All posts tagged "louisiana"

'What is wrong with you?' Conservative blasted as he calls new pope 'offensive' Cajun name

Writer Rod Dreher, Louisiana native and editor-at-large with The American Conservative, felt the heat on social media after calling the new pope by a controversial Cajun name that some consider offensive.

The post came after a report in The New York Times described Pope Leo XIV's roots as "Black Cajun" from New Orleans.

Dreher posted to his 120,000 followers on X Friday, "With a name like 'Prevost' and New Orleans roots, I thought the new pope might be a coona--. Turns out his mama has New Orleans roots -- and he's part black (Creole)! From da 7th Ward."

One person remarked, "Coona--…? wtf..," to which Dreher replied, "Tell me that you're not from Louisiana without saying you're not from Louisiana."

Another posted, "You might be the world’s foremost authority at using obscure racial slurs and I don’t mean that as a compliment."

EXCLUSIVE: Breastfeeding mom of US citizen sues Kristi Noem after being grabbed by ICE

"What the hell is wrong with you," posted yet another, while one poster wrote, "Now is an excellent time to delete this post."

According to an article in The World, people of Cajun descent are divided over use of the word.

Lafayette attorney Warren Perrin, who served as president of the Council for the Development of French in Louisiana, said "pride in your roots and the word 'coona--' don’t go together," according to the article.

Perrin's "movement won a big victory back in 1981 when it got the Louisiana State Legislature to condemn the word as offensive," the article said. "Legislators not only condemned it, they outlined the word’s etymology" as coming from the French word connasse, which means "dirty wh--- or stupid person."

Still, others have embraced the term, much like the LGBTQ+ community has embraced the term "queer."

One Louisianan told the publication, "If it was meant being ugly when it first came out, it’s not ugly now,” Sonnier says. “Not unless you look at it that way, and some people may. I just don’t.”

Read The World article here.

Paper caper: Red state voting ballots aren’t what Republicans expected

Listening to former President Donald Trump on the campaign trail, you’d think there were hardly any paper ballots used in American elections.

“We’ll straighten out our elections, too, so that we’re going to paper ballots,” Trump said at a December campaign rally at the University of New Hampshire, according to WMUR-TV 7.

ABC reported that Trump doubled down on that comment this year in appearance with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), demanding paper ballots — even though it’s up to every state and local jurisdiction to determine what voting system to use.

Neither the president nor Congress has the power to dictate how a particular American county or state chooses to vote. The Federal Election Commission and federal Election Assistance Commission are equally powerless.

ALSO READ: 8 ways convicted felon Donald Trump doesn't become president

But the facts show that in 2020, most Americans voted in jurisdictions that indeed use paper ballots in one form or fashion.

In fact, all but one state that doesn’t use paper ballots or generates a reviewable paper trail voted for Trump in 2020. Many of these red states and locales, at the behest of Trump and other election deniers, are now struggling to switch to paper ballots. As they do, they’re finding that it’s not so easy, or cheap, to appease never-satisfied Republicans who seem to find a new voting conspiracy around every corner.

Fact checkers at ABC News and WMUR-TV noted that the majority of Americans overall cast votes on paper ballots. My own fact-checking, using data compiled by Verified Voting and posted on Governing.com, shows that in 2020, and again during 2022, almost 70 percent of Americans lived in states and voting jurisdictions with hand marked paper ballots.

This is almost the exact percentage as in the 2012 election, when Trump was still hosting his NBC reality television show, “The Apprentice.”

ALSO READ: ‘Journalistic dystopian nightmare’: Inside a Tennessee college media meltdown

Back in 2012, almost 25 percent of Americans lived under systems that had direct recording equipment without a “voter-verified paper audit trail” printers. As Ballotpedia notes, you’d have touchscreens, dials or some kind of mechanical buttons. Voter choices would be theoretically stored by the computer on a cartridge or hard drive. But you wouldn’t have any sort of separate paper record preserved for the purposes of an audit or hand recount.

According to Ballotpedia, direct recording equipment without a voter-verified paper audit trail cannot “produce paper records that can be preserved to be tabulated in case of an audit or recount.”

By 2022, these systems appeared in less than 10 percent of voting jurisdictions by 2022. And according to the Brennan Center for Justice, hardly any states will have such systems by the 2024 election, which makes Trump’s point relatively moot.

Most of the remaining states use ballot-marking devices, which “allows for the electronic presentation of a ballot, electronic selection of valid contest options, and the production of a human-readable paper ballot, but does not make any other lasting record of the voter’s selections,” according to Ballotpedia.

States or local voting jurisdictions with ballot-marking devices alone make up about 20 percent of voting jurisdictions.

Listening to Trump’s allies, you’d also think Dominion Voting Systems ran the 2020 election. But even with recent increases in usage, the company’s machines, the subject of many conspiracy theories, served barely a quarter of the voters.

So which states had jurisdictions without some kind of paper trail in 2020 — the direct recording equipment without voter-verified paper audit trail — that anger some Republicans?

According to Ballotpedia, those states with at least some voting jurisdiction with anti-paper voting machines in 2020 were Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma (only in some accessibility cases), Tennessee and Texas.

And Johnson’s home state of Louisiana was the only state in 2020 with direct recording equipment without voter-verified paper audit trail for all jurisdictions.

You read that correctly: One of the nation’s reddest states uses the least amount of paper ballots.

ALSO READ: Biden in hot water with AOC: ‘It’s wrong. It’s not okay.’

None of these states were swing states in the last election. And all but one of these states without a voting machine paper trail voted for Trump in 2020.

After the 2020 election, when GOP outrage over the election results was at its zenith, Republicans in Louisiana passed a bill designed to overhaul the state’s current voting machines, now more than 30 years old, so outdated with some parts that aren’t even being manufactured any more.

But the bill was so cumbersome that the Louisiana legislature is trying to repeal portions of it, according to Wesley Muller of The Louisiana Illuminator, as recently reported by Raw Story.

Those red states with paperless systems in some jurisdictions are going to be stuck with quite a bill if they want to make Trump happy, should he get his wish in winning another term and “imposing” some sort of law on all voter jurisdictions.

When Georgia was deciding on paying for hand-marked paper ballot systems or “touchscreen-marked paper ballots,” the version with paper ballots was estimated to be $224 million — almost $75 million more than electronic system with paper verification, which had “superior security, accessibility and transparency” claimed then-Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs, according to Georgia’s Secretary of State office.

Instead of listening to election deniers complain about paper ballots, it seems that modernizing election systems might be a better choice for states heading into future elections.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.

Louisiana’s new governor is one of the fossil fuel industry’s biggest defenders

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here.

Climate change looms larger in Louisiana than it does almost anywhere else in the United States. The state is facing down monster hurricanes as well as sea-level rise, and it still relies on a fossil fuel industry that pollutes the state’s air and erodes its wetlands.

But the state’s incoming governor, Republican Jeff Landry, doesn’t see it that way. Landry, who has served as Louisiana’s attorney general for almost eight years, is one of the most stalwart opponents of President Joe Biden’s climate policies, and he won election this fall after calling climate change a “hoax” and defending polluters.

He earned an outright majority of votes in the first round of the gubernatorial election last month, surprising many observers who thought the race would head to a second-round runoff. He will succeed the term-limited Democrat John Bel Edwards, whose commitment to climate action made Louisiana an outlier along the Gulf Coast. With a Republican-controlled legislature backing him, Landry could tug the state in a stark new direction, unwinding Edwards’ plans and bolstering support for industries with a long record of environmental issues.

Landry has made a national name for himself as Louisiana’s attorney general through aggressive litigation against the Biden administration, leading several lawsuits against Biden policies on everything from offshore oil lease sales to flood insurance to the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline. His most aggressive fight has been against the Environmental Protection Agency, which has been trying to address air pollution in the state’s oil and gas industry.

ALSO READ: Revealed: Bomb-loving neo-Nazi is now menacing children

The latter years of Landry’s term as attorney general coincided with a major push by residents in the state’s main industrial corridors to curb the toxic pollution in their backyards. After years of regulatory rollbacks under former President Donald Trump, advocates finally saw an opportunity for systemic change after the 2020 election. During his first week in office, Biden signed an order that created two new executive bodies dedicated to addressing environmental justice, a term that refers to the disproportionate levels of pollution borne by low-income people and communities of color across the country. That same year, a federal judge ordered the EPA to begin responding to the civil rights complaints it receives, a responsibility that the agency had long ignored.

Encouraged by these developments, advocates filed two civil rights complaints against Louisiana regulators for their failure to reduce dangerous emissions in “Cancer Alley,” an 85-mile industrial corridor between Baton Rouge and New Orleans where more than 150 industrial facilities spew cancer-causing chemicals into the air of predominantly Black communities. A 2019 investigation found that many residents of the region inhale air that is orders of magnitude more toxic than the EPA’s safety standards. The EPA opened an investigation into these conditions in April 2022, and then brought together state officials, residents, and advocates to reach an agreement on how best to protect people living in the vicinity of the region’s hulking chemical plants.

ALSO READ: Why aren’t corrupt lawmakers denied their pensions? Here's who to blame.

Documents obtained by Grist revealed significant progress at the negotiating table, but last spring things began to sour, and Landry may have been the reason why. Adam Kron, an attorney at Earthjustice who worked on the case, told Grist that the breakdown in talks coincided with Landry’s sudden attendance in the negotiation meetings. Then, in June, Landry sued the federal government, arguing that the proceedings represented a vast overstep of the EPA’s authorities. The case could have implications beyond the EPA’s handling of the Cancer Alley complaints: Landry’s legal argument took aim at the agency’s ability to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that no person should, on the basis of race, color, or national origin, be subject to discrimination under any program that receives federal funding.

By challenging state regulators’ permitting of plants in majority-Black areas, Landry wrote, EPA officials were “moonlight[ing] as social justice warriors fixated on race.” In a twist, he accused federal officials of being discriminatory, arguing that their actions implied that chemical plants should be concentrated in other, whiter areas. Shortly after Landry filed suit, the EPA dropped both civil rights complaints in Louisiana, dealing a major blow to Cancer Alley residents who had fought for years to overhaul the state’s permitting and regulation of big polluters.

Kron said that the case clearly laid out the governor-elect’s vision for addressing civil rights concerns in communities facing disproportionate exposure to toxic emissions.

“As attorney general with no direct authority over [state regulators] he managed to work these agreements, and now he’ll be the one with direct control over those agencies,” he said. “It really doesn’t bode well.”

Landry has also challenged the Biden administration’s efforts to adapt to worsening climate disasters. Earlier this summer, he sued the Federal Emergency Management Agency over its new flood insurance pricing system, which has resulted in higher insurance premiums for many homeowners in coastal states such as Louisiana and Florida. Experts agree that flood insurance prices under the old system didn’t reflect rising flood risks, but Landry and several other Republican state attorneys general argued that the federal government had exceeded its authority when it raised insurance premiums.

In addition, Landry and the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group, sued the Biden administration in August in an attempt to force the administration to hold larger oil lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. He also led Republican states in a lawsuit against the Biden administration over its attempts to set a new standard for the “social cost of carbon,” a key metric for setting climate policy. The conservative-led Supreme Court sided with the administration in 2022 and again last month.

An attorney and former sheriff’s deputy who hails from the state’s central coast, Landry has always been an ardent supporter of the oil industry. He majored in environmental science at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette and started what his campaign calls an “oil and gas environmental service company” after graduating, then went to law school before winning a single term in Congress during the “red wave” election of 2010.

In 2011, the year after the BP oil spill, Landry pushed the Interior Department to restart drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico and compared department employees to the Nazi Gestapo when they refused to meet with him on short notice. The same year, when then-President Barack Obama gave a speech to Congress announcing his jobs plan, Landry held up a sign that read, “Drilling = Jobs.” As attorney general, he served on the board of his top political ally’s oil services company, raising ethics allegations.

Louisiana’s outgoing governor, Edwards, also supported the oil industry, and has even feuded with the Biden administration over its attempts to limit new oil drilling, but he has paired that support with action on climate change. Louisiana’s climate action plan, which an Edwards-appointed council approved last year, calls for the state to halve emissions from 2005 levels by the end of the decade, the same as Biden’s national target.

In response to Landry’s gubernatorial victory, the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association, an industry trade group, called Landry a “friend of industry” and speculated that he will continue to support the development of liquefied natural gas export terminals in the southernmost parts of the state. In 2017, Landry worked with a Houston-based businessman to import more than 300 Mexican laborers to help construct a massive new liquefaction facility in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. According to the Times-Picayune, the venture involved two firms owned by Landry, and a third owned by his brother.

Landry has called climate change a “hoax,” arguing that the Earth’s temperature has risen and fallen in cycles “repeated long before civilization of man.” He has also criticized renewable energy, arguing that the Biden administration’s focus on solar and wind is an attempt to force Louisiana into “energy poverty” and that “the D.C. swamp must face the fact that the manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels requires natural gas, crude oil, and coal.” The political organization Climate Cabinet expects Landry to rescind Edwards’ climate plan upon taking office. Neither Landry’s state office nor his campaign responded to Grist’s request for comment.

Even so, there may be one area where the outgoing and incoming governors have common ground. During his two terms as governor, Edwards helped implement a $50 billion coastal restoration program that will leverage money from a BP oil spill settlement to protect the state’s coastline from further erosion. These coastal restoration efforts enjoy broad support from Louisiana voters in both parties, and even politicians who oppose climate action have touted levees and marsh-creation projects in their towns. During his time as attorney general, Landry endorsed a settlement deal with the mining and oil company Freeport-McMoRan that would see the company spend $100 million on this kind of erosion control, despite industry objections.

Kimberly Davis Reyher, the executive director of the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, a nonprofit advocacy group, says she’s hopeful that Landry will maintain investments in coastal restoration even if he unwinds other climate and environmental protections.

Coastal erosion is “not a partisan issue here, so you don’t have to argue about climate change,” she told Grist. “You just go down to the coast and observe the water going up and the land going down.” She added that the Edwards administration succeeded in building a bipartisan consensus around coastal restoration issues and said she’s “hopeful” that Landry will look for ways to supplement the BP erosion funding, perhaps by trying to get a larger share of lease revenue from oil and gas companies.

When it comes to other climate and environmental issues, though, she’s far less optimistic about a Landry governorship.

“We’ll see what happens,” she said.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

The EPA was on the cusp of cleaning up ‘Cancer Alley.’ Then it backed down.

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here.

Pastor Philip Schmitter waited more than 20 years for the Environmental Protection Agency to do its job. In 1992, he’d filed a civil rights complaint to halt the construction of a power station that would spew toxic lead into the air of his predominantly Black community in Flint, Michigan. Decades passed without a response, so he joined four other groups around the country in a lawsuit to compel the agency to address their concerns.

The case hinged on the EPA’s duty to enforce Title VI, a provision of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI allows federal agencies to take action against state policies that discriminate by disproportionately harming groups protected by the Act — the discriminatory policy being, in this case, Michigan’s permitting of a plant that would pollute Black neighborhoods. After the EPA lost the suit in 2020, agency officials finally began timely investigations of civil rights complaints and made some of the EPA’s first-ever findings of discrimination.

That progress, however, could be short-lived.

Last week, the EPA abruptly terminated three of its highest-profile open civil rights complaints. The move deals a major blow not only to the majority-Black communities that filed them but also to the EPA’s own authority to enforce Title VI in places with some of the nation’s worst air quality. The cases originated in the region widely known as “Cancer Alley,” an 85-mile industrial corridor in southeast Louisiana, and were voluntarily closed after the state’s Republican attorney general sued the federal government for alleged abuses of power during the complaint negotiations.

Grist obtained copies of two draft agreements from the now-defunct negotiations, which reveal efforts by EPA officials to institute profound changes to Louisiana’s permitting process, which has historically concentrated chemical plants near Black communities. One of the most substantial terms of the resolution would have required state regulators to assess whether a community is already exposed to disproportionately high levels of pollution before permitting new plants there. With the cases closed, the prospect of those changes has all but vanished.

“This is basically the EPA not using the full power of its environmental laws,” said Adam Kron, a senior attorney at Earthjustice who worked on the case. He described Title VI as one of the clearest ways to advance environmental justice, a goal that Biden EPA has repeatedly called a priority. “It’s disappointing to see EPA acquiesce to what seems like a lawsuit that really doesn’t have much grounding to it.”

The Title VI statute states that no person should, on the basis of race, color, or national origin, be subject to discrimination under any program that receives federal funding. The provision is wide-reaching, covering hundreds of thousands of programs across the country and governing decisions as diverse as where a road can go or who can get treatment at a hospital. But in the environmental space, it’s been largely underutilized, with the EPA routinely failing to respond to dozens of cases within the 180-day period required by the law.

The 2020 federal court ruling on Schmitter’s case gave communities in Louisiana’s St. James and St. John the Baptist parishes hope that Title VI could finally help limit pollution in their backyards. Together, their complaints alleged a number of negligent actions by state regulators, including a failure to curb cancer-causing emissions that violate federal safety standards and to consider pre-existing pollution when permitting new industrial plants. A formal resolution of their cases would have likely addressed these concerns.

The draft agreements that Grist obtained include sweeping measures to change the way the state of Louisiana approves new industrial facilities, like folding community involvement into critical moments of the decision-making process and requiring officials to prove, both before and after plants begin operating, that their emissions will not disproportionately harm people of color. In Louisiana, majority-Black communities are exposed to at least 7 times the emissions, on average, as predominantly White communities in industrial areas.

“We were hoping to get systemic change,” said Kimberly Terrell, a research scientist at the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, who worked on the complaints. “For decades, people have been fighting against individual polluters and individual facilities, but when the decision-making process itself is flawed, you need something that seeks to improve it.”

Louisiana officials did not respond to a request for comment.

Despite progress with the agreements, testimony in Louisiana’s legal filings suggests that, at some point during the negotiation process, things between state and federal officials began to sour. Then, in late May, the state’s attorney general, Jeff Landry, sued the EPA.

The case hinged on the EPA’s ability to pursue actions based on “disparate impacts,” or the idea that a policy or agency decision can disproportionately harm a specific group of people, regardless of whether or not that harm is intentional. These standards have always been unpopular with some state officials who view them as evidence of federal agencies meddling in matters beyond their authority. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is sympathetic to these concerns, ruling in numerous landmark cases over the past few years to vastly restrict the powers of federal regulators.

But multiple lawyers that Grist interviewed argued that Louisiana’s legal arguments would have ultimately been unlikely to undermine Title VI, raising the question of why the EPA appears to have preemptively conceded on the matter.

“It was unripe — there was no action by the EPA that Louisiana could challenge,” said Kron. “So it seems like a strange lawsuit for [the federal government] to take as a serious enough threat to just undo this whole process that’s been going on for over a year.”

Environmental advocates and residents in Louisiana also decried the decision to close the complaints.

“I often feel like our communities are left to fight on our own,” said Joy Banner, an activist and long-time resident of the region. “It’s disappointing when we have organizations at the federal level who aren’t willing to step in to fight along with us for our basic human right to survive.”

EPA spokesperson Khanya Brann told Grist that the agency remains “fully committed” to improving the environmental conditions in the communities that filed the complaints.

“Community participation has been critical to identifying both problems and solutions, and we look forward to our continued partnership with the residents in both parishes as we continue our joint efforts to improve public health and the environment,” she said.

The EPA wrote in its letters announcing the closure of the complaints that it would address residents’ concerns through other means, like its pending litigation against one of the region’s most infamous chemical plants and its proposed rules for tightening standards for certain types of facilities operating in the region. But residents told Grist that those measures do not cover the totality of their concerns, and that a major benefit of the Title VI process is its speedy timeline: While court cases can drag on and emissions standards can take years to implement, a resolution of the complaints may have granted communities much faster relief from toxic emissions.

Claire Glenn, a criminal defense attorney with a background in civil rights law, compared EPA’s use of Title VI to other federal agencies’ more robust implementation of the law. The Department of Transportation, for example, requires regulators to consider whether a project will disproportionately impact a group of people before it’s ever constructed. However, she added, deciding where a transit line goes is often less controversial than approving a multi-billion dollar company’s new industrial complex.

“I think the reason EPA’s Title VI program is so hamstrung is because it is so directly butting up against corporate interests,” she said.

Advocates told Grist that they are exploring other options to advance residents’ concerns, and called the EPA’s actions this week a setback but not a roadblock. Residents said that they are determined not to give up.

“We come from a long line of people who fought,” said Banner. “This is just one little hill that we have to overcome — but ultimately I see us heading to the mountain, and victory is the mountain.”

Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

'Unfathomable': GOP-backed anti-LGBTQ bills vetoed by Louisiana governor

Three anti-LGBTQ pieces of legislation have been vetoed by Louisiana Democratic Governor John Bell Edwards, The News & Observer reports.

According to CNN, HB 648 "would bar those under 18 in Louisiana from receiving gender-affirming surgeries, puberty blocking medications and hormone treatments, and punishes health care professionals that provide them with the revocation of their license for a minimum of two years."

Earlier this month, CNN reports, Edwards said during a press conference, "I will tell you that on those issues, the judgment of history, I believe, will be very clear. It will be as clear as the judgment of history has been on those who didn’t want civil rights in the 50s, for example. But I am not going to wait until then to say that it’s wrong. My judgment today is that those bills are wrong."

READ MORE: This far-right hate group is 'lurking behind efforts' to 'roll back' LGBTQ and abortion rights: report

The News & Observer reports:

"During the waning days of Louisiana's legislative session, lawmakers passed a series of controversial bills: a ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors that includes puberty-blockers, hormone treatment and surgery; a 'Don't Say Gay' bill that broadly bars teachers from discussing gender identity and sexual orientation in public school classrooms; and a measure requiring public school teachers to use the pronouns and names that align with what students were assigned at birth."

The publication further notes:

"Edwards vetoed all three bills. Edwards — who is in his final six months of office, unable to seek reelection this year due to consecutive term limits — has repeatedly described the bills as wrong, divisive and targeting a vulnerable group of people. State lawmakers will soon decide by majority vote whether they will return to the Capitol for a veto session, which would begin July 18."

According to CNN, Edwards' veto letter reads, "It is unfathomable to think that in my last few months serving as governor of this state that I would sign into law a bill that categorically denies health care for children and families based on propaganda and misinformation generated by national interest groups. I assessed the need for this bill based on Louisiana data and facts and read every word of this bill multiple times to determine if there was any possible merit to this bill. There is not."

READ MORE: Buttigieg: Republicans target LGBTQ people because they 'don’t want to talk about' their 'radical positions'

The News & Observer's full report is available at this link. CNN's report is here.

10 people injured after shots erupt outside popular Miami Gardens eatery, sources say

MIAMI — As many as 10 people were shot outside a popular soul food restaurant Thursday night in Miami Gardens when an argument between two groups of people escalated to gunfire, police said. It wasn’t immediately clear how many people were injured at The Licking Miami Gardens, nor what led to the 8 p.m. shooting, police said. There may have been up to 10 people hit by gunfire, according to a law enforcement source. As of 2 a.m., police hadn’t reported any deaths or arrests. The source said one of the shooting victims was in critical condition. Several of the injured were spotted at different l...

GOP congresswoman-elect rushed to the hospital due to COVID-19 -- and will miss her swearing-in ceremony

MIAMI — Miami Congresswoman-elect María Elvira Salazar will be unable to attend a Sunday ceremony in Washington to swear in members of the new Congress after learning she has COVID-19 during an emergency trip to the hospital, her office announced Thursday morning. Salazar, a Republican who last month defeated Democratic U.S. Rep. Donna Shalala in perhaps the most surprising congressional upset in the country, learned she had contracted the coronavirus overnight after she was admitted to Doctors Hospital with a heart arrhythmia, according to a press release issued Thursday. Salazar was treated ...

Murders soar in Miami-Dade in 2020 -- a year marked by the pandemic and tensions with police

MIAMI — One night in July, two men seeking revenge drove past a Brownsville home and fired indiscriminately into a group of people, including some just back from a trip to the local flea market. When the shooting stopped, a young child was dead and her baby cousin was injured. Two adults also suffered gunshot wounds. The death of 7-year-old Alana Washington — a “sweet and strong-willed child” who attended KIPP Miami charter school in Northwest Miami-Dade — shocked family, friends, the community and law enforcement. Six weeks later, after an intense search, police arrested two men and charged t...

Eviction looms for millions, despite new federal aid package

Julie Ray lives in a mobile home in Pearl River, La., with her two teenage daughters, Jerilynn and Jasmine. Her mother, Barbara, used to live there too, but she had a stroke before the pandemic hit and had to move to a nursing home. In May, she died there, from COVID-19. Julie Ray lost her job at a local grocery store in March. Now she can’t pay her $700 a month rent and is in danger of eviction. She was approved for state-sponsored rental assistance, but had trouble getting her landlord to fill out the paperwork, she said in a phone interview, so that never happened. Then, Ray, 42, got an evi...

Man with virus symptoms boarded flight from Florida and died -- EMT who helped him now sick

ORLANDO, Fla. — A man who boarded a flight from Orlando despite having coronavirus symptoms later died, and now an EMT who helped him on the plane is feeling sick, according to news reports. Tony Aldapa and others performed CPR on Monday night on the fellow passenger who had a case of the virus that ended up killing him, KCAL-Channel 2 in Los Angeles reported. The United Airlines flight to Los Angeles made an emergency landing so the sick passenger could be taken to a hospital, where he died. On Tuesday, Louisiana authorities confirmed the passenger died of acute respiratory failure after cont...