climate-alarm community

A nine-month-old baby reportedly undergoing surgery was among the eleven victims injured

'Small group of Kansans'

'For most of his life‚ Mr. Rocha lived a lie'

'Try not to break your phone'

Despite a huge amount of political opposition from the chemical industry‚ the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its first regulations aimed at limiting quantities of PFAs‚ or ‘forever chemicals‚’ in American drinking water. For decades‚ Polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAs have been used for coatings that resist fire‚ oil‚ stains‚ and water and are now […] The post US Unveils First-Ever Regulations to Remove ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Drinking Water appeared first on Good News Network.

Kansas Ban on Child Trans Procedures Hits the Veto Wall

Wall Street Journal news-industry reporter Alexandra Bruell broke a story on Friday about managers at The New York Times struggling with the intolerance of new employees who are &;quot;applying ideological purity tests&;quot; to stories on &;quot;sensitive topics like the transgender community and social justice.&;quot; Those kids coming out of college don't bow to the wisdom of their elders who may still want to portray themselves as neutral and independent of ideological camps. The Bruell story was headlined: New York Times Bosses Seek to Quash Rebellion in the Newsroom After internal upheaval over coverage of sensitive topics like the Israel-Gaza war‚ management renews emphasis on independence and neutrality Bruell began with the internal squabble over Hamas weaponizing sexual-assault on October 7‚ which ended up being a multiple-story obsession of NPR media reporter David Folkenflik after someone working on The Daily podcast (which airs on hundreds of NPR stations) complained to The Intercept‚ a radical-left site. “The idea that someone dips into that process in the middle‚ and finds something that they considered might be interesting or damaging to the story under way‚ and then provides that to people outside‚ felt to me and my colleagues like a breakdown in the sort of trust and collaboration that’s necessary in the editorial process‚” Executive Editor Joe Kahn said in an interview. “I haven’t seen that happen before.”   It's a little funny when newspapers who routinely rely on leakers have to deal with internal leakers. They don't wonder if it causes &;quot;a breakdown of trust and collaboration that's necessary in the governing process.&;quot; But it's also amusing that Kahn is aware that America's top colleges are sending him employees that think neutrality is an objectionable concept: Kahn noted that the organization has added a lot of digital-savvy workers who are skilled in areas like data analytics‚ design and product engineering but who weren’t trained in independent journalism. He also suggested that colleges aren’t preparing new hires to be tolerant of dissenting views. “Young adults who are coming up through the education system are less accustomed to this sort of open debate‚ this sort of robust exchange of views around issues they feel strongly about than may have been the case in the past‚” he said‚ adding that the onus is on the Times to instill values like independence in its employees. Bruell noted some pitched battles over transgender issues‚ from an internal Slack forum over a trans-related opinion piece by Times opinion columnist Pamela Paul to an open letter signed by more than 1‚000 contributors over the article “The Battle Over Gender Therapy‚” and the framing of the article “When Students Change Gender Identity‚ and Parents Don’t Know.”  She also recalled how editorial-page editor James Bennet and science reporter Donald McNeil were let go after internal staff turmoil. Finally‚ we had to love what publisher Arthur Gregg Sulzberger thinks the &;quot;emotion-free&;quot; stories are:  Kahn said the Times’ national desk now is bigger and more equipped to cover an unprecedented election. The Times will also be more committed to covering misinformation in the 2024 election‚ with a team of eight to nine people‚ he said. In January‚ Sulzberger shared his thoughts on covering Trump during a visit to the Washington bureau. It was imperative to keep Trump coverage emotion-free‚ he told staffers‚ according to people who attended. He referenced the Times story‚ “Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First‚” by Charlie Savage‚ Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman‚ as a good example of fact-based and fair coverage. 

Donald Trump may have disappointed pro-life activists with his embrace of a federalist stance on abortion‚ but with President Joe Biden being a far-left abortion zealot‚ they will still vote for him. For New York Times columnist David Brooks on Friday’s PBS NewsHour‚ however‚ this is just another instance of “the power of Trump” and “above some of the core convictions.” Host Geoff Bennett asked Brooks for his thoughts on the fallout of the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that an 1864 pro-life law can be enforced‚ “Because even Donald Trump is implicitly acknowledging that this is a problem‚ because he said that the Arizona State Supreme Court went too far and that the law‚ in his words‚ needs to be straightened out.”     Brooks claimed that “this is a phenomenal shift in the Republican Party we saw this week. Since Ronald Reagan‚ the Republican Party has been a pro-life party. It's been based on the conviction that‚ from conception‚ it's a human life. It's a human life. And then you get Donald Trump. And‚ recently‚ he's been floating the idea that we should have a 15-week ban or a 20-week ban. In other words‚ he's for allowing a law that has 93 — or some 90 percent—of the abortions would go forward‚ and he's allegedly pro-life.” It is unfair to compare a post-Roe GOP candidate’s stance on abortion to a Roe-era GOP candidate’s. Even still‚ Brooks’s claim is unfair. Roe did not allow for a federalist solution‚ so by allowing states to impose bans or 15-week restrictions‚ Trump is being more pro-life than Roe even if he disappointed pro-life activists by not embracing a national policy. Brooks‚ however‚ would repeat himself‚ “This is literally the most pro-choice position a Republican has taken since Ronald Reagan‚ this is going back to Jerry Ford‚ maybe. And so you're seeing the party bend to the political winds‚ and it's just an astonishing turnaround.” As for those pro-life activists‚ Brooks claimed that “the thing that astonishes me‚ the pro-life groups‚ they should be really‚ I guess it's appropriate to say raising holy hell. But they're sort of going along with it. And it shows that — the power of Trump over the party. Let's protect Donald Trump‚ even above some of the core convictions.” Again‚ Brooks is being unfair. Many people believe that politics and elections are the art of the possible‚ and with Trump as president‚ it will be possible to get some conservative judges‚ maybe some pro-life regulations‚ and that state pro-life laws will survive. If Biden is re-elected‚ it is possible‚ if not likely‚ that the opposite will happen.  Here is a transcript for the April 12 show: PBS NewsHour 4/12/2024 7:44 PM ET  GEOFF BENNETT: Well‚ what about that‚ David&;yacute; Because even Donald Trump is implicitly acknowledging that this is a problem‚ because he said that the Arizona State Supreme Court went too far and that the law‚ in his words‚ needs to be straightened out. DAVID BROOKS: Yeah‚ well‚ this is a phenomenal shift in the Republican Party we saw this week. Since Ronald Reagan‚ the Republican Party has been a pro-life party. It's been based on the conviction that‚ from conception‚ it's a human life. It's a human life. And then you get Donald Trump. And‚ recently‚ he's been floating the idea that we should have a 15-week ban or a 20-week ban. In other words‚ he's for allowing a law that has 93 — or some 90 percent of the abortions would go forward‚ and he's allegedly pro-life. Now he's sort of backed off that position. His position is‚ it should be state by state. But he won't tell people how they should vote. He says‚ follow your heart. This is literally the most pro-choice position a Republican has taken since Ronald Reagan‚ this is going back to Jerry Ford‚ maybe. And so you're seeing the party bend to the political winds and it's just an astonishing turnaround. And the thing that astonishes me‚ the pro-life groups‚ they should be really‚ I guess it's appropriate to say raising holy hell. But they're sort of going along with it. And it shows that — the power of Trump over the party. Let's protect Donald Trump‚ even above some of the core convictions. Will it shift election‚ the presidential election&;yacute; I'm not so sure. I think it's definitely helped Democrats in House races and it's definitely helped Democrats in every ballot initiative since Dobbs. But if you look at people in Arizona say‚ what are the issues they care about&;yacute; Inflation and immigration are number one and two‚ and they vastly prefer Donald Trump. Abortion is in there‚ but it's down below. So will it affect the — it'll certainly drive Democratic turnout‚ but will it shift toward Donald Trump&;yacute; I'm not sure‚ since the two big issues‚ he's pretty good on.