

Afraid of partisan rancor, nonprofits are biting their tongues, with divisive politics hindering public policy engagement by social service organizations. This is one of the findings in a new study conducted by researcher from several U.S. universities on behalf of Independent Sector – a coalition of nonprofits, foundations and corporate giving programs.

[...]

As this growing divisiveness has permeated even the most local aspects of American life, many food pantries, homeless shelters and other social service nonprofits are hesitating to take policy positions that may appear partisan to members of their local communities or donors.

[...]

When addressing a social media post about Israel and Palestine that had been misconstrued and sparked controversy, the leader of a legal services nonprofit remarked: “The more polarized we are as Americans, the harder it becomes for us to have an open conversation.”

[...]

“Nonprofits sometimes are afraid to engage with government officials,” a food security nonprofit leader said, because that advocacy might lead to “some form of retaliation” by the authorities.

Another concern they expressed: Advocacy might alienate donors who disagree with the nonprofit leaders’ stances.

“It’s like there’s no middle ground anymore,” said the executive director of an emergency housing center. Others discussed how polarization has led to more divisions in board rooms and the loss of donors. That makes it harder for these organizations to decide to take a public stand on many issues.

[...]

Voter fraud is a fact of life in any democracy, but it is usually the result of carelessness on the part of single voters or ballot-counters, and there are ample processes in place to identify and correct those mistakes when they occur. After the 2020 election, the Associated Press found 475 instances of possible voter fraud in six states where a combined 25 million ballots were cast. High-profile claims of voter fraud in Arizona, Georgia, and everywhere Rudy Giuliani looked evaporated upon closer inspection.

At a certain point, the lack of evidence for widespread voter fraud ought to make Americans more skeptical of these claims. Instead, it looks like the opposite might be happening.

Just 39 percent of respondents to a recent University of Massachusetts Amherst poll said they were "very confident" that their voters would be counted accurately in this year's election. That includes just 26 percent of Republicans and 16 percent of independents. Even when including those who say they are "somewhat confident" that votes will be tabulated correctly, only about two-thirds of the country have faith that the outcome of the election will reflect the votes cast.

A similar partisan divide emerged in a recent Pew Research Center survey that asked whether "it will be clear who won the election" after all the votes were counted. Just 58 percent of Trump voters are "very" or "somewhat" confident that those final counts will be clear, compared to 81 percent of Vice President Kamala Harris voters who are prepared to trust the process.

If former president and Republican nominee Donald Trump is elected next week, economists are betting that inflation will go up. Research firm Capital Economics plans to actually raise its interest-rate forecast in such a scenario because its economist Thomas Ryan suspects the Federal Reserve’s reaction will be to pull back on slashing rates.

[...]

We’re a little less than a week away from the presidential election, and the housing world is still at a standstill. The two candidates have plans, or concepts of plans, for housing. But inflation plays a key role: It can push prices higher even while real estate serves as a hedge against it. The Consumer Price Index rose just 2.4% in September from a year earlier, and that’s very close to the Fed’s target. Not to mention, the central bank entered into a cutting cycle that same month, slashing its key interest rate by 50 basis points. So you might think the worst is behind us, but it might not be.

In June, 16 Nobel Prize–winning economists signed a letter expressing their concern that Trump’s proposals could reignite inflation. Earlier this month, 68% of economists surveyed [...] said inflation would likely be higher under a Trump presidency. On the other hand, 12% said the same for a Kamala Harris presidency.

[....]

That isn’t to say everything would be perfect if Harris were president—it won’t be, and housing will still be pretty stuck; maybe there’ll be a small recovery. Mortgage rates might come down a bit too. However, the expectation of another Trump presidency is already taking effect, and may only worsen if he is elected.

[...]

The Inflation Reduction Act appropriated an estimated 1.2 trillion in federal dollars to fund a variety of programs, most of of which were focused on climate change. It represents the biggest investment in climate action taken by the United States to date. On top of this, [U.S. President Joe] Biden’s Justice 40 initiative aims to ensure that 40 percent of federal climate-related funding goes towards marginalized communities.

A portion of existing funds from the IRA are administered through the Environmental Protection Agency and are meant for advocacy groups, which often partner with state and local governments to help get money to the country’s neediest people. A subset of advocacy groups that receive federal funding are environmental justice groups, which advocate for climate change mitigation and increased access to a pollution-free environment for residents in low-income and BIPOC communities, which are often disproportionately located near sources of pollution.

If it followed Project 2025’s proposal, a Trump EPA would almost certainly put an end to such programs. The Heritage Foundation has previously targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in public and private institutions, as my colleague Isabela Dias wrote earlier this year. (Though it’s worth noting that race is not a factor that the Justice 40 initiative considers when deciding what constitutes a disadvantaged community.)

“Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her,” Trump said at an event with Tucker Carlson. “Okay, let’s see how she feels about it. You know when the guns are trained on her face.”

The subject of this violent comment was Liz Cheney, perhaps the most high-profile Republican to support Trump’s Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris, and Trump made this statement amid endless evidence of the dangers he poses should he return to the White House. In this instance, Trump was slamming Cheney for being a “radical war-hawk” and suggesting she should be subjected to a taste of combat. But this use of such visceral imagery comes as he continues to threaten to prosecute his perceived enemies. This summer he promoted a social media post calling for Cheney to be placed on trial for treason before a military tribunal.

[...]

“This is how dictators destroy free nations,” Cheney responded on social media. “They threaten those who speak against them with death. We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant.”

Meanwhile, mainstream news outlets are still chewing over whether President Joe Biden may or may not have called Trump’s supporters “garbage” in response to a comedian at a recent Trump rally describing Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage.” This morning, there was more quibbling over a report that the White House may have altered a transcript of Biden’s “garbage” dig. Given that Trump has often dehumanized and demonized his political foes and their supporters, saying they’re “scum,” the attention paid to Biden’s remark—which he clarified after the fact—is misplaced.

[...]

We’re all a bit desensitized. But the use of such violent rhetoric by hideous men within reach of the White House should still shock us. Anything less, well, is garbage.

The first hospital diagnosed her with strep throat without investigating her sharp abdominal cramps. At the second, she screened positive for sepsis, a life-threatening and fast-moving reaction to an infection, medical records show. But doctors said her six-month fetus had a heartbeat and that Crain was fine to leave.

Now on Crain’s third hospital visit, an obstetrician insisted on two ultrasounds to “confirm fetal demise,” a nurse wrote, before moving her to intensive care.

By then, more than two hours after her arrival, Crain’s blood pressure had plummeted and a nurse had noted that her lips were “blue and dusky.” Her organs began failing.

Hours later, she was dead.

[...]

Texas’s abortion ban threatens prison time for interventions that end a fetal heartbeat, whether the pregnancy is wanted or not. It includes exceptions for life-threatening conditions, but still, doctors told ProPublica that confusion and fear about the potential legal repercussions are changing the way their colleagues treat pregnant patients with complications.