If Donald Trump returns to the presidency, he’ll have another shot at achieving a goal that eluded him last time: Changing the colors of Air Force One to his beloved red, white and dark blue.
And he’ll likely do it — even though replacing the traditional light-blue-and-white design with Trump’s preferred scheme would be complicated and expensive.
A former senior Trump White House official who remains close to him says it would be totally in character for the former president to insist on using his preferred colors on the planes.
“Absolutely. 100 percent,” said the former official, granted anonymity to discuss Trump’s thinking.
The Air Force is still modifying two Boeing 747-8s to replace the existing aircraft, and the two planes are on track to be delivered in 2026 and 2027, years late and well over budget. When they arrive, they’ll be sporting the traditional white-and-light-blue livery that has adorned presidential aircraft since the Kennedy administration.
But according to three people familiar with the program, there’s still time for Trump to order the color scheme back to his favored palette, similar to the pattern already on his private plane. In 2019, the then-president told ABC host George Stephanopoulos that he wanted to shake up the traditional pattern with a design he made himself.
“There’s your new Air Force One,” Trump said at the time, holding up mock-ups of the aircraft that at the time was supposed to be delivered by this year. “I’m doing that for other presidents, not for me.”
After POLITICO reported in 2022 that Trump’s preferred colors would lead to expensive design fixes, the Biden White House scrapped the plan and brought back the traditional palette.
The person familiar with Trump’s thinking said he expects him to change the colors back because of how proud the former president was of the design change.
“The model was on the coffee table in the Oval Office and he pointed it out many times to foreign and domestic visitors,” the person said. “He thought it represented America more and represented strength, the red, white and blue.”
Yet the cost of bringing back Trump’s favored shade hasn’t gone away.
At some point after Trump announced he was changing the colors in 2019, Boeing determined that the dark blue paint on the underside of the plane and its engines would likely contribute to excessive temperatures, a problem that Boeing would likely have to pay out-of-pocket to fix.
Specifically, the dark color would require modifications to cool some of its components, the three people familiar with the changes said. The people were granted anonymity to speak freely about the sensitive program.
The people said changing the color scheme this far in the process may require more engineering work, millions of dollars in cost overruns, and further delays.
“For example, Boeing would need to ensure antennas work with the new livery and that there is no interference,” one person said.
Boeing referred to the Air Force for comment. An Air Force spokesperson said the service does not speculate on hypotheticals. Asked for comment, Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said “Sounds like Joe Biden hates the Red, White, and Blue.” He did not specifically answer whether Trump would change the color.
As president, Trump took pride in personally getting involved in the negotiations for the replacement aircraft once he learned of the cost. In February 2017, he said the Air Force was “close to signing a $4.2 billion deal” and “we got that price down by over $1 billion.”
The Air Force awarded Boeing a $3.9 billion contract in 2018 for the two modified 747-8s to replace the existing Air Force One aircraft, based on the 747-200B model that has been flying since the 1990s.
The company consented to a fixed-price contract with the Air Force, meaning any changes made to the airplane are at Boeing’s cost, not the government’s. The program is already more than $2 billion over budget.
Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun told investors in 2022 that company executives should never have agreed to Trump’s terms for the Air Force contract six years ago.
The program faced major problems when a subcontractor hired to furnish the cabin interior went bankrupt, and Boeing had to switch to a new supplier. The program also faced hurdles due to labor shortages and a lack of employees with the proper clearances to work on the sensitive program.
During Trump’s presidency, Democrats registered their opposition to his decision to change Air Force One’s paint scheme. After winning control of the House in 2019, Democrats pushed to limit changes to the paint job or interior decorations on the program.
Defense legislation that passed the House that year included language limiting changes to the aircraft’s livery and interior design to what was included in the contract.
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), who sponsored the proposal, said at the time that Congress needed to rein in “less essential aspects” of the new planes and close a potential “backdoor for the program to hemorrhage” money.
“The president will have an opportunity to make some suggestions and changes to the plane,” Courtney said during the 2019 House Armed Services Committee deliberations on the defense bill. “But we do want to keep this within the parameters of the existing contract process so that, again, we’re not creating additional costs for the operation of the plane.”
“Additional paint can add weight to the plane,” he noted.
Republicans, however, accused Democrats of using the program to take a swipe at Trump. Then-Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) criticized the effort as “an attempt to just poke at the president.”
“Prior to 2017, I don’t recall attempts to block things like paint colors,” he said.
The measure passed the House, but not the Senate. Lawmakers ultimately approved a compromise bill that required the Air Force to notify Congress before it undertook any “over and above” work on the aircraft.
Bright future for medicines and farming after fluorine discovery
July 30, 2024 Ellen Phiddian
US researchers have figured out an environmentally friendly way to mix fluorine into carbon molecules using enzymes and light.
The discovery illuminates a path for safer and more ecologically sound materials, particularly pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals.
“This work could pave the way for new, greener technologies in chemical production,” says senior researcher Professor Huimin Zhao, from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Fluorine atoms can be very powerful additions to bioactive materials. They can make medicines easier to absorb, more stable in biological systems, and better at interacting with other proteins. About 20% of pharmaceuticals on the market contain fluorine.
But these organic (carbon-containing) molecules all typically need a bond between a fluorine atom and a carbon atom to work.
This bond is rare in nature, and difficult to make in a lab. At the moment, most fluorine-containing substances are made using super-toxic hydrogen fluoride, which can be fatal with just a small splash to the skin.
This has spurred chemists to hunt for other ways to fluorinate molecules.
In this research, the scientists used a protein that responds to light, called a photoenzyme.
Using this enzyme, they were able to add fluorine to a class of molecules called olefins. These carbon-containing molecules are widely used as a feedstock in the chemical industry, because they’re easy to turn into a range of other molecules.
The reaction is also “stereoselective”: it can differentiate between molecules that are chemically identical, but optically different. This is a difficult property to achieve in a lab, but crucial to the pharmaceutical and agricultural market because biological organisms can react differently to optically different molecules.
Maolin Li (seated) and Huimin Zhao in the lab. Credit: Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation (CABBI)
“Our research opens up fascinating possibilities for the future of pharmaceutical and agrochemical development,” says Dr Maolin Li, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
“By integrating fluorine into organic molecules through a photoenzymatic process, we are not only enhancing the beneficial properties of these compounds but also doing so in a manner that’s more environmentally responsible.
“It’s thrilling to think about the potential applications of our work in creating more effective and sustainable products for everyday use.”
Newsweek observed that the White Dudes for Harris X account had been suspended after the group held a star-studded virtual call on Monday night that raised more than $4 million.
The automated message when the account was suspended read: “X suspends accounts which violate the X rules.” Mike Nellis, who is involved in the organization, shared an update on Tuesday explaining that while the X account is live again, it still remains suspended.
He said the account is “permanently in read-only mode,” meaning it cannot post. When contacted by Newsweek for comment, X’s press office responded: “Busy now, please check back later.”
Classic. @elonmusk puts false video smearing VP Harris with lies in an AI generated audio/video of statements never made. He violates his own rules but because he’s on the wrong side of history now is reduced to muzzling honest support for #Kamala4President2024 . https://t.co/VTCxKDixLL
Technically not GOP, but definitely a platform for white racist bigots, Nazis, and other hate-filled bigots. Which, I suppose, is pretty much the same thing nowadays.
I like to combine the old name into the new: Xitter, with the X pronounced as /sh/, because that is exactly what it has become since Musk took over. In a similar fashion, the messages are now xits, with x pronounced the same way
A priest is suing the gay dating and “hookup” app Grindr after the company reportedly failed to protect his data, leading to his resignation from a top position at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
In July 2021, Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill resigned from his post as the general secretary of the USCCB ahead of a report by The Pillar alleging that he had engaged in inappropriate behavior and frequent use of Grindr.
The app advertises itself as “the largest social networking app for gay, bi, trans, and queer people.” Its geolocation feature is popularly known to facilitate sex hookups between gay men.
The Pillar said its report on Burrill was based on “commercially available records” correlated to the priest’s mobile device. But a lawsuit filed this week claims that Grindr hadn’t taken steps to protect the data from third-party acquisition.
The suit, filed in the Superior Court of California, claims the group Catholic Laity and Clergy for Renewal (CLCR) purchased the priest’s data from the app and sent it to The Pillar.
The gay hookup app “assures customers” that it “takes steps” to protect data from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure, the suit says. But Grindr allegedly “knew they were failing to protect sensitive personal data of its customers” yet failed to take steps to protect it, the filing says.
Public reports “reveal a stunning pattern of [Grindr’s] intentional and reckless failure to protect private data of its customers,” the priest argues in the suit.
The company allegedly “fraudulently conceals and fails to disclose that it provides and/or sells its users’ personal data to ad networks, data vendors, and/or or other third parties that sell the data or otherwise make it commercially available to others.”
The suit requests damages, lawyer’s fees, and “injunctive relief.” It also asks the court to forbid Grindr “from committing such unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices.”
In 2022 Burrill returned to active ministry as a priest in his home diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin, with then-Bishop William Callahan stating that the priest had “engaged in a sincere and prayerful effort to strengthen his priestly vows” and had “favorably responded to every request” made by the bishop and the diocese.
The priest was appointed to St. Teresa of Kolkata Parish in West Salem, where he serves as pastor.
In his lawsuit, Burrill said his reputation had been “destroyed” by the data leak.
In addition to losing his position at the USCCB, he was “subjected to significant financial damages and emotional and psychological devastation,” the suit says.
Daniel Payne is a senior editor at Catholic News Agency. He previously worked at the College Fix and Just the News. He lives in Virginia with his family.
Idaho’s recently enacted bill encourages parents and children to bring legal action against schools and libraries that refuse to move certain material into “adult only” sections.
Books are displayed at the Banned Book Library at American Stage in St. Petersburg, Fla., on Feb. 18, 2023. (Jefferee Woo/Tampa Bay Times via AP)
A recently enacted law requiring Idaho schools and libraries to remove materials that are “harmful” to minors infringes on the First Amendment rights of private entities, a group of private schools, privately-funded libraries, parents and schoolchildren say in a Thursday lawsuit.
House Bill 710 — which took effect July 1 after Governor Brad Little signed it into law in April — allows citizens and the government to file a lawsuit against any school or library that doesn’t move certain material into designated “adult only” sections within 60 days of a complaint.
“H.B. 710 is the product of a social climate in Idaho (and elsewhere) in which schools and libraries have been inaccurately and unfairly castigated and villainized for using and making available constitutionally protected materials with content that the state and some Idahoans disapprove of,” the plaintiffs say in the 57-page complaint.
The suit was brought by private schools Sun Valley Community School and Foothills School of Arts and Sciences, along with the Community Library Association, a privately funded public library, and Collister United Methodist Church, which operates a lending library.
The groups are also joined by a set of parents and two high school-age students, who say that they want access to these reportedly “harmful” books and other materials to further their education.
The plaintiffs say the law violates their First Amendment free speech rights and their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. They ask the court to block enforcement of the law and to declare HB 710 unconstitutional.
“The act’s vague and overbroad definition of ‘harmful to minors’ conflicts with decades of settled constitutional law and extends well beyond the state’s limited authority to restrict the materials that private parties, like the private entity plaintiffs, may provide to minors,” they write.
Under the act’s definitions, the plaintiffs say, materials like health and sex education textbooks, literary works like Maya Angelou’s “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” and artworks like Michelangelo’s David would all be subject to removal, possibly based on arbitrary and subjective reasons.
“Even the Bible, if a defendant or citizen complainant subjectively believes members of their community would find them offensive,” could be targeted, the plaintiffs note.
The plaintiffs also take specific aim with a clause of the act that restricts materials that depict or represent “sexual conduct” — a definition that includes “any act of … homosexuality.”
Beyond the “vague and overbroad” definition of what constitutes “harmful for minors,” the plaintiffs also take issue with what they called the “incoherent” enforcement provisions outlined in HB 710. The act “fails to provide constitutionally meaningful guardrails on enforcement,” plaintiffs say.
“If a private entity plaintiff disagrees with the content-based assessment of the parent or minor and declines to segregate the challenged material, the parent or minor is authorized to file a civil suit against the private entity plaintiff and incentivized to do so by a cash reward and the availability of ‘actual damages,’” the plaintiffs write, referring to a provision in HB 710 that allows for a possible recovery of $250 and statutory and actual damages, if the complainant prevails in the case.
The government itself is also permitted under HB 710 to seek an injunction against any of the plaintiffs, who say this could lead to financial and reputational harm.
The plaintiffs name Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador as a defendant, alongside Jan Bennetts, prosecuting attorney for Ada County, and Matt Fredrick, prosecuting attorney for Blaine County.
HB 710 is not the first attempt Idaho legislators have made to restrict library access in the state. A version of the measure made it through the 2023 session but was rejected by Little.
In a letter after he signed HB 710, the governor commended the 2024 bill for having tighter definitions for restricted material and for lowering the recovery from $2,500.
“I share the co-sponsors’ desire to keep truly inappropriate materials out of the hands of minors,” Little wrote in April.
Libraries initially pushed back on the bill, citing free speech concerns and the financial burden it could levy, particularly on smaller libraries, but legislators stood by the measure.
“I can assure you that there is no book banning and there’s no book burning and there’s no book removal anywhere in this legislation. What we have to look at when you look at these libraries is that you have differing viewpoints and different opinions from taxpayers,” Representative Jaron Crane, a Nampa Republican and bill co-sponsor, said in committee, the Idaho Capital Sun reported in March.
I have followed Gronda for a long time, before she took her long break. But she is back and her writtings while in debth and a bit long are so very interesting and well researched that they are more than worth the time to read. I love them. I hope everyone here will. Hugs. Scottie
Msgr. Jeffrey Burrill | U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Scottie's Playtime 