Monday night, at 7 p.m. ET, Senator Cory Booker took to the Senate floor to speak out against the policies of the Trump administration. As of 3 p.m. Tuesday, he had not stopped talking.
Vowing to continue his speech for as long as Im physically able, Booker has captured national attention as he has railed against Trump on a number of topics, ranging from Social Security to healthcare to immigration.
Theres no telling how long Booker will gohes already entered the record books for one of the longest speeches given on the floor. But hes capturing peoples attention as Congressional Democrats (and corporate America) have come under fire for not standing up to Trump.
Heres what you need to know about the speechand why it doesnt qualify as a filibuster.
Why is Cory Booker doing this?
Monday evening, Booker posted on X that he had taken the Senate floor and will speak for as long as Im physically able to lift the voices of Americans who are being harmed and not being heard in this moment of crisis.
Since beginning his floor speech, Booker has discussed Trumps plans for immigration, healthcare, Social Security, education, and more, accusing the White House (among other things) of planning to cut Medicaid and speaking out against a Trump-backed spending bill, which was passed in March.
These are not normal times in America, and they should not be treated as such, Booker said.
He also took Trump to task for some non-policy actions since taking over the Oval Office.
When is it enough? Booker asked. When the president of the United States starts a memecoin on his first day, violating the emoluments clause immediately and enriching himself?
Why doesnt Cory Bookers speech qualify as a filibuster?
According to Congressional rules, a filibuster can only take place when the Senate is attempting to pass a bill or confirm a nominee. Thats not the case now, making this just an incredibly long speech. Its far from the longest the Senate has seen, however.
Ive been hearing from people all over my state, and indeed all over the nation, calling upon folks in Congress to do more, to do things that recognize the urgency, the crisis of the moment, he said before beginning his speech. And so we all have a responsibility, I believe, to do something different, to cause, as John Lewis said, good troubleand that includes me.
What are the longest filibusters in history?
Strom Thurmond holds the single-person record for filibustering, speaking for 24 hours and 18 minutes to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1957. (Thurmond had some help, too, as other Senators opposing that bill chained their filibusters, tying up the Senate floor for a grand total of 57 days.)
Senator Alfonse D’Amato of New York holds the silver medal for filibustering, after talking for 23 hours and 30 minutes in 1986 to hold up debate on a military spending bill. Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon talked for 22 hours and 26 minutes in 1953. And Senator Ted Cruz of Texas held the floor for 21 hours and 19 minutes in 2013 as he spoke out against the Affordable Care Act.
Bookers speech, were it a filibuster, would now hold the fifth-place spot, topping a 1908 filibuster by Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette, who spoke out for 18 hours and 23 minutes against a bill allowing the Treasury Department to lend currency to banks during a fiscal crisis.
Booker still has a ways to go before he matches the fictional filibuster length of Jefferson Smiths 25-hour speech in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
How can I watch Cory Bookers marathon speech?
There are plenty of places to watch:
CSPAN-2 is carrying the speech live on cable and satellite, as well as streaming it online.
Booker is streaming the speech on his social media sites, including X.
The speech is also being streamed on YouTube by a number of news outlets, including USA Today, Fox, PBS, and CBS.
How has Cory Booker filled that much time?
Booker has spent a lot of time criticizing the Trump administration and Elon Musks role in it, but he has thrown in a bit of filler now and then, reading letters from citizens and quoting speeches and news articles.
He has also gotten a fair bit of support from fellow Democrats, who ask him to yield for a question, without yielding the floor, giving Booker a bit of a rest. And before accepting those questions, Booker has been having some fun, sometimes joking or telling stories about the Senator who’s asking the question.
And, from time to time, Booker has reminded himself (and people just tuning in) about the reasons for his speech.
Twelve hours now Im standing, and Im still going strong because this president is wrong, and hes violating principles we hold dear and principles in this document that are so clear and plain, he said.
Has Cory Booker taken any bathroom breaks?
No. Booker has also not been seen eating anything during his speech and has only had two small cups of water within reach, neither of which has been emptied.
U.S. Senate rules dont set time limits on debate. A Senator who has been recognized by the chair can speak for as long as they want, providing special limits on debate are not in effect.
Senators who hold the floor cannot be forced to stop talking (or even interrupted) without their consent. They do, however, have to remain standing and speaking consistently. (Booker had a Senate page remove his chair so he wouldnt be tempted to sit down at any point.)
Senators can yield for a question without yielding control of the Senate floor, which Booker has been doing.
What will Cory Bookers marathon speech accomplish?
Bookers main goal in this long address seems primarily to energize the Democratic base and show that their complaints to party leadership arent being ignored. In terms of real-world impact on Senate business, there hasnt been a lot so far. Depending on how long he talks, though, it could delay the vote on Matthew Whitakers nomination to be the U.S. ambassador to NATO.
And the speech does raise Bookers visibility in a big way, which could be useul should he decide to run for president again in 2028. (Booker ran briefly in 2020, but dropped out before the Iowa caucus.)
Shares of Newsmax continued to rise on Tuesday following a massive public debut on Monday, in which shares shot up more than 700% for the best-performing first day since 2022.
Investors who bought in at the $10 IPO price are reaping a massive potential return. When trading opened on Monday morning, Newsmax shares, trading under the NMAX ticker, rose from $10 to close at nearly $78. After hours, values continued to rise, and when trading opened on Tuesday, the stock saw another surge.
As of roughly 2 p.m. ET, shares were trading at around $215, an increase of almost 160%.
The trading has been intense, and was even halted numerous times on Monday due to volatility. That volatility has evidently caught the attention of retail investors, some of whom, on social media and trader forums, are comparing it to the GameStop meme stock mania from a few years ago.
Newsmax may also have some other similarities to GameStopnotably, that its a company thats been losing money (it lost $55.5 million during the first six months of 2024), and as a cable news network, is competing in a field that is losing steam, similarly to GameStop’s physical video game retail model.
Newsmax is also a competitor to Fox News, which has been able to beat its chief competitors MSNBC and CNN in recent years and recently had its best February on record, averaging 3.1 million primetime viewers for the entire month. Newsmaxwhich tends to offer programming that is often even further to the right than Foxis hoping to tap into that audience and pilfer some of those viewers for itself.
As for whats playing out in the markets? Its something of a cherry on top for Newsmax. The company was founded by Christopher Ruddy in 1998 and its cable news network launched in 2014, and now appears to be flying high with Trump back in the White House.
The old Tesla cant come to the phone right now. Why? Oh, cause shes dead.
Over the past few days, a new trend has emerged on TikTok: people are posting their Tesla trade-ins accompanied by the hashtag “ByeTesla” and soundtracked to Taylor Swift’s “Look What You Made Me Do.”
In the videos, the Tesla driver backs out of a driveway as the lyrics play: “I’m sorry, the old Taylor can’t come to the phone right now. Why? Oh, ’cause she’s dead.” Cut to a brand-new Rivian R1S, Porsche Macan Electric, or even a GMC Hummer EV SUV as the songs chorus plays: Look what you made me do.
@vanessawade_ Bye bye Tesla #tesla #byetesla #cadillacescaladeiq @Cadillac #lookwhatyoumademedo Original Sound – Unknown
The best upgrade Ive seen in this trend, one person commented on the video posted by the proud owner of a new Porsche Macan Electric, which retails for $75,300. Talking about an upgrade!!! To go from that cheap built plastic toy car to German engineering is quite the change!! Enjoy! Another user wrote: Never skip a Tesla trade-in video.
The new GMC Hummer EV SUV driverwhich starts at about $98,845, compared to the Cybertruck’s starting price of about $99,990wrote in the caption of their trade-in: “Change is GOODwhen your principles/morals are important.” While some called out the cars depreciating value (the driver confirmed in the comments that it’s a lease), others cheered on his commitment to his morals.
I never thought Id be cheering for a Hummer purchase, but I have to say ethics make it look great! one person wrote. Ive been saying this whole time imagine having cybertruck money and buying a cybertruck instead of the electric hummer. Approved, another commented.
Those participating in the #ByeTesla trend are part of a growing number of consumers who bought Tesla vehicles before Musk took over the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, and are now looking to sell or trade them in. Others have resorted to anti-Musk bumper stickers to distance themselves from the billionaire.
Thousands of anti-Tesla protesters took to the streets on Saturday, March 29, as part of the broader peaceful protest movement, Tesla Takedown, targeting Tesla dealerships and vehicles in opposition to Musks role as the head of DOGE. Hoping to hit him where it hurtshis estimated $340 billion fortunethe biggest portion of Musks wealth consists of his stock in the electric vehicle company.
Musk, however, did not appear concerned about an extended slump in new sales during a recent meeting. Instead, he reassured workers that the companys Model Y would remain the best-selling car on Earth again this year. He also predicted that Tesla will have sold more than 10 million cars worldwide by next year, up from the seven million currently sold.
Clearly, he is not taking cues from TikTok.
The climate activist group Just Stop Oil (JSO) has announced the end of its campaign of direct action. Many will read the groups legacy through the lens of public hostility: the frustration caused, the angry headlines, the outrage at its tactics. Not only have JSO activists been spat at, physically assaulted and run over by angry car drivers, but 15 members are also currently serving jail sentences following arrests and charges.
But the intense backlash directed at JSO is not evidence that its campaign faltered. It is a sign that these activists succeeded in emotionally charging the public debate about climate change. They gave the public something to argue about, react to, even mockand in doing so, made the climate crisis impossible to ignore.
The alternative, an apathetic consensus, would entail passively accepting the dominant approach to address the climate crisis. That means market-based solutions, a faith in technological innovation, and incremental policy reforms within existing political and economic systems. These have arguably to date failed, as global temperatures continue to skyrocket.
Just Stop Oil climate activists glue themselves to a Van Gogh painting at the Courtauld Gallery on the 30th June 2022 in London, Unted Kingdom. [Photo: Kristian Buus/In Pictures/Getty Images]
Through my own research on climate activism, I have studied how environmental protest influences policy, corporate behaviour and financial markets. Activists can stimulate change, but not through rational arguments alone.
Change happens by making an emotional splash. It creates antagonism, dissent and tension, which are all needed to enliven public debate. Emotions including anger, fear and guilt play a key role in the ability of activists to create moral urgency and force issues into the spotlight.
JSO harnessed this emotional logic not only from supporters, but from critics. Those who dragged protesters off roads, raged in comment sections and professed their hate towards the group were reacting because the group had emotionally triggered them. Like a person who gets under your skin, JSO became very hard to ignore.
As business scholars Thomas Davenport and John Beck argue in their book The Attention Economy, in a saturated information landscape, being memorableeven disruptivelyis a strategic advantage. In this sense, JSO hacked this logic by demanding emotional and cognitive attention, whether through support or outrage.
Disruptive protests may be unpopular, but they are effective at attracting media attention and public awareness. As many studies suggest, the more illogical or disruptive a protest, the more media coverage it receivesdespite coverage not necessarily translating into more donations and support.
Of course, disruption risks alienating some peoplebut that can actually strengthen a movements overall influence. The radical flank effect shows that when radical activists push boundaries, they often make moderate voices in the same movement appear more reasonable. Recent research on JSO found that even when the group provoked public anger, support for moderate organisations such as Friends of the Earth increased.
This dynamic reflects what sociologist Thomas Roulet calls The Power of Being Divisive. Being controversial can actually benefit a cause by amplifying its message and deepening support from those already aligned. Polarisation, in this view, is not always harmfulit can be strategically useful. In the case of JSO activists, controversy did not dilute their message. Rather, it intensified its resonance with those already primed to act.
Turning emotion into action
JSO has also uniquely been able to provide direction for many struggling to navigate climate changes volatile emotional context. As philosopher Glenn A. Albrecht describes in his book Earth Emotions, events such as climate change, mass species extinction and environmental degradation are creating a global emotional crisis, marked by a mix of grief, anxiety and powerlessness.
JSO has effectively tapped into this emotional turbulence, turning despair into urgency and action. Its actions can be seen as emotional interventions for a society struggling to process ecological loss.
Left undirected, emotions related to conditions such as climate change-related eco-anxiety can lead to paralysisa state of emotional overwhelm that prevents people from taking meaningful action or engaging with the climate problem. But research shows that when movements channel emotionsespecially by transforming fear into shared actionthey build momentum. One study of climate organisers found that protest participation gave people a way to manage despair by reclaiming a sense of purpose and solidarity.
A frequent refrain is that the objectives are valid, but the strategies are too extreme. But history shows that disruptive tactics have long played a role in forcing attention to urgent issues. From the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, to civil rights sit-ins, to ACT UPs dramatic interventions during the Aids crisis disruption has often preceded progress. Movements that are easy to ignore tend to be forgotten. JSO made itself, and its cause, impossible to ignore.
JSOs campaign may be over, but the emotional legacy it leaves behindfrustration, urgency and debatewill outlast its tactics. The group exposed a ociety uneasy with the scale of change climate action demands, and showed that public anger is not a threat to activism, but a measure of its impact. If you were angry at them, thats understandabledisruption is inconvenient. But the real question now is where we direct that energy: towards those resisting climate action, or those demanding we seriously do something about it.
George Ferns is a senior lecturer in business and society at the University of Bath.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to overhaul the nation’s elections faced its first legal challenges Monday as the Democratic National Committee and a pair of nonprofits filed two separate lawsuits calling it unconstitutional.The Campaign Legal Center and the State Democracy Defenders Fund brought the first lawsuit Monday afternoon. The DNC, the Democratic Governors Association, and Senate and House Democratic leaders followed soon after with a complaint of their own.Both lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ask the court to block Trump’s order and declare it illegal.“The president’s executive order is an unlawful action that threatens to uproot our tried-and-tested election systems and silence potentially millions of Americans,” said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at the D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center. “It is simply not within the president’s authority to set election rules by executive decree, especially when they would restrict access to voting in this way.”The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.The legal challenges had been expected after election lawyers warned some of Trump’s demands in the order, including a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration and new ballot deadline rules, may violate the U.S. Constitution.The order also asserts power that legal experts say the president doesn’t have over an independent agency. That agency, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, sets voluntary voting system guidelines and maintains the federal voter registration form.The suits come as Congress is considering codifying a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration into law, and as Trump has promised more actions related to elections in the coming weeks.Both the legal challenges draw attention to the Constitution’s “Elections Clause,” which says statesnot the presidentget to decide the “times, places and manner” of how elections are run. That section of the Constitution also gives Congress the power to “make or alter” election regulations, at least for federal office, but it doesn’t mention any presidential authority over election administration.“The Constitution is clear: States set their own rules of the road when it comes to elections, and only Congress has the power to override these laws with respect to federal elections,” said Lang, calling the executive order an “unconstitutional executive overreach.”The lawsuits also argue the president’s order could disenfranchise voters. The nonprofits’ lawsuit names three voter advocacy organizations as plaintiffs that they allege are harmed by Trump’s executive order: the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Secure Families Initiative and the Arizona Students’ Association.The DNC’s lawsuit highlights the role of the government’s controversial cost-cutting arm, the Department of Government Efficiency.It alleges the order’s data-sharing requirements, including instructing DOGE to cross-reference federal data with state voter lists, violate Democrats’ privacy rights and increase the risk that they will be harassed “based on false suspicions that they are not qualified to vote.”“This executive order is an unconstitutional power grab from Donald Trump that attacks vote by mail, gives DOGE sensitive personal information and makes it harder for states to run their own free and fair elections,” reads a statement from the plaintiffs.Trump, one of the top spreaders of election falsehoods, has argued this executive order will secure the vote against illegal voting by noncitizens. Multiple studies and investigations in individual states have shown that noncitizens casting ballots in federal elections, already a felony, is exceedingly rare.Monday’s lawsuits against Trump’s elections order could be followed by more challenges. Other voting rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have said they’re considering legal action. Several Democratic state attorneys general have said they are looking closely at the order and suspect it is illegal.Meanwhile, Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls.If courts determine the order can stand, the changes Trump wants are likely to cause some headaches for both election administrators and voters. State election officials, who already have lost some federal cybersecurity assistance, would have to spend time and money to comply with the order, including potentially buying new voting systems and educating voters of the rules.The proof-of-citizenship requirement also could cause confusion or voter disenfranchisement because millions of eligible voting-age Americans do not have the proper documents readily available. In Kansas, which had a proof-of-citizenship requirement for three years before it was overturned, the state’s own expert estimated that almost all the roughly 30,000 people who were prevented from registering to vote during the time it was in effect were U.S. citizens who had been eligible.Monday’s lawsuits are the latest of numerous efforts to fight the flurry of executive actions Trump has taken during the first months of his second term. Federal judges have partially or fully blocked many of them, including efforts to restrict birthright citizenship, ban transgender people from military service and curb diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives among federal contractors and grant recipients.
The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about the AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Ali Swenson, Associated Press
People who most frequently encounter everyday discriminationthose subtle snubs and slights of everyday lifeare more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression.
Whats more, that finding remains true no matter the persons race, gender, age, education, income, weight, language, immigration status or where they live.
These are the key takeaways from our recent study, published in JAMA Network Open.
Everyday discrimination refers to the routine ways people are treated unfairly because of characteristics such as skin color, perceived background or general appearance.
Generally, it means disrespectful treatment: waiting longer than others for help at a store, having your ideas dismissed without consideration at work, or hearing rude comments about your identity.
Although marginalized groups endure everyday discrimination most often, our study indicates that this is a widespread issue affecting people of all races and backgrounds.
Im a professor who specializes in community health. My team and I analyzed data from the 2023 National Health Interview Survey, which included a weighted sample of nearly 30,000 U.S. adults, adjusted to accurately reflect more than 258 million people approximately 75% of the country.
Along with reporting frequency of everyday discrimination, participants completed clinical screenings for depression and anxiety.
The results were striking: Nearly 56% of participants experienced at least occasional everyday discrimination, with 3.6% having high levels, meaning they faced discrimination most frequently at least monthly and often weekly.
High levels were most prevalent among Black adults, at 8.6%. Multiracial respondents were next with 6.4%. Hispanics and white participants were at about 3%, Asians just over 2%.
Women and immigrants, people with disabilities and those who are overweight, obese or struggling with food insecurity also reported higher levels.
When compared with those reporting no discrimination, participants with high levels had five times the odds of screening positive for either depression or anxiety, and nearly nine times the odds of screening positive for both.
As discrimination increased, the increase in screening positive for depression, anxiety or both varied by race, with a more noticeable rise among groups that are often overlooked in these discussionswhite, Asian and multiracial adults.
This doesnt mean discrimination is less harmful for Black, Hispanic/Latino or other racial and ethnic groups. One possible reason for our studys findings may be that groups that have long endured structural discrimination may have developed more ways over time to cope with it.
Why it matters
At some point, all of us experience unfair treatment due to our personal traits. But this type of discrimination isnt just unpleasant. Our study shows it has real consequences for health.
Along with depression and anxiety, discrimination creates chronic stress, leading to increased risk for hypertension, heart disease, impaired brain functioning, accelerated aging and premature death.
For some, everyday discrimination may emerge at different times in life. This can happen to people as they get older or when they become ill.
But for others, it is a constant. This includes people living in marginalized communities, people of color, those socioeconomically disadvantaged or with disabilities, or those who identify as LGBTQ+.
What other research is being done
Multiracial people are uniquely challenged because they navigate multiple racial identities. This often leads to feelings of isolation, which increases mental health risks.
White adults, though less frequently exposed to racial discrimination, still face mistreatment, particularly if they have lower incomes, limited education or working-class backgrounds. In recent years, white people have perceived rising levels of discrimination against their own group.
People of Asian descent are vulnerable to societal pressures and harmful stereotypes, which spiked during the COVID-19 pandemic.
When factors are combined for example, adding financial insecurity or immigration status to racism compounded health challenges arise.
Whats next
Understanding how discrimination affects health for all can lead to policies and programs targeting root causes of mental health disparities and the rising rates of depression and anxiety.
Discrimination isnt just a Black versus white issue. Its a public health crisis affecting all Americans. Acknowledging its harmful health effects is a first step.
Monica Wang is an associate professor of public health at Boston University.
This article is republished from The Conversation, as a Research Brief (a short take on interesting academic work), under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
From the southwestern U.S. to Minnesota, Iowa and even parts of New Jersey, it seemed that winter never materialized.
Many communities marked their driest winters on record, snowpack was nearly nonexistent in some spots, and vegetation remains tinder dryall ingredients for elevated wildfire risks.
More than 1,000 firefighters and fire managers recently participated in an annual wildfire academy in Arizona, where training covered everything from air operations to cutting back brush with chain saws and building fire lines. Academy officials say there’s consensus that crews will be busy as forecasts call for more warm and dry weather, particularly for the Southwest.
The lack of moisture and warm temperatures can combine to increase the rate of spread and intensity of fire, said Roy Hall, the prescribed fire officer for the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management. He says it’s been dry in his state for months.
We would be remiss to not acknowledge that changes how we might see fire behavior come out of the blocks at the beginning and through fire season, he said.
How dry has it been?
Experts with NOAAs National Centers for Environmental Information reported in early March that total winter precipitation in the U.S. was just shy of 6 inches (15.24 centimeters)or nearly an inch (2.54 centimeters) below average. The period of December through the end of Februarywhat forecasters consider the meteorological winterranked the third driest on record.
Flagstaff, nestled in the mountains south of the Grand Canyon, has long been on the list of quick escapes for desert dwellers looking to build snowmen or go sledding. The northern Arizona city finished the winter period with a 50-inch (1.27 meter) snowfall deficit. A major storm hit the area in mid-March, forcing the closure of Interstate 40 and stranding motorists for hours. It wasn’t enough to erase the shortfall.
In New Mexico, there were at least 17 sites that marked either their driest winters on record or tied previous records. Albuquerque set a new low by logging just 0.12 inches (0.30 centimeters) of precipitation over a three-month period.
The tap just turned off and the drought conditions have been proceeding, Andrew Mangham, a senior hydrologist with the National Weather Service in Albuquerque, said during a recent call with state and federal drought experts.
What does that mean for wildfire conditions?
Arizona, New Mexico and parts the Midwest already have had their share this spring of red flag warningswhen low humidity couples with windy, warm weather to heighten wildfire risks. Those threats materialized in mid-March in Oklahoma, where fires destroyed hundreds of homes. Crews in New Jersey and the Carolinas also battled flames amid dry conditions.
In the West, land managers and firefighting forces are concerned that without adequate snowpack in many mountain ranges, there’s less moisture to keep fires from ballooning into fast-moving conflagrations.
April 1 typically marks the peak of the snowpack, but forecasters say many areas already are melting out. Strong spring winds that deposit dust onto the snowpack help to speed up the process.
Even southern Alaska is experiencing a snow drought at lower elevations, according to the National Integrated Drought Information System. The Anchorage airport recorded its driest February on record, while large areas in southwest Alaska and low elevations in the south-central part were nearly snow-free as of March 1.
Recent storms brought some moisture to California, pushing snowpack levels there to just shy of average. But most of the southern region is dealing with moderate to extreme drought.
A new wildfire outlook will be released Tuesday. While California isn’t among those areas facing significant potential for wildfires at the moment, deadly fires in January torched more urban area than any other fire in that state since at least the mid-1980s.
How are communities dealing with the threat?
Seeing flames race through Los Angeles earlier this year prompted municipal leaders throughout the West to host community meetings to raise awareness, including in New Mexico’s San Juan County.
The Four Corners regionwhere Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah meetis among those on the radar for high fire potential given the unfavorable conditions. Firefighters in San Juan County responded to 25 bushfires in the first 27 days of March and two more were reported on Friday, said county spokesperson Devin Neeley.
In Arizona, the Phoenix Fire Department have warned the mayor and city councilors about increasing risks. They have a plan for surging department resources to help contain fires before they escalate, particularly in areas where urban development intersects with wildland environments.
In neighboring Scottsdale, Mayor Lisa Borowsky recently floated the idea of creating a volunteer brigade to bolster wildfire prevention, pointing to invasive species and overgrown vegetation within the McDowell Sonoran Preserve that could pose risks. A fire department crew has been clearing and trimming brush along roadways.
Christopher Reed, a fire prevention captain with the Arizona forestry department, said some people think of wildfire as a macro problem that involves vast landscapes beyond their suburban borders. He said people should prepare on a micro level, ensuring their own homes are defensible before it’s too late.
We always say Day 1 of firefighting is now, Reed said.
Ty O’Neil and Susan Montoya Bryan, Associated Press
Sales of graphic novels have doubled over the past five years, to some parents dismay. But data shows these books can have a positive lifelong impact on young readers.
