This story was originally published by the  Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Joe Biden’s landmark climate legislation has been “disappointing” and failed to deliver protections to car industry workers confronted by the transition to electric vehicles, according to the head of the US’s leading autoworkers union, which has pointedly withheld is endorsement of the president for next year’s election.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed by Biden a year ago this week, has bestowed huge incentives to car companies to manufacture electric vehicles without any accompanying guarantees over worker pay and conditions, Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers (UAW), told the Guardian.

“So far it’s been disappointing. If the IRA continues to bring sweatshops and a continued race to the bottom it will be a tragedy,” Fain said.

“This is our generation’s defining moment with electric vehicles. The government should invest in US manufacturing but money can’t go to companies with no strings attached. Labor needs a seat at the table. There should be labor standards built in, this is the future of the car industry at stake.”

Live-action canine revenge comedy Strays is 'pleasant' but 'unsurprising'

Earlier this spring, the Supreme Court hit pause on a controversial ruling in a massive anti-abortion lawsuit with the potential to eliminate nationwide access to the most common method of abortion. The case, brought by anti-abortion organizations and doctors, challenged the FDA’s two-decade-old approval of mifepristone, a pill used in medication abortion.

In April, a far-right federal district court judge in Texas had sided with the anti-abortion doctors, issuing an unprecedented order to suspend mifepristone’s approval. But before his decision could take effect, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to step in and pause the order while it went through appeals. The Court agreed.

On Wednesday afternoon, the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on the appeal, meaning the case is one step closer to reaching the Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the anti-abortion doctors had waited too long to challenge mifepristone’s FDA 2000 approval—and it also found that the FDA had acted improperly in 2016 and 2021, when it relaxed some rules around how mifepristone can be prescribed. 

The Fifth Circuit’s decision contains bad news for parties on both sides of the case. But because of the Supreme Court’s prior order, the ruling doesn’t have much practical effect—at least for now. “This opinion changes nothing on the ground whatsoever,” says Drexel University law professor David Cohen. “Mifepristone is available the same way today as it was yesterday.”

The next stop for the lawsuit is still the Supreme Court. If SCOTUS takes the case, the justices would have the final word on mifepristone—upholding or invalidating the FDA’s approval, or throwing out the challenge altogether for procedural reasons. “They could do whatever they want,” says Mary Ziegler, a reproductive law expert at the University of California, Davis. According to Ziegler, the court could use the case as an opportunity to weigh in on the Comstock Act, a 19th century anti-obscenity law that abortion-rights opponents are trying to use to ban abortion nationwide. Their claim is that the old law, which makes it a crime to mail any “article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion,” can be enforced. 

Sam Miele, a fundraiser for Rep. George Santos’ (R-N.Y.) 2020 and 2022 campaigns, has been indicted in federal court for impersonating then–Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s former chief of staff while soliciting donations for Santos.

The indictment, which was unsealed Wednesday, charges Miele with four counts of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. It states that in 2021 Miele falsely impersonated a high-ranking aide to a member of Congress as part of a scheme to raise money for Santos, who is referred to as “Candidate #1.” As CNBC reported earlier this year, that person was Dan Meyer, who worked at the time as chief of staff for the current House Speaker.

Miele pleaded not guilty Wednesday and was released on $150,000 bond. Miele’s attorney, Kevin Marino, said in a statement that his client “looks forward to complete vindication at trial as soon as possible.”

Miele, who is 27, was a novice in the world of political fundraising. He is a relatively insignificant target on his own, but the indictment signals that the investigation into Santos, who was indicted in May for other alleged schemes, is likely not over. 

Miele is a relatively insignificant target on his own, but the indictment signals that the investigation into Santos is likely not over.

The May indictment largely sidestepped Santos’ campaign finance practices. As Mother Jones has reported, many of the top donors to Santos’ 2020 campaign do not appear to exist. A relative told me they did not make the contribution attributed to them during the most recent campaign. Both are potential violations of federal campaign finance law.

Who should be the head of the goalkeeper's union? That’s the question Marcus, Pete, Jim and Vish ask today after Aaron Ramsdale and David Raya protest the goalkeeper's union will be stronger than any potential rivalry for the Arsenal no.1 shirt.

Elsewhere, we ask why the Saudi Pro League is feeling like a big vat of soup made up of ageing players. Neymar - aka the Zayn Malik of football - is of course the main ingredient. Plus, we review the first episode of P̶u̶b̶l̶i̶c̶ I̶n̶v̶e̶s̶t̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ F̶u̶n̶d̶ P̶o̶w̶e̶r̶p̶o̶i̶n̶t̶ We Are Newcastle United, with fairly predictable results...

Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, and email us here: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Sign up to the Football Ramble Patreon for ad-free shows for just $5 per month. Sign up for an annual membership before the end of August and you’ll get 15% off! Just click here: patreon.com/footballramble.

***Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your pods. It means a great deal to the show and will make it easier for other potential listeners to find us. Thanks!***

Matthew Herrick’s dating profiles depicted a muscular man with olive-green eyes and red-hot bedroom interests. The aspiring actor liked orgies and bondage. He was HIV-positive but preferred unprotected sex. He had a “rape fantasy,” and if he seemed resistant to the advances of would-be partners, it was simply part of what got him off.

Between October 2016 and March 2017, more than 1,100 men accepted invitations to meet Herrick in person. They showed up at his West Harlem apartment in droves, and on several occasions broke into the building. They followed Herrick into public restrooms and approached him at the midtown Manhattan restaurant where he worked as a server, because that’s what they had been instructed to do.

But Herrick had not matched with any of these men online. His dating profiles—and practically everything in them—were bogus. His vengeful ex-boyfriend, Oscar Juan Carlos Gutierrez (whom Herrick had met on a dating app), had created the accounts. He was able to impersonate Herrick because, court documents show, the apps didn’t require him to take any steps to verify his identity.

Herrick eventually got an order of protection against Gutierrez, but the torrent of uninvited houseguests continued. It took almost a year for Gutierrez to be arrested on criminal charges. He was sentenced to prison for criminal contempt, identity theft, and stalking in November 2019.

By that time, the nightmarish experience had taken a severe toll on Herrick’s mental health. “I had extreme insomnia. I was scared to leave my apartment,” Herrick, now 38, recalls. “I was drinking heavily to try to get some sleep,” he adds. “There was a moment where I thought, ‘Do I take my own life, or do I continue fighting? Because I can’t do this anymore.’”

The painter Alex Katz is best known for his portraits—colorful, flat, rich, and realistic, in a style that has become immediately recognizable as his own. Katz has always been fascinated by poetry, and especially by the work that came out of the New York School in the fifties and sixties. “What Katz found so compelling about this scene was its complete disregard for aesthetic precedent, irreverence for an academy of poetry, and gravitation toward vernacular expression, where words were less pondered and possessed an immediacy that spoke of nowness,” writes the art historian Debra Bricker Balken in the forthcoming book Alex Katz: Collaborations with Poets. These qualities have something in common with Katz’s own work, which might help to explain why he has been so drawn to collaborations with poets—among them illustrations, prints, and covers for books by Ted Berrigan, John Ashbery, Alice Notley, and Ron Padgett. Katz has also painted portraits of a number of poets, including his personal favorite, Frank O’Hara, who was himself interested in the crossover between painting and poetry, and occasionally jealous of painters themselves. (“I am not a painter, I am a poet,” one O’Hara poem begins. “Why? I think I would rather be / a painter, but I am not.”) Below are several of Katz’s literary collaborations, including a cover he made for this very magazine in 1985.

 

Marcus and Luke reconvene after Man United’s haphazard heist saw them stole a point from under Wolves’ noses last night. Just like old times!

We wonder if Andre Onana’s a lucky man after his rugby tackle (spoiler: he is) and ask what United need to do to improve things going forward. We also give some props to Gary O’Neil’s brave boys.

Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, and email us here: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. 

Sign up to the Football Ramble Patreon for ad-free shows for just $5 per month. Sign up for an annual membership before the end of August and you’ll get 15% off! Just click here: patreon.com/footballramble.

***Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your pods. It means a great deal to the show and will make it easier for other potential listeners to find us. Thanks!***

Former President Donald Trump was indicted in Georgia late on Monday on charges related to his desperate attempts to overturn the 2020 election. The charges, brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, follow an investigation that lasted some two and a half years.

The indictment charges Trump with 13 felonies, many centered on allegations that he conspired to violate state laws forbidding the creation and filing of false documents, statements, and writings as part of the plot to send a fake alternate slate of Republican electors. Other charges include soliciting public officials to violate their oath, in relation to Trump’s pressure campaign targeting state officials to help him overturn Georgia’s 2020 results.

The indictment includes alleged violations of Georgia’s powerful RICO law, typically used to prosecute gangs or other criminal organizations. Prosecutors can seek 20-year prison sentences under that anti-racketeering statute.

Charges were also handed down against 18 other people, including several close associates and allies of the former president—among them Rudy Giuliani, attorney Sidney Powell, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis, Republican operative Mike Roman, and Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official.

Trump’s post-election meddling in Georgia was a major prong of his months-long campaign to reverse Joe Biden’s victory—an unprecedented effort that began even before voting took place, and that continued even after the violent attack on Congress on January 6, 2021. The Georgia indictment comes two weeks after federal charges were filed against Trump in connection with these efforts.

In recent months, there have been growing concerns about whether 90-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has represented California in the Senate since 1992, can fulfill her congressional duties. No White House judicial nominees were able to be confirmed from February to May of this year, when Senate Republicans blocked an effort to temporarily replace the senator during her three-month absence due to shingles complications. After Feinstein returned to the Capitol, she told reporters she had “been voting” on legislation when she had in fact been absent. In late July, during a Senate Appropriations Committee vote, chair and fellow Sen. Patty Murray told Feinstein, who had begun to deliver a speech, to “just say aye” when voting. Some news outlets and Capitol Hill colleagues have raised concerns that Feinstein has trouble recalling what’s happening and is experiencing memory lapses, but Feinstein, who has said that she will not run for re-election in 2024, has not confirmed any age-related chronic health diagnoses.

Still, House Rep. Ro Khanna, who represents California’s 17th District, has been one of a few Democratic members of Congress openly calling for Feinstein’s resignation—a sign of serious reservations within the party. Being disabled, chronically ill, or having a temporary disability shouldn’t preclude anyone from holding office; the question is whether Feinstein is able to do her job with the kinds of reasonable accommodations disabled and chronically ill workers use every day. That is very much up for debate. 

Reasonable accommodations, which employers are required to provide under the Americans With Disabilities Act, are modifications that help disabled people perform their jobs as capably as non-disabled people. Those accommodations can include, among many other things, working a hybrid schedule, having a sign language interpreter, using a screen reader, or being allowed to sit while working. If someone can’t perform their job despite reasonable accommodations, it could be legal grounds for termination.

There are politicians with disabilities who are able to fulfill their duty to their constituents thanks to such accommodations. Take Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, who, to accommodate symptoms caused by a stroke during his 2022 Senate campaign, has used assistive technology like a closed captioning device to better understand people’s speech. Beyond gross jokes and memes (which Feinstein has also been the target of), media responses to Fetterman’s use of assistive tech show how little many know about accessibility—like NBC News reporter Dasha Burns, who interviewed Fetterman during that campaign, jumping to the conclusion that the senator didn’t comprehend what she was saying:

Burns’ Friday interview with Fetterman aired Tuesday. He used a closed-captioning device that printed text of Burns’ questions on a computer screen in front of him. Fetterman appeared to have little trouble answering the questions after he read them, although NBC showed him fumbling for the word “empathetic.” Burns said that when the captioning device was off, “it wasn’t clear he was understanding our conversation.”