Two Separate Shaken Baby Cases in Texas Expose the Death Penalty as a Farce

“I’m embarrassed for people that they waste time on this," Stamos said of the backlash. "All I was doing was cheering up a friend."

Leilani Simon was spared the maximum punishment of life without a chance of parole.

Commuters step out in a foggy winter morning amid rising air pollution, on November 19, 2024 on the outskirts of Delhi in India. India and Pakistan are losing ground to a common deadly enemy. Vast clouds of dense, toxic smog have once again shrouded metropolises in South Asia. Air pollution regularly spikes in November in the subcontinent, but this year’s dirty air has still been breathtaking in its scale and severity. The gray, smoky pollution is even visible to satellites, and it’s fueling a public health crisis. Last week, officials in the Punjab province in Pakistan imposed lockdowns on the cities of Multan, population 2.1 million, and Lahore, population 13.7 million, after reaching record-high pollution levels. “Smog is currently a national disaster,” senior Punjab provincial minister Marriyum Aurangzeb said during a press conference last week. Schools shut down, restaurants closed, construction halted, highways sat empty, and medical staff were recalled to hospitals and clinics.  Across the border in India, the 33 million residents of Delhi this week are breathing air pollution that’s 50 times higher than the safe limit outlined by the World Health Organization (WHO). The choking haze caused 15 aircraft to divert to nearby airports and caused hundreds of delays. Students and workers were told to stay home. Despite all the disruption, air pollution continues to spike year after year after year.  Why? The dirty air arises from a confluence of human and natural factors. Construction, cooking fires, brick kilns, vehicles, and burning leftovers from crop harvests are all feeding into the toxic clouds. The Himalaya and Hindu Kush mountains to the north of lower-lying areas like Lahore and Delhi hold the smog in place. In the winter, the region experiences thermal inversions, where a layer of warm air pushes down on cool winter air, holding the pollution closer to the ground. As populations grow in South Asia, so will the need for food, energy, housing, and transportation. Without a course correction, that will mean even more pollution. Yet history shows that air pollution is a solvable problem. Cities like Los Angeles and Beijing that were once notorious for dirty air have managed to clean it up. The process took years, drawing on economic development and new technologies. But it also required good governance and incentives to cut pollution, something local officials in India and Pakistan have already demonstrated can clear the air. The task now is to scale it up to higher levels of government.   We’re still not getting the full picture of the dangers of air pollution There’s no shortage of science showing how terrible air pollution is for you. It aggravates asthma, worsens heart disease, triggers inflammation, and increases infection risk. It hampers brain development in children and can contribute to dementia in adults. On average, air pollution has reduced life expectancies around the world by 2.3 years, more than tobacco. It contributes to almost 7 million deaths per year, according to WHO, about one in nine deaths annually. It sucks trillions of dollars out of the global economy.  The toll is especially acute in South Asia. Air pollution drains 3.9 years of life in Pakistan. In India, it steals 5.3 years. For workers who spend their days outdoors — delivery drivers, construction crews, farm laborers — the damage is even higher. Many residents report constant fevers, coughs, and headaches.  Despite the well-known dangers and the mounting threat, it remains a persistent problem.  Part of the challenge of improving air quality is that air pollution isn’t just one thing; it’s a combination of hazardous chemicals and particles that arise in teeming metropolises in developing countries.  One of the most popular metrics around the world for tracking pollution is the Air Quality Index, developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The index is not a measurement of any one pollutant, but rather the risk from a combination of pollutants based on US air quality standards. The main villains are ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particles. The particles are subcategorized into those smaller than 10 microns (PM10) and smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). (Earlier this year, the EPA modified the way it calculates the AQI, so numbers from this year are not an apples-to-apples comparison to levels from previous years.) The tiny particles are pernicious because they penetrate deep into the lungs and trigger breathing problems. An AQI below 50 is considered safe to breathe. Above 200, the air is considered a health threat for everyone. At 300, it’s an emergency. In Delhi, the AQI this week reached 1,185. Lahore reached 1,900 this month. If a person breathes this air for over 24 hours, the exposure is roughly equivalent to smoking 90 cigarettes in a day.  However, air pollution poses a threat long before it’s visible. “Your eye is not a good detector of air pollution in general,” said Christi Chester Schroeder, the air quality science manager at IQAir, a company that builds air quality monitoring instruments and collects pollution data. “The pollutant that you have to be really careful about in terms of not being able to see it but experiencing it is ozone. Ozone levels can be extremely high on sunny days.” IQAir has a network of air quality sensors across South Asia, including regions like Lahore and Delhi. The company tracks pollution in real time using its own sensors as well as monitors bought by schools, businesses, and ordinary people. Their professional-grade air monitors can cost more than $20,000 but they also sell consumer air quality trackers that cost $300. Both sources help paint a picture of pollution.  Many schools and businesses across South Asia have installed their own pollution monitors. The US maintains its own air quality instruments at its consulates and embassies in India and Pakistan as well.  Happy Air Quality Week! Did you know that U.S. Consulate Lahore has an air quality monitor? Follow us on Twitter @Lahore_Air for hourly AQI readings! pic.twitter.com/nRAKAPbOph— U.S. Consulate General Lahore (@USCGLahore) May 4, 2023 Schroeder noted however that IQAir’s instruments are geared toward monitoring particles like PM2.5 and don’t easily allow a user to make inferences about concentrations of other pollutants like sulfur oxides and where they’re coming from. “When you’re looking at places that have a really big mixture of sources — like you have a mixture of transportation and fires and climate inversion conditions — then it gets to be much murkier and you can’t really sort of pull it apart that way,” Schroeder said. Politics lies at the core of the air pollution problem Air quality monitors in India and Pakistan show that air pollution can vary over short distances — between neighborhoods or even street by street — and that it can change rapidly through the day. Nearby bus terminals, power plants, or cooking fires contribute a lot to local pollution, but without tracking systems in the vicinity, it can be hard to realize how bad the situation has become. “I think the most surprising, interesting, and scary thing, honestly, is seeing the levels of pollution in areas that haven’t been monitored before,” Schroeder said.  Another complication is that people also experience pollution far away from where it’s produced. “This automatically creates a big governance challenge because the administrator who is responsible for providing you clean air in your jurisdiction is not actually the administrator who is governing over the polluting action,” said Saad Gulzar, an assistant professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University.  Take crop stubble burning, which accounts for up to 60 percent of the air pollution in the region this time of year. In late fall, farmers in northern India and Pakistan harvest rice and plant wheat. With little time between the reaping and sowing, the fastest and cheapest way for many farmers to clear their fields of leftover stems, leaves, and roots is to burn it. The resulting smoke then wafts from rural areas into urban centers. The challenge is that farmers and urbanites are different political constituencies, and it’s hard to demand concessions from the former to benefit the latter. It has led to bitter political fights in both countries and between them. Farmers also point out that the reason they have so little time between crops is because of water conservation laws: To cope with groundwater depletion, officials in India imposed regulations to limit rice planting until after monsoon rains arrive in the early summer to top up reservoirs. Delaying planting means delaying harvest, hence the rush to clear their fields.  Both India and Pakistan have even gone as far as to arrest farmers who burn crop stubble, but there are millions of farmers spread out over a vast area, stretching enforcement thin. However, local efforts to control smoke from crop burning have proven effective when local officials are motivated to act.   Gulzar co-authored a study published in October in the journal Nature, looking at air pollution and its impacts across India and Pakistan. Examining satellite data and health records over the past decade, the paper found that who is in charge of a jurisdiction plays a key role in air pollution — and could also be the key to solving it.  When a district is likely to experience pollution from a fire within its own boundaries, bureaucrats and local officials take more aggressive action to mitigate it, whether that’s paying farmers not to burn stubble, providing them with tools to clear fields without fires, or threatening them with fines and arrest. That led fires within a district to drop by 14.5 percent and future burning to decline by 13 percent. These air pollution reductions led to measurable drops in childhood mortality. On the other hand, if the wind is poised to push pollution from crop burning over an adjacent district, fires increase by 15 percent.  The results show that simply motivating officials to act at local, regional, and national levels is a key step in reducing air pollution and that progress can begin right away.  But further air quality improvements will require a transition toward cleaner energy. Besides crop burning, the other major source of air pollution across India and Pakistan is fossil fuel combustion, whether that’s coal in furnaces, gas in factories, or diesel in trucks. These fuels also contribute to climate change, which is already contributing to devastating heat waves and flooding from torrential monsoons in the region. Both countries have made major investments in renewable energy, but they are also poised to burn more coal to feed their growing economies.  At the COP29 climate change conference this week in Baku, Azerbaijan, India is asking wealthier nations to contribute more money to finance clean energy within its borders and to share technologies that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance air quality.  Solving the air pollution crisis in India and Pakistan will take years, and it’s likely to get worse before it gets better. But there are lifesaving measures both countries can take now.

The Army star quarterback will stand under the lights of Yankee Stadium on Saturday night, in prime time on NBC, leading the No. 19 Black Knights (9-0) into their biggest non-Navy matchup in 66 years, against No. 6 Notre Dame (9-1).

Dear Abby gives advice to a mother on what to do after her son was gifted a new bicycle after his previous one got destroyed after he was involved in an accident.

A suspicious package was discovered outside the United States embassy in London on Friday morning, police said.

After leading FC Barcelona to four championships, the coach found, and met, a new challenge in the NWSL.

Fox News' "Antisemitism Exposed" newsletter brings you stories on the rising anti-Jewish prejudice across the U.S. and the world.

Trump hasn’t yet returned to office and the biggest banks keep notching wins.

Hospital-at-home's expansion during the COVID-19 pandemic benefitted many Americans. Congress can keep that progress going.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies found two men shot outside a VFW hall in La Mirada. Eric Ortiz, 34, was killed. Juan Garcia, a member of the Mexican Mafia called "Topo," was seriously injured, according to a law enforcement source.

The MS Aurora, a 70-year-old cruise ship that inspired TV's 'The Love Boat,' sits abandoned in a slough outside Stockton. The ship's demise has broken the hearts of a long line of men who could not save her.

It's a huge jump toward gender equality in California's Capitol, where only men have served as governor and women made up one-quarter of state lawmakers just eight years ago.

A reader says voters want what Trump is offering — change — and 'if the people aren't happy, there will be another election in four years.'

This December, the Disney preschool channel will air three Hanukkah-themed episodes on "Mickey Mouse Funhouse," "Spidey and His Amazing Friends” and "SuperKitties."

There is some hubris in daring to define the key features of a century's worth of novels, but Edwin Frank admits his book isn't — and indeed can't be — comprehensive.

The climate is in crisis, but there are plenty of reasons to hope even in the face of another Trump presidency.

With Donald Trump as president, will Chinese tech giant ByteDance still be forced to sell its ownership in TikTok? Here are some possible scenarios of what might happen.

Tennis in West Hollywood, sushi burritos and a trip to the Last Bookstore are on the agenda for “The Lincoln Lawyer” star.

The actor got so discouraged about Hollywood that she talked about retiring. Then she read Jennie Snyder Urman's reimagined take on 'Matlock.'

Most Valuable Promotions co-founder Nakisa Bidarian says the Jake Paul-Mike Tyson fight was "100% real" and that the 27-year-old mogul is boxing's "greatest gift."

Young performers — from the films 'Bird,' 'Blitz,' 'Dìdi' and 'Nawi' — have captivated audiences with their vulnerable work.

Trump won the White House and narrowly took the popular vote despite his lies. Is truth dead, or will imitators pay a price if they attempt to emulate him?

In this week's News Quiz, Trump picks a cabinet, Coachella picks its 2025 headliners, Netflix picks a winning bout of boxing and more.

Santa is an evergreen staple this holiday season, and expect a plethora of variety specials from the likes of Sabrina Carpenter, Nate Bargatze, Jimmy Fallon and Motown legends.

A reader objects to Ysabel Jurado, an L.A. City Council member-elect, being described as "not Latina" because she is of Filipino heritage.

Once bustling with city employees, the Civic Center mall has been made desolate by telecommuting options and online access to municipal departments.

From "Morning Joe" to CNN, the media normal-washes MAGA

From January to September, 1,224 dogs were euthanized at L.A.'s six shelters — 72% more than in the same period a year earlier, a Times analysis found.

A family in Wisconsin is mourning the loss of their teenage daughter after she died from an allergic reaction — but they have found comfort in the lives saved through organ donation.

Homicide investigators arrested a 19-year-old suspect after four people were found fatally shot inside a burning Lancaster home early Saturday.

Everything you need to know about the Rams facing the Philadelphia Eagles at SoFi Stadium on Sunday, including start time, TV channel and betting odds.

The Rams' defensive front featuring Jared Verse, Byron Young, Braden Fiske and Kobie Turner started at small colleges before progressing and rising to the NFL.

If Tran wins, Chispa will have succeeded outside its base for the first time, showing that O.C. is about to enter a new political era — despite MAGA’s takeover of Washington.

The special counsel should provide a full public record of his prosecutions, particularly the classified documents case disrupted by Judge Aileen Cannon.

A federal labor leader expects “all kinds of actions that will be punitive to federal employees and their unions,” and promises to “pursue all legal options” against Trump policies.

Should art museums be showing art history? Or cultural history, which isn't the same thing? Getty and LACMA exhibitions give different answers.

Whooping cough — highly contagious and potentially dangerous — has surged in California to levels not seen since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Find something totally unique at shops at the Getty, Los Angeles Central Library, Japanese American National Museum and other L.A. institutions on Museum Store Sunday.

For years, Sun Valley and Pacoima residents were plagued by illness and didn't know why. It turns out the DWP had hidden a methane leak at the Valley Generating Station.

Brian Jordan Alvarez decided to retire from producing and writing to focus on acting. Then he got pulled in to network TV with an offer he couldn't pass up.

U.S. guns are fueling conflict in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Water fluoridation revolutionized dentistry, especially for children. Why does the right wing think it's a problem?

President-elect Donald Trump greets Sen. Marco Rubio during a campaign rally at the J.S. Dorton Arena in Raleigh, North Carolina, on November 4, 2024. | Ryan M. Kelly/AFP via Getty Images Generally speaking, for many of the officials who served him during his first term, advising Donald Trump on foreign policy and national security does not appear to have been a very pleasant experience. Numerous former Trump officials have described him variously as a threat to the Constitution, either “a fascist” or “not capable” of having an ideology as coherent as fascism, and “the most dangerous person ever.” These criticisms, as much as they were played up by Kamala Harris, do not appear to have resonated with voters. Trump was arguably able to use them to his advantage, portraying himself as a “candidate of peace” who would push back against the hawkish foreign-policy establishment and extract the US from costly foreign entanglements like the war in Ukraine. While Trump’s repeated claims that there were “no wars” during his first term were misleading at best, the raging conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza that broke out during the Biden administration undoubtedly made it easier for Trump to make this case.  During his first term, Trump initially stacked his administration with former generals like H.R. McMaster and James Mattis — whom Trump loved to refer to by his nickname “Mad Dog,” much to Mattis’s chagrin —  as well as hawks like John Bolton. But he often clashed with them on issues ranging from keeping troops in Afghanistan or Syria to his unconventional courtship of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. The presence of seasoned veterans like Mattis also reassured some of Trump’s critics, who hoped they would rein in his most erratic instincts. By the end of his first term, though, the president clearly felt he was being undermined.   Just two weeks after the election, it’s already clear that this time will be different.  “None of the so-called ‘adults in the room’ from the first term survived,” said Peter Feaver, a former national security staffer in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, who now teaches at Duke University. Though there was some speculation immediately after the election that Trump might include figures like former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo or former national security adviser Robert O’Brien on his new team — the rare establishment figures from the first term who did not publicly break with Trump — the president-elect has largely opted for new faces this time around.  Those include some picks that are deeply unconventional, to say the least, like Fox News host Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, leavened by a few more GOP mainstream figures like Rep. Mike Waltz for national security adviser and Sen. Marco Rubio for secretary of state. It’s still early days, and the Trump II team is still taking shape. As several experts told Vox, the department deputies who will eventually be selected can often be as important as the principals when it comes to actually designing and implementing foreign policy.  But a few things do stand out about the names already picked. What they have in common is that they seem far less likely to push back against Trump’s ideas than his initial first-term team.  “In his first term, he made a series of senior appointments on the ‘Team of Rivals’ theory of building a Cabinet out of people with different views, so that they can thrash out the alternatives within the decision-making process,” said Kori Schake, director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. “And I think what we’re seeing now is a pattern of choosing people who already agree with the president or who are willing to agree with him.” What that means is that we’re more likely to get a purely Trumpian foreign policy this time around. Given how mercurial Trump can be — and given how different the picks are in experience and outlook, beyond simply loyalty — that doesn’t mean we know what that will look like in practice. But we can map out the loose ideological groups that will compete for Trump’s ear on foreign policy and defense. The three tribes of Republican foreign policy In a 2022 article for the European Council on Foreign Relations, the policy analysts Majda Ruge and Jeremy Shapiro sketched out a model — which has since become widely used and cited — of the three “tribes” of Republican foreign policy in the Trump era. First, there are the “primacists,” who hold more traditionally hawkish views on the importance of US global leadership and the use of military force. They believe in increased military spending, continuing US military support for Ukraine, and preparation for a potential conflict with China. First-term Trump figures like Pompeo, Bolton, and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley would fall into this category. Some primacists are people who were once described as “neoconservatives in the post-9/11 years,” though that’s become something of a pejorative on both sides of the aisle, and very few people now describe themselves that way.   Then there are the “restrainers,” such as Sens. Rand Paul or Mike Lee, who want to limit US military commitments abroad and are more skeptical about alliances like NATO. In a classic example of the “horseshoe” theory of politics, their views sometimes overlap with left-wing critics of intervention and the military-industrial complex.  The third group are the “prioritizers,” who have some characteristics of the two others. They want to reduce US commitments in Europe (including support for Ukraine) and the Middle East like the restrainers, but they want to use that shift to focus on what they see as the real threat: great power competition with China, a concern they share with the primacists.  Examples of this camp could include Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and Vice President-elect JD Vance. Arguably, such a prioritization has been a goal of the last few US presidents: Barack Obama, at a time when the war on terror was still hot, promised a foreign policy “pivot” to Asia, while President Joe Biden described China as America’s “pacing challenge.” The prioritizers would say making the pivot an actual reality, as opposed to just tough rhetoric, requires difficult choices about how America spends its finite military and political resources — prioritization they believe these administrations largely failed to make.  The conflict between the camps has been playing out as Trump’s team has come together, with the president’s choices reportedly influenced to some extent by his increasingly central son Donald Trump Jr., pundit Tucker Carlson, and billionaire backer David Sacks, all of whom have pushed to keep out the primacists from the first administration. “There were at least 25 people who called the president and said: ‘It’s got to be Mike Pompeo,’” one Republican official told the Free Press. “And none of it mattered.” Carlson publicly touted Elbridge Colby, an influential Pentagon official and China specialist during the first Trump administration and perhaps the purest prioritizer in Washington, for a position on the new team, but other officials criticized his more dovish views on Iran. As one critic put it anonymously to the Jewish Insider: “I don’t know how you put a man who says he’s okay with Iran having a nuclear weapon in charge of any serious defense or national security job.” (Colby has said it would be possible to contain and manage a nuclear-armed Iran.) Colby has so far not been appointed to a position, though that could very well change in the coming days.  The purest restrainer of the group is undoubtedly Gabbard, an ex-Democrat turned Trump loyalist who has denounced her former party as an “elitist cabal of warmongers.” Gabbard has blamed the war in Ukraine on the US ignoring Russia’s “legitimate security concerns” and even traveled to Syria and met with dictator Bashar al-Assad at the height of that country’s civil war.  Gabbard’s pro-Russia (even by Trumpwold standards) views have led to questions from some intelligence community insiders about whether her appointment could pose a security risk. Gabbard’s views could also potentially clash with her new boss’s: In 2020, she denounced the surprise drone strike ordered by Trump that killed senior Iranian General Qasem Soleimani as an “unconstitutional act of war” with no justification.    As for Hegseth, the secretary of defense nominee, he has described himself as a “recovering neocon” who began his career in politics leading a pro-Iraq War veterans group but has since changed his views. “The hubris of the Pentagon is they want to now tell other countries how to do counterinsurgency based on what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Hegseth said recently on the Shawn Ryan Show podcast. “The trust that our political leaders and our generals would have our best interests in mind is totally broken.” In the same interview, Hegseth questioned US support for Ukraine and the value of the NATO alliance.  Dan Caldwell, public policy adviser at Defense Priorities, a pro-restraint advocacy group, told Vox that Hegseth is not alone in having gone through an ideological transition like this. “Like a lot of veterans, including myself, his foreign policy views have evolved as the wars have dragged on,” he said. It’s worth noting that while Trump stacked his first Cabinet with what he called “my generals,” this time around he’s opting more for younger figures like Gabbard, Hegseth, and Waltz who served as mid-level officers during the war on terror.  Despite his criticism of the Pentagon, Hegseth is not quite a restrainer. He has said the US might need to take military action against Mexican cartels — perhaps Trump’s most radical foreign policy proposal.  Ultimately, the Hegseth pick may have been less about his foreign policy views — and certainly wasn’t about his ability to oversee the nearly 3 million employees at the Defense Department, given his near total lack of management experience — than his very public opposition to “wokeness” and DEI initiatives in the military. That would set him up for a potential clash with Joint Chiefs chair Gen. C.Q. Brown, who Hegseth has suggested may have gotten the job because he is Black. The Trump transition team has reportedly been preparing a plan to review senior military commanders for potential removal. Though it’s not unprecedented for a president to fire senior generals, even if it’s become rarer in recent decades, doing so for political reasons would be a cause for concern given Trump’s very public clashes with former Joint Chiefs chair Gen. Mark Milley.  (Since Hegseth’s nomination, accusations have also surfaced that he committed sexual assault and that he was flagged as an “insider threat” by a fellow service member because of a tattoo associated with white nationalism, but so far, Trump is sticking with his pick. Hegseth has denied these allegations.) Waltz and Rubio could both fairly be described as primacists for most of their careers, but Caldwell says that may no longer be the case. “I think it’s lazy to call any of these picks pure primacists or neocons,” he said. “These are people whose views have evolved over the past few years and are continuing to evolve.” Both have recently seemed at least prioritizer-curious. Waltz, for instance, initially criticized the Biden administration for not providing enough aid to Ukraine following Russia’s invasion, but has since said that this support should be reassessed. “Is it in America’s interest, are we going to put in the time, the treasure, the resources that we need in the Pacific right now badly?” he said at an event last month. Rubio was once a textbook primacist, arguing for using American power and military might to spread democracy, but in a recent essay he criticized what he called the “outdated foreign policy blob” for failing to “reprioritize and focus on America’s most pressing threat: the Chinese Communist Party.” He was among the senators who voted against aid to Ukraine earlier this year.  “I’m not going to sit here and pretend that Senator Rubio agrees with me on everything, but I don’t think it is fair to call him a neoconservative anymore,” Caldwell said.  Shapiro, author of the original “three tribes” article, takes a more cynical view. “If you look at Rubio, you see someone who has a foreign policy ideology but who has been willing to be flexible in order to fit in with wherever he needs to be, be that with Trump or be that with the Republican base,” he told Vox. One area to watch for Rubio’s influence may be Latin America policy. During Trump’s first term, the senator was nicknamed the “secretary of state for Latin America” for the amount of influence he had over policy toward the region. This generally meant taking a much harder line on left-wing authoritarian regimes in countries like Cuba (where his parents were born) and Venezuela, and included supporting opposition groups in those countries. It’s not out of the question that the Trump administration could be facing a crisis involving one or both of those countries early in its tenure. But what does the big guy think? It’s always difficult to predict what a president’s foreign policy will be like based on campaign statements or personnel appointments, given that so much of foreign policy consists of responding to crises. Biden certainly didn’t anticipate that a major land war in Europe or a catastrophe in the Middle East would largely define his foreign policy legacy.  The task is even harder with a president as altogether unpredictable as Trump, who clearly has some consistent impulses: He’s skeptical of defense alliances, security commitments, and long-term military deployments. He has next to no interest in promoting democracy or human rights globally or defending the so-called rules-based international order. These views would align him generally with the restrainer camp, but his actual record doesn’t fall neatly into any of the tribes. Trump is hardly a dove. In Syria, he ordered airstrikes against Assad’s regime in response to the use of chemical weapons — a step the Obama administration, despite its “red line,” famously did not take — and oversaw what was arguably the deadliest ever direct clash between US and Russian forces. US military involvement in places like Somalia, to fight jihadist groups, increased under Trump.  Though it’s true that Trump negotiated the deal with the Taliban that led to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, he has since said that if he had been president, the US would have held on to Bagram Air Base in order to keep pressure on China. (Keeping Bagram was not part of the original agreement.) Trump is also likely to increase defense budgets in his second term.  Trump’s rhetoric on China has been consistently hawkish but has generally focused more on economics and trade than security issues. He was willing to tamp down US criticism of Beijing on issues like the crackdown in Hong Kong, persecution of the Uighurs, and the early handling of Covid while in pursuit of a trade deal with Beijing. Though military and diplomatic support for Taiwan increased under Trump’s tenure, he has also questioned whether the island is worth defending.  When it comes to the Middle East, all the names selected so far — with the exception of Gabbard — are staunch defenders of Israel and would qualify as Iran hawks. The selection of Christian Zionist former Gov. Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel and the staunchly pro-Israel real estate mogul Steve Witkoff as Middle East envoy do not suggest he plans to scale back US support for Israel, even if Trump is not as fond of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he once was.  Iran is a more complicated question. Trump ordered the strike that killed Soleimani, but then did not respond when Iran then retaliated with an attack on US troops. Though Trump cultivated close ties with Saudi Arabia, he angered his allies in Riyadh by not responding to Iranian attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure in 2019. And while Tehran has not ruled out new negotiations with the incoming administration, it does seem unlikely that Trump would pursue a Kim Jong Un-style beautiful romance with the government that allegedly tried to kill him.  It’s not clear what Trump would do if Israel and Iran ended up in an all-out shooting war. Vance, for one, has said that despite US support for Israel, the two countries have diverging interests at times and that war with Iran would not be in American interests.  On Ukraine, Trump will likely pursue his promised deal to end the war, presumably by pressuring Ukraine to accept territorial concessions. The question is what happens if Russian President Vladimir Putin, having realized recent success on the battlefield, doesn’t want to accept. Waltz, despite his recent prioritizer turn, has argued that if Putin fails to accept a peace deal, the US should “provide more weapons to Ukraine with fewer restrictions on their use.” Trump has made similar threats. A Trump administration that ends up escalating US involvement in Ukraine would be an ironic outcome of the last election, but it doesn’t seem totally out of the question. If you don’t like this Cabinet, just wait However you might classify Trump’s coming foreign policy advisers, there’s no guarantee they’ll be in their positions for long. Trump went through two Senate-confirmed secretaries of state and four acting ones as well as four national security advisers. (Biden, for better or worse, has stuck with his core national security team through thick and thin.) Any talk of whether certain candidates for high jobs or foreign policy factions are being snubbed should be taken with a grain of salt, or at least patience. “It’s very possible that some of these figures may reappear, and that may be why they haven’t publicly announced or indicated their displeasure with the choices,” said Duke’s Feaver.  Two things seem certain: The clash between the GOP foreign policy tribes will continue to play out over the next few years, and the Trump administration we have on day one may not be the one we have six months later. 

This week, we peer into the data emerging from a growing academic effort to measure the non-pecuniary benefits we get from our jobs.

"The show has 'Fargo'-like qualities, and at the same time, it has real depth, real emotion, real feelings," executive producer Jamie Lee Curtis says of the story of a Canadian maple syrup heist.

"During pregnancy, many women rely on prenatal vitamins and minerals to support their health and their baby’s development," one author of the study said.

Why did the state bother? Because the label’s embattled co-founder, Damon Dash, owes New York $8.7 million in back taxes that the Empire State would like to recoup.