Trump allies rake in lucrative contracts with right-wing non-profit they founded: report

Travis Gettys
May 6, 2024 

Mark Meadows (Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

The nonprofit Conservative Partnership Institute has enjoyed a substantial boost in fundraising after becoming a nerve center for the MAGA movement, but recent tax filings show much of that money has been funneled to corporations led by the group's leaders or their relatives.

The filings show the institute's three highest-paid contractors were each connected to insiders, including its president Edward Corrigan and his brother Patrick Corrigan, chief operating officer Wesley Denton and senior legal fellow Cleta Mitchell, which could be in violation of its nonprofit status with the Internal Revenue Service, reported the New York Times.

“There’s no checks and balances,” said Michael West, a lawyer at the New York Council of Nonprofits. "The potential for overpayment here is epic.”

The nonprofit has become a landing spot for Trump's former allies and staffers, including Mitchell, who assisted the former president in his attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss, as well as former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former senior adviser Stephen Miller.

The institute is funded by Republican political campaigns and conservative businesspeople.

“I’ve known them a long time,” said major donor Robert Bruce, a retired Texas aviation entrepreneur who has given "several hundred thousand" dollars. “They’re good people.”

Former Senator Jim DeMint founded the institute in 2017, after he was ousted as president of the conservative Heritage Institute, and its fundraising jumped — from $7 million in 2020 to $45 million in 2021 — after Democrats returned to power.

The newly flush organization bought a 2,200-acre retreat in Maryland and commercial properties near the U.S. Capitol, and the institute's leaders founded a series of companies in Delaware that soon contracted with the nonprofit.

“You have an obligation to behave in the interest of that organization,” said Linda Sugin, a professor of nonprofit law at Fordham University. “The problem is, when you’re on both sides of the transaction, then we’re skeptical that you’re going to put the organization’s interests before your own.”

The institute could have reduced its risks by soliciting outside bids to see whether insiders were charging market rates for their service or asked them to recuse themselves from decisions on hiring their own companies, Sugin said, and Corrigan and other leaders did not respond to requests for comment from the Times on whether those steps were taken.

The Conservative Partnership Institute could face financial penalties from regulators or lose its tax-exempt status if it is found to have improperly benefitted insiders, the Times reported.

Who believes the most "taboo" conspiracy theories? It might not be who you think

White men with graduate degrees, a new study finds, are highly likely to hold especially noxious beliefs

By PAUL ROSENBERG

SALON

Contributing Writer
PUBLISHED MAY 5, 2024

LONG READ

Elon Musk and Robert Kennedy Jr. (Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

Like Henry Ford before him, Elon Musk has emerged as America’s top conspiracy spreader. But he’s hardly alone. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the conspiracy-theory candidate for president, and as Paul Krugman observed last summer, was attracting “support from some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley”:

Jack Dorsey, who founded Twitter, has endorsed him, while some other prominent tech figures have been holding fund-raisers on his behalf. Elon Musk, who is in the process of destroying what Dorsey built, hosted him for a Twitter Spaces event.

Krugman didn't focus on conspiracy theory as such but on something closely related: distrust of experts and skepticism about widely accepted facts. He described this tendency as the “brain rotting drug” of reflexive contrarianism, quoting economist Adam Ozimek.

That wasn’t exactly scientific, but a new paper entitled “The Status Foundations of Conspiracy Beliefs” by Saverio Roscigno, a PhD candidate at the University of California, Irvine, is. Its most eye-catching finding is the discovery of “a cluster of graduate-degree-holding white men who display a penchant for conspiracy beliefs” that are “distinctively taboo.”

Specifically, Roscigno writes, “approximately a quarter of those who hold a graduate degree agree or strongly agree” that school shootings like those at Sandy Hook and Parkland “are false flag attacks perpetrated by the government,” which is “around twice the rate of those without graduate degrees.” Results are similar for the proposition that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust “has been exaggerated on purpose.”

Related
RFK Jr. and Aaron Rodgers: How con artists exploit male insecurity for political gain

These findings are striking for many reasons. Most obviously, they go against the common belief — long supported by research — that conspiracist beliefs are more common among lower-income and less-educated individuals. They also challenge the formulation popularized by Joseph Uscinski that "conspiracy theories are for losers," and should be understood as “alarm systems and coping mechanisms to help deal with foreign threat and domestic power centers” that “tend to resonate when groups are suffering from loss, weakness, or disunity.”

Roscigno’s findings don’t refute previous formulations so much as reframe them by adding greater nuance. For example, he finds that conspiracy beliefs are more common both among the less educated and less affluent, on the one hand, and the more educated and more affluent on the other. Secondly, he identifies the subjective group experience of threat as a key element, rather than objective “loser” status.

Even more important, his paper reveals how much more we have to learn about conspiracy theories from a rigorous social science approach. Conspiracy theory is much more mainstream, varied and ubiquitous than previously assumed, and there’s much more to be learned from studying it as an integral part of the sociological landscape. Like the recently published paper I previously covered here, this model breaks with dualistic approaches that in some sense mirror what we find troubling about conspiracism — that is, painting the world in black-and-white rather than in many shades of gray. I recently spoke with Roscigno by Zoom about his findings and where they might lead. This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.

Your paper has a dramatic finding regarding "a cluster of graduate-degree-holding white men” who tend to embrace conspiracy beliefs that are "distinctly taboo." But that's just the tip of the iceberg, because there's a whole host of questions that raises, including the role of sociology in this research, not just psychology. What led you to do the research behind this paper — what kind of questions, concerns or interests were driving you?

One of the things that motivated me was precisely the observation that sociologists hadn't really been part of the conversation. I've been interested in this topic for a while. I grew up spending a lot of time online, seeing a lot of conspiratorial stuff, having a lot of conversations with my friends about that kind of stuff. In the past couple of years, it seems like a lot of it has hit the mainstream. I remember when QAnon stuff first started fermenting online. I remember seeing posts where people were analyzing and trying to break down these “Q drops,” and sending them to my brother, like “What's what's going on here? This is something totally new.”

When I got to grad school, I thought, well, there's got to be some sociologists doing work on this. I definitely found a cluster of cultural sociologists starting to do some really interesting stuff that inspired me a lot. I also found the work of people like Joseph Uscinski and others in political science who had been doing some work and some theorization that I thought could be pulled into building a sociological approach to this.

What did you think you might learn in doing this study?

The basic question was just which groups of people tend to hold which conspiratorial beliefs. Maybe it seems like an overly basic question, but I was really struggling to find anybody in the literature that had engaged it. There's a lot of talk about who believes conspiracies in general, but there's less attention to how different groups might be sympathetic to different claims. And I had observed in my time online that some conspiracy spaces are older or younger, in some there's more white people or more women, and I wanted to know what the variation was. That was the starting point, and then building a more sociological approach to the topic, looking at inequality and demographic variation, and then moving on to other questions.

So what did you find that confirmed that basic sociological intuition that there were significant differences, and what did you find that surprised you?

The belief "that school shootings like Sandy Hook and Parkland are false-flag attacks ... and that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis has been exaggerated on purpose — these two particular claims are disproportionately held by white graduate-degree-holding men."

The one pattern I really highlight is, as you said, that there's this cluster of graduate-degree-holding white men who are more favorable towards almost all the beliefs that are listed. But there are some that they are much more favorable toward, where there's a larger gap between them and those without graduate degrees. I describe these as "taboo claims." Specifically, that school shootings like those at Sandy Hook and Parkland are false-flag attacks perpetrated by the government, and the other one is that the number of Jews killed by the Nazis during World War II has been exaggerated on purpose. These two particular claims are very disproportionately held by white graduate-degree-holding men.

In addition, if you look a little bit deeper into some of the other survey research and even my own data, you can also see a concentration of medical-themed conspiracy beliefs among African-Americans, and among the less educated. Those were the two points of variation that I have been able to highlight. I suspect there are many more. But here the goal of the paper was just to demonstrate that variation exists. It wasn't to capture all of it.

That second variation is unsurprising, given that African Americans have been very ill-treated by the medical establishment. If you told most white people about the Tuskegee experiment 20 or 30 years ago, they'd think that was a conspiracy theory. But the finding about this group of more educated white men was more surprising. What have you speculated the reasons might be?

The most convincing explanation I found is that essentially this is about access dynamics. The typical theoretical focus when it comes to conspiracy beliefs tends to be toward attitudes or dispositions. I think the role of attitudes is relevant here, and I think these attitudes are fueled by a perception of threat among graduate-degree-holding white men. Maybe they see social changes that are going on, they hear how the tone of certain conversations is changing, they see how the job market is changing. So there's a perception of threat. That's where you get the attitudes.

Now the other side is the access. There's a couple of things that could be going on, but it's hard to believe that Sandy Hook was perpetrated by the government unless you've heard that claim made in some level of detail, not just seeing reporting about Alex Jones but hearing somebody really make that claim. It's even hard if you don't know what a false-flag attack is. So I suspect that graduate-degree-holding white men, particularly via online channels, are are more likely to encounter this information, more likely to run into it. We also know from scholarship on rumor that certain rumors tend to be concentrated in certain demographic networks. There's a rumor that will primarily be spread within white networks or Black networks, and that's what's going on here.

I think it's also important to take survey results about something as deep as beliefs with a grain of salt. A question I get a lot when I present this research is, “Oh, they don't really believe that, do they?” That's not really a question that a survey can necessarily answer. At the very least, we know they are checking off a survey box way more often. So if we read it with that interpretation, we can maybe say that this is kind of a transgressive act. They’re saying, “I know that I'm supposed to be checking off the other box, but I'm going to check off this one.” To me, it's demonstrating a kind of transgressive expertise, a special access to what Michael Barkun calls “stigmatized knowledge.”

So that sets off two things for me. One is the question of how you would go about digging deeper into that, testing if that's true. Related to that, it seems that survey research could be improved to ask people whether they have communicated these beliefs to others, are they deeply held beliefs that help them make sense of other things, questions like that. Have you given any thought to that?

"A question I get a lot when I present this research is, 'Oh, they don't really believe that, do they?' That's not a question that a survey can necessarily answer."

Some of those things can be ascertained through survey research. I like the idea of asking, "Have you ever spoken to somebody about this?" or "Is this something you hold privately?" But I'm wary that survey research will give us all the answers we need. If you really want to figure out if somebody really believes something, I think you have to talk to them. You have to learn about how they live their life. You have to learn about their social relationships. It’s just like if we were studying religious beliefs. I think you have to engage at a deeper level to figure out whether that is true belief.

There's a lot of room for improvement on surveys, though. One of the biggest rooms for improvement in surveys is on the issue of prompt selection. It seems that this pattern that I noticed didn't get noticed before because nobody was asking these taboo questions on the surveys. Mostly they ask questions about COVID, and maybe a few other things. But if the prompts substantively change the findings of the survey, and nobody seems to be giving much conscious consideration about which prompts are included, there's definitely room for improvement.

You also found similar, though less dramatic, gaps between the highly educated and less educated for four other unpopular beliefs. So there's seemingly a general predisposition to conspiracy beliefs there. What other factors do you think might be involved?

I've gone back and forth, but I think there’s something I've decided on. There's this question of whether it's that they prefer unpopular [beliefs], or is it a question of, like, these things are taboo? They know these things are transgressive, they know these things violate a deep social norm. I'm pretty sure it's the taboo.

But this can be pretty easily tested. There are beliefs that are very unpopular but are not particularly taboo. If you ran a survey that included something like belief in a flat earth, if I'm right we wouldn't expect white grad-degree men to be high on that. When I say “taboo,” I basically mean that if you said something like this in public you would face some kind of social sanction. If I told my co-workers that I thought the earth was flat, they might laugh at me. If I told my co-workers that I thought the Holocaust was exaggerated, it would be a very different story.

Do you have some thoughts on what research you might be able to do to make more sense of this?

One thing that could be done is looking at a really wide variety of prompts and seeing what kinds of patterns are going on. In this one, I'm working with 15 claims and trying to draw a common thread. If you worked with a much larger set of prompts — I know some of those data sets exist — I think it would let you articulate that a little bit more clearly.
Advertisement:


But that's only one way to approach the issue of typology. You could start at the point of "there's a group of people that tends to hold these beliefs," and try to describe those particular claims. You could also start by looking at the claims and trying to find narrative threads between them. You could also define the claims by the relation to some authority, which is kind of what I'm doing with the taboo stuff. So I'm not quite sure how to address that yet.

You also found roughly equivalent subsets of respondents who held both of those claims [about school shootings and the Holocaust] and who disagreed with both, providing a convenient comparison. They differed in terms of extremism and social media use. So what can you say about those differences and how they interrelated?

I already mentioned the question of access. I think social media use gets at that access question. Those who agree report higher levels of social media use by every platform, particularly by anonymous image boards like 4chan and 8chan. So at the very least, if we think about people stumbling into these beliefs kind of accidentally, if you're on 4chan more often you're a lot more likely to run into one of these. In addition, there's some interesting work being done on information-seeking strategies online, and some sociologists have pointed out that people with different social positions have different strategies that may lead to different results. So a possibility relative to social media is that white men with graduate degrees, when they're doing research, the steps they’re taking may be different from some other groups, so they're more likely to end up at a certain point.

Relative to political extremism, that's a bit more complicated. There's definitely some exciting research that's going on about radical political beliefs and their relationship to conspiracy beliefs. Something I want to point out is that the white grad-degree men who agree are way more on the political edges, which maybe is to be expected. They're identifying as extremely liberal or extremely conservative way more often. We get this U-shape. These two taboo claims, at least according to this measure, are not right-wing phenomena. There is a big cluster of people that identify as very liberal and agree with these things as well. I suspect this measure isn't picking up on everything it could be. In the time that I've spent in politically radical spaces online and within the conspiracy milieu, the way people identify politically — there's a lot of variety to it, and “liberal” and “conservative” descriptors may not resonate with a lot of these people. But at the very least we know that people on the political fringes tend to be more charitable towards these claims.

"White grad-degree men who agree [with 'taboo' claims] are way more on the political edges, which maybe is to be expected. They identify as extremely liberal or extremely conservative way more often. We get this U-shape."

Over time, erosion of social trust seems to be related to a rise in conspiratorial beliefs. It would make sense, just in terms of people who feel skeptical of the existing system, for that to show up more, regardless of whether they are left-wing or right-wing. Do you have any thoughts about that?

This is something else I think that sociologists have to bring to the table: What's with the structural context of these situations? There's some evidence that countries with higher levels of social inequality, higher levels of corruption, tend to demonstrate or report higher rates of these beliefs. We know that it's tied to structural conditions. The collapse of institutional trust is a huge piece of this. If you look at graphs of trust in the federal government over time, or trust in the press over time, they're really at historic lows.

That has to play some role. Because when we talk about conspiracy beliefs, in the simple definition we’re talking about claims of elites doing something in private, but we’re also talking about something that counters the official narrative. So in a situation where historically few people trust the producers of the official narratives — in part the government, in part the press — we would expect people to be more doubtful of those things.

But when we talk about social trust, I don't necessarily think belief in conspiracies means a low level of social trust in general. I think it means a low level of trust in particular institutions. But in order to believe a conspiracy you have to hear it. It's probably from somebody you know, and you have to trust them when they tell you that. There's a rumor scholar, Gary Fine, who says that when trust in institutions is questioned, trust in informal networks is revealed. So there is a social trust that exists. It's much more decentralized. It's not in a particular institution and it’s social trust, rather than institutional.

One thing your paper suggested to me was looking at how beliefs in conspiracy theories co-vary, meaning what beliefs go together or tend to negate each other, and how that might change across status lines. I was specifically interested in those white male graduate-degree holders. Are there any beliefs that they accept less than other people? Do you have enough data to look at that yet?

I think enough data exists that we can probably answer that, but I don't know for sure. In this particular data set, there are none that they were less likely to believe in. For very mainstream beliefs — the idea that “one percent” of economic elites control the government and economy, the idea that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered — these are beliefs held by 50% of the general population and also held by about 50% of white men with graduate degrees. In this data there wasn't a single belief that these white male graduate-degree holders were less interested in. That was stunning to me. I was actually very surprised by that..

But it's possible. We have these two types that I'm describing, the medical ones and the kind of taboo ones. It's possible there may be some medical ones that white men with graduate degrees are less likely to agree with. But it is hard to say, because this data clearly suggests that graduate degree holders are more into all of these claims.

We spoke earlier about “prompt selection” and things that perhaps aren't being asked about. Do you have anything specific in mind?

There's a lot of things that aren't being asked, definitely more than are being asked. At least in this paper, my starting point is the simple definition of the conspiracy belief which is, again, basically that a group of elites are plotting something in private. If that's our conceptualization, then the universe of possible things to ask about is massive.

For instance, if that's our conceptualization, why don't we ever ask about institutionally verified conspiracies? For instance, Watergate fits that definition just fine, COINTELPRO fits that definition just fine, Tuskegee fits that definition just fine. To me there seems to be a mismatch, an unacknowledged element to the definition, which is that it has to counter some official narratives. But even if we include that second part in conceptualization, there’s still tons and tons of stuff.

"Why don't we ever ask about institutionally verified conspiracies? For instance, Watergate fits that definition just fine, COINTELPRO fits that definition just fine, the Tuskegee experiment fits that definition just fine."

I read a very interesting paper this past week. This came out as a content analysis of TikTok, but it’s specifically about the conspiracy theory that Taylor Swift is secretly gay, and she's closeted and dropping all these hints in her tracks. Maybe people will say that isn't a politically consequential conspiracy theory, but it’s within the realm of conspiracy claims by any definition.

I've even heard that and I don't follow Taylor Swift news at all. It's clearly out there.

Yeah, if I had to guess, if you polled the demographics it would disproportionately be women. So that makes me think, OK, a lot of studies emphasize that men are more into this stuff. Does that have something to do with the prompts that are selected for the surveys? How does that come into play?

I bring up the Taylor Swift example to demonstrate that the realm of things under this blanket is, like, so large that trying to generalize any kind of research findings to the entire world of claims about elites doing sneaky stuff ends up being very difficult. I suspect there are claims that graduate-degree holders are more into that we haven't quite figured out yet. I suspect there are claims that women are more into that we haven't really figured out. I'd like to see a lot more, a) alignment between the conceptualization and operationalization and b) experimentation within that. We have a big world of things that fit this conceptual framework.

We’ve talked a bit about “collective identity” as a useful concept and you've said “it applies to all varieties of conspiracy cultures." Could you expand on that?

To be totally sociological, collective identity is useful in understanding all kinds of cultures more generally. Within conspiracy cultures, there's a couple things going on. If we talk about rumors, if I tell you some finding before it's published, it feels like you're in the know, it feels like you have a piece of secret information. It's exciting, it feels good. It also creates a bond between people that I think can be part of identity. So that's one level.

There's also the level that gets to the question of institutional distrust. There's a general sense in this country that, you know, people like us — whatever “us” means — are being screwed over by elites in some faraway place. We can't really see what's happening over there, we're not in the rooms where these decisions are made. I think there's a very general sense of that. And who “people like us” ends up being defined by is, I think, very important, because different people are going to understand it in different ways. There’s a general sense that there's opaque power that's screwing us. We don't really know where it is, or what's happening. You hear that kind of sentiment a lot in this milieu.

There's also collective identity more overtly. If I make the claim that white people are being replaced in this country — which to me is one of the more consequential conspiracy claims — I'm invoking a very specific identity, saying, “Hey, we collectively are under threat and need to do something about it!” So some conspiracy claims, even in the claim themselves, name the in-group or name the out-group. It will say who the “we” are, who the mysterious “they” is. Identity plays a key role there as well.

What stands out for you as the next steps? What questions need answering that follow from what you've done so far?

"A lot of people in the conspiracy milieu feel like they're being studied from afar by people that aren't talking to them at all. I think that absolutely adds to the resentment. If you were an expert in Amish culture, you'd probably want to spend time talking to Amish people."

To me, a lot of the most interesting questions are about how, when and why these beliefs matter, which I do think are better suited to qualitative methods. There's been very little in the way of qualitative inquiry into conspiracy cultures, with the big exception of Jaron Harambam, whose work has been very inspiring to me. Back to this matter of collective identity, something he points out that I find intriguing is that there are all kinds of conflicts over identity, even within the conspiracy milieu. There are people who understand themselves as aiming to get new converts to the movement, and other people who understand themselves as basically having given up and clocked out. There's all kinds of variation within the community.

Also, part of my reasoning for wanting to do qualitative research is that I feel like a lot of people in the conspiracy milieu feel like they're being studied from afar by people that aren't talking to them at all. I think that absolutely adds to the resentment.

I saw a tweet recently from somebody who is loosely in these circles that basically said, “How come none of these conspiracy theory experts are even talking to us?” If you are an expert in Amish culture, you'd probably want to spend a lot of time talking to Amish people. If I were studying the student movements that are going on right now, I'd probably be down at the encampments hanging out. It's not like believers in conspiracies are a small or fringe minority group that's super-hard to access. Some of these claims are totally mainstream, and even for the more taboo ones that you might envision would be hard to do qualitative research into, they're concentrated among graduate-degree holders. So in some sense those of us in academia are exceptionally well positioned to engage these communities at a closer level. So I definitely would like to do qualitative research in the coming years.

Finally, what's the most important question I haven’t asked? And what's the answer?

I can tell you a question that I get whenever I present my research to my undergraduates, but I'm not going to answer it. I give this whole presentation and at the end they’re like, “What are the ones that you believe in?” That's not my role as a sociologist. [Laughs.] So that’s my favorite question.

Former White House hopeful Sanders seeks reelection at 82

Agence France-Presse
May 6, 2024T

Bernie Sanders (Photo by Mandel Ngan for AFP)

Former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving independent senator in American history, said Monday he will seek a fourth term in an announcement touting his record over 16 years and taking aim at US military funding for Israel.

The 82-year-old son of Jewish immigrants -- who describes himself as a "democratic socialist" and votes with the Democrats -- framed November's election as "the most important" in generations.

The announcement cements Sanders, who is in a safe seat in Vermont, as the most high-profile Senate progressive as President Joe Biden vies for reelection against Republican Donald Trump while navigating a growing protest movement sparked by the Israel-Hamas war.

Sanders has been a reliable Biden ally on most of the president's domestic agenda.

But he has become a thorn in the administration's side over the mounting death toll in Israel's response to the October 7 Hamas attacks. That assault seven months ago resulted in the deaths of more than 1,170 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of Israeli official figures.

"Israel had the absolute right to defend itself against this terrorist attack, but it did not and does not have the right to go to war against the entire Palestinian people, which is exactly what it is doing," Sanders said in his announcement.

The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza said Monday that at least 34,735 people have been killed in the Palestinian territory, including at least 52 deaths in the past 24 hours.

A wave of pro-Palestinian protests on US university campuses has been the latest front in a fierce worldwide debate as anger over civilian deaths has triggered complaints that demonstrations have sometimes veered into hate against Jews.

Sanders, who suffered a heart attack during his 2020 presidential campaign, is the second-oldest senator, behind 90-year-old Republican Chuck Grassley.

He is almost certain to be reelected by his liberal northeastern state, meaning he would be 89 at the end of an upcoming term.

A fringe figure for much of his career, Sanders saw his political stock rise as he campaigned twice to represent the Democrats in presidential elections on a platform of universal health care, fairer housing and low-priced universities.

His run in the 2016 primary arguably fatally damaged his rival Hillary Clinton, who went on to lose the election to Trump.

And his 2020 bid was cut short as the centrist Democratic establishment pulled together in a coordinated effort to support Biden.

© Agence France-Presse

AI RECREATES THE SEVEN WONDERS OF THE ANCIENT WORLD

By Chris Murith

May 5, 2024

CONTENTS

1. Rediscovering ancient marvels

2. From Rhodes to Alexandria

3. Honoring the legacy of antiquity

TL;DR
AI’s Midjourney image generator carries ancient wonders to life where the present and past beautifully offset each other through detailed recreation.

New findings like the Colossus of Rhodes spill in some salty pieces of ancient engineering and artful works.

Preservation of heritages via AI reconstruction is how the value of technology is demonstrated.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has achieved a feat once thought impossible: reviving the last seven wonders in the world that ever existed before and remains in the memory of the time. These ancient wonders of the world have been manually reproduced by AI using a Midjourney image generator to show us the quality of their greatness. This machine offers a view of the past glory. As they recreated the Great Pyramid of Giza, a great wonder of the past, they brought these times as close as they could to the present day.
Rediscovering ancient marvels

Having arisen and collapsed, civilizations often leave no trace of their architectural masterpieces just to forget them in the black hole of history. Yet, AI is on a mission to bring them back from the dead and to inspire life into them once again. One of the spectacles so restored is the Great Pyramid of Giza, which is proof of the intelligence of ancient Egyptians. The temple of Karnak was built in twenty-seven years during the reign of the ancient Egyptians in the 26th century BCE, and its gleaming white limestone casing has been restored to its original beauty, giving a glimpse of the beautiful building that used to dominate the Egyptian sky.

Together with the Great Pyramid, the huge statue of Zeus at Olympia is a marvelous achievement of Ancient Greek craftsmanship. In the temple of Olympia, beholds a golden idol measuring the height of forty feet, which used to attract worshipers there with its divine resplendence. Even though it caused its destruction in 475 AD, AI’s reproduction brings out all the divinity of Zeus which lets the current audience admire the artistic talent of the ancient time.

From Rhodes to Alexandria

Apart from restoring the amazing works to life, the Colossus of Rhodes, a colossal statue dedicated to the Greek sun god Helios, will be constructed. The felling of AI in 226 BCE completed its restoration and back where it stands on its pediment it catches visitors’ eyes and reminds all of them of its ancient majesty. The Colossus is a new visual recreation that conveys a thorough analysis of direct and modern simulations, showing the meticulousness and artistry of its creators.

Furthermore, the legendary Lighthouse of Alexandria has been reborn thanks to the cutting-edge algorithms AI has created. During the rule of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, this architectural masterpiece was constructed, which enabled sailors to navigate within its illuminated region, becoming a symbol of the maritime greatness of Ancient Egypt. Even though the AI made it lost to the vicissitudes of time, nevertheless the AI reconstruction demonstrates the former coast of Alexandria once more.
Source: X (Formerly Twitter)

Honoring the legacy of antiquity

AI can add a new breath to these ancient seven wonders and draw attention to the importance of our cultural legacy. Through technology, we get an insight and an appreciation for the creativity and the workmanship of our ancestors whose creations are still appreciable centuries later. AI accomplishes this through reviving the Seven Wonders of the World, thereby making sure that generations to come get to be overwhelmed and enjoy the legacy for a long time.

In a time marked by continuous change and turmoil, the reappearance of these marvelous remains tells us that despite incessant changes, the enduring power of human ingenuity and creativity will never be in doubt. When we capture these artificially accentuated masterpieces in our mind eye, we suddenly find ourselves transported back in time to an era of architectural grandeur and artistic excellence. Via AI, these time-honored marvels enabling people to vividly imagine the now-passed time of ancient civilizations are no longer confined to pages of history, but the wonder and awe go back to life.

New Air Quality Monitors Could Expose Factory Farming and Environmental Racism

 

In North Carolina, Sampson County residents and environmental groups are working together to measure air pollution from the meat industry.

May 5, 2024 by Sentient Media

 

By Grace Hussain, Sentient Media

Sampson County is an agricultural powerhouse for North Carolina, home to more than 400 industrial animal agriculture operations, otherwise known as factory farms. These hundreds of factory farms are responsible for spewing tons of greenhouse gasses and other toxic pollutants into the air, but until now, Sampson county residents haven’t been able to do much about it.

Ninety-five percent of North Carolina hog farms are located in the eastern part of the state, a region predominantly low-income and Black, brown and Indigenous. A 2023 analysis of air quality in Duplin county (neighbor to Sampson county) found that marginalized communities are exposed to higher pollution levels — including ammonia — than the state’s residents as a whole. Efforts to fight back against pollution have long proved challenging, but residents are turning to air quality monitors to expose factory farming and a clear pattern of environmental racism.

Even though research has shown that the pork industry’s heavy presence contributes to air pollution, until recently communities in the eastern part of North Carolina have not had access to federal air quality monitors, which would give them access to federal grants that could be used to make the air cleaner. A new program spearheaded by residents and a coalition of advocacy groups is working to address that gap in information — putting monitoring equipment in the hands of the community in order to arm them in the fight for cleaner air.

“There is a gap in air quality data,” says Daisha Wall, who manages programs for Cleanaire NC, one of the organizations working in Sampson County to install air quality monitors throughout the area in order to fill the void. The organization employs what is sometimes called “citizen science,” a strategy of scientific research that is driven by a collaboration of professional scientists and members of the public, though the group uses the term “community science” to describe its collaborative efforts. Community scientists are called Airkeepers by the Cleanaire NC, which previously spearheaded a similar effort in Charlotte.

The Sampson County initiative brings together community residents and a number of environmental groups, including Cleanaire NC, the Environmental Justice Community Action Network and Eastern Research Group. The groups will be working together to deploy air sensors — some directly into backyards and one that is mounted on a car — in order to detect pollution in the air. The project is being funded by a $500,000 grant from the EPA, and depending on the data, agency regulators could take action if that pollution exceeds regulatory limits.

Hog Farm Air Pollution Linked to Higher Cancer Rates

A typical North Carolina industrial hog farms hold thousands of hogs at a time, and those animals generate massive amounts of waste — upwards of millions of gallons of manure, in fact. Farms have to store the waste somewhere until it can be sprayed on crop farms, often in massive open-air cesspits. Each of the farms in Sampson County usually has at least one of these cesspits, though some of the larger farm operations need five or six to hold all of their waste, according to state data. As the waste sits, it emits noxious gasses like methane and hydrogen sulfide that spread into the air in surrounding communities. Collectively, these gasses are called volatile organic compounds or VOCs, and the science suggests these pollutants might be linked to a number of health conditions that are more common in these communities.

According to the research, factory farms in North Carolina have been linked to higher rates of anemia, kidney disease and, for some residents, early mortality. And according to the American Lung Association, exposure to these gasses can cause ear, nose and eye irritation, difficulty breathing and increase the risk of some kinds of cancer.

In Sampson County, Community Residents Take the Lead

Factory farms have a long history of operating in poorer marginalized communities where residents lack the financial resources to push back against the meat and dairy industries. Every single attendee at Cleanaire NC’s first community meeting for the project was Black or brown, says Wall, who heard residents express concern about the quality of the air they and their families breathe each day.

The concerns raised at that first meeting became some of the major driving forces behind the new initiative. Some community members recounted how their homes were sprayed with animal feces, says Wall, while others described playgrounds located right next to factory farms. “It really puts a fire under you to do the best you can,” she adds.

Data collection is set to launch July 1, but 25 out of 30 sensors have already been deployed at homes across the county. Using an app developed in partnership by Cleanaire NC and the EPA, residents report unusual odors, which triggers the system to analyze the source of the smell  — ammonia smells sharp and pungent, for instance.

Over the next three years, the coalition will also host training and informational sessions aimed at equipping community members to effectively advocate for clean air. The end goal of all of it: a federal air monitor that can unlock stronger clean air protections for Sampson county.

Federal air quality monitors are used to flag any air contaminant that’s out of the ordinary, says Wall. And once a pollutant has been flagged, she says, “they have to implement programs to address it.” Up until now, communities didn’t have actual data about the pollution in the air. But if the federal monitor detects regulatory violations, the EPA can pursue action against the offenders — including fines and remediation.

Building On Success in Charlotte

In Sampson County, the campaign for a federal air monitor has just started. But 170 miles away in Charlotte, residents of the historic West End neighborhood have already leveraged the sensors to jumpstart federal air quality monitoring.

The community in Charlotte even went on to create a green district with the support of organizations like Cleanaire NC, which includes car charging stations, a community garden, freshly planted trees, newly established green spaces and green bus stations and infrastructure.

The new landscape is a distinct departure from the historic reality of the West End neighborhood, which was redlined by zoning maps in the 1930’s. The practice of redlining was used to delineate Black neighborhoods as “risky investments.” These neighborhoods then were excluded from the investments enjoyed by other areas in cities, and buildings, roads and other city services became neglected and rundown as a result. To make matters worse, when highways came to Charlotte, they cut through other Black neighborhoods, which caused more families to move to the West End and increased racial segregation in Charlotte. Decades later, the neighborhood is now considered highly desirable, but the district also struggles against the effects of gentrification, which increase rents and property taxes and threaten to displace longtime residents.

Back in Sampson County, Wall emphasizes that Cleanaire NC is well aware of their role as an outside organization supporting the work of the residents of the local community. “We really are led and guided by community needs and input,” she says. Wall also says she’s eager to get started, to help spur “the changes that communities want to see.”

This article has been updated to clarify Wall’s work with Cleanaire NC, and also the group’s use of the term “community science.”

This article originally appeared in Sentient at https://sentientmedia.org/air-quality-monitors-factory-farming/.

—

This story was originally published by Sentient Media.

How Britain Shields Israel From War Crime Charges

May 5, 2024

The U.K. government has repeatedly protected Israeli politicians, spies and soldiers from being arrested for war crimes when they visit Britain, John McEvoy and Phil Miller reveal.



Benny Gantz, then chief of general staff of the IDF, left, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meeting in 2013. (Prime Minister of Israel/Flickr)

By James McEvoy and Phil Miller
Declassified UK

The U.K. government has provided special diplomatic immunity to scores of foreign officials accused of committing serious violations of international law, Declassified has found.

Since 2013, the Foreign Office has granted over 50 “special mission” certificates to military and political figures from Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Rwanda and Iran.

Israeli war cabinet member Benny Gantz was granted this protection as recently as March, even after the country was put under investigation for genocide in Gaza.

It comes as the International Criminal Court looks poised to indict two names on Britain’s list: Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and IDF chief of staff Herzi Halevi.

By granting “special mission” immunity, foreign officials have been able to visit the U.K without fear of arrest.

This could breach Britain’s commitment to universal jurisdiction legislation like the Rome Statute, which provides for the most serious crimes to be prosecuted regardless of where they were committed.

The U.K. government argues that the immunity it issues is customary practice under international law. It says these measures are necessary to ensure the smooth conduct of diplomatic relations.

However, the new list indicates that the Foreign Office has deliberately obstructed efforts to prosecute officials from allied states, many of whom have been accused of egregious violations of international law.

The list was obtained by Labour’s former shadow justice secretary, Richard Burgon MP, in response to a question in parliament.

The Pinochet Precedent

In 1998, Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London on a warrant issued by a Spanish judge for crimes against humanity committed during the Chilean dictatorship.

Though Pinochet was ultimately allowed to return to Chile, his arrest served as a “wake-up call to tyrants around the world”.

It showed how, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, state actors could not rely on diplomatic immunity to escape prosecution for serious violations of international law.

Yet over recent decades, it has become increasingly difficult to pursue universal jurisdiction cases in Britain.

In September 2011, David Cameron’s coalition government passed new legislation requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP – none other than Keir Starmer) before such arrest warrants could be issued.

The law was implemented with Israeli officials in mind. Britain’s foreign secretary William Hague declared: “We cannot have a position where Israeli politicians feel they cannot visit this country”.

Israel’s former foreign minister Tzipi Livni visited Britain a month later, putting the new legislation to the test.

A human rights group and law firm asked Starmer to approve an arrest warrant for Livni over war crimes allegedly committed during Operation Cast Lead.

That was the bombardment of Gaza in 2008-09 when Israel killed over 300 Palestinian children.

Instead of waiting for Starmer to review the evidence, the Foreign Office attributed “special mission” status to Livni’s visit, granting her temporary diplomatic immunity from arrest.

Following this incident, the Foreign Office established “special mission” immunity as common practice. Livni would rely on it a further three times.

Declassified is reporting on the full list of foreign officials who have been shielded from prosecution under this scheme the first time.

It includes politicians, royalty, generals and spies from some of the world’s most abusive regimes.

Immunity for Israel

David Cameron, then U.K. prime minister, left, with his defence minister Dr. Liam Fox in May, 2010. (UK Ministry of Defence)

The U.K. has granted “special mission” immunity to at least seven Israeli officials who have been accused of serious violations of international law.

Chief amongst them was Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his visit to Britain in 2015, when he met David Cameron.

It is unclear why Netanyahu required this protection given heads of state and government as well as foreign ministers typically enjoy full diplomatic immunity.

It is possible that immunity was extended to Netanyahu’s entourage, who were not automatically shielded from prosecution.

Other high-profile recipients include Benny Gantz when he was Israel’s army chief of staff between 2011-15.

During this time, he oversaw an airstrike which destroyed a three-storey building in al-Bureij refugee camp. It killed seven members of a Palestinian family inside.

Now part of Israel’s war cabinet, Gantz was once again given temporary immunity when he visited Rishi Sunak and David Cameron in London this March.

General Herzi Halevi, the current head of the IDF who has approved plans for an assault on Rafah, received immunity to visit the U.K. back when he was Israel’s military intelligence chief.

Another name on the list is Amos Yadlin. He ran the IDF’s military intelligence directorate between 2007 and 2010.

Police Feared Gun Battle at Airport

Yadlin played a role in Israel’s raid of the Turkish-owned Mavi Marmara, the lead ship in a flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Nine of the activists onboard were killed, five with gunshot wounds to the head. Another later died from his injuries.

Doron Almog, a retired Israeli major general, was also granted “special mission” immunity.

As head of the Israeli army’s southern command between 2000-3, Almog was blamed for dropping a one tonne bomb on Gaza City.

It killed 14 civilians, injured 150 people, and destroyed nine apartment buildings. He also authorised the destruction of 59 houses in Rafah refugee camp.

In 2005, an arrest warrant was issued for Almog at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court under the Geneva Conventions Act.

However, he was tipped off by Israeli diplomats upon arriving in London, and refused to leave the plane.

British authorities failed to execute the arrest warrant because “officers feared an attempt to stop him would lead to a gun battle at Heathrow airport”.

Another Israeli official accused of responsibility for dropping that one tonne bomb on Gaza City – Avi Dichter – received immunity for his visit to Britain in 2016.

Israeli military chiefs have been a priority for temporary immunity. It was awarded to Shaul Mofaz when he spoke at the UK parliament in 2015.

Mofaz ran the IDF from 1998 to 2002, a period which spanned the second intifada.

That saw bloody military assaults on Palestinian cities in the illegally occupied West Bank.

Mofaz went on to become Israel’s defence minister “where he was again responsible for numerous human rights violations, including torture, home demolitions and collective punishment”, according to Electronic Intifada.

Other Israelis granted “special mission” status include Yuval Steinitz, when he was international relations minister. He is now chairman of Rafael, Israel’s state-owned arms firm.

Appeasing Egypt

Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi speaking at a U.K.-Africa investment meeting in London, Jan. 20, 2020. (DFID/Graham Carlow)

Although changes to universal jurisdiction proceedings were made with Israel in mind, other countries have benefited too.

Egyptians are actually the most common nationality on the list.

The Foreign Office issued 35 “special mission” certificates to Egyptians in the regime of General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Sisi came to power in 2014 after staging a military coup against Egypt’s first democratically-elected president, Mohamed Morsi, one year prior.

Morsi led the Muslim Brotherhood’s political wing and under his brief tenure Egypt loosened restrictions on Hamas in Gaza, alarming Israel.

Since his overthrow, as Declassified reported, Sisi “has presided over a human rights crackdown in the North African country, locking up thousands of political prisoners. Arbitrary arrest and torture are widespread”.

More than 400 prisoners have been hanged, many of them from the Muslim Brotherhood, in what Human Rights Watch has called an “execution frenzy”.

Amid the repression, the U.K. government has remained a close ally of Sisi’s regime, with diplomatic exchanges continuing, trade booming, and senior MI5 and MI6 officials training Egyptian spies.

In 2015, Egypt’s army chief of staff, Mahmoud Hegazy, travelled to Britain for an arms fair.

Lawyers acting for Morsi’s banned Freedom and Justice party sought Hegazy’s arrest over the torture and massacre of political opponents.

The call for Hegazy’s arrest was supported by 55 British figures including the then shadow chancellor, John McDonnell.

Yet the Foreign Office granted Hegazy “special mission” immunity, shielding him from prosecution. Lawyer Tayab Ali noted:


“When Mr Hegazy came, the only reason the police cited not to act on our request to arrest him was the Foreign Office’s decision to grant him special mission immunity.”

That same year, Sisi’s entourage and advance delegation received temporary immunity, allowing his associates to travel without fear of prosecution.

Other Egyptians awarded immunity were trade minister Mounir Fakhry Abdel Nour, spy chief Khaled Fawzy and military intelligence chief Mohammad Farag Elshahat.

Alex Carlen, human rights coordinator at campaign group FairSquare, commented: “Under Sisi’s rule, Egyptian officials have been credibly accused of perpetrating severe human rights abuses after coming to power following a massacre of more than 800 protestors.

“The UK government has been actively engaged in efforts to sanitise and rehabilitate the image of the Sisi regime. It now transpires that 23 officials have been granted virtual immunity, enabling them to visit the UK without fear of prosecution under our justice system”.

Green Light for Tyrants


Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammed bin Salman was granted special mission status to visit Britain three years into the Kingdom’s war with Yemen. (Palácio do Planalto/Flickr)

Other foreign officials granted “special mission” status to visit Britain include Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, Qatar’s attorney general Ali bin Fetais Almarri and Iran’s deputy foreign minister Ebrahim Rahimpour.

Prince Salman’s protection was awarded for his blockbuster visit to the UK in 2018 when he met Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace.

It came months before he ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and three years into the Kingdom’s war with Yemen, which had seen Saudi coalition forces repeatedly bomb hospitals.

Another eye-catching name on the immunity list is Rwandan general James Kabarebe. He was granted “special mission” status to visit Britain in 2016 when he was president Paul Kagame’s defence minister.

The reason for Kabarebe’s visit was apparently to speak at a U.N. peacekeeping conference in London alongside defence ministers from all over the world.

Four years prior, a leaked U.N. report had identified Kabarebe “as effectively directing a Congolese rebel militia accused of killings, rapes and other atrocities”.

This militia, named M23, was said to be coordinated by Rwandan officials who were attempting to plunder Congo’s mineral resources.

Kabarebe is also accused of involvement in the shooting down of Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana’s plane, whose death sparked the genocide in 1994.

He was ordered to comply with a French investigation into the matter in 2017, but refused. Campaign group Redress previously noted that:


“The U.K. should refuse to accept an individual as being on a special mission, and potentially entitled to immunity, when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual has been involved in or associated with international crimes including torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide”.

This story was first published by Declassified UK.

Phil Miller is Declassified UK’s chief reporter. He is the author of Keenie Meenie: The British Mercenaries Who Got Away With War Crimes. Follow him on Twitter at @pmillerinfo.

John McEvoy is an independent journalist who has written for International History Review, The Canary, Tribune Magazine, Jacobin and Brasil Wire.

WAIT, WHAT?!

Ex-Fulton County Prosecutor Defends Workplace Romance: 'As American As Apple Pie'

Nathan Wade resigned so District Attorney Fani Willis could continue prosecuting the case.

By Paige Skinner
May 5, 2024,


Special prosecutor Nathan Wade sits in court on March 1 in Atlanta. The hearing is to determine whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be removed from the election interference case against Donald Trump because of a relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she hired.
ALEX SLITZ VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS

Nathan Wade, the former Fulton County special prosecutor involved in former President Donald Trump’s election interference case who resigned after his relationship with District Attorney Fani Willis was made public, said workplace romances are common.

“Workplace romances are as American as apple pie,” Wade told ABC News on Sunday. “It happens to everyone. But it happened to the two of us.”

Wade continued, not confirming whether he regretted the relationship with Willis: “I regret that that private matter became the focal point of this very important prosecution. This is a very important case.”

“I hate that my personal life has begun to overshadow the true issues in the case,” he said.

In January, rumors began that Wade and Willis were in a romantic relationship when a lawyer for one of Trump’s co-defendants alleged that Willis benefitted from Wade’s hiring because Wade took Willis on dates.

Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee found no evidence that supported this claim, however, he said Willis could continue prosecuting the case as long as Wade stepped down, which he did.

In March, Trump and his team asked if they could appeal the judge’s decision, but the court hasn’t decided if they’ll allow an appeal.

Wade told ABC News that he and Willis thought about pausing the relationship until the case was over, but that “the feelings are so strong.”

“But there again, when you are in the middle of it, these feelings are developing and you get to a point where the feelings are, are so strong that, you know, you start to want to do things that really are none of the public’s concern.”

In the 1980s, he led student protests. Now, he's a college dean

• Ayesha Rascoe

May 05, 2024 / 

Sproul Hall at University of California, Berkeley.

PLAYING

The term divestment has come up a lot over the past few weeks as pro-Palestinian students around the county demand that their universities divest their assets from companies doing business with Israel.

Forty years ago, there was another divestment movement, when students wanted to end minority rule known as apartheid in South Africa. UC Berkeley was a focal point of that movement, and their student body president, Pedro Noguera, was also one of the leaders of the anti-apartheid movement there.

Noguera is now dean of the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, one of the many college campuses with ongoing demonstrations over the war in Gaza. He spoke with Weekend Edition Sunday host Ayesha Rascoe about his role leading student protests at UC Berkeley against apartheid in the 1980s.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Interview highlights

Ayesha Rascoe: Take us back to Berkeley in the 1980s. How did the idea of divestment come about?

Pedro Noguera: So there was a push that started in the seventies, really, but built up that there needed to be sanctions against the South African government because the United States and many other countries and corporations were doing business in South Africa, which in effect was propping up the apartheid government. So the idea of sanctions led to the idea that we need to get companies to disinvest from South Africa. And many universities then started looking at their portfolios and many large church religious organizations did the same thing. And we stuck with it. We really studied the portfolio and started raising questions at the Board of Regents meetings about how we were investing university holdings. Over time, it led to a real critical analysis of the university's responsibility to invest in corporations that upheld its values.

Rascoe: Tell us about how the protests grew and what your role was.

Noguera: The protest started with marches. Then we had a huge sit in at Sproul Hall, which is kind of the main administration building. One hundred sixty-eight people were arrested, myself included, and that really set off a number of events. I think what was really important was our organizing because it wasn't limited to a small number of activists. We were able to get support from students who had fraternities and sororities, graduate, undergraduate, as well as faculty and staff across the campus. So our numbers were just so much bigger and we did a lot of education work, we did teach ins, and that really helped because many people didn't understand South Africa, didn't understand what divestment was about. And so education and organizing was really a critical part of the work.

Rascoe: How did the Berkeley administration react to the protests? As I mentioned, the police were called in at one point and how did you feel about that?

Noguera: Well, we expected that and we always were nonviolent. We always maintained actually dialogue with the administration throughout. They weren't happy about what we were doing, but we tried to assure them that this was not about destroying the university or tearing it down. This was about making the point politically. I think we understood that it was not going to happen quickly because they were quite dismissive. Initially, they did not believe that students had a role to play in determining where they invested their stocks. But we pushed for over two years and it took time, but eventually we won.

Rascoe: So fast forward to today. You're now a dean at USC, which, unlike Berkeley, isn't known for a history of protesting. What are you seeing now compared to what you saw as a student at Berkeley?

Noguera: It's really different because there was never a pro-apartheid group we had to contend with. There is a pro-Israel group, a pro-Zionist group. There are many Jewish faculty and students who see the protest as being anti-Semitic. I don't see it that way. And I know many Jewish friends and colleagues who don't see it that way. The other thing that was different is this group, the ones that have been building these encampments, don't seem to be doing a lot of educating and organizing. And so they're pretty small and that makes them more easily isolated.

Rascoe: What do you tell your students now who may come to you? They know your history and they'll say, what advice do you have for us if we we want to get involved?

Noguera: My advice is always be careful about who you're out there with. There are elements out there who are agitators, who are provocative. You got to really be careful because they will divert the message to be the destruction of property and violence away from the focus of the protest. Then also build alliances with groups that will share your interests – religious groups, church groups, other students, because isolation will limit the movement. And I see that happening now on many of these campuses. [Copyright 2024 NPR]

SPACE

Boeing preps Starliner ship for first piloted flightBoeing is preparing its Starliner capsule for its first piloted launch. The launch, scheduled for Monday, comes after years of delays and a ballooning budget. Mark Strassmann reports.

MAY 5, 2024

Boeing Starliner's first crewed mission with Sunita Williams onboard set for launch, aiming to rival SpaceX's success

ByNikhita Mehta
May 06, 2024


Astronauts Barry "Butch" Wilmore & Sunita Williams will lead Boeing Starliner's 1st crewed mission. The capsule will take off on an Atlas V rocket on Monday.

Boeing's Strainer spacecraft will finally carry two NASA astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) after years of anticipation.

Boeing's Starliner set for crewed mission with Barry "Butch" Wilmore and Sunita Williams.(NASA)

At Florida's Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, the capsule is set to take off on an Atlas V rocket on Monday at 10:34 p.m. ET. Prior to NASA approving Boeing to fly Starliner on regular trips to and from the space station, astronauts Barry "Butch" Wilmore and Sunita Williams will lead the spacecraft on its first crewed voyage.

Boeing is launching their spacecraft for the first time with people on board following years of delays, technological difficulties, and large overhead costs.

Speaking about the test flight, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said: "Because it is a test flight, we give extra attention. They’re checking out a lot of the systems — the life support, the manual control, all of those things that you want to be checked out."

What if the mission gets successful?

If the mission is successful, Boeing will have the opportunity to rival Elon Musk's SpaceX, which has been transporting astronauts from NASA to and from the orbiting outpost since 2020.

The spacecraft of both firms were developed under NASA's Commercial Crew Programme following the retirement of NASA's space shuttle fleet in 2011.

During a preflight briefing held last week, Wilmore stated that safety is the top priority and that the capsule was simply not ready for launch when the previous Starliner launch attempts, both crewed and uncrewed, were postponed.

“Why do we think it’s as safe as possible? We wouldn’t be standing here if we didn’t,” Wilmore told reporters.

“Do we expect it to go perfectly? This is the first human flight of the spacecraft,” Wilmore said.

“I’m sure we’ll find things out. That’s why we do this. This is a test flight.”

The astronauts are scheduled to dock with the space station the next day and stay there for around a week before making their way down to Earth and landing at Starliner's primary landing site in the White Sands Missile Range of New Mexico.

Also Read: Indian-American astronaut Sunita Williams gives insight into 1st crewed Boeing Starliner launch: ‘It feels unreal’
How is NASA making sure they have backup plans?

Makena Young, a fellow with the Aerospace Security Project at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., noted that although NASA astronauts have been flying aboard SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft for years, the agency does not want to depend on a single business.


“Having that second option is really important because it adds redundancy and resiliency,” Young said, as per NBC News. “In space systems, there are always redundancies, because if something goes wrong, you want to make sure that you have backups.”

NASA's administrator on ambitions to return to the moon

MAY 5, 2024
HEARD ON NPR

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED
Download


Transcript

NPR's Scott Detrow speaks with NASA administrator Bill Nelson about the space agency's plans to return to the moon and travel later to Mars.
Sponsor Message

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)


UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: You're now watching live feed from Wenchang Satellite Launch Center.

SCOTT DETROW, HOST:

That's the sound of China's Chang'e-6 lifting off Friday, carrying a probe to the far side of the moon to gather samples and bring them back to Earth. If successful, it would be a first for any country.



(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)



UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: It's now starting its epic journey to the moon.



DETROW: The race to get astronauts back to the moon, it's also in full swing, and the U.S. has serious competition.



(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)



UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: Soft landing on the moon. India is on the moon.



DETROW: Last August, India successfully landed a spacecraft near the moon's south pole. Five nations in total have now landed spacecraft on the moon. This time around, the race isn't just about who gets there first. It's a race for resources, minerals and maybe even water, which could fuel further space exploration.



(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)



UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #3: And here we go.



DETROW: If the U.S. stays on schedule, it would get humans back to the moon before anyone else. As part of NASA's Artemis program. It's a big if, but NASA is making progress.



(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)



UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: And liftoff of Artemis 1.



DETROW: Artemis 1 launched in late 2022. It put an uncrewed Orion capsule in orbit around the moon. Artemis 2 will circle the moon with a crew.



(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)



UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #4: Ladies and gentlemen, your Artemis 2 crew.



DETROW: It was supposed to happen later this year but got delayed until 2025. If that goes well, the U.S. will try to put humans back on the moon with Artemis 3. NASA is making a bit of a bet and mostly relying on private companies. In the 1960s, in the heat of the Cold War, budgets were flush.



(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)



NEIL ARMSTRONG: Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.



DETROW: Now, the U.S. is hoping that private contractors, mainly Elon Musk's SpaceX, can get Americans back on the moon for a fraction of the price. Earlier this year, two private American companies attempted to land uncrewed research spacecraft on the moon. One succeeded.



(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)



UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #5: And liftoff. Go...



DETROW: And one failed



(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)



UNIDENTIFIED JOURNALIST: Astrobotic Peregrine moon lander ended its mission in a fiery...



DETROW: NASA has set its sights on a big goal - reaching the moon and then Mars. But with limited resources and facing a more crowded field, it's unclear if the U.S. will dominate space as it once did. This week, I went to NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. In the lobby, I touched a moon rock that was collected by the crew of Apollo 17 in 1972, the last time humans stood on the moon. Then I went upstairs to Administrator Bill Nelson's office to talk to him about NASA's plans to return within the next few years.



BILL NELSON: The goal is not just to go back to the moon. The goal is to go to the moon to learn so we can go farther to Mars and beyond. Now, it so happens that we're going to go to a different part of the moon. We're going to the south pole. And that is attractive because we know there's ice there in the crevices of the rocks, in the constant shadow or darkness. And if, in fact, there's water, then we have rocket fuel. And we're sending a probe later this year that is going to dig down underneath the surface on the south pole and see if there is water.



But you go to the moon and you do all kind of new things that you need in order to go all the way to the Mars. The moon is four days away. Mars, under conventional propulsion, is seven or eight months. So we're going back to the moon to learn a lot of things in order to be able to go further.



DETROW: Lay out for me what the timeline is for Artemis right now, because this was the year that that first mission was supposed to take a crew to circle the moon. That's been delayed. What are we looking at right now?



NELSON: Well, understand, we don't fly until it's ready.



DETROW: Yeah.



NELSON: Because safety is paramount. But the plan is September of next year, '25, that the crew of four - three Americans and a Canadian - will circle the moon and check out the spacecraft. Then the contractual date with SpaceX - a fixed price contract - is one year later, September of '26. Now, as you know, SpaceX is just going through the - getting their rocket up on - they're about to launch again this month with their huge rocket. It's got 33 Raptor engines in the tail of it. And then their actual spacecraft, called Starship, they're going to try to get it to come on down. They just did a fuel transfer, by the way, on the last one, which is something that's very hard to do.



DETROW: And it's key for these future missions.



NELSON: And it's absolutely key because they have to basically refuel in low Earth orbit before Starship goes on to the moon.



DETROW: You said that nobody's going to go until they're ready. As you know, there were some reports. The Government Accountability Office had a report late last year raising serious concerns and skepticism about the timeline that you laid out. Do you share that concern? Do you feel like this timeline is realistic?



NELSON: Well, all I can do is look to history. When we rush things, we get in trouble. And we don't want to go through that again. I was on the Space Shuttle 10 days before the Challenger explosion, and that is something you just don't want to go through. Seventeen astronauts have given their lives. Spaceflight is risky, especially going with new spacecraft and new hardware to a new destination. That's why this launch of the Boeing Starliner, it's a test flight. The two astronauts are test pilots. If everything works well, then the next one will be the starting of a cadence of four astronauts in the Starliner.



DETROW: In the '60s and '70s, NASA's moonshot was a central organizing thrust of the U.S. government. The Apollo program cost about $25 billion at the time, the equivalent of a little less than $300 billion today. That's not the case for Artemis. Nelson argues NASA has done big things over and over in the decades since those stratospheric Apollo budgets. And a big part of the current calculation is relying on private companies, not the U.S. government, to get crews to the moon and beyond.



I do want to ask, though. SpaceX has had so much success when it comes to spaceflight, but Elon Musk's decision-making has come under a lot of scrutiny in recent years when it comes to some of his other companies Twitter and Tesla, his kind of engagement in culture war politics. Any concern that so much of this plan is in the hands of Elon Musk at this point in time?



NELSON: Elon Musk has - one of the most important decisions he made, as a matter of fact, is he picked a president named Gwynne Shotwell. She runs SpaceX. She is excellent. And so I have no concerns.



DETROW: No concerns. When you were on the Hill the other day, a lot of the questions came back to China. And in speeches you have given, you keep coming back to China as well. What is the concern about - you know, we just had a report on our show. One of our reporters watched one of these launches in person and was reporting on just how focused China is to get back to the moon as well. Why is it key to you? Why does it matter so much that the U.S. beat China back to the moon?



NELSON: Well, first of all, I don't give a lot of speeches about China, but people ask a lot of questions about China. And it's important simply because I know what China has done on the face of the Earth. For example, where the Spratly Islands, they suddenly take over a part of the South China Sea and say, this is ours, you stay out. Now, I don't want them to get to the south pole, which is a limited area that where we think the water is. It's pockmarked with craters. And so there are limited areas that you can land on on the south pole. I don't want them to get there and say, this is ours, you stay out. It ought to be for the international community, for scientific research. So that's why I think it's important for us to get there first.



DETROW: The U.S. is part of a lot of different treaties in terms of, you know, sharing its work with other countries. I guess people in China might hear that and say, well, we're concerned the U.S. would do the same.



NELSON: Well, but we are the instigators with the international community, now upwards of 40 nations - and that will rise - of the Artemis Accords, which are a - common-sense declarations about the peaceful use of space, which includes working with others, which includes going to somebody else's rescue, having common elements so that you could in space. And a vast diversity of nations have now signed the accords, but China and Russia have not.



DETROW: You said, I don't give a lot of speeches about China, but I'm asked about it a lot. This is being framed in those same space race terms in many ways, the U.S. versus China. Is that how you see it? Is that how you think about it?



NELSON: With regard to going to the moon?



DETROW: Yeah.



NELSON: Yes.



DETROW: And that's specifically about making sure that those resources around the south pole are protected.



NELSON: And the peaceful uses for all peoples. That's basically the whole understanding of the space treaty that goes back decades ago. It is another iteration of the declaration of the peaceful uses of Space.



DETROW: How else can the U.S. ensure that, other than getting there first?



NELSON: Well, you know, we've got a lot of partners. And the partners generally, you know, nations that get along with China as well, nations that get along with Russia. By the way, we get along with Russia. Look. Ever since 1975, in civilian space, we have been cooperating with Russia in space.



DETROW: And that's continued throughout the Ukraine war in space.



NELSON: Without a hitch.



DETROW: On China, how do you balance the speed and urgency and concern that you feel with the safety element that we talked about before? Because both are very important to you.



NELSON: We don't fly until it's ready. That's it.



DETROW: And the last question I had on China is when you were on the Hill the other day, a lot of the questions had to do with resources, but also concern that China might be viewing lunar activity through a military prism. Do you share that concern?



NELSON: I do.



DETROW: Can you tell us what specifically you're concerned about?



NELSON: Well, I think if you look at their space program, most of it has some connection to their military.



DETROW: What's the solution to that, then, from the U.S.'s perspective and NASA's perspective?



NELSON: Well, take history. In the middle of the Cold War, two nations realized they could annihilate each other with their nuclear weapons. So was there something of high technology that the two nations, Russia, in this case, the Soviet Union, and America could do? And an Apollo spacecraft rendezvoused and docked with a Soviet Soyuz. And the crews lived together in space. And the crews became good friends. Now, that says a lot. So that's what history teaches us that we can overcome. I would like for that to happen with China. But the Chinese government has been very secretive in their space program, their so-called civilian space program.



DETROW: You've cared about all of this stuff for a long time. You represented Florida in the Senate. You flew on the Space Shuttle, as you mentioned. Now you're in charge of NASA. What is your goal for when you leave NASA? Where do you want the agency to be on all of these ambitious projects?



NELSON: Well, understand that this is a group of wizards, and I just am privileged to tag along with them. I try to give them some direction, particularly with the interface of the government. I will be very happy if NASA, because of some little minor contribution that I might have made, will send our star sailors sailing on a cosmic sea to far off cosmic shores.



DETROW: Administrator Bill Nelson, thank you so much.



NELSON: It's a pleasure.



DETROW: NASA's privatized push will face another big test Monday night. The long-delayed Boeing Starliner is scheduled to make its first crewed flight to carry two test pilots to the International Space Station and back. If successful, it will help cement the role of private companies in the space race.

Tim Peake hopes a Brit could be on the moon within the next 10 years and says a mission to Mars is 'absolutely achievable'

By CAMERON ROY
PUBLISHED: 5 May 2024

Tim Peake hopes a Brit will be on the moon within ten years and said a mission to Mars is 'absolutely achievable'.

The famous astronaut, who remains the last Brit to make it into space, has already said he thinks boots will be on the moon by 2026.

He thinks a Brit will follow in the next 10 years and said he would 'love' to be involved.

The 52-year-old said he would also throw his hat in the ring for any future trips to Mars.

However the dad-of-two admitted that he may have to leave it to the next generation.

Tim Peake

The famous astronaut, who remains the last Brit to make it into space, has already said he thinks boots will be on the moon by 2026

Major Tim Peake, pictured here in his European Space Agency space suit, could make a spectacular return to space

Speaking on White Wine Question Time, Peake explained: 'Gosh, every astronaut is going to have their hand up for that mission. It's going to be incredible. I would love a moon mission - I really would.

READ MORE MailOnline looks at Tim Peake's greatest achievements



Major Peake was the first British spaceman

'Will I get a moon mission? I don't know, I doubt it. I've kind of stepped down from the European Space Agency and we now have a new class of ESA astronauts.

'I'd like to think that a Brit will be on the moon within the next 10 years but it may be that one of the new class should be the ones who go and do those missions. It's really exciting and I think it's fantastic that we're going to be part of it.'

The British astronaut revealed in October that he was going to quit his retirement in order to lead the UK's first astronaut mission. Peake will lead the crew of four on a £200million project to the International Space Station with the mission being funded by Axiom.

But the Chichester-man doesn't want to stop there: he's also expressed an interest in going to Mars in what he described as a 'high risk' mission.

He said: 'Whilst you might think Mars is incredibly audacious, incredibly high risk, I think it's absolutely achievable: we just need to make sure that we've got options at various stages.

'I think fundamentally what makes Mars so audacious is the fact that once you go, you're so committed (for a three year mission).'

Major Peake had previously hinted at a return; when asked by James O’Brien during a recent podcast if he'd ever go back to space he replied 'never say never'.

In October Peake was tipped to spend up to two weeks on an orbiting lab to carry out scientific research and demonstrate new technologies before flying home

The dad of two, from Chichester in Sussex, was selected as an ESA astronaut in 2009 and spent six months on the International Space Station from December 2015
Soyuz docks at ISS with flight engineer Tim Peake on boar


View of the Soyuz TMA-19M rocket carrying Tim Peake, as well as Yuri Malenchenko and Tim Kopra, to the ISS in December 2015

Peake said: 'If you'd asked me that a year ago, I'd have said there perhaps weren't a huge amount of opportunities.

Tim Peake's journey to space

2008: Applied to the European Space Agency. Start of rigorous, year-long screening process

2009: Selected to join ESA's Astronaut Corps and appointed an ambassador for UK science and space-based careers

2010: Completed 14 months of astronaut basic training

2011: Peake and five other astronauts joined a team living in caves in Sardinia for a week.

2012: Spent 10 days living in a permanent underwater base in Florida

2013: Assigned a six-month mission to the International Space Station

2015: Blasted off to the ISS

'Actually, right now, I think there's more opportunity than I've even realized. There's a lot happening in the commercial space sector.

'It's really a "never say never" – there are plenty of opportunities.'

Tim Peake, originally from Chichester in Sussex, was selected as an ESA astronaut back in 2009 and spent six months on the ISS from December 2015.

When he blasted off to the ISS, he became the first officially British spaceman, although he was not the first Briton in space.

It was back in 1991 when Sheffield-born chemist Helen Sharman not only became the first British spacewoman, but the first British person in space.

Before both Sharman and Peake had been into space, other UK-born men had done so through NASA's space programme, thanks to acquiring US citizenship.

But Sharman and Peake are considered the first 'official' British people in space as they were both representing their country of birth.

Major Peake also became the first astronaut funded by the British government.

During his time on the ISS, he ran the London marathon and became the first person to complete a spacewalk while sporting a Union flag on his shoulder