Now it turns out that he not only did his big set of moderation changes to please Trump, but did so only after he was told by the incoming administration to act. Even worse, he reportedly made sure to share his plans with top Trump aides to get their approval first.
That’s a key takeaway from a new New York Times piece that is ostensibly a profile of the relentlessly awful Stephen Miller. However, it also has a few revealing details about the whole Zuckerberg saga buried within. First, Miller reportedly demanded that Zuckerberg make changes at Facebook “on Trump’s terms.”
Mr. Miller told Mr. Zuckerberg that he had an opportunity to help reform America, but it would be on President-elect Donald J. Trump’s terms. He made clear that Mr. Trump would crack down on immigration and go to war against the diversity, equity and inclusion, or D.E.I., culture that had been embraced by Meta and much of corporate America in recent years.
Mr. Zuckerberg was amenable. He signaled to Mr. Miller and his colleagues, including other senior Trump advisers, that he would do nothing to obstruct the Trump agenda, according to three people with knowledge of the meeting, who asked for anonymity to discuss a private conversation. Mr. Zuckerberg said he would instead focus solely on building tech products.
Even if you argue that this was more about DEI programs at Meta rather than about content moderation, it’s still the incoming administration reportedly making actual demands of Zuckerberg, and Zuckerberg not just saying “fine” but actually previewing the details to Miller to make sure they got Trump’s blessing.
Earlier this month, Mr. Zuckerberg’s political lieutenants previewed the changes to Mr. Miller in a private briefing. And on Jan. 10, Mr. Zuckerberg made them official….
This is especially galling given that it was just days ago when Zuckerberg was whining about how unfair it was that Biden officials were demanding stuff from him (even though he had no trouble saying no to them) and it was big news! The headlines made a huge deal of how unfair Biden was to Zuckerberg. Here’s just a sampling.
Also conveniently omitted was the fact that the Supreme Court found no evidence of the Biden administration going over the line in its conversations with Meta. Indeed, a Supreme Court Justice noted that conversations like those that the Biden admin had with Meta happened “thousands of times a day,” and weren’t problematic because there was no inherent threat or direct coordination.
Yet, here, we have reports of both threats and now evidence of direct coordination, including Zuckerberg asking for and getting direct approval from a top Trump official before rolling out the policy.
And where is this bombshell revelation? It’s buried in a random profile piece puffing up Stephen Miller.
It’s almost as if everyone now takes it for granted that any made-up story about Biden will be treated as fact, and everyone just takes it as expected when Trump actually does the thing that Biden gets falsely accused of.
With this new story, don’t hold your breath waiting for the same outlets to give this anywhere near the same level of coverage and outrage they directed at the Biden administration.
It’s almost as if there’s a massive double standard here: everything is okay if Trump does it, but we can blame the Biden admin for things we only pretend they did.
I’m used to hypocrisy in the political world, but this is beyond ridiculous. It’s now being made clear that the Trump admin is actually doing the exact thing that people were (falsely, misleadingly) blaming Biden for.
And it’s just a random aside in a story, and no one seems to be calling it out. Other than us here at Techdirt.
Probably the taxes, too. There is a sense that they’re about to decide to try yet another Brownback ‘grand experiment’ while not addressing their work on funding the state. It’s a thing everyone with a state legislature has to do, though; monitor and lobby.
Big fights on issues like transgender health care access will be repeated again this session as Republicans lead with a stronger majority.
Property tax cuts and access to care for young, transgender people are likely to be top issues in the Kansas Statehouse this year.
Top Kansas Republicans said they’ll look at amending the state constitution to put a cap on appraised values used to determine property taxes.
“People see these rapid appraisal increases, which turn into rapid tax increases,” Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson said. “Our hand in that is really giving the people the choice (as) to whether or not they want to have a cap.”
Masterson and Republican House Speaker Dan Hawkins spoke to KCUR’s Up to Date about their priorities heading into the 2025 legislative session. They said they want to eliminate the small chunk of property taxes that go towards the state’s construction and maintenance fund.
There are 21.5 mills levied for statewide property taxes. One-and-a-half mills go to the state; the rest goes to local governments.
Meanwhile, Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly is advising caution as the Legislature considers more tax cuts. The state has a budget surplus, but Kelly argues too many cuts at once could negatively impact state infrastructure like schools and roads.
Kelly vetoed several attempts at tax cuts last year that she said would be too costly for the state in the future. She wants to wait a year before pursuing further property tax cuts.
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, however, said they would be open to some cuts this session, as long as they’re sustainable and benefit low-income Kansans.
“If we’re just talking about homeowners, and not helping our renters, that’s not going to be fair,” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Dinah Sykes said.
To help renters, they want the state to consider limiting rent increases and reinstating a tax credit for renters that was eliminated under then-Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican.
Republicans also said they plan to pursue a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
Advocates for gender-affirming care say an early transition can reduce the risk of suicide in transgender teens. But critics say it amounts to mutilation.
Kelly successfully vetoed similar bans in years past. But with Republicans gaining seats in the November election, they have better odds of overriding a potential veto.
“I will tell you with 100% certainty that that will be back,” Hawkins told the Kansas News Service. “And we will have votes on it, and (Kelly will) veto it again, and we’ll override that veto.”
House Minority Leader Brandon Woodard said Democratic leaders are willing to negotiate with Republicans on the topic this session.
“This is a much more complex issue than many of the legislators really understand,” he said.
“I think there is a way to hear the concerns without invading parental rights, without inserting ourselves into physician offices, and I know that we are open to having those discussions with leadership,” Woodard added.
An example of actual “cancel culture” within, plus more.
January 18, 1919 The peace conference to negotiate the end of the Great War (now know as World War I) opened in Paris, France. President Woodrow Wilson spent several months in Europe personally negotiating details of what became the Treaty of Versailles with heads of the allied powers or their foreign ministers.
January 18, 1962 The U.S. began spraying herbicides on foliage in Vietnam to eliminate jungle canopy cover for Viet Cong guerrillas (a policy known as “territory denial”).The U.S. ultimately dropped more than 20 million gallons of such defoliants, sparking charges the United States was violating international treaties against using chemical weapons. Many of the herbicides, particularly Agent Orange, manufactured by Dow Chemical, Monsanto and others, were later found to cause birth defects and rare forms of cancer in humans. Agent Orange: An Ongoing Atrocity
January 18, 1968 Invited to a Women Doers luncheon at the Johnson White House, Eartha Kitt, singer and actor, spoke out about the effect of the Vietnam War on America’s youth. Lady Bird Johnson had convened 50 whites and Negroes to discuss President Lyndon Johnson’s anti-crime proposals. Ms. Kitt first asked the President, “what do you do about delinquent parents, those who have to work and are too busy to look after their children?” He said that there was Social Security money for day care, and the group should discuss such issues. Later, she told the women that young Americans were “angry because their parents are angry . . . because there is a war going on that they don’t understand . . . You send the best of this country off to be shot and maimed. They rebel in the street. They will take pot . . . and they will get high. They don’t want to go to school because they’re going to be snatched off from their mothers to be shot in Vietnam.” Eartha Kitt and Lady Bird Johnson Eartha Kitt’s career took a severe downturn after this; for years afterward, Kitt performed almost exclusively overseas, while being investigated by several federal agencies. “The thing that hurts, that became anger, was when I realized that if you tell the truth – in a country that says you’re entitled to tell the truth – you get your face slapped and you get put out of work,” Kitt told Essence magazine two decades later.
January 18, 1971 In a televised speech, Senator George S. McGovern (D-South Dakota) began his anti-war campaign for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination. He vowed to bring home all U.S. soldiers from Vietnam if elected. McGovern had served in the Army Air Corps during World War II, earning the Silver Star and the Distinguished Flying Cross. George McGovern “. . . we must have the courage to admit that however sincere our motives, we made a dreadful mistake in trying to settle the affairs of the Vietnamese people with American troops and bombers . . . . “ But while our problems are great, certain steps can be taken to recover the confidence of the nation. The greatness of our nation is not confined to the past, but beckons us to the future.
January 18, 1985 Though a member of the World Court since 1946, the United States walked out during a case. The Court had charged the U.S. was in violation of international law through its support of paramilitary (Contra) activities against the Nicaraguan government. Efforts to undermine the Sandinista government in Nicaragua had been a keystone of Pres. Reagan’s anti-communist foreign policy from its inception. Congressman Michael Barnes (D-Maryland) said he was “shocked and saddened that the Reagan Administration had so little confidence in its own policies that it chose not even to defend them [in the World Court].” The Court still heard Nicaragua’s case and decided against the United States, and ordered it to pay reparations to Nicaragua in June 1986.
January 18, 1996 The Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) and the Mexican government reached an agreement in San Andres to recognize and guarantee the constitutional, political, social, cultural, and economic rights of indigenous peoples in Mexico. Treated as second-class citizens since the first colonial entry into their country, the document guaranteed the autonomy and right to self-determination of native communities within the pluricultural Mexican nation. The Zapatistas took their name from Emilano Zapata who played a major role in the Mexican Revolution early in the 20th century.When they began their revolt in Chiapas state on New Year’s Day of 1994, They wrote: “We have nothing to lose, absolutely nothing, no decent roof over our heads, no land, no work, poor health, no food, no education, no right to freely and democratically choose our leaders, no independence from foreign interests, and no justice for ourselves or our children. But we say enough is enough! We are the descendants of those who truly built this nation, we are millions of dispossessed, and we call upon all our brethren to join our crusade, the only option to avoid dying of starvation!” The Mexican government, despite their signature on the agreement, refused later to implement it. More background on the Zapatistas
January 18, 2003 In frigid temperatures, 500,000 converged on Washington, D.C. There were also joined by many more elsewhere around the world to oppose the threatened U.S. war on Iraq. Anti-war protesters march past the U.S. Capitol during the start of an anti-war protest that will culminate by a march to the Washington Naval Yard.Egyptian riot police and anti-war demonstrators face off in Cairo, Egypt. Banners at top read, ” Iraq . . . Another war for oil and American supremacy. “This was the largest U.S. peace demonstration since the Vietnam era. < Pakistani peace activists hold a rally in Karachi. > Crowds estimated at 80,000 fill the civic center of San Francisco, California
Where’d all these shivs come from all of a sudden? Read on Substack
Maxwell Frost represents the 10th House District of Florida. I dutifully looked that up for you before realizing it’s right there on the screen.
Over the last three years, the states have been on fire with anti-trans legislation, bathroom bills, healthcare bans, and most recently sports segregation bills. In 2024, the Heterosexism Santa Anas whipped these flames into a an actual fire tornado. But on Tuesday this week, Republican Congress members took new action that might just reverse this trend: They decided to take away states’ rights to regulate trans bodies and start making these bans national. First up was an amendment to Title IX that would ban trans sports participation. Grotesquely titled the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2025,” HB 28 passed the House 218-206 — but its fate in the Senate is uncertain given the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster (there are 53 Republicans in the Senate this year). If it reaches Trump’s desk, he’s guaranteed to sign it.
What’s more clear than the GOP’s chances to get the bill through the Senate, however, is that the Democratic approach to this Republican proposal is very different from how they have responded to anti-trans efforts in the past. This week only two Dems sided against trans people, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez. (Both represent Texas swing districts, if that matters to you.) But more importantly than the relative unity of the Democrats — even from Reps. Tom Suozzi and Seth Moulton who just recently decided to broadside the party for liking trans people so much they threw the election — they actually sounded a bit salty that the GOP was trying this shit on their watch. Almost like hating trans people was an affront to their values or something.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got a lot of attention for her speech:
She started on fire by calling out infamous anti-woman actions to make it clear that she isn’t buying GOP protestations that the bill is somehow motivated by concern for girls and women. Then she hit them for what they were actually doing:
“[You] open up gender, and, yes, genital examinations into little girls in this country in the so-called name of attacking trans girls. To that, today, what we have to say are two words: Not today.
“The majority right now says there is no place in this bill that says it opens up for genital examinations. Well, here is the thing: There is no enforcement mechanism in this bill. When there is no enforcement mechanism, you open the door to every enforcement mechanism.”
She also stressed that having these laws on the books limits the freedoms of cis (that is, “non-trans” if you’re new) women and girls:
“What this also opens the door for is for women to try to perform a very specific kind of femininity for the very kind of men who are drafting this bill, and to open up questioning of who is a woman because of how we look, how we present ourselves, and yes, what we choose to do with our bodies.”
AOC wasn’t the only one to body the misogynistic GOP. Congresswoman Sara Jacobs sharpened her shiv and stuck it right in,
“This bill doesn’t even come close to protecting women and girls in sports. In fact, it puts all women and girls in danger of sexual abuse.”
Lori Trahan, the only woman Division-1 athlete in Congress, attacked on the same line, this time asking, What about the children?
“[T]he consequences of that approach will be devastating: Girls as young as 4 years old being subjected to invasive lines of questioning about their bodies and even physical inspections by an adult, a stranger, a predator, all because some creep accuses them of not being a girl. What parent would want to put their daughter through that? I know I wouldn’t.”
Brand new Congressman Rep Maxwell Frost turned up the heat even more, if that’s possible, giving a few small but horrifying details about a recent investigation into a volleyball player in his home state of Florida. And he did it in front of a sign naming HB 28 “The GOP Child Predator Empowerment Act.”
That’s some shit, y’all. His video was posted to Twitter, which I will link this one time, because he’s almost as good at this as AOC.
And this Dem messaging? It got under Republican skin. When secret Wonkette girl crush Rep. Jasmine Crockett accused Nancy Mace of whipping up cissexism as a fundraising tactic, Mace actually challenged Crockett to step outside and fight. Joy Reid had a great take on this, but there’s nothing funnier than Mace herself, thinking she can take Crockett on when just five weeks ago she had her arm in a sling from shaking a man’s hand (yr Wonkette did not see any evidence she’d even visited medical staff or had any injury diagnosed, but damn that sling was sure real for a couple days).
This is, to use a technical term usually found only in the official records of the Parliamentarian of the House, some cool ass shit. I know that many of us have been waiting for Dems to hit the GOP and hit them hard when they come after minorities or rights or values that we on the Left would like to see them protect. So folks have to be wondering, what woke them up?
Though your friendly, neighborhood Crip Dyke doesn’t have hard information, it would be irresponsible not to speculate that last November’s election made a difference. And by this we mean not only the elevation of Trump, once again, to head of the executive branch which may indeed have lit a fire in some, but also the election of Sarah McBride, an election which elevated the entire US House of Representatives by finally making it possible for a trans legislator to participate in debates on the bills that target us.
Many noticed that McBride didn’t instantly and loudly fight back when Nancy Mace attacked her personally, using McBride’s election as an excuse to pass new bathroom restrictions for those working on Capitol Hill. But as yr Wonkette reminded at the time:
McBride [needs] a chance to work, a chance to develop reputation and influence. She needs to do some very careful relationship building now.
The House Dems did a fantastic job of articulating exactly how government interest in girls’ bodies becomes a predatory risk for cis and trans folks alike. But it wasn’t cis people that first noticed the problem or developed the argument. I know because I had to come up with these observations and arguments in 1996 without any cis help at all, and I spent 14 years teaching cis people patiently, over and over, how transphobia, like homophobia, is a weapon of sexism.
Whether McBride was secretly organizing Democratic rhetorical strategies and asking cis folks to take the point so that she couldn’t be marginalized as a trans radical, it’s certainly not an accident that it is now that congressional Dems are spending time on a daily basis talking to a real live trans person that they are figuring out how to talk about trans issues. Here’s hoping they’ll continue to make the GOP majorities bigoted victories more and more costly.
The fact is these kids are exposed to sex and gender as soon as they learn there is a difference between boy and girl. Hey what do you tell a boy in kindergarten when they need to go to the bathroom. That’s right in all their younger grades they are instructed to use the bathroom of their gender, boy go to the boys bathroom, girls go to the girls bathroom. That teaches them gender regardless of these cis straight religious people want to admit it or not. Plus their goal seems to deny their kids the idea that some people are different, have different feelings when those very kids are in their class and maybe their friends? They seek to deny these kids friendships with people who are different from them. It reminds me of the segregation issues in the southern state. White supremacist did not want their pretty white kids in the same class as the black kids they felt were … something. It is like they thought the black was able to spread and be caught. No matter if these religious people like it or not the world has changed, society has changed and it is not the time of their bible nor the fabled 1950s they dream existed. Trying to deny the existance of the LGBTQ+ is like trying to deny black people exist. Hugs.
Parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.
January 17, 2025 at 6:54 p.m.
A large group of parents protested in Rockville, Maryland, on June 27, 2023, in an effort to allow their children to opt out of books that feature LGBTQ+ characters in Montgomery County schools. (Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post)
The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a case about whether public schools must give parents ofelementary schoolchildren a chance to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they saygoes against their religious convictions.
Parents, who are Muslim,Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox, filed suit in 2023, saying the policy violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion.
The case puts the high court at the center of a contentious national debate over how to teach and treat gender and sexuality in schools, which has spurred fights over books, bathroom use and on which teams transgender athletes should be allowed to play.
Eric Baxter, an attorney for the families, said in a statement that the school system’s decision to disallow opt-outs was “cramming down controversial gender ideology” to 3-year-old pupils. Becket, a public interest institute that pushes for religious liberty, is representing the families, and has been involved in other cases on LGBTQ+ issues.
“The Court must make clear: Parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality,” Baxter said.
Montgomery County schools declined to comment, citing the pending litigation. Butthe districtwrote in filings to the high court thatan adverse ruling could upend long-standing legal precedent that guides how schools teach.
“Petitioners seek to unsettle a decades-old consensus that parents who choose to send their children to public school are not deprived of their right to freely exercise their religion simply because their children are exposed to curricular materials the parents find offensive,” attorneys for the schools wrote.
During the 2022-2023 school year, Montgomery County schools introduced a reading list of books that included LGBTQ+ characters as part of an effort to be more inclusive to its diverse student population. The lists were intended for students from prekindergarten to 12th grade and were created with parental feedback.
The school system required teachers to read at least one storybook a year from a group of titles that included “Pride Puppy,” which is about a gay pride parade; “Intersection Allies,” which is about a group of children discussing their differences; and “Love, Violet,” which is about a girl who has feelings for a female classmate.
“The storybooks are not used in any lessons related to gender and sexuality,” the school district wrote in itsfiling. “Nor is any student asked or expected to change his or her views about his or her own, or any other student’s, sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, the books are made available for individual reading, classroom read-alouds, and other educational activities designed to foster and enhance literacy skills.”
The parents wrote in court documents that the Montgomeryschool board also issued guidance that instructed teachers to emphasize that “not everyone is a boy or girl” and that some “people identify with both, sometimes one more than the other and sometimes neither.”
As teachers started using the books in the classroom, some families wanted to opt their children out of the discussions due to concerns that the lessons and subsequent discussions would conflict with their religious views. The books that targeted elementary-aged students were particularly controversial.
Originally, some principals let families pull their children out of the classroom when the books were read. But in March 2023, the school system’s central office announced that opt-outs would not be permitted.
More than 1,100 parents signed a petition asking the district to restore the opt-out right and hundreds protested the decision. Maryland is one of 47 states and the District of Columbia that have opt-out or opt-in provisions for sex education in schools, according to the parents’ filing.
In May 2023, a group of parents filed a lawsuit against the school system, alleging that the district violated their First Amendment rights and that the decision went against a district policy that allows for religious accommodations. The parents are not asking the school system to drop the curriculum.
Other parents did not support opting out of the curriculum.
After the lawsuit was filed, the school system quietly stopped teaching two of the books referenced in the lawsuit because of concerns that it would “require teachers to explicitly teach vocabulary terms outside of the context of the lesson,” according to a district database.
The parentswho sued the district asked a federal judge in Maryland for a preliminary injunction to restore the opt-out provision, but the judge denied the request, ruling the parents were unlikely to succeed because they could not show “that the no-opt-out policy burdens their religious exercise.”
That ruling was upheld by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, before the parents petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Oral arguments in the case will be scheduled later.
Mark Eckstein, a Montgomery County schools parent and LGBTQ+ advocate, said he wasn’t surprised the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, given that discussions around gender and sexuality have roiled school communities across the country.
“I strongly believe that the district court ruled correctly, and I’m hoping there will be a vigorous defense of the wisdom of that decision and MCPS’s policy,” he said.
Montgomery is one of a number of school districts where controversy has flared over books dealing with sexuality and gender. In 2023,a Georgia teacher was fired after she read a book about gender conformity to her fifth-grade class. She sued.
A group of parents in Dearborn, Michigan, sued the school district in 2022, seeking to remove books from school libraries they felt had inappropriate sexual content. Hundreds of mostly Muslim parents also protested at a school board meeting.
The effort was part of a broader push to pull somebooks from schools and libraries. The American Library Association found more than 4,200 book titles were targeted for removal from schools in libraries in 2023, greatly outpacing the 2,500 targeted the year before. Almost 50 percent of the titles dealt with gay and minority themes.
The Supreme Court has moved in recent terms to expand religion in education and the rights of the religious.
In 2o22, a divided court ruled that Washington state discriminated against a football coach who prayed at midfield after a high school football game. The same year, the high court ruled Maine could not exclude religious schools from a voucher program that provides public assistance for education.
Last year, the high court ruled that the constitution’s free speech provisions shield some businesses from being required to provide services to same-sex couples, after a web designer argued she should not have to do such work because of her religious beliefs.
Justin Jouvenal covers the Supreme Court. He previously covered policing and the courts locally and nationally. He joined The Post in 2009. follow on X@jjouvenal
The case was filed by the Catholic anti-LGBTQ hate group, the Becket Fund, whose senior counsel celebrates below.
The Becket Fund last appeared here in July 2024 when they sued to overturn Michigan’s ban on ex-gay torture.
In 2014, the Becket Fund joined with NOM, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, and Alliance Defending Freedom to form an anti-LGBTQ “supergroup” to battle same-sex marriage.
In 2013, the Becket Fund joined with major Catholic groups in sponsoring the so-called Manhattan Declaration, signers of which avow that they will “civilly disobey” laws that protect LGBTQ people from discrimination.
The Becket Fund was founded in 1994 by a former Reagan administration Justice Department lawyer who worked under future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
The group is named for Saint Thomas Becket, who was Archbishop of Canterbury under King Henry II until he was murdered by followers of the King in the year 1170.
Outside of LGBTQ issues, the Becket Fund is best known for winning cases on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby.
Last night, it got to be bedtime and I didn’t even realize I’d set nothing up for today, until I got up this morning. Scottie’s posted some important news here already, and I don’t want to knock it off the top, so instead of the posts I thought I’d make, I’m just gonna link ’em, and readers can just read whatever they like and still not miss those posts of Scottie’s.
January 16, 1966 Joan Baez Folksinger Joan Baez was sentenced to 10 days in jail for participating in a protest which blocked the entrance to the Armed Forces Induction Center in Oakland, California. She was part of an action to impede the drafting of young men for the U.S. war in Vietnam. Joan Baez Press Conference On Vietnam War (1966) Read more about Joan Baez
January 16, 1979 Faced with strikes, violent demonstrations, an army mutiny and clerical opposition to his repressive rule, the Shah of Iran, its hereditary monarch since 1941, was forced to flee the country. He had been installed in a CIA- and British-engineered 1953 coup which overthrew elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq. Mossadeq’s government had voted to nationalize Iran’s oil industry, displacing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.The U.S. gave substantial and continuous military and intelligence support to the Shah throughout his regime. Despite having imposed martial law the previous October, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi fled the Peacock Throne for Egypt and, later, the U.S. for medical care. Following the subsequent revolutionary overthrow, an Islamist state under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was established. The Shah and family Chronology of Iran in the 20th century: More on the Shah
January 16, 1987 Eight members of the Nanoose Conversion Campaign were acquitted of trespassing on Canadian Department of National Defence property. The group had picnicked on Winchelsea Island, part of the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Ranges, where both Canadian and U.S. weapons are tested, in the Georgia Strait along the British Columbia coast.
January 16, 1992 The government of El Salvador and rebel leaders signed a pact in Mexico City ending 12 years of civil war that had killed at least 75,000 people.
January 16, 2001 Eight Greenpeace activists were arrested by Gibraltar police as they boarded a damaged British nuclear submarine. The HMS Tireless was considered a radioactivity hazard because of a cracked pipe in its reactor’s cooling system. Those living near Gibraltar Harbour and in Spain were concerned for their safety as the ship had been docked for more than six months awaiting repair. The problem was serious enough that Great Britain removed twelve comparable subs from service until they could be checked for similar problems. Greenpeace unfurled a banner just before the arrests reading Mares Libres del Peligro Nuclear, or “For a Nuclear-Free Sea.”
A powerful Arctic outbreak tied in part to the polar vortex is set to send temperatures by next week tumbling down to as cold as 25 to 35 degrees Fahrenheit below average for mid-January, forecasts show. The hazardous cold could endanger public health, stress electricity grids, damage crops and make for a frigid Inauguration Day.
Mother Nature’s refrigerator door looks to open, with cold air spilling southward out of northern Canada beginning Friday night and lasting for at least a week. Through Sunday, about 81 million people are predicted to see temperatures plunge to below-zero Fahrenheit, and the number affected will increase from there.
Read the full article. In 1985, Reagan’s inauguration parade was canceled and the ceremony was moved inside when wind chills were as low as -20 degrees.
Scottie's Playtime 