Ouster of Speaker McCarthy Highlights House Republican Fractures In An Increasingly Polarized America

House of Representatives

BY CHARLES R. HUNT

The House of Representatives on Oct. 3, 2023, did something that had never been done before in the nation’s history: It ousted the speaker of the House. Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, lost his job in a vote of 216 to 210. To look deeper than the surface machinations, The Conversation U.S. spoke with political scientist Charles R. Hunt at Boise State University.

He offers a sense of what this historic development might mean for the government at the moment, as well as for American democracy over the longer term.

What does the ouster say about the House’s ability to function, such as to pass a new budget in the next 45 days?

It’s important to remember what the purpose of the speaker of the House is: to literally speak for the entire House, to guide legislation through. It’s an unruly chamber of 435 members.

So what you need, ideally, is someone who has the trust of the chamber – particularly of their own party, since the majority party at least traditionally has unilateral control over the business of the House. So both trust and party discipline are conducive to a smoothly functioning legislative process.

When Americans think of a functioning democracy, they might think of bills getting passed on time, of Congress getting things done. But voters of all party affiliations are frustrated by the gridlock here, particularly over the past decade or two.

The interesting thing about this situation with the speakership is that gridlock has traditionally been between the two parties. Right now, it’s within one party.

Do House members want to do what the public wants them to do – get things done?

Americans say they don’t want to be focusing on these fights. But there are members of Congress for whom these fights are really important to how they represent — like Florida Republican Matt Gaetz — who hail from very Republican districts and have staked their reputations on fighting establishment figures in their own party like Kevin McCarthy. Likewise, many Democrats back in 2019 or 2020, when they held the majority in the House, felt they had a responsibility to their mostly Democratic constituents to bring the fight to President Donald Trump.

For some in the GOP, there is also this ideology of smaller government, less spending, lowering the national debt – the more typical conservative Republican priorities. They are not new, but there is now this sense that being anti-establishment, and trying to wield power to its greatest possible extent, is a goal in itself.

Some voters have looked at how the House has operated over the past couple of decades and thought, “we don’t want any more of that.” So they are willing to put their trust in the hands of some of these people who want to, figuratively at least, burn the place down – even if there is no clear exit strategy for what happens next. The lack of a plan after McCarthy’s ouster seems to show that obstruction is kind of the point.

How can people understand these events in the context of America’s system of representative democracy?

Gaetz has been saying he doesn’t like the process, that he wants to go back to “regular order,” in which budget proposals are voted on separately, instead of in huge omnibus spending bills. He and others just see that the way the House is conducting its business is not working. In Congress, those concerns are mainly coming from the far left and far right. They relate to the increasing polarization in this country, and Congress mirrors that growing division.

Democrats are getting more progressive, and Republicans in particular are getting more conservative over time. This is in part because districts are becoming more and more safe for one party or the other. So the average district is less likely to produce a moderate member of Congress. That increases the influence of party primaries. The voters who participate in these elections tend to be pretty ideologically extreme Republicans and Democrats who don’t want to see their representatives working with the other side.

And the more polarized the country gets, the more you see this element of negative partisanship, where a representative’s voters are more driven by how much their candidate is willing to fight against the other side, rather than how much they’re getting done for their own side.

Why isn’t this kind of drama happening in the Senate?

The cultures of the two institutions are really different, even today. George Washington is said to have described the House as a cup of hot tea that was going to overflow with the passions of the “common people,” and the Senate would be the saucer that would catch that overflow.

This session, both institutions are living up to those reputations.

The first reason is that House districts are smaller. They can be drawn in very specific ways and gerrymandered and are more subject to geographic sorting, so you end up with really extreme districts, politically.

Whereas in the Senate, they represent whole states. They typically have to represent a lot more people than a House district, a much broader constituency. That can lead to adopting a more consensus-driven tone.

The rules of the Senate are also much more consensus-driven. Rules like the filibuster and Unanimous Consent Agreements can force more moderate senators to work together to reach a kind of consensus.

Plus, because it’s a smaller body, there is generally more collegiality. These senators know each other better, and so even between the parties you get people teaming up on legislative proposals a lot more often.

Finally, Senate leadership is less powerful. Mitch McConnell, when he was the majority leader, wielded a great amount of procedural power, and Chuck Schumer does now, but much less than the speaker does in the House. This creates a lot of the friction in the House between leadership and rank and file that you don’t typically see in the Senate.

What are the key differences that help explain how these different House members are behaving?

This is the big question Americans ask: Why on Earth does Congress do any of the things it does?

It may not seem like it, but members of Congress have incentives for doing what they do. There are the incentives of Congress as a whole. There are the incentives of the two parties, which is why they meet in their conferences and caucuses to strategize.

But individual members also face very different pressures in their different districts, even if they’re in the same party. Consider Gaetz, whose district Trump won by almost 40 points. He faces no serious challenge in a general election against a Democrat because it’s mostly Republicans in the district. The only race that really matters in this district is the primary.

By contrast, think of a moderate Republican from New York in a district that Joe Biden won by four or five points. This person understands that to get reelected, they need some critical mass of independents and maybe even some Democrats to support them.

Ultimately, the only constituency that any member of Congress must be responsive to is the one in their district. In political science, we call it dyadic representation. It’s a pairing, a dialogue, between a member and their constituents. And that is ultimately what they are thinking about, or, at least, they should be thinking about if they want to get reelected. This is how you get these divergent approaches to governing.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Quantum Dots Are Part Of A Revolution In Engineering Atoms In Useful Ways – Nobel Prize For Chemistry Recognizes The Power Of Nanotechnology

THE CONVERSATION

Quantum dots are now a normal part of many consumer items, including televisions. Soeren Stache/picture alliance via Getty Images

BY ANDREW MAYNARD

PROFESSOR OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY TRANSITIONS

ARIZONA STATE UN IVERSITY

The 2023 Nobel Prize for chemistry isn’t the first Nobel awarded for research in nanotechnology. But it is perhaps the most colorful application of the technology to be associated with the accolade.

This year’s prize recognizes Moungi Bawendi, Louis Brus and Alexei Ekimov for the discovery and development of quantum dots. For many years, these precisely constructed nanometer-sized particles – just a few hundred thousandths the width of a human hair in diameter – were the darlings of nanotechnology pitches and presentations. As a researcher and adviser on nanotechnology, I’ve even used them myself when talking with developers, policymakers, advocacy groups and others about the promise and perils of the technology.

The origins of nanotechnology predate Bawendi, Brus and Ekimov’s work on quantum dots – the physicist Richard Feynman speculated on what could be possible through nanoscale engineering as early as 1959, and engineers like Erik Drexler were speculating about the possibilities of atomically precise manufacturing in the the 1980s. However, this year’s trio of Nobel laureates were part of the earliest wave of modern nanotechnology where researchers began putting breakthroughs in material science to practical use.

Quantum dots brilliantly fluoresce: They absorb one color of light and reemit it nearly instantaneously as another color. A vial of quantum dots, when illuminated with broad spectrum light, shines with a single vivid color. What makes them special, though, is that their color is determined by how large or small they are. Make them small and you get an intense blue. Make them larger, though still nanoscale, and the color shifts to red.

This property has led to many arresting images of rows of vials containing quantum dots of different sizes going from a striking blue on one end, through greens and oranges, to a vibrant red at the other. So eye-catching is this demonstration of the power of nanotechnology that, in the early 2000s, quantum dots became iconic of the strangeness and novelty of nanotechnology.

But, of course, quantum dots are more than a visually attractive parlor trick. They demonstrate that unique, controllable and useful interactions between matter and light can be achieved through engineering the physical form of matter – modifying the size, shape and structure of objects or instance – rather than playing with the chemical bonds between atoms and molecules. The distinction is an important one, and it’s at the heart of modern nanotechnology.

Skip chemical bonds, rely on quantum physics

The wavelengths of light that a material absorbs, reflects or emits are usually determined by the chemical bonds that bind its constituent atoms together. Play with the chemistry of a material and it’s possible to fine-tune these bonds so that they give you the colors you want. For instance, some of the earliest dyes started with a clear substance such as analine, transformed through chemical reactions to the desired hue.

It’s an effective way to work with light and color, but it also leads to products that fade over time as those bonds degrade. It also frequently involves using chemicals that are harmful to humans and the environment.

Quantum dots work differently. Rather than depending on chemical bonds to determine the wavelengths of light they absorb and emit, they rely on very small clusters of semiconducting materials. It’s the quantum physics of these clusters that then determines what wavelengths of light are emitted – and this in turn depends on how large or small the clusters are.

This ability to tune how a material behaves by simply changing its size is a game changer when it comes to the intensity and quality of light that quantum dots can produce, as well as their resistance to bleaching or fading, their novel uses and – if engineered smartly – their toxicity.

Of course, few materials are completely nontoxic, and quantum dots are no exception. Early quantum dots were often based on cadmium selenide for instance – the component materials of which are toxic. However, the potential toxicity of quantum dots needs to be balanced by the likelihood of release and exposure and how they compare with alternatives.

Since its earlier days, quantum dot technology has evolved in safety and usefulness and has found its way into an increasing number of products, from displays and lighting, to sensors, biomedical applications and more. In the process, some of their novelty has perhaps worn off. It can be hard to remember just how much of a quantum leap the technology is that’s being used to promote the latest generation of flashy TVs, for instance.

And yet, quantum dots are a pivotal part of a technology transition that’s revolutionizing how people work with atoms and molecules.

‘Base coding’ on an atomic level

In my book “Films from the Future: the Technology and Morality of Sci-Fi Movies,” I write about the concept of “base coding.” The idea is simple: If people can manipulate the most basic code that defines the world we live in, we can begin to redesign and reengineer it.

This concept is intuitive when it comes to computing, where programmers use the “base code” of 1,s and 0’s, albeit through higher level languages. It also makes sense in biology, where scientists are becoming increasingly adept at reading and writing the base code of DNA and RNA – in this case, using the chemical bases adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine as their coding language.

This ability to work with base codes also extends to the material world. Here, the code is made up of atoms and molecules and how they are arranged in ways that lead to novel properties.

Bawendi, Brus and Ekimov’s work on quantum dots is a perfect example of this form of material-world base coding. By precisely forming small clusters of particular atoms into spherical “dots,” they were able to tap into novel quantum properties that would otherwise be inaccessible. Through their work they demonstrated the transformative power that comes through coding with atoms.

They paved the way for increasingly sophisticated nanoscale base coding that is now leading to products and applications that would not be possible without it. And they were part of the inspiration for a nanotechnology revolution that is continuing to this day. Reengineering the material world in these novel ways far transcends what can be achieved through more conventional technologies.

This possibility was captured in a 1999 U.S. National Science and Technology Council report with the title Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom by Atom. While it doesn’t explicitly mention quantum dots – an omission that I’m sure the authors are now kicking themselves over – it did capture just how transformative the ability to engineer materials at the atomic scale could be.

This atomic-level shaping of the world is exactly what Bawendi, Brus and Ekimov aspired to through their groundbreaking work. They were some of the first materials “base coders” as they used atomically precise engineering to harness the quantum physics of small particles – and the Nobel committee’s recognition of the significance of this is well deserved.

Study Finds More People Are Moving Into High Flood Zones, Increasing Risk Of Water Disasters

Villagere retrive belongings which they kept on the higher ground surrounded floodwaters, at a village in Sohbat Pur, a flood hit district of Baluchistan Province, Pakistan, Oct. 25, 2022. (AP Photo/Fareed Khan, File)

BY SETH BORESTEIN

(THE ASSOCIATED PRESS) - Far more people are in harm’s way as they move into high flood zones across the globe, adding to an increase in watery disasters from climate change, a new study said.

Since 1985, the number of the world’s settlements in the riskiest flood zones has increased 122%, compared to 80% for the safest areas, according to a study in Wednesday’s journal Nature by researchers at The World Bank. The authors looked at settlement extent and expansion using satellites instead of population, with the world’s built-up regions growing 85% overall from 1985 to 2015.

“People are on a search for better lives and better jobs and then sort of get stuck in bad lands because that’s what they can afford,” said study co-author Stephane Hallegatte, a World Bank senior climate adviser and expert on disaster economics. He said they know it’s dangerous when they arrive

The problem is driven by middle- and low-income countries, the study found. Richer countries like the United States and parts of Europe are seeing more growth in safer areas than flood-prone ones and the poorest nations haven’t quite developed as heavily in flood-prone areas, it said.

China and Vietnam both saw their settlement extent more than tripling in the past 30 years, increasing far more than their dry land areas. Most countries, especially in East Asia, saw more settlements in regular flood zones and ultra high flood zones than in dry areas. Libya, which suffered from devastating flooding last month, had an 83% increase in settlement extent in the worst flood zones. Pakistan, also the victim of catastrophic flooding both last year and this year, had an 89% increase.

What’s happening is that as a nation grows a bit wealthier there’s a change from rural to urban and people leave the country to go to cities, which are often near waterways that flood in places, said study lead author Jun Rentschler, a World Bank economist.

“What we’re trying to do with the study is to track the process of urban development over time,” Rentschler said. “What you would expect is that initially you settle in a safe space, but as the city expands, it’s more likely to grow into areas that it previously avoided, flood zones for instance.”

Then comes the issue of is it cheaper to fortify these dangerous areas or better to move people out, the study authors said.

Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, is a poster city for this problem, they said. It boomed from a fishing village of about 83,000 people in 1950 to more than 7 million people now, according to World Population Review.

On the other hand, the United States saw dry settlements increase 76% and the highest flood settlements go up only 46%. Other countries with more dry settlements than ultra-wet include France, Sweden, Austria, Finland, Japan, Canada and India.

“It is an important paper that compiles data on both developed areas and assets exposed to flooding as never has been done before,” said Columbia University climate scientist Klaus Jacob, who wasn’t part of the research. “Especially the data on differentiating the countries by income levels is of importance and provides interesting socioeconomic insights.”

Populations growing into flood zones doesn’t mean that climate change isn’t a major problem, the study authors said. In fact, they are intertwined, Rentschler said.

And in both cases poorer countries could keep from falling into a trap middle income countries are doing now, Hallegatte said. With urban development, smart planning can prevent some of the moving into the riskiest places, he said.

“It’s way cheaper to fix it now than it is to fix it later,” Hallegatte said. “We’re making the same argument on carbon emissions.”

Follow AP’s climate and environment coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment

Follow Seth Borenstein on Twitter at @borenbears

Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

House Speaker Chaos Stuns Lawmakers, Frays Relationships And Roils Washington

Night falls on the dome of the Capitol, hours after Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., was ousted as Speaker of the House of Representatives. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

BY STEPHEN GROVES

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers who had been sitting in stunned silence gasped at the declaration: The office of speaker “is hereby declared vacant.”

For the first time ever, a House speaker had been voted out of the position, plunging Congress into a new degree of turmoil. “Now what?” someone in the chamber yelled out.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the California Republican who has survived decades of upheaval in Congress, had projected a sense of cool as he strolled out of his office just hours earlier, still speaker. But when he exited the House chamber, no longer with the gavel, he walked in silence.

He left a House roiling. Lawmakers fled the chamber after the vote, some speechless at what they had witnessed. An essential body of American democracy no longer has an elected leader, the latest moment of testing for an institution grappling with aftermath of the Capitol siege on Jan. 6th, 2021, a Republican Party in upheaval and the United States’ contested role in global leadership.

Where the House goes from here, no one can say.

Tempers are red hot in Washington and across-the-political-aisle relationships — endangered but crucial in times of crisis — have all but collapsed.

The House faces pressing questions of how to avert a government shutdown, whether to continue to fund Ukraine’s defense against the Russian invasion and whether to proceed with an impeachment inquiry — unprecedented in many respects — into President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, procedural weapons Congress once reserved for the most dire offenses — censure, expulsion, impeachment and now the motion to vacate the speaker’s chair — have become common.

Many Republicans were left in a state of total exasperation, having begged their colleagues not to follow through.

“If we vacate the chair, the government will shut down. Our credit rating will go down; interest rates will go up,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican known for working with Democrats, warned hours before the vote to oust McCarthy. “Ukraine will be victimized and lose that war to Russia. That is what is at stake here. Not to mention the institutional erosion that will occur.”

McCarthy, who had managed to hold his conference together for nine months by taking a defiant stance toward the rest of Washington, insisted on fighting to hold on to his speakership to the end. He told Republicans at a morning meeting that he wanted to get on with the motion to vacate vote and insisted he would not give Democrats any concessions to save his job.

Bring it on, was McCarthy’s message.

He seemed to have a chance of surviving: Most Republicans rallied around McCarthy as they met in the Capitol’s basement, giving him several rounds of applause.

But Democrats, at their own meeting in the Capitol’s sub-levels, played through what they see as the black marks of McCarthy’s record: how he had continued to support former President Donald Trump even after a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol and how he had catered to his party’s right wing during his nine months as speaker.

In the end, they united around Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and decided to wash their hands of what they cast as a Republican problem.

“Kevin McCarthy brought this madness upon himself,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, citing how McCarthy had agreed to allow any one member to bring the motion to vacate as part of a deal with right-wing lawmakers to win the speaker’s gavel in January.

“There seems to be a major political party now addicted to insurrection, rebellion, overthrow and not to governance.”

As the House gathered for votes in the afternoon, Rep. Matt Gaetz, the bombastic Republican who initiated McCarthy’s ouster, sat in the chamber’s front row, ready to make his case. McCarthy stood just feet behind him, nodding and smiling to his fellow Republicans, but refusing to acknowledge Gaetz’s presence.

After it became clear from a first procedural vote that Democrats would not save him, McCarthy settled into his seat for the hourlong debate over his future. He glanced at his phone; he ran his hands over the wooden arms of his chair. But he declined to speak in his own defense, instead dispatching his closest allies to defend his record.

“Chaos is Speaker McCarthy,” Gaetz said on the floor, suggesting a series of reforms could make Washington work better. But insults and personal slights — bottled up for months and years among Republicans — soon exploded onto the House floor.

The normally raucous chamber — filled with hundreds of lawmakers — grew somber and hushed as the roll call vote began. One by one, for nearly 45 minutes, lawmakers rose and stated their vote. Republicans hung their heads as eight of their colleagues and every Democrat voted to remove McCarthy. He was out.

McCarthy smiled as the House clerks tallied the vote. A few moments later, he was no longer speaker and one of his closest House allies, Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, became caretaker of the speaker’s gavel.

“Shocking … just the finality of it,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who chairs the House Foreign Relations Committee. “We don’t have a speaker, we don’t have a leader and that’s the message that’s sending to our adversaries.”

Republicans and Democrats dispersed, reeling and grasping for their next moves. Republicans will try to coalesce around a new leader after McCarthy ruled out another bid to become speaker. They face a leadership vacuum and deep divisions, with many Republicans seething at Gaetz and those who joined with him.

McCarthy, for his part, took a chance to settle political scores. At a quickly assembled news conference after nightfall, he began by citing Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, but soon indulged himself with unflattering stories about his political rivals — both Republicans and Democrats — and suggested he would use his fundraising and political clout to target them.

He concluded the extended banter with reporters with a barbed farewell: “I’m sure I won’t miss you.”

Associated Press writers Mary Claire Jalonick, Farnoush Amiri, Lisa Mascaro and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

Haitian Students Play Drums And Strum Guitars To Escape Hunger And Gang Violence

Woodberson Seide plays the drums during service at a Protestant church in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Sunday, Sept. 24, 2023. (AP Photo/Odelyn Joseph)

BY EVENS SANON AND DÁNICA COTO

PORT-AU-PRINCE, HAITI (AP) — Woodberson Seïde held his stepsister’s hand as they walked through Haiti ‘s capital on their way to an afterschool music program.

They avoided cars, motorcycles, and territory controlled by the gangs whose predation prompted this week’s U.N. Security Council vote for the deployment of a multinational armed force. Once he arrived at the school that hosts the program, 11-year-old Woodberson didn’t think much about how he sometimes eats once a day. His family sleeps on the floor of a church, something they’ve done since losing their home to gangs.

The boy was neatly dressed and ready to play drums. Across Port-au-Prince, hundreds of children like Woodberson are playing percussion, piano and bass guitar to drown out the violence and hunger around them.

“When I play drums, I feel proud,” Woodberson said.

To many, Haiti feels hopeless. Children are mostly kept indoors for safety. Their parents worry about gangs recruiting children as young as 8.

Woodberson and other young musicians in a U.S.-sponsored music program refuse to let circumstances dictate their future, helping both themselves and their parents.

“Seeing my son performing makes me very happy,” said Jean Williams Seïde, his father.

Woodberson took his first lesson two years ago as part of the after-school music program founded in 2014 by U.S. nonprofit Music Heals International. The program started with 60 children and has grown into a group of 400 enrolled in the $160,000-a-year program offered at eight schools. Many play at church and in local concerts, some after founding their own band.

“It’s very rare ... that you can provide a little bit of peace in such craziness, such a hellish landscape,” said Ann Lee, CEO and co-founder of Community Organized Relief Effort, a California nonprofit organization that sponsors the program.

Haitian musical traditions range from rara to compas to mizik rasin, or roots music. The program’s teachers and students decide together what music they’ll play, picking from genres that include compas, reggae, rock, Latino music and African music.

Many of them meet twice a week to play for two hours as the rat-tat-tat of gunfire echoes across Port-au-Prince.

“Music transforms,” said Mickelson Pierre, who learned how to play guitar in the program and now teaches it. “It’s something extraordinary, and it leads to peace of mind.”

Gangs are estimated to control up to 80% of Port-au-Prince and fight over territory daily, with more than 2,400 people reported killed this year. Rapes and kidnappings also have spiked. Families are reluctant to send their children to school, let alone allow them to play outdoors.

Gang violence also has left nearly 200,000 people homeless.

Woodberson and his family once lived in Canaan, a makeshift community established on the outskirts of Port-au-Prince by people who survived the devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake that struck in 2010. In April, gangs raided the community and forced many to flee.

“The bandits took everything from my house and left me with nothing,” said Jean Williams Seïde.

The family sought shelter inside a small room at a church in Port-au-Prince, where they have been sleeping on the floor for several months.

Woodberson would like his own drum kit, but his father can barely afford to help feed his four children despite his job as a mailman. His wife, Nelise Chadic Seïde, washes laundry for a living and is anemic, so she often feels weak. They don’t have money for her treatment or three meals a day, but are grateful they aren’t starving.

“God never lets us go a day without food,” she said.

On a recent weekday afternoon, Woodberson stood up to play a compas song on the drums. He grabbed the cymbal with his left hand, struck a syncopated beat with his right, stuck out his tongue and rocked to the rhythm while playing.

He’s part of a band called “Hope,” and that day, he and several other students jammed to “Yo Palem Male,” Haitian Creole for “They Speak Evil About Me.”

Not to be left behind was PMF, which stands for Plezi Music au Feminin, meaning “Enjoy Feminine Music.” It’s an all-female band that formed after a coed band decided it only wanted boys and kicked out the girls. They played on stage after Woodberson and opened with “Como la Flor,” by slain Tejano singer Selena Quintanilla.

“When I am playing the piano, I release a vibe that I did not know I have in me,” said Ester Ceus, 17. “It makes me feel relaxed.”

Students in the program are allowed to choose any instrument. Available are 90 guitars, 62 keyboards, 24 bass guitars, 15 maracas, five ukeleles, two tambourines and a couple of cowbells.

As a result of the program, the budding musicians perform better in school, and their parents are less worried that they’ll join gangs, music program manager Emmanuel Piervil said.

There are a limited number of instruments, so teacher Raymond Jules Josue, 24, tells kids to practice by using their hands to thump the beat on their bodies while they take turns playing the drums.

Woodberson is the first to show up to class and often serves as a substitute when his professor takes a call or arrives late because of roadblocks or gang fights in his area.

“These schools are often the lifeline for kids to have something else other than lockdown,” said Lee. “To be transported to a place where that is not the first thing that comes to mind when you’re away from your family and home, it’s a gift.”

Coto reported from San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Where The Supreme Court Stands On Banning Books

BY SUZANNE ECKES

Efforts to ban books in public schools and public libraries reached an all-time high in 2022 and show few signs of abating for 2023, according to the American Library Association.

The recent movement to remove books appears to be a coordinated campaign taking place at both the state and local levels; it often targets books that address race, gender or both. Some of these efforts have resulted in laws that threaten to jail librarians.

Most Americans oppose removing books from libraries. That may explain why Illinois recently enacted a law that outlaws banning books: If any public library in the state bans materials because of “partisan or doctrinal” disapproval, it will be ineligible for state funds.

Bans – and the banning of bans – have already ended up in the courts. For example, in a lawsuit in Florida, a First Amendment advocacy group, a publisher, parents and authors whose books have been targeted filed suit against the Escambia County School District’s removal of 10 books and restriction of 100 others in the school library. They alleged that school officials violated students’ First Amendment rights when they removed books that discussed, race, racism and LGBTQ+ people. The case is ongoing.

One or more of these sorts of cases could end up at the Supreme Court – but until then, the lower courts will look to existing precedent, set in a legal ruling that dates back to 1982. In that ruling, the court declared that school personnel have a lot of discretion related to the content of their libraries, but this “discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner.”

Encounters with new ideas

My analysis of that 1982 case, Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, finds useful information that can help put these book ban lawsuits in context.

The case specifically focused on the school library and was not about curriculum in the classroom. A school board on Long Island, New York, wanted certain books removed from the shelves of the junior high and high school libraries because board members believed the books to be, they said, “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy.”

The banned titles originated in a list compiled by a conservative organization that deemed them objectionable.

One student, on behalf of four other students in the school district, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court. The suit claimed that removing the books from the library infringed upon the students’ First Amendment rights to freely access ideas and information.

The school board prevailed in U.S. District Court because the judge found that school boards should have discretion in those matters. But the appeals court overturned that ruling, saying the fact that the school board’s reasoning relied in part on external evaluations of the books raised concerns about censorship.

An unclear ruling

When the case came before the Supreme Court in 1982, the justices agreed to analyze whether the school board’s decision to bar certain books from its libraries, based on the books’ content, violated the students’ rights.

The ruling was divided – five justices affirmed the appeals court’s decision in favor of the students, though not all of them agreed on exactly why.

Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote that the First Amendment does limit school officials’ authority to remove books from school libraries, because that authority infringes on students’ rights to receive ideas and information. Justices Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens signed on to this opinion, which was not a majority opinion. Two justices wrote concurring decisions, but only one agreed with the trio’s overall conclusion that the board had unconstitutionally infringed on students’ rights. Justice Harry Blackmun said the government – the school board – could not deny students access to ideas based on political reasons. Justice Byron White agreed with the conclusion, but did not express a view on the First Amendment question.

Four justices dissented. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the main dissent, which was joined by Justices Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor. Their opinion focused more on the issue of accessing books than it did on the First Amendment questions the case raised.

The current state of the law

Though there was not a clear majority opinion, the case suggests that school boards have broad discretion over library books but do not have unlimited authority to remove books from library shelves.

The justices agreed that a school library is a place where important information is disseminated to learners – and is a unique place for students to engage in inquiry related to their interests and passions. Therefore, they ruled, school officials may remove books only for sound educational reasons or legitimate purposes – such as pervasive vulgarity or lack of educational suitability.

As a result, school personnel are likely limited in their power to restrict books’ availability simply because they or other officials disagree with the books’ content.

If any of the current cases reach the Supreme Court, the current justices could rule differently, of course. But in the meantime, lower courts hearing book-banning cases will be guided by that precedent.

High school student Ian Shaw contributed to the research and writing of this article.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Climate change is about to play a big role in government purchases – with vast implications for the US economy

BY JESSE BURKHARDT AND LAUREN GIFFORD

Each year, the federal government purchases about 50,000 new vehicles. Until recently, almost all of them ran on diesel or gasoline, contributing to U.S. demand for fossil fuels and encouraging automakers to continue focusing on fossil-fueled vehicles.

That’s starting to change, and a new directive that the Biden Administration quietly issued in September 2023 will accelerate the shift.

The administration directed U.S. agencies to begin considering the social cost of greenhouse gases when making purchase decisions and implementing their budgets.

That one move has vast implications that go far beyond vehicles. It could affect decisions across the government on everything from agriculture grants to fossil fuel drilling on public lands to construction projects. Ultimately, it could shift demand enough to change what industries produce, not just for the government but for the entire country.

What’s the social cost of greenhouse gas?

The social cost of greenhouse gases represents the damage created by emitting 1 metric ton of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

These greenhouse gases, largely from fossil fuels, trap heat in the atmosphere, warming the planet and fueling climate change. The result is worsening storms, heat waves, droughts and other disasters that harm humans, infrastructure and economies around the world. The estimate is intended to include changes in agricultural productivity, human health, property damage from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services.

By directing agencies to consider those costs when making purchases and implementing budgets, the administration is making it more likely that agencies will purchase products and make investments that are more energy efficient and less likely to fuel climate change.

While only a fraction of the roughly $6 trillion that the U.S. government spends each year would likely be considered under the new directive, that fraction could have far-reaching impacts on the U.S. economy by reducing demand for fossil fuels and lowering emissions across sectors.

Estimating the cost

The Obama administration introduced the first federal social cost of carbon to incorporate climate risk in regulatory decisions. It’s calculated using models of the global economy and climate and weighs the value of spending money today for future benefits.

When the Trump administration arrived, it cut the estimated cost from around $50 per metric ton to less than $5, which justified rolling back several environmental regulations, including on power plant emissions and fuel efficiency. The Biden administration restored an interim price to about $51, with plans to raise it.

Recent research suggests that the actual social cost of carbon is closer to $185 per metric ton. But carbon dioxide is just one greenhouse gas. The new directive takes other greenhouse gases into consideration, too – in particular, methane, which has about 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over 20 years.

Estimates of the social cost of methane, which comes from livestock and leaks from pipelines and other natural gas equipment, range from $933 per metric ton to $4,000 per metric ton.

Without directives like these, decision-makers implicitly set the cost of greenhouse gas emissions to zero in their benefit-cost analyses. The new directives allow agencies to instead compare the expected climate damages, in dollars, when making decisions about vehicle purchases, building infrastructure and permitting, among other choices.

The vehicle fleet as an example

The federal vehicle fleet is a good example of how the social costs of greenhouse gases add up.

Let’s compare the costs of driving an electric Ford Focus and an equivalent conventional-fuel Ford Focus.

Assume each vehicle drives an average of 10,000 miles (about 16,000 kilometers) per year – that’s less than the U.S. average per driver, but it’s a simple number to work with. The damages from emissions in dollars from driving a conventional Ford Focus 10,000 miles are between $133 and $484, depending on whether you use a social cost of carbon of $51 per metric ton or $185 per metric ton.

The climate harm from driving an equivalent electric Ford Focus 10,000 miles, based on the average carbon dioxide emissions intensity from the U.S. electricity grid, would be between $59 and $212, using the same social costs.

Scale that to 50,000 new vehicle purchases, and that’s a cost difference of about $4 million to $13.5 million per year for emissions from operating the vehicles. While producing an EV’s battery adds to the vehicle’s emissions up front, that’s soon outweighed by operational savings. These are real savings to society.

The U.S. government is also a major consumer of energy. If agencies begin to consider the climate damages associated with fossil energy consumption, they will likely trend toward renewable energy, further lowering their own emissions while boosting the burgeoning industry.

How the government can shift demand

These types of comparisons under the new directive could help shift purchases toward a wide range of less carbon-intensive products.

Much of the U.S. government’s spending goes toward carbon-intensive goods and services, such as transportation and infrastructure development. Directing agencies to consider and compare the social cost of purchases in each of these sectors will send similar signals to different segments of the market: The demand for less carbon-intensive goods is rising.

Because this new directive expands to other greenhouse gases, it could have broad implications for new permitting for oil and gas development and agricultural production, as these are the two largest sources of methane in the U.S.

While this decision is not a tax on carbon or a subsidy for less carbon-intensive goods, it will likely send similar market signals. With respect to purchases, this policy is akin to tax rebates for energy efficient products, like electric vehicle incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act, which boost demand for EVs.

Ultimately, if one of the largest segments of demand, the U.S. government, transitions to less carbon-intensive products, supply will follow.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE

Things To Know About The Nobel Prizes

(Henrik Montgomery/Pool Photo via AP, File)

BY KARL RITTER

STOCKHOLM (AP) — The annual Nobel Prize announcements are underway with two of the 2023 awards unveiled so far by prize committees in Stockholm.

First up was the Nobel Prize in medicine, which was awarded Monday to two scientists for discoveries that enabled the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19.

On Tuesday, three scientists won the physics prize for their work on how electrons zip around the atom in the tiniest fractions of seconds.

The prizes in chemistry, literature, peace and economics will follow, with one announcement every weekday until Oct. 9.

Here are some things to know about the Nobel Prizes:

AN IDEA MORE POWERFUL THAN DYNAMITE

The Nobel Prizes were created by Alfred Nobel, a 19th-century businessman and chemist from Sweden. He held more than 300 patents but his claim to fame before the Nobel Prizes was having invented dynamite by mixing nitroglycerine with a compound that made the explosive more stable.

Dynamite soon became popular in construction and mining as well as in the weapons industry. It made Nobel a very rich man. Perhaps it also made him think about his legacy, because toward the end of his life he decided to use his vast fortune to fund annual prizes “to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind.”

The first Nobel Prizes were presented in 1901, five years after his death. In 1968, a sixth prize was created, for economics, by Sweden’s central bank. Though Nobel purists stress that the economics prize is technically not a Nobel Prize, it’s always presented together with the others.

PEACE IN NORWAY

For reasons that are not entirely clear, Nobel decided that the peace prize should be awarded in Norway and the other prizes in Sweden. Nobel historians suspect Sweden’s history of militarism may have been a factor.

During Nobel’s lifetime, Sweden and Norway were in a union, which the Norwegians reluctantly joined after the Swedes invaded their country in 1814. It’s possible that Nobel thought Norway would be a more suitable location for a prize meant to encourage “fellowship among nations.”

To this day, the Nobel Peace Prize is a completely Norwegian affair, with the winners selected and announced by a Norwegian committee. The peace prize even has its own ceremony in the Norwegian capital of Oslo on Dec. 10 — the anniversary of Nobel’s death — while the other prizes are presented in Stockholm.

WHAT’S POLITICS GOT TO DO WITH IT?

The Nobel Prizes project an aura of being above the political fray, focused solely on the benefit of humanity. But the peace and literature awards, in particular, are sometimes accused of being politicized. Critics question whether winners are selected because their work is truly outstanding or because it aligns with the political preferences of the judges.

The scrutiny can get intense for high-profile awards, such as in 2009, when President Barack Obama won the peace prize less than a year after taking office.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee is an independent body that insists its only mission is to carry out the will of Alfred Nobel. However, it does have links to Norway’s political system. The five members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, so the panel’s composition reflects the power balance in the legislature.

To avoid the perception that the prizes are influenced by Norway’s political leaders, sitting members of the Norwegian government or Parliament are barred from serving on the committee. Even so, the panel isn’t always viewed as independent by foreign countries. When imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo won the peace prize in 2010, Beijing responded by freezing trade talks with Norway. It took years for Norway-China relations to be restored.

GOLD AND GLORY

One reason the prizes are so famous is they come with a generous amount of cash. The Nobel Foundation, which administers the awards, raised the prize money by 10% this year to 11 million kronor (about $1 million). In addition to the money, the winners receive an 18-carat gold medal and diploma when they collect their Nobel Prizes at the award ceremonies in December.

Most winners are proud and humbled by joining the pantheon of Nobel laureates, from Albert Einstein to Mother Teresa. But two winners refused their Nobel Prizes: French writer Jean-Paul Sartre, who turned down the literature prize in 1964, and Vietnamese politician Le Duc Tho, who declined the peace prize that he was meant to share with U.S. diplomat Henry Kissinger in 1973.

Several others were not able to receive their awards because they were imprisoned, such as Belarusian pro-democracy activist Ales Bialiatski, who shared last year’s peace prize with human rights groups in Ukraine and Russia.

LACK OF DIVERSITY

Historically, the vast majority of Nobel Prize winners have been white men. Though that’s started to change, there is still little diversity among Nobel winners, particularly in the science categories.

With Tuesday’s announcement, 62 women have won Nobel Prizes, including 27 in the scientific categories. Only five women have won the Nobel Prize in physics and just two have won the economics prize.

In the early days of the Nobel Prizes, the lack of diversity among winners could be explained by the lack of diversity among scientists in general. But today critics say the judges need to do a better job at highlighting discoveries made by women and scientists outside Europe and North America.

The prize committees say their decisions are based on scientific merit, not gender, nationality or race. However, they are not deaf to the criticism. Five years ago, the head of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said it had started to ask nominating bodies to make sure they don’t overlook “women or people of other ethnicities or nationalities in their nominations.”

McCarthy Becomes The First Speaker Ever To Be Ousted From The Job In A House Vote

Rep. Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. leaves the House floor after being ousted as Speaker of the House in Capitol Hill, Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 3, 2023. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

BY LISA MASCARO AND FARNOUSH AMIRI

WASHINGTON (AP) — Speaker Kevin McCarthy was voted out of the job Tuesday in an extraordinary showdown — a first in U.S. history, forced by a contingent of hard-right conservatives and throwing the House and its Republican leadership into chaos.

It’s the end of the political line for McCarthy, who has said repeatedly that he never gives up, but found himself with almost no options remaining. Neither the right-flank Republicans who engineered his ouster nor the Democrats who piled on seem open to negotiating.

McCarthy told lawmakers in the evening he would not run again for speaker, putting the gavel up for grabs. Next steps are highly uncertain as there is no obvious successor to lead the House Republican majority. Action is halted in the House until next week, when Republicans try to elect a new speaker.

“I may have lost this vote today, but as I walk out of this chamber I feel fortunate to have served,” McCarthy said at a press conference at the Capitol. “I wouldn’t change a thing.”

McCarthy’s chief rival, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, orchestrated the rare vote on the obscure “motion to vacate,” and pushed ahead swiftly into a dramatic afternoon roll call.

While McCarthy enjoyed support from most Republicans in his slim majority, eight Republican detractors — many of the same hard-right holdouts who tried to stop him from becoming speaker in January — essentially forced him out.

Stillness fell as the presiding officer gaveled the vote closed, 216-210, saying the office of the speaker “is hereby declared vacant.”

Moments later, a top McCarthy ally, Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., took the gavel and, according to House rules, was named speaker pro tempore, to serve in the office until a new speaker is chosen.

The House then briskly recessed as lawmakers prepared to meet privately and discuss the path forward.

It was a stunning moment for McCarthy, a punishment fueled by growing grievances but sparked by his weekend decision to work with Democrats to keep the federal government open rather than risk a shutdown.

But in many ways, McCarthy’s ouster was set in motion when, in deal-making with hard-right holdouts at the start of the year, he agreed to a series of demands — including a rules change that allowed any single lawmaker to file the motion to vacate.

As the House fell silent, Gaetz, a top ally of Donald Trump, rose to offer his motion.

Leaders tried to turn it back, but the vote was 218-208, with 11 Republicans against tabling the motion, a sign of trouble to come.

The House then opened a floor debate, unseen in modern times, and Republicans argued publicly among themselves for more than an hour.

“It’s a sad day,” Republican Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma said as debate got underway, urging his colleagues not to plunge the House Republican majority “into chaos.”

But Gaetz shot back during the debate, “Chaos is Speaker McCarthy.”

As the fiery debate dragged on, many of the complaints against the speaker revolved around his truthfulness and his ability to keep the promises he has made.

Almost alone, Gaetz led his side of the floor debate, criticizing the debt deal McCarthy made with President Joe Biden and the vote to prevent a government shutdown, which conservatives opposed as they demanded steeper spending cuts.

But a long line of McCarthy supporters stood up for him, including Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, a leader of the conservative Freedom Caucus, who said, “He has kept his word.” Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., waved his cellphone, saying it was “disgusting” that hard-right colleagues were fundraising off the move in text messages seeking donations.

McCarthy, of California, insisted he would not cut a deal with Democrats to remain in power — not that he could have relied on their help even if he had asked.

Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a letter to colleagues that he wants to work with Republicans, but he was unwilling to provide the votes needed to save McCarthy.

“It is now the responsibility of the GOP members to end the House Republican Civil War,” Jeffries said, announcing the Democratic leadership would vote for the motion to oust the speaker.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Biden “hopes the House will quickly elect a Speaker.” Once that happens, she said, “he looks forward to working together with them.”

At the Capitol, both Republicans and Democrats met privately ahead of the historic afternoon vote.

Behind closed doors, McCarthy told fellow Republicans: Let’s get on with it.

McCarthy invoked Republican Speaker Joseph Cannon, who more than 100 years ago confronted his critics head-on by calling their bluff and setting the vote himself on his ouster. Cannon survived that takedown attempt, which was the first time the House had actually voted to consider removing its speaker. A more recent threat, in 2015, didn’t make it to a vote.

Gaetz was in attendance, but he did not address the room.

Across the way in the Capitol, Democrats lined up for a long discussion and unified around one common point: McCarthy cannot be trusted, several lawmakers in the room said.

“I think it’s safe to say there’s not a lot of good will in that room for Kevin McCarthy,” said Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass.

“At the end of the day, the country needs a speaker that can be relied upon,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. “We don’t trust him. Their members don’t trust him. And you need a certain degree of trust to be the speaker.”

Removing the speaker launches the House Republicans into chaos. Typically, top leaders would be next in line for the job, but Majority Leader Steve Scalise is battling cancer and Majority Whip Tom Emmer, like any potential candidate, may have trouble securing the vote. Another leading Republican, Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, is also a Trump ally.

“No matter who is going to be the speaker, the challenges still remain,” Scalise said. “But I think the opportunity is there to continue moving forward.”

Asked if he was physically up to the job, Scalise said, “I feel great.”

It took McCarthy himself 15 rounds in January over multiple days of voting before he secured the support from his colleagues to gain the gavel.

Trump, the former president who is the Republican front-runner in the 2024 race to challenge Biden, complained about the chaos. “Why is it that Republicans are always fighting among themselves,” he asked on social media.

Asked about McCarthy’s ouster as he exited court in New York, where he is on trial for business fraud, Trump did not respond.

One key McCarthy ally, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who is also close with Trump, took to social media urging support for “our speaker.”

Republicans left the chamber in a daze, totally uncertain about next steps. “I honestly don’t know,” said Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz. “This is a total disaster.”

Many had lined up to hug McCarthy, some to shake his hand.

Democrats, who have bristled at McCarthy’s leadership — cajoling them one minute, walking away from deals the next — said they were just holding back, waiting for Republicans to figure out how to run the House.

Rep, Don Bacon, R-Neb., the leader of a centrist group, said the only option was to leave the eight hardliners behind and try to work across the aisle. “We’re going to stay with Kevin,” he said. “He told us earlier he’ll never quit.”

But McCarthy made it clear Tuesday night that he would not try to win back the job.

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Stephen Groves, Mary Clare Jalonick and Will Weissert contributed to this report.

Lessons For Today From The Overlooked Stories Of Black Teachers During The Segregated Civil Right Era

BY MARLEE BUNCH

STAFF K-12 INITIATIVES, OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

My grandmother’s name was Mrs. Zola Jackson.

As one of the handful of Black teachers in Mississippi during the Jim Crow era of racially segregated public schools, she faced a daunting challenge in providing a first-class education to students considered second-class citizens.

Educated at Rust College, a historically Black school, in the 1940s, she taught in the small city of Hattiesburg for over 30 years from 1943-1975, the majority of which was spent in elementary classrooms at DePriest, the school for Black children.

Before the 1954 landmark Brown v. Board decision that deemed segregated schools “separate and unequal,” the efforts of Black teachers went unheralded, underappreciated and virtually unknown.

I, too, was disconnected from their stories until I became a public school teacher teacher myself and began my research on the oral histories of Black female teachers in Mississippi during the civil rights era.

My research revealed at least one important lesson: What Black teachers face today is not that different from what we faced in the past.

In spite of it all

One of the initial questions that I wanted to answer was, how did educators in the past meet the academic and emotional needs of their students with little to no resources and the constant threat of racial violence?

What I found was that for Black people, education was in and of itself an act of active resistance against racial disenfranchisement.

As education scholar Christopher Span explained in his 2012 seminal book “From Cottonfield to Schoolhouse”:

“To be educated was to be respected; to be educated was to be a citizen. Accordingly, countless black Mississippians willingly sought out schooling, viewing it as the foundation for self-improvement and one means for attaining social and economic parity in slavery’s aftermath.”

At the center of that rich and complex history were Black teachers who believed that a good education was synonymous with freedom and the desire to move beyond the confines of second-class citizenship.

As a result, Black teachers used classrooms to not only impart the lessons of history, but also to encourage students to be actively involved in the fight for racial equity.

In “Their Highest Potential,” education scholar Vanessa Siddle Walker wrote in 1996 that Black teachers were “consistently remembered by their former students and colleagues "for their high expectations for student success, for their dedication, and for their demanding teaching style.”

Education was paramount

Black teachers used many approaches to ensure student success. Here are a few that serve as lessons for today:

Arguably the most important, the first is developing relationships and mentorships.

Because teachers were part of the community during the civil rights era, it was common for them to be an extension of their students’ families. If needed, teachers made home visits, were in regular communication with families about students’ well-being and held students to high academic and behavioral expectations. Further solidifying those relationships was the fact that many of the teachers had taught several generations of families.

These relationships enabled teachers to use what is now known as the whole child approach that focuses on a student’s academic potential as well as their social and emotional needs.

It was understood by Black teachers that educating the whole child helped to establish foundations needed for academic and emotional growth in young students. Because of their teachers, Black students valued education and modeled their own behavior to achieve their own potential.

A second lesson from the past that is useful today was the emphasis on civic engagement. Back then, classrooms were places to imagine radical change. Inaction in the face of injustice was not a viable option, and there was an expectation that young people work to become leaders.

Going to jail, protesting, risking one’s life and making sacrifices to help the Civil Rights Movement were all realities young people faced and were willing to endure if it meant securing equal rights.

A third lesson is the importance of building coalitions across racial lines.

Groups such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the NAACP and the Congress of Racial Equity worked with religious organizations and white students from colleges during the 1960s lunch counter sit-ins and the freedom rides, as well as the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

But not all coalitions were effective. During a 1967 meeting of the National Council of Negro Women, civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer criticized the educated middle-class Black alliances in Mississippi with Black ministers and white power brokers. But even still, she explained, “the only thing we can do is to work together.”

Of the many lessons from the past, one handed down from my grandmother still rings true today.

She knew then that education was intended to be the great equalizer in America and the key to upward mobility – and she worked her entire career making sure that became a reality in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

At the school where my grandmother taught, for instance, she used creativity to solve a critical problem: DePriest did not have a library.

Instead, my grandmother started her own by bringing in books from her personal collection and letting students borrow them one at a time.

Here’s How To Register That Restored 1966 Corvette, Or Any Other Vehicle, In CA Without The Original Title: Roadshow

BY GARY RICHARDS

Q: My occupation armed forces brother, at gift deceased, brought belonging in the direction of him non-operative ‘66 Vette in the direction of belonging in the direction of him final job inside California.
 It had been registered once, at the time male bought pronoun inside 1966, inside Connecticut. I transferred ownership from definite article conveyance together with negative issue following belonging in the direction of him passing, as I had definite article required documentation in the direction of execute so.

After a complete restoration, I at gift desire in the direction of enroll it.
 The CA DMV wants a name in the direction of complete definite article registration. I could negative find definite article name among belonging in the direction of me brother’s records.

The Connecticut DMV did negative find a equal inside favor from definite article automobile inside belonging in the direction of those records. What execute I need in the direction of do?

Charles A. Berls

A: The DMV replied those customers who are negative gift supporting evidence from ownership able in the direction of enroll a conveyance lacking definite article certificate from title, still in the direction of acquire a new certificate from name inside favor from definite article vehicle, second person need in the direction of submit a Motor Vehicle Ownership Surety Bond (REG 5057) form alternatively a connection alternative.

For additional details, see: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/vehicle-industry-registration-procedures-manual-2/bonds-and-certifications/motor-vehicle-ownership-surety-bond/

Q: I’m certain definite article pillar second person ran lately approximately drivers’ excuses intent generate a snowstorm from new stories. Here’s mine.

My spouse was driving belonging in the direction of us Toyota Land Cruiser in the direction of SoCal inside favor from belonging in the direction of us yearly shore vacation, complete from kids, together with a luggage pod on definite article roof. At definite article Grapevine, female was crawling upward definite article elevation at approximately 45 mph. Going below definite article different side, female was flying at approximately 80 mph. A pesky road boulder, a color Camaro, was inside definite article exterior lane. She flashed her headlights at definite article driver, addition male pulled above addition allow her pass.

He was a CHP authorized inside an unmarked car. When male stopped her, female said, “I was solely going 45 upward definite article hill. If us common those together with belonging in the direction of me velocity below definite article hill, I was beneath definite article velocity limit.” She says definite article cop was laughing therefore difficult male had in the direction of inclined opposed in the direction of definite article automobile in the direction of keep originating falling down. He said if male wrote her a pass inside favor from definite article velocity female was going, male past tense of will own in the direction of arrest her. He wrote definite article pass inside favor from five miles above definite article limit.

A: Quick cognition on her part.

Wallace Murfit, Menlo Park

Q: Why is definite article privilege tedious from definite article eastbound Caldecott Tunnel almost toss black, addition wet? For those matter, able in the direction of us fulfill enhance definite article lighting inside all things 3 from definite article elder tunnels?

George R. Mathews, Antioch

A: Caltrans reports those pronoun improved lighting inside all things Caldecott Tunnel bores addition repaired lighting inside tedious #1, definite article distant privilege tedious on eastbound State Route 24.

Earlier this one year, Caltrans completed important vacant effort in the direction of determine liquid issues on definite article roadway here, still liquid occasionally seeps by manner of originating definite article mountain, therefore those move forward in the direction of observe definite article tempest drains.

Look inside favor from Gary Richards at Facebook.com/mr.roadshow alternatively connection male at mrroadshow@bayareanewsgroup.com.

READ ORIGINAL STORY HERE