In Dramatic Vote, McCarthy Becomes First House Speaker to be Ousted in U.S. History

For the first time in American history, a Speaker of the House has been stripped of the gavel. 

A small group of Republican hardliners led by Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida provided the pivotal votes on Tuesday needed to remove Speaker Kevin McCarthy from his leadership position, marking a dramatic but expected end to McCarthy’s contentious 10-month tenure as leader of the House and setting the stage for an intense intraparty search for his replacement.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The move to oust McCarthy began after the California Republican relied on Democrats to avert a government shutdown. Gaetz, after days of warning and mounting tension, went on the House floor on Monday night to introduce a resolution that declared the speakership vacant, triggering an exceedingly rare process to compel a vote to determine whether McCarthy would retain his post as Speaker. All Democrats present and 8 Republicans supported the measure in a 216-210 vote that followed an hour of floor debate, during which hard-right Republicans railed against their own leader and verbally sparred with his defenders while Democrats listened silently.

“Chaos is Speaker McCarthy,” Gaetz said. “Chaos is somebody who we cannot trust with their word.”

But others argue the chaos is what comes next. There’s no clear consensus on which lawmaker might be elected to replace McCarthy, and so far no Republican has put themself forward to serve as Speaker. Republican Rep. Tom Cole, a key McCarthy ally, urged members to “think long and hard before you plunge us into chaos” by voting to vacate the speakership. “He put his political neck on the line, knowing this day was coming, to do the right thing—the right thing for the country,” Cole said, referring to McCarthy’s efforts to end the government shutdown.

Gaetz’s motion has thrust the House into uncharted territory. Only two other speakers in history have faced similar motions to vacate, neither of which succeeded: once in 1910 and more recently in 2015 when Rep. Mark Meadows attempted to oust Speaker John Boehner. (That motion was not introduced on the floor, but it ultimately led to Boehner’s resignation from Congress.)

The decision to boot McCarthy came on the heels of his strategic maneuver to avert a government shutdown over the weekend, when he relied on Democratic votes to pass a clean stopgap spending bill after Gaetz’s faction refused to back the House GOP measure. Conservatives said that McCarthy, who made a series of pledges to win the speakership after a marathon 15 rounds of voting in January, broke his word to conservatives by striking the short-term deal. 

“It is becoming increasingly clear who the Speaker of the House already works for, and it’s not the Republican conference,” Gaetz declared on Monday as he argued for McCarthy’s removal. He criticized McCarthy’s reliance on Democratic support to pass the funding bill and accused him of deceiving his fellow Republicans during spending negotiations and making undisclosed agreements with Democrats, particularly regarding funding for Ukraine, a matter that many conservatives vehemently opposed.

The move by Gaetz represented a significant escalation in the ongoing power struggle between McCarthy and the hardliners in his party. Since McCarthy’s election as Speaker in a chamber where his party holds a razor-thin five-seat majority, more than five Republicans have intermittently threatened to challenge his leadership, subjecting him to numerous votes of confidence, some of which were politically painful for McCarthy and moderate Republicans.

This bitter feud between Gaetz and McCarthy has roots dating back to McCarthy’s initial ascent to the speakership. In January, Gaetz took to the House floor to accuse McCarthy of engaging in questionable financial dealings, a narrative that continued to simmer. As a concession to Gaetz and the 19 other Republicans who initially opposed his speakership, McCarthy altered House rules to enable any member to call for a snap vote on his ouster—which ultimately led to his failure to keep the position. 

Still, the ultimate success of Gaetz’s bid to remove McCarthy wasn’t assured, as it hinged on the support of some fellow Republicans and all Democrats. Even some Republicans who had expressed reservations about McCarthy’s leadership weren’t on board with Gaetz’s plan. “Mr. McCarthy is an accurate reflection of the current House Republican Conference,” Rep. Dan Bishop, a rightwing North Carolina Republican who has sparred with McCarthy, said in a statement before voting no on the resolution to vacate the speakership. 

In the days leading up to the vote, several moderate and conservative-leaning Democrats indicated that they would be hesitant to punish McCarthy for his efforts to work across the aisle and prevent a government shutdown. Others saw no reason to bail him out, given the series of concessions McCarthy had made to appease the right flank of his party, including opening an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden and reneging on spending agreements made with the President during the debt ceiling crisis. 

But in the end, every Democrat present voted for the motion to vacate. In a statement released early Tuesday afternoon, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries announced that Democrats would not lend their support to McCarthy: “Under the Republican majority, the House has been restructured to empower right-wing extremists, kowtow to their harsh demands and impose a rigid partisan ideology,” he said. 

Several Democrats echoed that sentiment ahead of the vote. “Republican leadership is in such a dysfunctional state and we need them to be functional in order to take up things for the American people,” Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, tells TIME.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Virginia Democrat, said ahead the vote that McCarthy is “likely the most unprincipled person to ever be speaker of the House” before listing off reasons she would not back him. “He’s disdainful, he lies about us, he lies about the process of governance. It’s not even a question of whether or not we should take any particular action,” she told reporters.

Gaetz’s move, while celebrated by his supporters, incited the ire of McCarthy’s allies within the Republican Party, who viewed the push as a publicity stunt driven by personal animus. “I cannot conceive of a more counterproductive and self-destructive course,” Rep. Tom McClintock, a Republican from California, said on the House floor. McCarthy remained stoic throughout the vote Tuesday, occasionally smiling but making little eye contact with his detractors.

With McCarthy removed from his leadership position, House Republicans will now look to find a replacement that can appease both far-right members and moderates in the party. (Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina will serve as acting Speaker until a new one is elected.) Asked on Monday if he had any lawmakers in mind for the job, Gaetz suggested House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican and McCarthy ally.

source https://time.com/6320197/in-dramatic-vote-mccarthy-becomes-first-house-speaker-to-be-ousted-in-u-s-history/

The Surprising Poverty Levels Across the U.S.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The U.S. poverty rate saw its largest one-year increase in history. 12.4% of Americans now live in poverty according to new 2022 data from the U.S. census, an increase from 7.4% in 2021. Child poverty also more than doubled last year to 12.4% from 5.2% the year before.

The U.S. poverty level is now $13,590 for individuals and $23,030 for a family of three. The new data shows that 37.9 million people lived in poverty in 2022.

America had previously experienced tremendous improvements in poverty reduction over the last two years. Safety net programs including expanded child tax credit lifted millions out of poverty and provided direct aid to low-income households. However, as programs like this were allowed to expire, the data shows that those programs were a short-lived lifeline. The Supplement Poverty Measure (SPM), which has now largely replaced the “official” poverty rate, calculates the poverty rate after accounting for many of the governments’ most important anti-poverty programs as well as differences in the cost of living.

The expiration of government support wasn’t the only reason poverty rose dramatically. Inflation and an overall increased cost of living created new financial challenges for families. SPM is based on the cost of essential items like food and housing, which rose sharply last year. In 2021, a family of four was considered poor if their income was $31,453. In 2022 though, that number increased nearly 10% to $34,518, capturing more households under this higher bar. 

While low-income households struggled disproportionately, the average American household took hits as well. Median household income adjusted for inflation fell 2.3% last year to $74,580, The fastest rising inflation rate since 1981 dominated the gains of increased employment and rising wages.

California, Florida, and Mississippi are the three states with the highest percent of residents living in poverty. These represent an interesting mix of regions that economists don’t typically see together. 

Much of California’s poverty occurs in Northern counties which are home to farming, mining, and manufacturing communities. High costs across the state have also led to higher poverty rates as often seen in San Francisco and Los Angeles, with 4.5 million living in poverty.

Florida’s higher poverty rates largely occur across the state’s panhandle. In Gadsden County, for example, one in four people live in poverty while two in five children do as well. Residents of Gadsden graduate high school at only half the rate as their peers in the rest of Florida. For decades, these low levels of educational attainment have plagued the region with high levels of unemployment and corresponding higher rates of poverty.

Poverty in Mississippi is not concentrated in one area but spreads far across the state. The regions with the highest poverty rates are concentrated around the Mississippi River, which are also the regions with the highest Black populations. Mississippi’s Black residents are three-times more likely to live in poverty than White residents, one of the worst ratios of any state in America. In Tunica County, right where the Mississippi river meets Tennessee, 68% of Black families live in poverty and 23.8% are unemployed according to a US Commission on Civil Rights, versus 12% of White families in poverty and 2% unemployed.

The highest increases in poverty occurred in the South, where research has shown the Child Tax Credit had the greatest effect in helping low-income families get the support they needed.

The White House was quick to jump in after the Census data release, blaming the rise in child poverty on congressional Republicans. President Biden derided “Republicans’ refusal to extend the enhanced Child Tax Credit” and went further to say that “The rise reported today in child poverty is no accident.” Economists found that child poverty would have been nearly 50% lower in 2022 if the expanded Child Tax Credit had remained in place.

Researchers at American Inequality have also found that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) has had a profound impact in poverty reduction. The number of children living below the poverty line would have been 25% higher without the EITC and the program also decreased poverty severity for another 17 million people. President Biden’s 2024 budget proposed expanding this tax credit, though Republicans remain opposed. 

Current poverty rates though are still below historic levels, and look most similar to rates seen in 2019. While financial hardship has decreased for Black and Hispanic Americans, poverty rates have now returned to pre-pandemic levels. A tremendous influx of funds to low-income households during the pandemic actually improved poverty in America. 

For Americans over 65, support has not arrived. The poverty rate rose to 14.1% for these older Americans, reaching levels not seen since 2016. This happened despite the 8.7% cost-of-living adjustment in social security payments, largely because labor force participation among older people has remained low as pandemic job losses have made it harder for this group to re-enter the workforce. 

Poverty in America reflects the inequality that plagues U.S. households. While certain regions have endured this pain much more than others, this new rising trend may spell ongoing challenges for even more communities. The federal support over the last 3 years showed just how much progress communities can make to reduce poverty, but the data now reveals what happens when those resources dry up.

source https://time.com/6320076/american-poverty-levels-state-by-state/

Why Trump’s Attack on Liberal Jews Might Hurt Him

Over eight years, we’ve become desensitized to the outrageous—and often offensive or bigoted—things that Donald Trump says. They’ve become a regular feature of our politics, and while they ignite a temporary furor, they quickly fade into the background, with little long-term impact on Americans’ attitudes about Trump.

Yet, when it comes to his Rosh Hashanah message, which on the Jewish new year holiday attacked “liberal Jews who voted to destroy America & Israel,” history suggests there could be more staying power and political impact.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In fact, in 1990, a similar episode cost another independently wealthy Republican businessman an election after he attacked the allegiance of a liberal American Jew. The episode exposed the political perils of questioning people’s adherence to their religious faith. 

In 1990, two-term incumbent Senator Rudy Boschwitz (R-Minn.) was heavily favored to win reelection. Boschwitz was the founder of Plywood Minnesota and famous locally for his flannel shirts and milk booth at the Minnesota State Fair. Leading Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL, the official name of Minnesota’s Democratic Party) candidates like former vice president Walter Mondale declined to run against him. Thus, the mantle fell to Carleton College professor Paul Wellstone, an experienced grassroots organizer but a political newbie save for an impulsive run for State Auditor in 1982. Early in the campaign Wellstone appeared to be little more than a speed bump for the politically connected, well-liked Boschwitz.

Read More: The History of Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories, from the Rothschilds to George Soros

Yet, after winning a contested DFL primary, Wellstone adopted what became his political signature: a green school bus that he rode around the state building a genuine grassroots effort. Despite frequent breakdowns, the bus helped Wellstone build an “everyman” image reinforced by quirky advertisements. In “Fast-Paced Paul,” Wellstone admitted “unlike my opponent, I don’t have $6 million, so I’m gonna have to talk fast,” and then appeared running scene to scene, listing his policy stances at breakneck speed. Despite being a curly-haired Jewish professor from a liberal college town in a state whose citizens knew when someone was not “one of us” (read: white, Christian, often straight), Wellstone endeared himself to unionists on the mining-dominated Iron Range and with fifth-generation farmers alike while still building support in urban Minneapolis. Ideas of economic democracy, at least in 1990, trumped identity-baiting.

By mid-October, this strategy had enabled Wellstone to overcome low name recognition and to cut a 15-point deficit in half. Boschwitz felt the heat.

As election day neared, the Republican stepped up his attacks, taking a page out of the slash-and-burn playbook that had proved so successful for George H.W. Bush and his campaign manager Lee Atwater during the 1988 presidential campaign. Wellstone was a “tax-and-spend liberal.” Even worse, he was a “self-promoting little fake.” Boschwitz’s attacks claimed his challenger “welcomed” the support of Minneapolis gangs like the Vice Lords, distributing literature on DFLers’ behalf.

This onslaught took its toll, and the progressive challenger slipped in the polls, though without the race ever feeling out of reach. 

Then, the Saturday before Election Day, Boschwitz forces made a critical blunder. They circulated a letter to “Friends in the Minnesota Jewish Community,” which was written by Boschwitz supporters Ruth and Allen Aaron of Minnetonka and mailed on “People for Boschwitz” stationery including his trademark smiley face symbol. The letter read like one of the senator’s tough attack ads: Wellstone had married a Christian woman. He was raising his children outside the Jewish faith. He supported Jesse Jackson, who had embraced Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. “Wellstone has no connection with the Jewish Community or our communal life,” they wrote. Boschwitz, Jewish himself, was “the Rabbi of the Senate.”

The backlash was swift and severe. The Minneapolis-St. Paul media denounced the letter. Jewish community leaders condemned the invective, with rabbi emeritus Bernard Raskas of St. Paul-based Temple of Aaron noting “its appeals to religion and racism are contrary to the American concept of democracy.” Rural DFLers recounted that even their socially-conservative districts were abuzz with disapproval. Polls for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune showed Boschwitz slipping five points over the weekend, making the race a virtual dead heat.

The uproar provided Wellstone with an opportunity to reaffirm his support for a two-state solution while denouncing Israel’s “iron fist policy” of suppressing Palestinian demonstrations in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. He also decried Boschwitz’s attack on his faith and the faith of so many voters as “unforgivable.” The letter reflected poorly on the senator’s “character,” and Wellstone asserted that no candidate who would  “write such a letter deserves to be a United States senator from Minnesota.”

Though Ruth Aaron denounced Wellstone as a “little whiner,” three days after her letter circulated, Wellstone pulled off a stunning two-point victory in a race where he had never led in the polls. Boschwitz’s Jew-baiting backfired, the final nail in a mismanaged campaign. One Tel Aviv newspaper remarked, tongue-in-cheek, “The Bad Jew Beat the Good Jew—Thank God!”

Read More: All the Ways We Deny Antisemitism

Boschwitz apologized the following Friday, and senator-elect Wellstone accepted, praising the “tremendous amount of sincerity and conviction” in Boschwitz’s statement. But the damage had been done. The Aaron letter provided both an excuse for independents to abandon Boschwitz and an opportunity for Democrats to restate the broad humanitarian objectives of their Israel policy.

Trump’s Rosh Hashanah statement provoked less immediate backlash—probably because it’s not a particularly unusual type of attack for the former president. Many Republican voters appreciate Trump’s incendiary, sometimes bigoted rhetoric and willingness to thumb his nose at those who denounce it. Additionally, there are probably fewer undecided voters in 2023 than there were in 1990.

Yet, that does not mean Trump’s message won’t hurt him. As in 1990, it offers up an opportunity for Democrats to reaffirm their support for a humane resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for American Jews at a time of rising antisemitism. It also could backfire with devout Americans of all religions, who find questioning people’s faith offensive. Certainly in 1990, voters in overwhelmingly Christian Minnesota blanched at making someone’s faith practices a public matter and in just a few days abandoned Boschwitz.

While we won’t see a similarly immediate impact on Trump’s political standing, he has still ventured into territory that could prove damaging, especially in a close election.

Cory Haala serves as assistant professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and is a political historian of the Midwest and American liberalism. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here.

source https://time.com/6319419/trump-rosh-hashanah-message-history/

The Tension in Climate Science Between Mitigation and Adaptation

Recently a climate scientist named Patrick Brown posted on Twitter, and then in an op-ed, and in an interview with journalist Robinson Meyer, about a paper he had co-authored in the prominent journal Nature about the impact of global warming on wildfires. He described how, rather than write the paper as he thought best, he had tailored its message to what he thought the journal editors wanted. He excluded other factors relevant to wildfire risk—land use, forest management, to what extent fires are ignited by humans—even though those other factors might, he claimed, play bigger roles in the present and near-future risk than climate change.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Brown argued that science journals and journalists have a preference for papers with headlines of the form “climate change makes X worse” and that this does a disservice to the public, because the broader picture, including factors other than climate change, would also be useful to talk about for anyone trying to reduce wildfire risk.

I share some of the very negative reactions to Brown’s stunt that have been expressed by many climate scientists. The structure of his actions—publish a paper, then publicly speak out in a way that undermines it, while blaming the culture of the field—makes it look like his intent was to discredit the entire field.

But Brown’s own words are much more nuanced, and don’t express the same intent as his actions do. Whether this reflects naïvete, confusion, or disingenuousness on his part is a question about him that doesn’t interest me. He raises some broader issues, however, that are worth talking about regardless.

I want to focus on the biggest one: do the most prominent scientific journals, the media (from whom I’d argue these journals inherit some of their priorities), and scientists themselves prefer narratives of the form “climate change makes X worse,” as opposed to “climate change and a bunch of other factors affect X”? If so why, and is this a bad thing?

Read More: We Need Climate Action Everywhere, All At Once

First of all—despite the implications of a conspiracist headline about Brown in one of the right-leaning outlets to publish about it—there is no single “full truth” about something as big and complex as climate change, certainly not that can be captured in a single short research paper. Scientists should, of course, always draw their conclusions dispassionately and honestly from the data. But there are always choices to make, including what to address in the study to begin with. And those choices will be informed, consciously or unconsciously, by why one thinks their work is societally relevant.

Brown’s brouhaha highlights the disconnect between the prerogatives of climate mitigation and climate adaptation.

Mitigation—cutting carbon emissions—is a global problem, and at its root a simple one. A ton of carbon emitted anywhere has the same global impact, and we aren’t reducing emissions nearly fast enough to meet any safe climate target. The problem is political, economic, and cultural; we have to get people, governments, and corporations to do the right things. An article that says “climate change makes X worse”—something that enormous volumes of research shows to be true for many instances of “X”—helps to alert people to the impacts of climate change, and informs their opinions about the importance of mitigation.

But what if something else is presently making X worse (or better) to a much greater degree than global warming is? Isn’t “climate change makes X worse” then a misleading headline?

Not if mitigation is what’s at issue, because then it’s a question of accountability. Imagine that someone pollutes the air or water supply with a toxin that makes incidence of some disease increase measurably, but that other factors also contribute to the occurrence of the disease. I think most would agree that the polluter should be held accountable for the increase in illness they’d caused, even if the other factors contribute as much or more to the total number of people getting sick. To understand the pollution’s consequences—a necessary step towards stopping the pollution —it would be appropriate for scientists to publish research on those consequences, and the media to report on them. A focus on the consequences of carbon pollution is appropriate by the same reasoning.

On the other hand, if one were not concerned about holding the polluter accountable, but instead only about reducing the amount of illness as much as possible, then one should take a holistic look at all the factors that could cause the disease. This is analogous to climate adaptation.

Climate adaptation is generally local, mostly benefiting the place where it’s done. It can take many forms: hard physical infrastructure; restoring “natural capital” like mangroves; financial measures; early warning systems; you name it. But any adaptation involves intervention in a system that is also influenced by factors other than climate. While some approaches to adaptation try to address only the incremental difference made by human-induced climate change, this often doesn’t make sense—you can’t build the top foot of a seawall without building the part below that. The right approach to adaptation, in my view, is to try to understand all the relevant factors, including but not limited to climate, and try to define the solutions that lead to the best outcomes for humans and other species.

So if we are motivated primarily by mitigation, it makes perfect sense to ask to what extent climate change makes wildfires worse, and skip other questions. If we are motivated primarily by adaptation, it makes more sense to ask about all the factors contributing to wildfires. My reading is that Brown’s preferred framing is adaptation, but that he perceived cultural pressure to write a mitigation-framed paper.

Historically, it’s true that both climate science and the media have been more concerned about mitigation than adaptation. Talking about adaptation used to be seen as giving up on cutting emissions. This was a defensible view back when the impacts of warming were mostly in the hypothetical future. It isn’t any more, because we’re clearly starting to see the impacts now. While most climate professionals understand this, echoes of the anti-adaptation stance do linger.

And maybe there’s still some justification for it. The urgency of mitigation is hotly contested in our politics, with one of the U.S. two political parties entirely opposed to it. Prioritizing adaptation (sincerely or otherwise) can indeed sometimes be cover for minimizing accountability for the consequences of carbon pollution, and thus for opposing the energy transition.

So let me be clear about my own position: adaptation can’t be the main answer on climate. There are too many aspects of climate change that no plausible adaptation can protect us from, more so the more warming we allow to happen. Mitigation—especially, ceasing to burn fossil fuels— remains the most critical thing we can do for the whole planet’s longer-term climate future.

But because some climate change has already happened and more is certainly coming, we also have to adapt as best we can in order to reduce the harm it causes. And to do that, we do have to understand how climate change manifests locally, and how it interacts with all the diverse dimensions of our societies. It is becoming clearer that we are behind on doing some of the kinds of science that adaptation demands.

Most climate scientists don’t consciously frame their research as being about either mitigation or adaptation. Most I know would say they are just studying how the climate works.

But we are now starting to see more climate action of all kinds. Scientists (and journalists) can inform and support it better by being more conscious and clear about what our science does and doesn’t have to do with the different forms that action can take.

There’s no conspiracy to suppress the truth about the relative roles of climate and other factors in wildfires or any other hazard. But neither should research on these topics pretend to be untouched by the social and political issues that make the research relevant. We have to learn to be good scientists and good citizens at the same time, and to see those obligations as connected rather than at odds.

source https://time.com/6319914/tension-climate-science-mitigation-adaptation/

A ‘Widespread’ Bedbug Outbreak Is Taking Over Paris During Fashion Week

Away from the glamor of Paris’ ongoing Fashion Week, French officials have warned of a “widespread” outbreak of bedbugs across public spaces in the capital. With tourists expected to flock to the city next year for the 2024 Olympics, concerns about health and safety implications are rising. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Transport Minister Clement Beaune has vowed to “reassure and protect” the public by convening a meeting of public transport operators this week to establish countermeasures against the blood-sucking pests which have been spotted in cinemas, at Charles-de-Gaulle Airport, and on public transportation.

Deputy Mayor of Paris Emmanuel Gregoire wrote a letter on behalf of City Hall Thursday, calling on Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne to take action against the “scourge.” 

“The state urgently needs to put an action plan in place against this scourge as France is preparing to welcome the Olympic and Paralympic games in 2024,” Grégoire wrote, according to Reuters.

Despite being firm in his requests, the deputy mayor cautioned against “hysteria,” adding that there is “no threat to the Olympic Games,” and they should all work together to solve the issue. He added: “Bedbugs existed before and they will exist afterward.”

On Friday, Gregoire categorized the rise in bedbugs as “widespread,” telling French TV station LCI that “no one is safe.” He added: “Obviously there are risk factors but in reality, you can catch bed bugs anywhere and bring them home.”

Transport operators, including RATP, the metro operator in Paris, have said they remain “extremely vigilant” but there have been no more recent sightings since a suspected sighting on line 8 of the metro was reported on Wednesday, according to The Local France. RATP told the outlet that “each sighting is taken into account and is subject to a treatment,” adding that “these last few days, there have been no proven cases of bedbugs recorded in our equipment.” 

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, bedbugs are flat, parasitic insects that feed on the blood of humans and animals while they sleep. Infestations occur in all parts of the world, but particularly in areas where people are asleep, such as mattress seams, bed frames, cracks and curves, or behind wallpaper.  

Bedbugs often occur in places where a lot of travel takes place as their bodies allow them to fit into crevices in luggage and clothing. Hygiene is not a determining factor in any case. While the pests are not known for carrying diseases, they can cause skin irritation. Those experiencing symptoms from bedbug bites are advised to wash clothing and fabrics at high temperature and contact pest control services to treat their home. 

France’s problem is far from a new one. Bedbugs were much more common in France before they effectively disappeared in the 1950s. But a rise in global travel accessibility led to a surge in the 1990s. Three years ago, the government launched its anti-bedbug efforts, comprising an informational website and telephone hotline amid surging infestation. By last year, the French government agency ANSES reported that 11% of French households had experienced bedbugs at some point in the years between 2017 and 2022, adding that such occurrences were not linked to wealth.

source https://time.com/6319725/bedbugs-increase-paris-france/

What to Know About Laphonza Butler, Governor Newsom’s Pick to Succeed Feinstein

California Governor Gavin Newsom tapped Emily’s List president and former labor leader Laphonza Butler to fill the Senate seat held by Dianne Feinstein, who died last week.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Butler would be California’s first openly LGBTQ U.S. Senator and the first Black lesbian to openly serve Congress. She would also be the second Black woman to represent California in the upper chamber after Vice President Kamala Harris.

“An advocate for women and girls, a second-generation fighter for working people, and a trusted adviser to Vice President Harris, Laphonza Butler represents the best of California, and she’ll represent us proudly in the United States Senate,” Newsom said in a statement. “As we mourn the enormous loss of Senator Feinstein, the very freedoms she fought for — reproductive freedom, equal protection, and safety from gun violence — have never been under greater assault. Laphonza will carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings, and fight for all Californians in Washington D.C.”

Newsom had vowed more than two years ago that he would nominate a Black woman if a Senate vacancy emerged.

Butler wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, Monday that she was “honored to accept” the governor’s nomination. “No one will ever measure up to the legacy of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, but I will do my best to honor her legacy and leadership by committing to work for women and girls, workers and unions, struggling parents, and all of California,” she wrote. “I am ready to serve.”

Butler will serve the remainder of Feinstein’s term, which will run through 2024. Reps. Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Adam Schiff have launched campaigns to be elected to the seat next year; it is not yet clear whether Butler will also run for a full six-year term.

Butler has been president of Emily’s List since 2021. She is the first Black woman to lead the national PAC, which supports pro-choice Democratic women in politics. In accepting the Senate seat, Butler will step down from her position at Emily’s List.

Before Emily’s List, Butler ran political campaigns and served as a key leader in Harris’ bid for the vice presidency and as a senior advisor to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. She was also the president of California’s largest labor union—SEIU Local 2015—for more than a decade. Butler worked to achieve pay equity for women in California and advocated for raising the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour, according to her bio on Emily’s List. She also previously worked as the director for public policy and campaigns at Airbnb from 2020-2021, according to her LinkedIn profile.

Butler grew up in Magnolia, Miss. in a working-class family. Her father died when she was 16 after being diagnosed with a terminal illness. Her mother worked multiple jobs to support the family. She went on to attend Jackson State University, an HBCU, where she received a bachelor’s degree in political science. She is married and has an 8-year-old daughter, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Butler has been living in Maryland, according to her bio on Emily’s List. Newsom’s administration said she also owns property in California will change her voter registration there, according to the New York Times.

So far, the reception to Butler’s announcement has been largely positive among Democrats on the Hill. Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat from California, said in a statement on X that he was “honored to welcome her to the United States Senate.”

“Throughout her career, Laphonza Butler has been a strong voice for working families, LGBTQ rights, and a champion for increasing women’s representation in politics,” Padilla said.

Senate Democrats are “delighted” to welcome Butler, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in a statement. “I’m confident that her breadth of work, acumen, and public service will meet this moment and be a great help to Senate Democrats as we continue to deliver for the American People.”

LGBTQ and abortion-rights advocates also celebrated her appointment. Tony Hoang, executive director of the LGBTQ rights advocacy group Equality California, said in a statement on X that “this historic appointment by Governor Newsom will give our LGBTQ+ community another voice in Congress at a time when our rights and freedoms are under attack across the country.” Jodi Hicks, CEO and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California said in a statement that Butler “has been a national leader in the fight for reproductive freedom.”

source https://time.com/6319622/laphonza-butler-dianne-feinstein-seat/

The Budget Deal Is a Tragedy for Ukraine

The surprise last-minute deal proposed by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to avert a government shutdown came at a steep price for Ukraine. The Republican-led 45-day stopgap spending bill, which dropped support for Ukraine, won enough support from House Democrats to overwhelmingly pass with 315 votes. Sadly, some congressional leaders have been emboldened to walk away from Ukraine given some surveys claiming 55% of voters do not believe Congress should authorize additional funding to support Ukraine—a reversal from 62% in favor this time last year.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Though both parties deserve credit for preventing a government shutdown, the reneging of support for Ukraine will have disastrous ripple effects and plays directly into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s only winning hand—propaganda and attrition—to weaken allied support. Here are the facts that voters ought to understand about American support for Ukraine.

First, Ukraine is not the financial sinkhole anti-Ukraine extremists would like to portray, and U.S. support for Ukraine is far cheaper than it seems. For all its mistaken use as a political hot potato in budget talks, the $43 billion on U.S. military aid to Ukraine since Russia invaded amounts to about 5% of the U.S. defense budget and less than 1% of total government spending. This is not an insignificant sum but, to put things in perspective, it’s equivalent to the amount the U.S. is spending on such mundane items such as software for government agencies; COVID rental relief, and highway safety programs.

The weapons the U.S. is sending, like the 186 Bradley tanks so prized by Ukraine, from our stockpiles are likewise not breaking the bank. Unlike other foreign adventures, the U.S. is not shouldering the load alone as European countries have contributed an equivalent amount in military aid themselves and twice as much in humanitarian support. Some European countries such as Estonia are setting aside half their defense budget for Ukraine’s defense, an order of magnitude higher than U.S. support. And most importantly, the U.S. has sent no American troops to Ukraine and zero American lives have been lost with the Ukrainians doing all the fighting.

Europe stands mostly united with the U.S. in support for Ukraine. Poland and Lithuania were the first to sever all Russian gas purchases and Germany’s new LNG terminals made it possible for the entire EU to follow, a huge flip from the Nordstream I and II promise. Furthermore, the mayor of Warsaw, Rafał Trzaskowski told me in his office last month that fully 20% of Poland’s population are warmly welcomed, productively employed Ukrainian refugees. It takes little for Poles across sectors and parties to recall their history with Russia from the 1930s mass slaughter of tens of thousands in the Katyn Forest when they though Russia was their ally to Lech Walesa’s overthrow of Russian domination 50 years later. With upcoming acrimonious elections in Poland elevated partisan tensions, leaders of both parties tell me that their animosity towards Putin and Russia transcends any political divides.

For our miniscule financial investment, the U.S. is reaping massive returns. Ukraine has already destroyed 50% of Russia’s military might by some measures, forcing Putin to spend well over $150 billion on the country’s military replenishment. Ukraine’s counteroffensive may not be going as fast as some would have liked, but it is making progress. Economically, sanctions combined with the exodus of over 1,000 private sector companies have choked Russia’s economy, with some sectors down from 60 to 90%. Combined with escalating war costs, Putin is being forced to cannibalize the productive economy to replenish his coffers, basically tossing the living room furniture into the fireplace in desperation. On the other hand, Ukraine is bustling with energy and enthusiasm. Having just returned from a visit to Kyiv, I witnessed first-hand how Ukrainians from combat veterans to young professionals to baristas in the café are eager to contribute to the reconstruction of a new, modernized, Westernized Ukraine.  

Appeasement is not a serious choice; if the U.S. chooses not to fund military assistance to Ukraine as Republicans like Matt Gaetz and Rand Paul would have it, or if the U.S. forces Ukraine to surrender its lands as even New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has proposed, we are surely staring at even higher costs moving forward. Putin’s expansionist agenda does not stop at Ukraine, and next up will be Poland, Moldova, Finland, Sweden, and others.

He has already signaled as much—in a July 2021 essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russia and Ukraine,” Putin not only foreshadowed his intention to invade Ukraine but made sweeping claims to the historical unity of Belarus, Lithuania, Poland, Georgia, and Kazkakhstan as extensions of Russkiy Mir, or the “Russian world.” And even more importantly, if the U.S. abandons Ukraine, China may be emboldened to seize Taiwan. The consequences of that would stretch far beyond the Asia-Pacific region—the self-ruling island controls about 70% of the global semiconductor supply, which is critical to everything from the smartphones in our pockets to the military hardware the U.S. military depends on.

Anyone who still advocates for appeasement in the face of a dictator who has already invaded three countries—Georgia in 2008, the Syrian intervention in 2013, and Ukraine in 2014 and again in 2022—is dangerously misreading the threat that the Russian leader poses to the world. This is missing the lessons of World War II on the 85^th anniversary of Neville Chamberlain’s ill-fated concession to Hitler in the Munich Agreement where parallel land of seized German speaking Czechoslovakia we surrendered to Germany in an effort at making peace.

The simpler choice is to spend less than 1% of the government budget to support Ukraine’s defense today, or to spend much more in the future amid empowered foreign adversaries, potential NATO activation, and even U.S. boots on the ground.

Putin is reeling, and the only arrow left in his quiver is to use propaganda and attrition to wear down allied support. While keeping the government running is worthy of celebration, dropping Ukraine was hardly necessary to avoid a government shutdown. After all, just two days ago, the House voted overwhelmingly to support assistance to Ukraine, including over 100 Republicans.

Now it will take a separate legislative act to pass funding for Ukraine; Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell may have to channel the heroic role of former GOP Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a former isolationist, who helped fortify wavering GOP support for the Marshall Plan among his colleagues after World War II. But even if Ukraine funding eventually passes, thanks to today’s mistakes, Putin will be freshly empowered, thinking that U.S. support for Ukraine is weakening, and we will be paying even higher costs for a long time to come.

source https://time.com/6319570/ukraine-u-s-aid-republicans/