08 January 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
The DOJ must examine the roles of government officials, including former President Donald Trump, in the Capitol insurrection. To look away is fantastically dangerous.
Caveats abound. Perhaps Garland’s critics have it wrong, and the silence about whether he is investigating Trump and his enablers is actually evidence of his supreme competence. Garland dropped hints in his speech yesterday that could suggest the existence of such an investigation, for example, when he said the department “remains committed to holding all January 6 perpetrators, at any level, accountable.” We are talking about a legendary public servant, someone who steered the Oklahoma City–bombing investigation to success as a Justice Department lawyer and later, in his two decades serving on our nation’s second-highest court, was never reversed once by the Supreme Court. Criminal investigations are generally secret, and perhaps what is going on is that Garland has proceeded apace, just not publicly. If so, the critics are premature, and Garland is doing exactly what he is supposed to do.
But what if that isn’t right? There is so far zero evidence of an actual investigation into Trump and his advisers. It’s been an entire year, and the governing U.S. Attorney’s Manual, which establishes the rules for federal prosecution, says, “When the community needs to be reassured that the appropriate law enforcement agency is investigating a matter … comments about or confirmation of an ongoing investigation may be necessary.” Moreover, if such an investigation were happening, it is likely that we would have learned of it by now, either through leaks or an interviewee saying something (or someone trying to block the inquiry through a public lawsuit, as the Trumps have done in New York). Law-enforcement officials know you can’t easily start such interviews a year or more after the fact—evidence disappears (a known issue with Trump folks) and memories fade. So it is very much worth worrying about whether the caution Garland cultivated as a judge—for you don’t sit on the nation’s second-highest court for two decades and avoid reversal without a heaping amount of caution—is driving his decision making today. If so, what would be the harm in “moving on” from what happened, as many top Republicans have argued?
David A. Graham: The paperwork coup
Here’s the harm: The essence of the rule of law is to treat like parties equally. That’s why Lady Justice appears blindfolded, because she is to dole out justice impartially. I teach my criminal-law students that this is a “same yardstick” principle—what law is, at bottom, is a command to judge people according to the same yardstick, whether you like them or not. And that means that if there is serious evidence of crime, you don’t look the other way, no matter how hard prosecution may be. At the same time, that principle doesn’t mean Garland ought to be announcing criminal charges against Trump and his pals right now. Merrick Garland is the attorney general, not Santa Claus. It merely means that people, including high-ranking government officials, need to be interviewed and documents examined to determine whether probable cause exists. The yardstick principle asks us to pretend that those responsible were Democrats, and to use that thought experiment to decide whether an investigation is warranted.
When it comes to January 6, Attorney General Garland must realize that this yardstick points in a clear direction. As one senior government official put it, “There is no question—none—that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their President … The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.”
Moreover, given the public record already available—including evidence of “war rooms” at the Willard Hotel, bogus legal memos that circulated among senior government leaders, and even a member of Congress who is known to have worn body armor that day—it’s very hard to see how an investigation into all of this wouldn’t be required. To fail to investigate government officials, including the former president, who had to know that the attempt was to interfere with the counting of the vote, to say nothing of its potential for accompanying violence, is fantastically dangerous. The whole point of criminal law is to provide societal condemnation of evil acts and to deter them in the future. If government leaders and their private army of advisers can get away with encouraging a mob to, in 2021, stop one of our nation’s most solemn functions, the counting of electoral votes, what is to stop them from trying again in any other year?
Travis McMichael, left, speaks with his attorney Jason B. Sheffield, center, during his sentencing on Friday. McMichael and father Greg McMichael and neighbor William "Roddie" Bryan were all sentenced to life in prison. (photo: Stephen B. Morton/Getty Images)
Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley announced the sentences Friday, about six weeks after a jury found the men guilty of the high-profile killing that is widely seen as racially motivated. In early 2020, the men chased down and killed Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man who was jogging through their neighborhood near Brunswick, along Georgia's coast.
Arbery's murder was "a tragedy on many, many levels," Walmsley said, adding that "a young man with dreams was gunned down in this community."
The judge sentenced Travis McMichael to life plus 20 years and Greg McMichael to life plus 20 years, with the additional punishment stemming from assault and false imprisonment charges. He sentenced Bryan to life plus 10 years — which would be suspended.
In an extraordinary moment in court, the judge interrupted his remarks to sit silently for one full minute — representing a fraction of the time, he said, that Arbery spent running for his life as the other men chased him for roughly five minutes. In considering the case, Walmsley said, he kept returning to "the terror" that must have been in Arbery's mind.
The judge's decision largely mirrors prosecutors' requests. His ruling came after Arbery's family delivered passionate requests for the three men to face the maximum penalty.
Attorneys for Travis McMichael, 35, his father Greg McMichael, 66, and their neighbor Bryan, 52, had asked for leniency during Friday's hearing. They have also previously said they will appeal their clients' guilty verdict.
Just before Walmsley delivered the sentence, he repeated the defendants' own words — what he called the "narrative" that Greg McMichael sought to establish about Arbery, including his repeated use of profanities to discuss the young man, even as he said he had no proof that Arbery had done anything wrong.
Arbery "was hunted down and shot," Walmsley said. And then the men who did it turned their backs and walked away, he added.
After the sentence was announced, the prosecution asked the court to impose a condition on the guilty parties, to bar them from using their experience to make money. The judge said he will review that request. Court was then adjourned.
Outside the court, demonstrators cheered the sentencing, chanting Ahmaud Arbery's name and "What did we get? Justice! When do we get it? Today!"
The Arbery family walked out of the courthouse with raised arms and cheers from the demonstrators.
Arbery's mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, addressed the crowd outside the courthouse in a quiet voice thanking supporters through several months of the investigation and trial.
"I sat in that courtroom for five weeks straight, but I knew we would come out with a victory, I never doubted it. Thank you all for supporting me who stood with me through this very long fight," she said.
Defense lawyers urged leniency, after Arbery's family asked for the maximum
Ahmaud Arbery's father, Marcus Arbery, had told the court earlier that the defendants lynched his son in broad daylight, saying he wished he could have saved Ahmaud from "their evil and hate."
The McMichaels and Bryan should think about what they did every day for the rest of their lives, Marcus Arbery said, adding, "and they should do it from behind bars, because me and my family, we've got to live with his death for the rest of our life."
Travis McMichael's attorney, Robert Rubin, said later that his client had acted without thinking, arguing that his actions against Arbery were not proof of "an abandoned and malignant heart."
And while prosecutors had pointed to a lack of remorse as additional reason for a stiff penalty, Rubin said McMichael could not express remorse while also facing the threat of a separate federal trial later this year.
Rubin argued that McMichael should be given the opportunity to change and seek redemption, rather than spending the rest of his life in prison.
Greg McMichael's defense attorney Laura Hogue said her client shouldn't face the maximum sentence, citing a lack of prior criminal history. She also argued that the prosecution hadn't proven aggravating circumstances that would warrant the stiffest sentence.
Hogue also cited the jury's verdict, which she said had found her client's role in Arbery's death stemmed from an "unintentional act." She noted that despite carrying a handgun that day, he never fired a shot at Arbery. His actions weren't motivated by hate, but by the urge to "get to the bottom" of Arbery's previous visits to a construction site in the Satilla Shores neighborhood.
Bryan's attorney, Kevin Gough, began his argument by saying he agreed with much of what the prosecution had said about the case, including mention of Bryan's cooperation with the investigation and the recommendation of a lesser sentence.
Like the McMichaels, Gough said, Bryan had no prior felony convictions. But he said his client's circumstances were very different from those of his fellow defendants. And he added that Bryan didn't know the McMichaels were armed.
"Roddie Bryan really had no idea of what was going on — or why — until after the tragic death of Mr. Arbery," Gough said.
Both of the McMichaels showed a "demonstrated pattern of vigilantism," lead prosecutor Linda Dunikoski said as she argued for them to be sent to prison for life without parole. Citing their experience with law enforcement, she added that the men "should have known better" than to arm themselves and pursue Arbery.
The sentencing hearing at the Glynn County Courthouse in Brunswick, Ga., began Friday morning and extended into the afternoon.
As the three men entered the courtroom, a pool report from inside the courtroom described the scene: "Greg McMichael looks noticeably nervous, he hugs and greets his attorneys but when seated has a trembling hand over his mouth."
Arbery's family delivered emotional victim impact statements
After Marcus Arbery spoke, Ahmaud's sister, Jasmine, smiled in court as she described her brother as a tall, athletic young man with a positive outlook and a sense of humor, who loved to run. But while he looked like her and other people she loves, she added, the defendants saw him as a threat.
"Ahmaud had a future that was taken from him in an instance of violence," Jasmine Arbery said as she wept. "He was robbed of his life pleasures, big and small. He will never be able to fulfill his professional dreams, nor will he be able to start a family, or even be a part of my daughter's life."
"The loss of Ahmaud has devastated me and my family," she said, "so I'm asking that the man that killed him be given the maximum sentence available to the court."
Ahmaud Arbery's mother, Cooper-Jones, began her impact statement by speaking directly to her son.
"This verdict doesn't bring you back, but it does help bring closure to this very difficult chapter of my life," she said. "I made a promise to you the day I laid you to rest. I told you I love you — and someday, somehow, I would get you justice. Son, I love you as much today as I did the day that you were born. Raising you was the honor of my life, and I'm very proud of you."
Cooper-Jones told Walmsley that the defendants had lied about her son and her family and that because they showed no remorse, they don't deserve leniency.
"This wasn't a case of mistaken identity or mistaken fact," she said. "They chose to target my son because they didn't want him in their community. They chose to treat him differently than other people who frequently visited their community. And when they couldn't sufficiently scare him or intimidate him, they killed him."
During the trial, defense attorneys highlighted the condition of Arbery's feet and toenails. On Friday, his mother responded to those statements.
"He was messy, he sometimes refused to wear socks or take good care of his good clothing," Cooper-Jones said. "I wish he would have cut and cleaned his toenails before he went out for that jog that day. I guess he would have if he knew he would be murdered."
Noting that her son never spoke to or threatened the McMichaels or Bryan, Cooper-Jones added, "They were fully committed to their crimes — let them be fully committed for the consequences."
The men used pickup trucks to chase Arbery through their neighborhood
In February 2020, Travis and Greg McMichael pursued Arbery, who was Black, as he was out for a run through a residential neighborhood. They said they suspected he was responsible for a string of recent break-ins. Bryan joined in the chase, which the prosecutor said lasted five minutes. All three killers are white.
Bryan captured some of the confrontation on video, including the moment that Travis McMichael shot and killed Arbery during a struggle. Footage of the killing became a key piece of evidence at trial.
All three defendants had pleaded not guilty.
Travis McMichael was found guilty of all nine counts against him, including one count of malice murder and four counts of felony murder. Greg McMichael was found not guilty of malice murder but was convicted on the other eight counts, including four counts of felony murder. Bryan was found guilty of six charges, including three felony murder counts.
They all faced a sentence of either life in prison or life in prison without the possibility of parole; prosecutors did not seek the death penalty in this case. Prosecutors previously said they would seek life in prison without parole for all three defendants.
The men also face a separate federal hate crimes trial later this year.
Who are the judge, prosecutors and defense?
Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley presided over the trial at the Glynn County Courthouse. The Eastern Judicial Circuit judge was given the case after all five judges in the Brunswick Judicial Circuit recused themselves. Walmsley was appointed to the bench in February 2012.
Lead prosecutor Linda Dunikoski is the senior assistant district attorney in Cobb County, outside of Atlanta. She was put in charge of the case in April, after two local prosecutors recused themselves.
Defense attorney Kevin Gough of Brunswick has represented Bryan since his arrest. Attorney Jessica Burton of Atlanta is also on Bryan's defense team.
Defense attorneys Robert Rubin and Jason Sheffield represent Travis McMichael. They're from the same Atlanta-area law firm.
Defense attorneys Laura and Franklin Hogue, who are married, represent Greg McMichael. They're based in Macon, Ga., where they've handled numerous death-penalty cases.
The case was a flashpoint in the reckoning over racial justice
Although the murder occurred in February 2020, neither the McMichaels nor Bryan were immediately arrested. Only after the video footage recorded by Bryan was leaked online did authorities make any arrests, in May, some 10 weeks after Arbery's death. There was a string of recusals from prosecutors with ties to Greg McMichael — a former police officer.
The video shows the McMichaels chasing Arbery through the Satilla Shores neighborhood. Travis McMichael was armed with a shotgun.
Defense attorneys said at trial that the McMichaels were trying to make a citizen's arrest of Arbery, who they suspected had burglarized several nearby homes. Surveillance video shows Arbery entering a home under construction several times, but no evidence was presented at the trial that he stole anything or that he had any involvement in any of the neighborhood break-ins or thefts.
The video shows Travis McMichael, who is standing outside of his white pickup truck, confront Arbery. The two get into a brief scuffle, and that's when McMichael shoots and kills Arbery, who was unarmed. At trial, McMichael testified that he fired in self-defense.
"They shot and killed him," lead prosecutor Linda Dunikoski said during closing arguments, "not because he was a threat to them, but because he wouldn't stop and talk to them."
Family members have called Arbery's murder a "modern-day lynching," and others have bemoaned that fact that it took the public release of Bryan's video for authorities to file charges.
"This case, by all accounts, should have been opened and closed ... the violent stalking and lynching of Ahmaud Arbery was documented for video for the world to witness," Ben Crump, a civil rights attorney, said in a statement after the verdict.
"But yet, because of the deep cracks, flaws, and biases in our systems, we were left to wonder if we would ever see justice," he added.
The video was released days before George Floyd was killed by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin and in the midst of continued protests for racial justice across the U.S.
At the state trial of the McMichaels and Bryan, there was no evidence of racial animus raised, but that is expected to be central to the upcoming federal hate crimes trial.
Civil rights attorney Lee Merritt, who stood with the Arbery family outside of the court after the sentencing Friday, said the federal hate crimes trial will have broader implications and represents an important step in addressing the issues of racism and hate in a court of law.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts. (photo: Getty Images)
At issue in the nearly four-hour argument were two regulations:
- One imposes a vaccine mandate for almost all workers at hospitals, nursing homes and other medical providers receiving federal Medicare and Medicaid funds.
- The other is a separate vaccine-or-test mandate for private sector companies that employ 100 or more workers.
But even as the justices debated some pretty dry-sounding statutory and procedural issues, the pandemic itself crept inalterably into the courtroom. Two of the lawyers challenging the Biden administration rules made their argument via telephone because they both have COVID, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a lifelong diabetic, was not in the courtroom, choosing instead to participate from her chambers.
The vaccine-or-test regulation was issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; it was enacted under Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, a target of many current court conservatives. The statute allows the agency to issue emergency rules when it deems them "necessary" to protect workers from a "grave danger."
The Biden administration contends that under the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health statute, it was obligated to act. After all, COVID-19 has already claimed more than 800,000 lives in the United States and sickened 50 million more, many with lasting effects.
But at Friday's argument, the OSHA regulation ran into a conservative buzz saw. Right off the bat, Chief Justice John Roberts cast doubt on the regulation, declaring: "This is something the federal government has never done before."
Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated even more strongly that, in their view, the regulation went too far. They argued that at minimum Congress would have to enact a new statute that specifically authorizes the vaccine-or-test regulation. The chief justice and Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared less categorical in their approach, but both were clearly skeptical of the regulation.
The court's three liberal justices were, quite simply, incredulous. When Justice Thomas questioned the necessity of the vaccine-or-test regime, Justice Elena Kagan acidly noted that "nearly a million people have died" in the pandemic so far. "It is by far the greatest public health danger that this country has faced in the last century," she said.
More and more people are dying every day and more and more people are getting sick every day, she said, adding that "this is the policy that is most geared to stopping all this."
Justice Stephen Breyer disputed the challengers' assertion that the regulation should be blocked "in the public interest" when "nearly three-quarters of a million people" are being infected every day. "I would find that unbelievable."
Lawyer Scott Keller, representing the challengers, replied that states can always impose their own vaccine mandates. That prompted Sotomayor to counter that some states have made vaccine and mask mandates illegal. The OSHA rule, she said, is exactly the kind of national rule that Congress provided for in the statute.
In the second case argued Friday, involving health care workers, the court's conservatives did not seem as unified in their hostility. As the chief justice observed, the regulation, issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is different because it is based on the long-established principle that when the government funds a program, it can put conditions on how the money is used.
"What could be closer to addressing the COVID-19 problem ... than health care," he said, adding that when people people go to a hospital, for whatever reason, "if they face COVID-19 concerns , well, that's much worse."
Justice Kagan, by then infuriated, put it more bluntly. All the rule does is "say to providers ... 'Basically, the one thing you can't do is kill your patients.' "
Friday's special session was heard on an expedited basis because the OSHA regulation is about to go into effect, and the Medicare and Medicaid vaccine mandate for health care workers has been blocked by a lower court. So the court is likely to act within days.
Visitors watching the Beehive Geyser eruption at Yellowstone National Park. (photo: Jacob W. Frank/NPS)
“Se Requiere Reservación/Reservations Required” read the bilingual sign, puncturing my plans like a thorn in a hydration bladder.
From inside the rental car, I checked recreation.gov for the next available reservation, but on a holiday weekend, the park was fully booked. I ended up in Luquillo, tramping to the beat of reggaeton on the beach instead of hiking to the croaks of coquà in the U.S. Forest Service’s only tropical rainforest.
Really, I should have known better. When I visited Puerto Rico last February, the pandemic had been upending norms for nearly a year. Travelers seeking refuge in nature were flocking to public sanctuaries run by the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and overwhelming the strained staff and fragile environments. At Great Smoky Mountains National Park, more than 375,000 people hiked Laurel Falls Trail in 2020, an additional 110,000 pairs of feet from the previous year.
In 2021, Yellowstone National Park set a record in July for the most-visited month in its nearly 150-year history, with almost 1.1 million recreation visits. Also last year, Acadia National Park in Maine received more than 4 million visitors for the first time. In response to the stampede, officials introduced reservation systems to help them control the number of people who can enter the park or access specific roads or trails in a single day.
“The nationwide trend of changing visitation patterns before, during and after the pandemic requires continual innovation and effective ways to manage visitor use to ensure that these special places, and the benefits they generate, persist for current and future generations,” Stephanie Roulett, a public affairs specialist with the National Park Service, said by email. “As a result, parks are exploring many different tools and techniques that are most effective for their situation to help them improve how visitors get to and experience popular park resources and features.”
In some cases, such as Yosemite’s entry reservation system and the Great Smoky Mountains’ parking fee at the Laurel Falls trailhead, the arrangements were temporary and expired after the busy season or pilot period. Several reservation requirements, however, will return this year, and a few new ones will debut. Many parks could also revive their measures, depending on the crush of crowds or the virus’s trajectory.
For the most part, the rules apply to visitors who arrive by car and plan to exit before closing time. Vacationers who enter by bicycle, foot or public transportation, or who booked an overnight stay at an on-site lodge or campground, are exempt. The permit is typically per vehicle, not per passenger. Many of the reservations are free or cost a few dollars, plus a nominal service fee by recreation.gov. Guests must pay the park entrance fee on top of any secondary charges.
Roulett said that, depending on the park or activity, visitors should start planning months to weeks in advance, especially if their trip falls during peak season. She recommends the National Park Service’s Trip Planning Guide, Find a Park resource and its new NPS app, which consolidates all 423 park units in one mobile tool. For national forests and other public attractions, Rodney Foushee, a communications officer with the U.S. Forest Service, suggests searching under “Tickets & Tours” or “Permits” on recreation.gov, the official booking site for a dozen federal agencies.
A few general tips: Some parks ask visitors to display the parking permit on their windshield, so it’s a good idea to print out your confirmation in advance. Cellphone service can also be spotty or nonexistent in a park, so download the receipt on your phone before setting out for the day. For timed-entry tickets, be punctual, because you don’t want to miss your window. And don’t forget your mask: Many federal sites require face coverings for indoor venues and enclosed public transportation and mandate or recommend them for crowded outdoor areas.
Here is a sampling of parks and their reservation requirements for the new year.
- Acadia National Park, Maine: Between mid-May and October, the park will require timed-entry reservations for visitors who wish to drive Cadillac Summit Road, the three-mile scenic route to the top of the park’s highest peak. Thirty percent of the reservations will become available 90 days ahead of the arrival date, and the remainder will be released two days in advance. The fee is $6 per vehicle.
- Glacier National Park, Montana: From May 27 through Sept. 11, day-use visitors will need a $2 per-vehicle ticket to access Going-to-the-Sun Road at the West Entrance, the new Camas Entrance and the St. Mary Entrance. (St. Mary opens closer to late June.) A separate pass is required to explore the North Fork area via the Polebridge Ranger Station. Tickets could become available as soon as March.
- Muir Woods National Monument, California: The year-round reservation system for cars and shuttle bus passengers was established in 2018 to reduce traffic and noise in the old growth redwood grove. The parking pass starts at $9 for a vehicle up to 17 feet long. The shuttle, which runs weekends and holidays, costs $3.50 per person age 16 and older; all visitors must reserve a seat on the bus, which boards in nearby Mill Valley. Booking is available 90 days out, with a few spaces reserved for three days in advance.
- Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado: Last year, parkgoers needed a $2 timed-entry permit per vehicle for select times between May 28 and Oct. 11. Two types of reservations were available. One permit covered the Bear Lake Road Corridor, which included the entire corridor plus access to the rest of the park, and was valid from 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. The second permit was for the rest of park, excluding the corridor but including Trail Ridge Road, and applied to visits from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Officials have proposed a similar system for May 27 through Oct. 10, with bookings opening on May 2. More details to come early this year.
- Arches National Park, Utah: The park unveiled a pilot timed-entry system for visits from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m., April 3 through Oct. 3. The $2 per-vehicle tickets will become available on the first day of the month for visits three months ahead. For example, tickets for April entries went on sale shortly after the New Year’s holiday; the next date is Feb. 1 for May reservations. The last round will take place on July 1, for three days in October. The park will also release a handful of tickets the day before.
- Shenandoah National Park, Virginia: To relieve congestion on trails to Old Rag Mountain, the park will test day-hike ticketing. Officials are hammering out the details, but the new system could go into effect in March and cap the number at 800 daily visitors.
- Haleakala National Park, Hawaii: To greet the sunrise on Maui’s highest peak, visitors arriving by car will need a reservation between 3 a.m. and 7 a.m. The Haleakala National Park Summit Sunrise reservation, which was introduced in 2017, is available up to 60 days in advance and is valid only for the booked day. The $1 per-car permit also allows guests to park in the four sky-high lots — Summit, Haleakala Visitor Center, Kalahaku and Leleiwi — during the predawn hours. In the winter, the sun starts its ascent a few minutes shy of 7 a.m.
- Zion National Park, Utah: Hikers headed to Angels Landing, the dramatic 1,488-foot-tall rock formation, will need a permit starting April 1. The park will distribute permits through seasonal and day-before online lotteries. The first seasonal lottery kicked off on Jan. 3 and will close on Jan. 20; the permit applies to hikes from April 1 to May 31. Lotteries for other periods are scheduled to open on April 1, July 1 and Oct. 1. The last-minute lottery runs from 12:01 a.m. to 3 p.m. Mountain time. Visitors pay $6 per application (includes up to six people) to enter either lottery, plus $3 per person if they nab a permit. The program is scheduled to run through at least February 2023. Visitors do not need a reservation to enter the park.
- El Yunque National Forest, Puerto Rico: On Dec. 20, the tropical rainforest reinstated its $2 per-vehicle ticketing system for La Mina Recreational Area, along Route 191. Visitors can choose morning (8 to 11 a.m.) or afternoon (11 a.m. to 2 p.m.) entry. Tickets are available 30 days in advance, in addition to a handful of passes released 24 hours beforehand.
- Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, Colorado: The Mount Evans Recreation Area, which includes Mount Evans, a member of the 14ers club (peaks that are at least 14,000 feet tall), is closed for the season. When it reopens at the end of May or early June, visitors will need timed-entry reservations to access the highest paved road in North America. Last year, the fee was $10 per car, plus a $2 reservation fee; the pass was valid for three days.
- Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, Nevada: Through May 31, the Bureau of Land Management park about 17 miles west of the Las Vegas Strip will require timed-entry permits for the Red Rock Canyon Scenic Drive between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Book up to a month in advance or two days in advance. The day pass for the 13-mile drive costs $15 per vehicle, plus a $2 processing fee.
- Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Washington state: After closing for more than a year because of the pandemic and a renovation project, the Ape Cave Interpretive Site reopened last May with a new feature: a timed-entry requirement. The $2 per-car reservation covered visits from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. during the attraction’s tourist season, May 18 to Oct. 31. The booking was good for a two-hour adventure in the Lower or Upper Cave of the third-longest lava tube in North America. Officials are finalizing dates and details for this year.
- Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, Oregon: The Multnomah Falls area, which includes the 1925 Multnomah Falls Lodge, hiking trails and the spring-fed water cascade, requires timed-entry tickets from late May through mid-September. The per-person pass costs $1. Last season, tickets were released two weeks before and two days ahead of the arrival date.
Members of the United Auto Workers strike outside of a John Deere plant in Ankeny, Iowa. (photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP)
A record number of workers in the United States quit their jobs in November, another sign that worker leverage in the labor market is stronger today than it has been in years. But without organizing, today’s gains for workers will vanish as soon as COVID-era labor market tightness slackens.
The month saw 4.53 million people quit their jobs, up from 4.2 million in October and equivalent to 3 percent of the US workforce. Nearly 7 percent of restaurant and bar workers changed or quit their jobs in November, as did 4.4 percent of retail workers and 3 percent of health care workers; these numbers precede the Omicron wave that is now spreading across the country.
As for hiring, there were 10.56 million job openings, a slight decline from prior months but still high by historical standards (6.9 million people are currently classified as “unemployed”). Hiring was up, with 6.7 million people hired in November, well above the quits, meaning more people are in the workforce than in prior periods (though others have left it entirely, retiring during the pandemic earlier than they might have otherwise planned). While many people are switching sectors — especially health care workers, who have been leaving the sector in droves, ground down by inadequate wages and unsustainable workloads — the latest numbers show that even in leisure and hospitality, another area with a high “switch” rate, hiring is up above quits, suggesting some quitters are finding better jobs within the sector.
Even as inflation continues to rise, in some lower-wage sectors, wage growth is outpacing it, with hourly earnings in the leisure and hospitality sector up 12.3 percent in November. Those who switch jobs — i.e., many of those who have joined in what has been dubbed the “Great Resignation” — are seeing higher than average wage growth as they find higher-paying work elsewhere. Further, the ratio of worker-initiated quits to employer-initiated firings, what labor economist Aaron Sojourner has called the “labor leverage ratio,” is as high as it’s been in the two decades for which we have data, underlining workers’ power in this moment.
However, there is a long way to go to make up for the decades of stagnant real wages to which the US working class has been subject for decades. (Corporations, by contrast, are enjoying skyrocketing profits, and the richest of the rich have never had it better.)
A tighter-than-usual labor market is a positive thing. It allows people to tell their boss to shove it, and has given some unionized workers, in a variety of sectors, the confidence to strike over intolerable working conditions, knowing their employers will have trouble replacing them (though that hasn’t stopped bosses from trying). That security has contributed to a willingness among such workers to go on the offensive, particularly in seeking to undo two-tier provisions previously agreed to in their contracts.
But the “Great Resignation” can be interpreted in several ways: there is literal resignation from one’s job, and then there is the pessimistic read, a valence of giving up, of not fighting to make things better. This is the tragedy of the disorganization of the US working class — that when conditions align to back collective action, there is no collective with which to fight, no organization, no support. Instead, one is left with individual action, leaving one job for another.
Switching is winning real gains for some workers, who are navigating the job market and coming out of it with higher wages or better working conditions (though, given how many switchers are surely ending up at Amazon, it’s safe to say that some people are seeing higher wages and decidedly worse working conditions). But it does not mean that those gains are locked in; when the market loosens up, when conditions change, there is little stopping an employer from taking away what they have granted, not to mention firing those deemed too expensive or troublesome.
The means for locking in gains is organization. While there has been an uptick in union organizing activity — unorganized workplaces agitating and in some cases, filing for a union election, and already union workers striking or threatening to do so — the level of such activity remains on the floor. That must change if these gains are to be solidified. Otherwise, they will stand as a flash in the pan — a curiosity or a last gasp by a US working class that has been beaten down and sacrificed.
Protesters march on 60th Street in Sudan's capital, Khartoum. (photo: Getty Images)
Sudan’s prime minister resigned this week, and protesters are in the streets, again.
Thursday, the country witnessed another round of pro-democracy protests, the latest upheaval in the days after the country’s prime minister Abdalla Hamdok stepped down. Protests had also preceded Hamdok’s resignation, which came a little more than a month after he was reinstated to the job from which he’d been ousted during an October military coup. That coup was also met with mass protests.
“Protesting started to be a lifestyle,” said Nazik Kabalo, a women’s rights activist and Sudanese researcher based in Canada. At pro-democracy demonstrations, you meet your friends, your neighbors, your girlfriends, or your boyfriends. “This is where people actually share their dreams of a better country together,” she added.
The fight for a better country started in earnest in 2019, after Sudan’s longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir was ousted through a grassroots revolution. In the aftermath, civilian and protest leaders and the military reached a power-sharing arrangement with the goal of transitioning to full civilian rule, including with a new constitution and democratic elections.
This transitional government was always a tenuous, flawed arrangement. But the October 25 coup showed how fragile the country’s democratic transition really was. The military, led by Lt. Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, seized power, detaining Hamdok and other civilian leaders. Hamdok was reinstated after a November 21 agreement with the military, which was largely seen as an attempt to quell unrest in the streets and respond to international pressure.
Many pro-democracy and civil society groups saw that deal as a betrayal. Hamdok was now shaking hands with the very military men who deposed him, the same military men who still had control. “They just thought it’s legitimization for the military coup,” said Maha Tambal, a Sudanese civil society activist and Fulbright-Humphrey fellow at American University.
Hamdok’s resignation is a recognition of the failure of that deal, and shows, again, the deep challenge to Sudan’s democratic transition. It also, as one US congressional source described it to Vox, is taking “the fig leaf off” for both the international community and the civilian coalitions within Sudan. “It’s a forcing mechanism for them to deal with reality.”
The reality is that the coup largely did succeed. This is something those fighting for democracy understand, which is why many Sudanese are taking to the streets again and again, and demanding a transitional government free from the military’s leadership. But the military has proved it does not want to cede power, putting Sudan’s future, and any democratic transition, in doubt. Turning back the clock to the status quo before the coup isn’t sustainable, but finding a peaceful alternative that will satisfy either the civilians or the military is just as fraught.
“It’s a country that’s in a very fragile state,” said Eric Reeves, a Sudan researcher. Those in the streets are saying they will not give up. “And that means that the military is going to respond with force,” he said. “It’s going to produce more bloodshed.”
What is happening in Sudan, briefly explained
The cracks in Sudan’s transitional government existed even before the October 25 coup. The government was an “uneasy marriage” between the Transitional Military Council, led by al-Burhan, and the Forces of Freedom and Change, the coalition of civilian opposition groups, once led by Hamdok. On paper, there was a power-sharing plan. In reality, the power remained in the hands of the military. Also on paper was a commitment to civilian rule, but that transition relied on the military going along with it.
And the military did not have a lot of incentives to do so, as it would jeopardize their political and financial interests. Any transition to civilian rule would have likely meant accountability for military officials who allegedly engaged in corruption and other abuses, even war crimes. “There are a lot of generals with a lot of power and a lot of money. Al-Burhan found himself in a place where he could not continue to enjoy their support without a military coup that deposed Hamdok,” Reeves said of the October coup.
Al-Burhan justified the coup by saying the divisions within the transitional government were too deep, and it needed to start fresh to avoid in-fighting; he said the military was still committed to democracy and elections. (You know, just put aside the fact that the prime minister was under house arrest, and his cabinet dissolved.)
Obviously nobody bought this. Protests erupted after Hamdok’s ouster, demanding his reinstatement and that of other civilian leaders, accountability for military leaders, and their removal from the transition process. Security forces met some of those demonstrations with violence. The international community, including the US and its partners, condemned the coup and the use of force against protesters. The power grab also put at risk international funding and debt relief, a vital lifeline in Sudan’s profound economic crisis.
These conditions were not exactly sustainable for the military, either, and so, with some outside brokers, negotiations began for a solution to restore the transitional government. At the same time, the military continued its crackdown against protesters, arresting opposition leaders and cutting off internet access. The military moved to consolidate government control, placing “civilians” into government posts who also happened to be ex-officials from the Bashir era.
At the end of November, a deal was reached that restored Hamdok to his role as prime minister, where he would lead a new “technocratic cabinet” until elections could be held. It came with some concessions from the military, like the release of political prisoners.
But pro-democracy activists and civilian leaders rejected the deal outright. People had protested on the streets in support of Hamdok, but more so for the restoration of the pre-coup government. This deal was not that.
“It was kind of a shock for them,” Tambal said of Sudanese activists. “We are protesting, we are dying for you — not for you as a person, but for the position, the setup we had. And you just kick our ass and say, ‘I’m just going to have an agreement with the military component by myself.’”
A more generous reading of Hamdok’s motivation is that, in an impossible situation, he took what he saw as the least worst option. Hamdok, in agreeing to the deal, said he wanted to end the “bloodshed” in the wake of the coup. Experts said Hamdok likely thought he might be able to be the mediator, a link between the pro-democracy groups and the military, but was ultimately disconnected from the street protests and local groups, making it a doomed endeavor.
Which is why the protests, and bloodshed, continued. Hamdok acknowledged this in his resignation on January 2. “I have tried my best to stop the country from sliding toward disaster,” he said, warning that the country was reaching a dangerous turning point that “threatened its survival.”
Where does Sudan go from here?
As of January 3, at least 57 people had been killed by Sudanese security forces since the October 25 coup, according to the Central Committee of Sudan Doctors (CCSD). At least three more protesters were killed as of January 6, according to the CCSD, bringing the total up to 60 as protests broke out across the country. More than a dozen cities saw demonstrations Thursday, from the capital, Khartoum, to the Port of Sudan in the east, to cities in Darfur, a region that’s seen a wave of renewed violence since the coup, with some militia groups able to act with impunity or even the implicit support of the security forces.
Amid the excessive repression near the presidential palace, a protester chanted: Either we win or we are killed#SudanCoup #مليونية6يناير pic.twitter.com/z95YHJwOgF
— Mohamed Mustafa (@Moh_Gamea) January 6, 2022
This is the dangerous impasse Sudan finds itself in. On one side, protesters and activists, determined to secure Sudan’s democratic transition; on the other, a military determined to entrench itself. Hamdok’s departure didn’t really change the stakes for either side, but it exposed very real and dangerous fractures.
Protests are expected to continue, and a big question will be how heavy-handed the military’s response may become. Al-Burhan has suggested he will appoint a new prime minister, but it’s unlikely that any legitimate candidates will take the job, since it comes with the baggage of being another rubber stamp on the coup.
The United States and some of its allies have recently rejected this path too, saying that any prime minister has to be appointed through a “consultative, civilian-led” process, according to the terms of Sudan’s 2019 constitutional declaration.
But wanting consultation is one thing. Getting there is another. The first challenge is whether the pro-democracy movement can become a more cohesive and unified front. The Forces for Freedom and Change — the coalition that helped broker the transitional government in 2019 — also needs consensus from the protesters on the street and local grassroots civil society groups, known as resistance committees.
The pro-democracy groups have demanded the release of political prisoners and a return to the pre-coup transition — but one that puts civilians, not the military, in control. That, in some ways, is a different type of transition entirely. “Many people are just really thinking that they are really correcting the first revolution through this process,” Kabalo, the women’s rights activist, said. “The demand now is actually to make this fall — and that will mean, first of all, at least the removal of the heads of the military right now.”
As for the military, outside pressure is likely going to be key, specifically from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Sudan’s main benefactors. Hamdok’s resignation does make it hard for them and the rest of the world to ignore the crisis on the ground. The potential for instability and continued violence is something no one wants, especially in an already volatile region. The military needs money, so putting pressure on the Gulf states, or cutting Sudan off again from the international economy or debt relief, loom as leverage points. Targeted sanctions against military leaders, especially if violence against civilians increases, also is an option.
But even if the military is forced to the table to negotiate, experts and analysts I spoke to said this can’t be a repeat of the power-sharing arrangement, or Sudan may end up in the same place. To avoid a future of ongoing violence, it’s going to require some uncomfortable choices, ones that may not sit well with protesters demanding accountability on the streets. It may mean some sort of amnesty and or immunity deals for some of Sudan’s top generals, basically giving them a pathway to retire richly in Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. Not exactly a win for civilian forces advocating for the rule of law.
All of that doesn’t really alleviate the immediate crisis, which some say could get worse if protests escalate, or the crackdown against them does. “People get desperate. They get desperate for a lot of reasons. Many are present right now, in Sudan. There’s no money. There’s no food, there’s no opportunity. There’s lots of violence, there’s no place of safety. At what point do people say, ‘No, I’m not gonna take it anymore’? I don’t know where that that point is. But I think there is such a point,” Reeves said.
Even those who are hopeful that Sudan can recover and restart this democratic transition recognize what may still come. “No matter how many people are killed, that’s the cost we all agreed to pay,” Tambal said.
A firefighter monitors the Dixie fire near Janesville, California, which burned more than 800,000 acres and destroyed over 1,000 structures. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
There were fewer climate disasters reported in individual counties last year as compared to previous years, but eight statewide emergencies related to climate disasters — including hurricanes, landslides, fires, floods and severe storms — were declared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the most since 1998.
In the wake of the Marshall fire, the most destructive in Colorado’s history, Louisville, Colorado, Mayor Ashley Stolzmann said, “When I lay awake the first night, not able to sleep from the fire, when I was evacuated from my house, the first thing I thought of is: I need everyone to reduce their carbon emissions,” The Washington Post reported.
Scientists say that wildfires have intensified and their seasons have gotten longer due to rising temperatures. In recent decades, the proportion of “high severity” fires, which destroy much of a forest’s vegetation, has increased significantly in many types of forests, according to a 2012 study published in Forest Ecology. Research reported by NASA’s Earth Observatory has found that fire seasons have gotten longer across a quarter of Earth’s vegetated surface, and portions of the western United States now have wildfire seasons that last more than a month longer than they did 35 years ago.
While climate disasters mounted, the pollution caused mostly by the burning of fossil fuels hit near-record highs last year. One of the big questions is whether the United States, the country responsible for the production of more greenhouse gases than any other country in history, will do all it can to curb global warming and try and prevent these disasters before the planet warms to an irreversible degree.
Since the Build Back Better bill stalled in Congress, Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Joe Manchin has voiced support for the climate provisions in the bill, which contain the biggest clean energy investment in U.S. history.
“The climate thing is one that we probably can come to an agreement much easier than anything else,” Manchin told reporters on Tuesday, Business Insider reported.
Currently, the Earth’s temperature is just over a degree Celsius — 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — warmer than it was in the preindustrial era. Each degree Celsius of warming results in the atmosphere being able to hold seven percent more moisture, which results in “exponentially wetter storms,” The Washington Post reported. Additionally, warmer conditions create an atmosphere where water quickly evaporates, which intensifies drought and makes forests more prone to wildfires.“Now more and more people are suffering. But maybe it will make more and more people realize that these extreme weather events and fires will keep happening – maybe this will be a wake-up call. With each year of extreme weather events, maybe we’ll start to see policy change,” said Simon Wang, a meteorologist and professor of climate dynamics at Utah State University, as reported by The Guardian.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment