- On Tuesday, Mississippi Today reporter Larrison Campbell published an article saying she was denied access to a gubernatorial candidate because of her gender.
- Campbell explains she had requested to accompany GOP candidate, Robert Foster, during a 15-hour campaign trip and Foster would not allow it unless a male accompanied the reporter.
- Foster defended his decision and said it was to protect himself from any compromising rumors that could come from him and Campbell being alone.
- Campbell says this incident is an example of sexism and how women in the workforce are viewed as sexual objects before their job title.
Larrison Campbell, a female reporter for Mississippi Today, published an article on Tuesday explaining that one of the Republican candidates for Mississippi Governor, Robert Foster, said Campbell would only be allowed to accompany him on an upcoming campaign trip if she was joined by a male colleague.
According to Foster’s campaign manager, Colton Robison, “perception is everything.”
“We are so close to the primary,” Robison added. “If (trackers) were to get a picture and they put a mailer out, we wouldn’t have time to dispute it. And that’s why we have to be careful.”
Campbell wrote that both she and her editor “agreed the request was sexist and an unnecessary use of resources given this reporter’s experience covering Mississippi politics.”
Once the article was published, Foster defended his decision on social media saying it was a decision he and his wife made before he even entered the race based on the “Billy Graham Rule.”
Billy Graham was a prominent evangelical Christian and in the mid-1940s, he and three other men got together to create the “Billy Graham Rule,” which states: “We pledged among ourselves to avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion.”
According to Graham’s autobiography, after the rule was decided he “did not travel, meet or eat alone with a woman other than [his] wife.”
On Wednesday, Foster did a radio interview on the Gallo Show, a morning news show in Mississippi, and defended his decision.
“It’s just gonna be a lot of opportunities where it would have been an awkward situation that I didn’t want to put myself in,” Foster explained during the show. “And I’ve always had the same practice in business. I’m not alone with a female employee and putting myself in a position to have a ‘he said she said’ moment. I just always want to have that buffer there, of having a system of professionalism.”
He goes on to say that the news coming out about the incident with Campbell is “slanted,” because the media’s agenda “doesn’t align very often with the conservative agenda.”
“I would much rather be called names by the liberal press than to be put in a situation where it could do damage to my marriage or my family,” he added.
Foster continued to call out the media coverage, tweeting about how he knew “the liberal left” would react this way.
Campbell has also spoken out about the interaction since her article was published.
In a phone interview with the New York Times on Wednesday, she said she has conducted many interviews with Foster in previous years and even broke the news that he would be running for governor.
“We wouldn’t have that kind of relationship if I were a biased writer,” Campbell explained to the paper. “It’s just sexism, and that’s not a liberal or conservative issue.”
Also on Wednesday, Campbell tweeted an email she had received, supporting Foster and saying his decision was “purely common smart damn sense.”
Campbell continues to tweet, telling her followers that this happened because people view women as a sexual object.
So even though his campaign admitted that the request was “weird” and Foster was the one who felt uncomfortable–he was totally comfortable making it my responsibility to fix it. He made the rule, but I had to make it better /3— Larrison Campbell (@thisislarrison) July 10, 2019
See, most folks, when they see a man in a work setting, like say a business meeting or on the campaign trail w a candidate, assume that the man is there to work, not sleep with the person they’re next to. That’s because to most people, men are people first, not sexual objects /7— Larrison Campbell (@thisislarrison) July 10, 2019
Women don’t get the same courtesy. The “appearance of impropriety” arises only when you see a reporter, not as a reporter, but as a sexual object.— Larrison Campbell (@thisislarrison) July 10, 2019
I wanted to cover Foster because I love my job. His campaign refused my request because they sexualized me. How’s that not sexism?/8
On Thursday, both Foster and Campbell spoke on CNN’s New Day.
Foster continued to double down on his decision, stating that it’s his truck and his campaign, so it’s his rules that will be followed.
Campbell responds by asking the politician, “why is it my responsibility to make you feel comfortable?”
“Why does it appear improper for a man to be with a woman?” she continues. “I mean, why wouldn’t like a gay affair be construed if you were with a man? Unless, at the end of the day, what you’re saying here is, a woman is a sexual object first, and a reporter second.”
Which she follows up by questioning how Foster can be confident in his ability to govern the state if he can’t interact with half the population.
“If a woman did this, if a female candidate did this, people would say: ‘she’s making men bring people along with her? Like she can’t, if she doesn’t feel comfortable doing this, she can’t do her job.’ How can you do your job? How can you like, tell Mississippians, that you will be a good governor if you can’t, you know, be alone in a room with a woman?”
Foster states that being in a room with a woman is different than being on a campaign truck, which is where Campbell would have interviewed Foster if her request was approved.
As the news of Foster’s request spread, social media responded with mixed reactions.
Many supported Campbell, with some tweeting how they personally viewed Campbell as a reporter.
Others were thrilled to see someone talk about the issues women covering politics face.
At the same time, there were some that sided with Foster, saying he did the right thing and Campbell is just attacking him.
My husband and I have the same rule and I’ve had it for years myself too being in Politics. It’s just a smart, safe and easy decision to make. You continue to make me proud @RobertFoster4MS ! Thank you for everything you do and standing firm on your convictions.— Cheramie Kay Mitchell (@CheramieKay) July 10, 2019
Honestly shame on you, you’re attacking a good man and trying to make everything about sexism. Respect his vows. Respect his religious beliefs. He has nothing against women, I really respect him for taking this heat and standing his ground. Enjoy ur 15 mins of fame. Ew— Sports Guru (@SportsGuruNY) July 11, 2019
The primaries for Mississippi are set for Aug. 6. According to a January 2019 Mason-Dixon Polling and Strategy report, only 9% of citizens in Mississippi at the time said they would vote for Foster.
See what others are saying: (Mississippi Today) (New York Times) (CNN)
Trump Rolls Back California Emissions Standards in Move That Could Ultimately Weaken Federal Standards
- The Trump administration revoked a waiver that allows California to set its own car emissions standards, the tightest regulations in the country.
- The move is part of Trump’s plan to roll back federal emissions standards set by President Barack Obama.
- While Trump says a rollback will lead to safer and more fuel-efficient cars, analysts warn it could lead to increased fuel use, increased carbon emissions, higher vehicle costs, and lower vehicle sales.
Why is Trump Rolling Back Standards?
The Trump administration revoked a waiver from the federal government on Thursday that allows the state of California to enact stricter car emissions standards.
The move is part of Trump’s plan to roll back federal emissions standards set by President Barack Obama during his first term.
In a series of tweets announcing the revocation on Wednesday, Trump argued that a rollback of regulations would lead to safer and less expensive cars as well as “little difference” in emissions.
“The Trump Administration is revoking California’s Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER,” the president tweeted. “This will lead to more production because of this pricing and safety advantage, and also due to the fact that older, highly polluting cars, will be replaced by new, extremely environmentally friendly cars.”
“There will be very little difference in emissions between the California Standard and the new U.S. Standard,” Trump continued, “but the cars will be far safer and much less expensive. Many more cars will be produced under the new and uniform standard, meaning significantly more JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! Automakers should seize this opportunity because without this alternative to California, you will be out of business.”
…. advantage, and also due to the fact that older, highly polluting cars, will be replaced by new, extremely environmentally friendly cars. There will be very little difference in emissions between the California Standard and the new U.S. Standard, but the cars will be….— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 18, 2019
….far safer and much less expensive. Many more cars will be produced under the new and uniform standard, meaning significantly more JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! Automakers should seize this opportunity because without this alternative to California, you will be out of business.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 18, 2019
On the claims of increased safety, the Trump administration says ditching Obama-era standards could prevent almost 12,700 car-related deaths over the next 13 years. However, an analysis by the Obama White House claimed the tighter standards would lead to 100 fewer deaths.
An analysis by Consumer Reports predicted President Trump’s plan could lead to increased fuel costs, higher vehicle costs, and fewer vehicle sales. The nonprofit organization also said rollbacks could harm but “certainly would not improve” highway safety.
Also according to Consumer Reports, a federal rollback could increase the country’s oil consumption by 320 billion gallons between 2021 and 2035 and would increase emissions by three gigatonnes.
Despite urging automakers to “seize” on the opportunity, four automakers—Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, and BMW—struck a deal with California in July to continue manufacturing cars under stricter standards even if Trump abolished those rules. That then led the Justice Department to investigate the companies for potentially violating antitrust laws.
How Will This Affect the Country’s Emission Standards?
The longstanding series of waivers to California began with the Clean Air Act of 1970. Since then, 13 other states have adopted California’s strict emissions standards, with the state influencing national—and, at times, international—policy.
Tailpipe emissions are the leading form of greenhouse gas pollution in the United States, comprising about 20% of the country’s pollution.
California state officials have said they will block the move, with attorney general Xavier Becerra saying he will sue the Trump Administration, which he claims is violating California’s state rights.
Some legal experts have begun analyzing how either scenario could play out, with one being that if Trump’s move was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, it could block states from setting standards for tailpipe pollution. Alternatively, if the Court were to strike it down, that could allow states to set their own emissions standards. Under the second situation, it is likely some states would set tougher laws than others, which could impact how automakers build cars.
Some, including head of the Environmental Protection Agency Andrew Wheeler, claimed California unfairly dictated standards for the nation.
“The California emissions regulations would impact Americans in other states who have no ability to vote those state legislators out of office,” FreedomWorks, a libertarian advocacy group, said in a statement. “It is regulation without representation at its worst.”
Additionally, Trump plans to reduce a federal Obama-era goal that would require cars to operate at an average of 54 miles per gallon by 2025 down to an average of 37 miles per gallon. The Obama standard is expected to eliminate six billion tons of carbon dioxide pollution, but the Trump Administration has argued that the regulations are unattainable.
San Francisco Homelessness Violation
In addition to the revocation announcement, Trump also said Wednesday he will be issuing the city of San Francisco an environmental violation because of the city’s homeless population.
In his reasoning, Trump argued that needles and other waste are turning up on the ocean.
“They’re in serious violation,” he said on Air Force One. “They have to clean it up. We can’t have our cities going to hell.”
San Francisco Mayor London Breed called the remarks “ridiculous” and said the city’s sewage is filtered at wastewater treatment plants instead of draining into the ocean.
As far as the violation goes, it is unclear at this time what that will look like.
See what others are saying: (The Los Angeles Times) (CBS) (WIRED)
Ethan Lindenberger “Frustrated” After Being Placed Among Photos of “Dead” Children at Anti-vax Vigil
- California Governor Gavin Newsom signed two new vaccination bills on Sept. 9, primarily aimed at reducing the number of childhood medical exemptions issued by the state.
- Protests at the Capitol temporarily shut down the legislature as the bills were being passed, but protests ramped up later in the week when a woman threw a menstrual cup with what appeared to be blood in it onto senators.
- Another protest led by an anti-vax group included a vigil for children they claimed had either been harmed or died from vaccines—including 18-year-old Ethan Lindenberger, who garnered national attention after vaccinating himself against his parents’ wishes.
Lindenberger Photo At Anti-vax Vigil
Pro-vaccine advocate Ethan Lindenberger expressed frustration after an anti-vax group displayed his photo among others of children they claimed were either dead or harmed by vaccines.
The vigil followed the passage of two bills aimed at making it harder for parents to get medical exemptions for their children’s vaccinations in California last week.
Lindenberger, who attracted national attention when he spoke to the U.S. Senate after vaccinating himself against his mother’s wishes, said he was at the Global Vaccination Summit in Belgium when he learned his photo was included in the vigil and he immediately thought it was a joke.
“I was just really confused cause I’m looking through this photo that this anti-vaxxer’s sharing, and they’re totally like, ‘Look at all these dead people,’ and I’m there,” Lindenberger said to Rogue Rocket. “Part of me is like, ‘This is wild,’ so I went through their history to see if they were trolls. Nope, totally legitimate person. And when I shared it with some of my Facebook friends, they were like, this is an actual event… This is actually a thing.”
“And so my whole mindset was like, this is just so wild and proves how half these kids might not actually be dead,” he continued. “It was so frustrating but also—this was like a comedy show. This is not real life. This can’t be real life.”
Just a couple rows above Lindenberg, the anti-vax protestors also included a stock photo of a baby receiving a shot.
Shortly after learning of his photo, Lindenberger posted his reaction on Twitter.
Over the next few days, Lindenberger defended himself on Twitter as people accused him of being immature, photoshopping the photo, or selling out to a pharmaceutical company.
Ultimately though, Lindenberger stressed that he believes most anti-vaxxers mean well but are the unfortunate targets of misinformation campaigns.
“These people aren’t bad people,” Lindenberger said. “They’re just like misinformed, and even though this vigil was hosted by some people that obviously had no idea what they were doing, they’re just trying to convince people that all these children are dying. A lot of people are just asking questions. That’s why it’s important to just engage with them and just be kind and try to answer questions even if it’s frustrating.”
Newsom Signs Vaccine Bill
The Sep. 11 vigil followed California Governor Gavin Newsom’s signing of two bills on Sep. 9.
The first, SB276, permits the California Department of Public Health to investigate any doctor who grants more than five medical exemptions in a year. It will also allow the state to revoke any medical exemptions it deems “inappropriate.”
Before signing that bill, Newsom demanded a companion bill be introduced, which allows students with existing medical exemptions to keep those exemptions until they meet specific educational benchmarks.
Currently, California requires the submission of vaccination records or exemption statuses for kindergarten, seventh grade, and when a student changes schools. Under the new law, any child who receives a medical exemption before 2020 will still be able to enroll in school under their next grade span.
For example, a student who is in first grade this year with a medical exemption for vaccinations would not need to renew their exemption until entering the seventh grade. Additionally, medically exempt students in seventh grade this year will be able to go through the end of high school without vaccinations.
Other aspects of the bill include limiting temporary exemptions to one-year and allowing the Department of Health to review medical exemptions at schools where the vaccination rate is under 95% or at schools that do not report their vaccination rates.
While those bills were being debated in the legislature, a number of people outside the Capitol in Sacramento protested the bills, with one of the main arguments being that the bills would damage doctor-patient relationships.
“I do not believe I will be writing any more exemptions, even when I feel like they would be appropriate,” Dr. Dane Fleidner, a pediatrician specializing in holistic medicine, told Newsom in a letter. “I do not believe anyone else will either… I have had to put a complete moratorium on medical exemptions due to the nature of this legislation.”
The bill, however, was co-sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the California Medical Association.
Before the bills were passed, protestors blocked entrances, temporarily shutting down the chamber floors. Several people were even arrested, and even after the bills were passed, protestors again shut down the floor.
Those bills come after growing concerns about the number of unvaccinated children in the U.S. Notably, the country faces a resurgence in measles, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reporting over 1,200 cases this year—a massive spike in cases from recent years.
In California, the statewide immunization rate for kindergarteners has fallen below 95%, with 16% of counties reporting their immunization rates were actually under 90%. A 95% immunization rate is considered the standard threshold for herd immunity.
All of that comes in spite of messages from doctors that vaccines are safe and effective for the overwhelming majority of people.
“Blood” Thrown on Senators
Following the initial protests and the vigil, a woman sitting in the California Senate visitors’ gallery Friday hurled what appeared to be blood onto senators while yelling, “That’s for the babies!”
Investigators later determined she threw a menstrual cup, it’s unknown if the red liquid in it was real blood.
That woman—identified as Rebecca Lee Dalelio, 43—now faces assault charges, as well as charges for vandalism and disrupting the legislature.
See what others are saying: (Sacramento Bee) (KCRA) (CNN)
#BoycottABC Spreads After Network Aires Ad Burning Picture of AOC
- Social media users called for a boycott of ABC after it aired an ad that showed a picture of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez being set on fire.
- The ad was paid for by the Republican political action committee New Faces GOP, which is run by former congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng.
- In the video, Heng describes the “horrors of socialism” as pictures of the Khmer Rouge death camps in Cambodia appear on the screen. “This is the face of socialism,” Heng says as the picture of Ocasio-Cortez burns.
- Ocasio-Cortez responded on Twitter and called the ad “a love letter to the GOP’s white supremacist case.”
New Faces GOP Ad
The hashtag #BoycottABC circulated all over social media Thursday after the network aired an advertisement during the Democratic Debates that featured a photo of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) catching on fire.
The ad was paid for by New Faces GOP, a Republican political action committee run by Elizabeth Heng, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in California during the 2018 midterm elections.
“This is the face of socialism and ignorance. Does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez know the horror of socialism?” Heng says in the ad, while a picture of Ocasio-Cortez burns away to reveal a photo of skulls at a Khmer Rouge death camp in Cambodia.
“My father was minutes from death in Cambodia before a forced marriage saved his life. That’s socialism: Forced obedience, starvation,” she continues, as images from the communist regime under the Khmer Rouge flash on the screen.
“Mine is a face of freedom. My skin is not white, I’m not outrageous, racist, nor socialist. I’m a Republican,” Heng concludes as the ad ends.
Twitter users responded to the ad on Thursday and Friday, calling for boycotts of ABC.
Some said that the ad was racist or that it promoted violence.
Horrible hate speech which could lead to violence. #BoycottABC !— Gretchen Berger (@gretchbrgr) September 13, 2019
Others pointed out that the ad was aired by an ABC affiliate owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group and called for a boycott of Sinclair as well.
Some users also called for a boycott of Disney, which owns ABC.
Other people defended the ad and criticized the boycott.
This was about the negative effects of socialism. It does not surprise me to see the inner drama queen in every Democrat come out and call for the most irrelevant boycotts that amount to nothing.— SAChallenger (@challengersma) September 13, 2019
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, unless the opinion differs from theirs. #snowflakes No outrage when celebrities threaten to bomb the White House, behead the president, etc., spread hate & lies. But the #truth & #facts offends them.#dontboycottABC— CherylinMass (@CherylinMass) September 13, 2019
Ocasio-Cortez and Heng Respond
Ocasio-Cortez responded to the ad in a series of Tweets.
“Republicans are running TV ads setting pictures of me on fire to convince people they aren’t racist,” she wrote. “Life is weird!”
“What you just watched was a love letter to the GOP’s white supremacist case,” she said in another tweet.
Heng responded to one of Ocasio-Cortez’s tweets.
“Are you really calling me a racist?” she wrote. “I’m calling all Democrats out for supporting an evil ideology.”
In a later tweet, Heng added that Ocasio-Cortez’s response to the ad “is the Democratic party in a nutshell. They are more offended by truthful words than the acts of their political ideology that has killed millions of innocent victims.”
Heng also defended the ad in a statement to Roll Call.
“This ad is about fighting the socialist agenda that has taken over the Democratic Party,” she said. “I am not afraid to engage in a debate of ideas, and it is the AOC extremists that have to resort in name calling because they don’t have real solutions for our country.”
ABC and Sinclair have not made public comments on the incident.