On November 21, 2023, a BBC reporter unearthed a 20-year-old interview in which the pseudonymous street artist Banksy disclosed his first name (Robbie) for the first time.
The British graffiti artist is famous around the world for his use of stencils and for his work’s anti-establishment, anti-war themes. A protester tosses not a Molotov cocktail but a bouquet of flowers; a young girl hugs a bomb instead of a teddy bear; a reproduction of Monet’s lily pads is marred by rubbish; the communist leader Che Guevara wears sunglasses with dollar signs over his eyes.
Many of these images appear in “The Art of Banksy,” an unauthorized exhibit in downtown London tracing the artist’s career. Notable is a series of ad materials for The Walled Off Hotel, an actually operating lodging house in the Palestinian West Bank, which Banksy opened in 2017 to draw attention to a physical barrier constructed by the Israeli government. The wall, the hotel’s website declares, is “either a vital security measure or an instrument of apartheid,” depending on one’s perspective.
Given the war now raging between Israel and Hamas (and the worldwide protests that have followed), Banksy’s political statement seems just as relevant as, and even more controversial than, ever.
Nearly 170 health professionals have signed an open letter to the American Psychiatric Association (APA) condemning its new “gender-affirming” care textbook as “unacceptable, unethical and unsafe.”
Their open letter to the organization appears on the website of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, a free speech and civil liberties watchdog group. The signatories demand that the APA “explain why it glaringly ignored many scientific developments in gender-related care and to consider its responsibility to promote and protect patients’ safety, mental and physical health.”
The letter calls for the APA to suspend publication of the textbook, “Gender-Affirming Psychiatric Care,” released on Nov. 8. The textbook is intended to be used as a teaching tool for doctors in training.
“We seek an unbiased scientific investigation and discussion of the harms and benefits of all types of care offered to those with gender-related distress,” the letter states. “Until those concerns are addressed and the textbook’s errors corrected, we call on the APA for its withdrawal.”
Within 24 hours, more than 700 additional names had been added to the list of signatories.
The APA did not immediately respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times.
Study Findings In Question
The tome’s foreword declares it to be “the first textbook dedicated to providing affirming, intersectional, and evidence-informed psychiatric care for transgender, non-binary, and/or gender-expansive (TNG) people.”
Its 26 chapters are written by 56 authors, 50 of whom either identify as transgender or don’t identify as male or female, according to the foreword.
But other health professionals are questioning the wisdom of relying on the authors’ personal experiences, just because of their gender identities.
They also object to backing up those testimonies with limited scientific studies, some with heartily disputed results.
The textbook also presents neo-Marxist critical theories focused on calling out the so-called oppression of particular identity groups, critics point out.
Yet the textbook will be seen as a gold standard of care because it comes with the considerable clout of the APA behind it, concerned doctors told The Epoch Times.
That’s despite the fact that the textbook presents as evidence some studies that have come under fire for being flawed.
Those include the famous Dutch protocol study that became the basis for recommending puberty suppression, the use of cross-sex hormones, and other “gender-affirmative” procedures for people who identify as the opposite sex.
Transgender activists say puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery can save the lives of gender-confused adults and children who may feel suicidal.
Others dispute that idea. And new research backs up that way of thinking.
A recent Finnish study found that mental health issues for people who medically “transition” continue despite receiving “gender-affirming” care. An analysis of data showed the need for psychiatric care was greater for people with gender dysphoria, both before and after medical transitioning, when compared to a control group.
Millions of Children at Risk
The signature of Dr. Lauren Schwartz, a psychiatrist in Oklahoma, appears first on the letter. She worries that using the textbook to train doctors could lead to harming millions of children, she told The Epoch Times.
She and fellow professionals hope their letter will raise awareness among parents and providers on “how radically the American Psychiatric Association has shifted away from medicine and science in the publication of this book,” she said.
“There are so many false, harmful statements—ones rooted not in medicine or science, but in an inconceivable ideological foundation and medical misinformation, both of which will harm patients and their families,” she wrote in a text message.
Other professionals who signed the letter include psychiatrists Miriam Grossman and Az Hakeem. Both have written books denouncing transgender ideology.
Dr. Grossman, a childhood and adolescent psychiatrist, wrote “Lost in Trans Nation: A Child Psychiatrist’s Guide Out of the Madness.” Her book excoriates gender ideology as a repudiation of reality and a mockery of basic male and female biology. She has been outspoken against transitioning children.
Dr. Hakeem, a London psychiatrist, formerly worked at the Tavistock gender clinic. He is the author of “Detrans: When Transition is Not the Solution,” which argues that no one is born in the “wrong body.”
He maintains that transitioning becomes a “false solution to a different problem” at a time of increasing pressure to affirm a person’s belief that he or she was born the wrong sex.
The idea of affirming gender confusion and medically altering a person’s body to fit a new gender identity is under scrutiny from clinicians and scientists worldwide.
Yet, those methods are recommended by the book’s authors.
Critics of the textbook argue in their letter that reviews of gender-affirming care in Sweden and England also did not support the idea that transitioning improves the mental health of patients.
They point out that the textbook relies on“evidence-informed” information, instead of the scientific standard that typically requires evidence-based information.
And they question why the textbook dismisses the idea of scientific neutrality and depends, instead, on the “lived experiences” and “community impact” of authors who identify as transgender.
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, board chairman of the Do No Harm organization, said he signed the letter because his organization is concerned about potential harm to children.
New evidence out of Europe indicates that medically “transitioning” children to help them try to resemble the opposite sex is doing more harm than good, he told The Epoch Times.
“We don’t have any study that shows that this is long-term beneficial,” he said.
And the Dutch studies finding that “gender-affirming” care helped people with gender dysphoria or confusion were not successfully duplicated by researchers in England, Dr. Goldfarb said.
The newest studies coming out of Europe suggest that what’s best for children with gender dysphoria is intensive, long-term psychiatric care before any medical intervention, he said.
The lack of acknowledgment of the latest scientific research in the textbook is, he said, “quite extraordinary.”
Dangerous Decisions
While adults can make their own decisions, children lack the maturity to make life-altering changes to their bodies, Dr. Goldfarb said. And the risk of harm for children taking puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones is real and serious.
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, board chairman of Do No Harm. (Courtesy of Do No Harm)
Puberty blockers stop the development of the sexual reproductive system, meaning children who don’t go through puberty would never fully develop sexuality. They’re also likely to lose the ability to have children, he said.
“It sort of depends on how far into puberty they are before they start blocking its progression,” he said. “It depends on how many hormones they take and for how long they take it.”
Dr. Goldfarb and other health professionals objecting to the textbook take issue with the authors’ assertion that puberty blockers for children are “fully reversible.”
And the textbook is “disturbingly nonchalant,” the letter states, about the high rate of mental and behavioral health issues simultaneously affecting people with gender dysphoria. Autism, ADHD, anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and suicidal thoughts often coincide with gender dysphoria in youths.
The textbook is “disturbing,” said Alan Hopewell, a prescribing neuropsychologist in Texas with experience treating transgender-identifying patients.
He told The Epoch Times, “This is nonsensical gibberish which has no foundation whatsoever in science.”
Old Man Winter To Plunge Europe, US Into Deep Freeze After Mild December
The Lower 48 and Europe enjoyed a mild start to winter but will be transitioning into a period of colder and possibly even snowier conditions through at least the mid-point of January. This will lead to a surge in heating demand on both sides of the Atlantic.
ECMWF and GFS models forecast that after an unusually warm December driven by El Nino, lower 48 temperatures from Thursday through Jan. 15 will trend around a 30-year seasonal average of about 37 Fahrenheit. After the mid-point of the month, the latest GFS Operational model shows a cold snap could be in play.
Talk of a “polar vortex” has been increasing on social media platform X by notable meteorologists.
It’s type to start hyping the “Polar Vortex” again — just like 10-years ago. It’s coming in a week.
Here’s what you can do to prepare:
Stock up on wood, toilet paper, and beer.
Make sure your significant other has her snow shovel or snow blower ready to go. pic.twitter.com/B0uF4Ccjdo
Blog now public & it’s a big one! Hard to keep up with all the #PolarVortex tap dancing in the coming days. I try my very best & as I discuss lots of potential of #winter weather in the coming weeks. Had to use the Vulcan mind meld to make sense of it all: https://t.co/Gg8N2KIjJSpic.twitter.com/dbI6a1I1Rr
The Polar Vortex is expected to sink into southern Canada towards the middle of January.
This is something to keep an eye on, as it could mean opportunities for a big cold snap and wintry weather after MLK Day. 🥶☃️🌨️ #txwxpic.twitter.com/ch2Hpr9Nsx
Across North West Europe, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe, ECMWF and GFS models forecast average temperatures will begin to plunge below seasonal norms through the weekend into next week.
“Colder conditions will soon invest Europe more widely, with temperatures steadily dropping later this week into next week,” Andrew Pedrini, a meteorologist at Atmospheric G2, told Bloomberg.
Northwest Europe
Central Europe
Eastern Europe
Maxar Technologies said London is expected to record a low of 19.4 Fahrenheit on Monday. Further north, folks in Stockholm are bracing for single-digit temperatures on Sunday.
The impending cold snap in Europe has led Finland’s transmission system operator to warn customers about using electricity during peak morning and evening hours.
India, a country the United States and allies had hoped would be a bulwark of democracy against China, is becoming a problem.
The South Asian country is desperately poor, at just $2,400 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 2022. Yet it seeks to portray itself as an up-and-coming economic powerhouse.
It is increasingly authoritarian. Yet it wants to be seen as all things to all people, including the democracies.
Its prime minister, Narendra Modi, is prideful, highly nationalist, and has superpower aspirations.
That makes India’s relationship with more responsible powers, including the United States, increasingly strained, not least because of New Delhi’s too close relations with the world’s most dangerous dictators, Xi Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia.
New Delhi is involved in various international initiatives led by Beijing and is financially complicit in Moscow’s war against Ukraine.
The three countries cooperate through joint membership in Beijing-led organizations, including the military-focused Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which is the closest that the three have to an alliance system such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). All three find ideological common ground in their socialist histories and the promotion of a “new multilateral” international system that they seek to exploit in leading the developing world against “imperialism” and the “West.”
This developing trilateral threat is by no means a done deal because India is still a democracy among the wolves and could turn back from the hunt. While China and Russia have been strong allies for years, there is a crack in their relationship when it comes to India, which still seeks and needs Group of Seven (G7) approval, support, and markets.
Simmering border disputes between India and China in the Himalayas, and New Delhi’s private criticism of Moscow’s war with Ukraine, complicate the threat. Its veto power in the SCO could be useful to the democracies. Russia’s deteriorating international position as a pariah state forces it into the arms of both India and China, with New Delhi distancing itself, at least to some extent, from Moscow. Over the last two years, Mr. Modi has gone so far as to skip his annual in-person meetings with Mr. Putin.
India’s continued complicity with Russia’s war where it counts, however, stems from New Delhi’s violation of G7 sanctions against purchasing Russian oil above a price cap of $60 a barrel agreed in 2022. While the cap cost Russia almost $38 billion, India’s evasions pushed the price to about $70 a barrel. That increases the price of gas globally and gives the Kremlin more cash for killing Ukrainian civilians. The world has New Delhi to thank for its unprincipled position and the global pain it is producing.
India uses the extra money to fund imports of Russian oil, arms, and nuclear power plants. The two countries plan to jointly produce weapons, which means that India is importing Russian military technology that can be used in New Delhi’s border disputes with China. This must irk Beijing, but it likely prefers India to rely on Russian rather than American arms. At least then, if there is a Sino-Indian war, Beijing could lean on Moscow to halt arms exports to India, including critical spare parts.
European sanctions on Russia following the Ukraine war diverted its exports East. Now, approximately 90 percent of Russian oil exports go to China and India, with the former importing as much as 50 percent and the latter 40 percent. Without Indian purchases, China would have much greater trade leverage over Russia. So New Delhi plays a spoiler role for Beijing in the latter’s increasing economic dominance.
The more of a pariah Russia becomes, the more Moscow relies on New Delhi to moderate the power of Beijing, drawing the three ever closer into a more stable threat to the democracies. More fully separating India from China and Russia is thus an important U.S. foreign policy goal, which is why Washington is not more openly critical of the South Asian country. Yet more must be done as India has long been “anti-Western,” is increasingly autocratic, and U.S. business risks becoming reliant on its cheap labor in the pivot away from China. That risks increasing Indian political influence in Washington through the same kind of elite capture that previously insulated Beijing from criticism.
To mitigate these risks, the United States and G7 countries must impose economic penalties on India, as the many incentives of the past, including direct development aid, are underappreciated.
Our attempts at buying friendship apparently failed, and we are finally realizing that India is a fair-weather friend. Sanctions and tariffs will be needed to shift India away from Russia and China. No G7 country, including the United Kingdom, should execute new free trade agreements with India.
This tough-love approach to a fellow democracy should not be directed at India alone. Rather, new such policies should apply to any country that fails to fully cooperate with the United States and allies against existential threats from Russia and China, not to mention the trilateral threats that emanate from the complicity of third countries like India.
* * *
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.
A judge in British Columbia has ordered former political candidate David Hilderman to stop referring to himself as an engineer. Hilderman, who has an university degree in engineering and works in the electronics and computer industry, described himself as an engineer in campaign materials. Engineer is a protected title in Canada, and the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C. filed a complaint against Hilderman because he is not a licensed engineer.
Russia, Ukraine Conduct Biggest Prisoner Swap Of The War
In a rare bright spot of positive news out of Ukraine, the Russian and Ukrainian governments announced a major prisoner exchange late Wednesdsay, described as the biggest single swap of captives thus far after nearly two years of war.
The two sided exchanged over two hundred captives soldiers each, following talks mediated by the United Arab Emirates. “More than 200 of our soldiers and civilians have been returned from Russian captivity,” Ukraine’s President Zelensky said on Telegram.
Videos of men celebrating and being reunited with friends and family confirmed the major deal. “There was a long pause in the exchanges, but there was no pause in the negotiations,” Zelensky had added.
While there have been many prisoner swaps throughout the war, typically involving dozens at a time, there had not been a successful swap since last August, which is almost five months ago.
Russia’s Defense Ministry specified that 248 of its servicemen were able to be returned home, and they are undergoing “medical and psychological assistance.” As for the Ukrainian side, it received 224 of its soldiers and six civilians back.
The UAE hailed that it maintains “strong friendly relations” with both Russia and Ukraine which made the deal possible. At this moment it remains unknown how many POWs are in each side’s possession, but it’s likely a number at least in the many thousands.
A New York Times report speculates as to why there’s been almost a half-year lull in prisoner swaps:
Direct communications between the countries have been infrequent since the early days of the war, but the two sides have regularly exchanged prisoners of war through deals brokered by a third-party, like the U.A.E. or Turkey. Ukraine’s human rights commissioner, Dmytro Lubinets, said there had been 49 exchanges in total, including Wednesday’s, with 2,828 Ukrainians returned. Russia hasn’t disclosed a total number, but at least 1,000 have been returned, according to statements by the country’s officials.
The rate dropped in 2023, however, after the release in Turkey of five former commanders of Ukraine’s garrison in the Azovstal steel plant angered Moscow. The last exchange of prisoners between the two countries occurred in August, when 22 Ukrainian soldiers were returned.
This new large-scale swap also confirms that both sides are at least keep up negotiations or some level of communications indirectly, via third party mediating countries. Zelensky has consistently refused to enter any negotiations which would result in Ukraine ceding territory; however, Ukraine is having a severe manpower and ammo shortage crisis.
Ukraine and Russia have exchanged hundreds of prisoners of war, in what is being described as the biggest swap of the war.
According to Ukraine, 230 members of the army were liberated from Russian detention. In return, Ukraine released 248 Russian prisoners. pic.twitter.com/m4uxoirSFM
Because of this, most analysts see an eventual negotiated settlement as inevitable. But Kiev wants better leverage, and is still holding out hopes of receiving more defense funding and advanced weaponry from the West.
In a recent episode of “American Thought Leaders,” host Jan Jekielek sits down with Christine Anderson, a member of the European Parliament and of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
Here they discuss the cultural and political threats facing Europe, from surging immigration and antisemitism to the erosion of national identities.
Jan Jekielek: Welcome to Washington, D.C. You’ve been speaking about the coronavirus pandemic and the draconian measures associated with it. We have a select subcommittee on the pandemic that has been doing an inquiry. There is similar activity in the European Parliament. Please tell me about that.
Christine Anderson: There was a committee set up in the EU [European Union] Parliament. Unfortunately, it was not an inquiry committee, so we lacked certain competencies to compel someone to show up for the committee. Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, and Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission, didn’t show up.
The title of the committee was “Lessons Learned from COVID.” They weren’t interested in looking at where they went wrong. Was it okay for us to violate fundamental rights? No, what they asked was, “Where did we fail to get people to do what we wanted?”
You can see from the report of that committee, despite all the lies we exposed, they only served one purpose—to force people into compliance. Despite all we uncovered, they repeated every single lie in that report.
At this point, the people aren’t running any show anymore. It’s the governments—but they appear to be puppets for whoever is actually calling the shots. People all over the world are in the same boat. We are up against the same powers trying to infringe on our rights and take away our democratic principles.
Mr. Jekielek: The AfD is often characterized in America and in a lot of media in Europe as a far-right extremist party.
Ms. Anderson:The AfD is not far-right. Any party that criticizes the government or questions the narrative is considered far-right.
As soon as you start advocating for the people, which is the job of elected representatives, the globalitarian misanthropists will throw whatever they have at you to prevent people from listening.
Mr. Jekielek: What would you say is the most controversial position of the AfD?
Ms. Anderson:They’re bashing us for our stance on immigration, which actually isn’t immigration. It’s an illegal invasion of millions of people. They’re saying that it’s all racist.
Mr. Jekielek: The concern is that unless those people assimilate into the culture, that can create a huge problem. There are these huge free-Palestine protests we’ve been seeing since October 7. What do you think about that?
Ms. Anderson: All the elected officials and politicians are now saying, “What? We imported antisemitism?”
This is what has been going on, and now they’re seeing it. If you import millions of people from cultures that have deep-rooted antisemitism, that’s exactly what you’ll get.
We’re overrun, and it’s almost like you have these parallel societies. On top of that, we’re being taught to hate our own way of life and our culture. Why would anyone want to integrate into a society that hates itself? It’s absurd and insane. On the altar of diversity and kindness, we’re destroying our free and liberal societies.
When you look at every single Western democracy, you have the same agendas being pushed. The governments all seem to be reading from the same script: “Build back better. Safe and effective. No one is safe until everyone is safe.” The whole shebang. I consider them to be puppets of whoever is putting forward these agendas.
I don’t know who they actually are, but that’s not the point. The only way I can change anything is by going after the elected officials. I elected these people, and they’re responsible. That’s what I’m interested in. There’s no constitution in the world that would grant me the right to take down the World Economic Forum. I have no connection to the WEF whatsoever. It’s my government that is allowing the World Health Organization to overtake its governing powers. It needs to fix this.
Mr. Jekielek: I keep thinking about this far-right moniker. Today, it’s comical how it’s being used. Elon Musk is far-right.
Ms. Anderson:Everyone who isn’t in support of whatever globalist agenda is being pushed at the moment is given the label far-right.
The mindset is different in Eastern European countries. They’ve lived under totalitarian rule, and it hasn’t been that long ago. They remember and recognize how totalitarian regimes go about doing certain things—the language and the gaslighting. Therefore, it’s not really working in the Eastern European countries.
Mr. Jekielek: You don’t have a lot of hope for Western Europe. What do you see as the path forward if you don’t see a good future?
Ms. Anderson: I wouldn’t go as far as saying I have no hope for Western Europe, but we do have antisemitism by the millions. I don’t see anyone willing to take a hard look at this and say, “What do we need to do to undo this?”
My hope lies with the Eastern European countries, where we will actually have a Europe as we know it. My hope also lies with the American people. Just a couple of nights ago when we had this event, it suddenly hit me. I realized, “This is the United States of America, the land of the free and the land of unlimited possibilities. I am being asked to come here to speak about freedom to Americans.”
It was such an honor that I would be allowed to do that. But we need the American people to uphold that concept of freedom that is deeply rooted within America. We need that if we want to save all the peoples around the world from this tyrannical system that they’re about to impose on us.
The next step in radically changing America is now underway. City officials in our national capital plan to allow non-citizens to vote next year.
President Joe Biden let millions of illegal immigrants cross the border. Then he bussed them to Washington DC. The city’s Democratic machine now wants to let them vote – knowing they will almost certainly vote Democrat for all the support and assistance.
This policy is a clear threat to American nationalism.
Three characteristics define a survivable national identity.
There must be a border which defines the nation. There must be a broad sense of history and common culture which enables people to see themselves as belonging to a common community. And there must be meaningful citizenship which gives people a stake in the larger national community (in our case, citizenship allows us to vote).
The American left has been working overtime to erase all three of these characteristics.
The left believes in open borders – and has done everything to make America open to millions of Biden’s illegal immigrants. This has not been the result of incompetence or lack of resources. This is deliberate policy. And, from the left’s standpoint, it is successful.
The left hates American history. It despises the great men and women who sacrificed and worked to make America the most successful, prosperous, and freest country in the world. For three generations, the left has been brainwashing children into an anti-American worldview. The anti-American prejudice now infects most of our newsrooms and many of our larger corporations.
Now that the left has been getting Biden’s illegal immigrants into the country, its members want to start letting illegal immigrants vote. In effect, the non-citizens would offset Americans with whom the left doesn’t agree. They are especially committed to getting new non-citizens to vote. Their dream of a huge American Latino-Democratic majority has been destroyed by the radicalism and real-world failures of Bidenism (Trump is now running ahead of Biden among American Latinos).
A key test case for getting Biden’s illegal immigrants to vote in 2024 will be the City of Washington DC. Our national capital’s left-wing politicians are totally failing to protect residents from runaway crime (there were 959 car-jackings in DC in 2023). The city bureaucracy is driving sports teams out of town. The roads are decaying, and American citizens must visit their own national capital with a sense of concern for their own safety. Now, the DC City Council has decided its next contribution to American decay is to disenfranchise its own residents and allow non-citizens to vote.
Now, the left – as they always do – will shout that being concerned about the votes of U.S. citizens being cancelled out by the votes of non-citizens is (you guessed it) racist. This is a ham-fisted attempt to shout down any discussion of what is an absurd, self-destructive policy that would make the entire concept of American citizenship meaningless.
This is nothing but a fringe political position which is totally rejected by the American people.
In a national survey from February 2021, Americans deeply opposed allowing non-citizens to vote in American elections. Further, they support requiring citizenship verification during voter registration.
In Arizona, 81 percent support allowing only American citizens to vote and requiring citizenship verification to register to vote in federal elections. Only 15 percent oppose. In Maine, 75 percent support a ban on non-citizen voting and only 19 percent oppose. In Montana, the figures are 86 percent support and 11 percent oppose, and in West Virginia, they are 84 percent to 13 percent.
In another national poll by McLaughlin & Associates from May 2021, 61 percent disapproved of “new laws in places such as California and Vermont that allow non-citizens to vote in U.S. elections.” Only 30 percent approved.
Congress should move this month to block the DC politicians’ effort to let non-citizens vote in our national capital. Congress should also pass a law making it illegal for non-citizens to cast ballots in federal elections.
The effort to let non-citizens overrule Americans must be stopped.
For more commentary from Newt Gingrich, visit Gingrich360.com.
More than one-third of U.S. adults now believe that President Joe Biden wasn’t legitimately elected, a new survey shows, marking an uptick from December 2021.
The Washington Post-University of Maryland poll, conducted last month, found that 36 percent of respondents believe that President Biden’s election was illegitimate—a 7-point increase from two years ago.
Comparatively, 62 percent said he was legitimately elected, down from 69 percent in 2021.
Republicans showed the largest decrease in belief in the president’s validity, dropping from 39 percent to 31 percent. Independents also saw a 6-point drop, from 72 percent to 66 percent, while Democrats saw a slight dip, from 94 percent to 91 percent.
In the same vein, 33 percent of all adults said there’s solid evidence of widespread voter fraud during the 2020 election. That includes 62 percent of Republicans, 33 percent of independents, and 10 percent of Democrats.
Overall, 63 percent said there’s no solid evidence.
Election Integrity Still a Concern
The survey’s results track with the findings of a CNN poll conducted in July 2023.
That poll found that 38 percent of adults believed President Biden didn’t legitimately win the 2020 election. It was the highest percentage to have given that response out of the eight surveys that the outlet has conducted on that topic.
Conversely, 61 percent said the president legitimately won enough votes to secure the presidency—a clear majority, but a new low.
While a majority (51 percent) of those who doubted President Biden’s legitimacy said there was solid evidence that he lost the election, 49 percent said it was just their suspicion. Those results marked a significant decline in certainty among the group from 2021, when 73 percent said there was solid evidence.
Nevertheless, the results across both polls show that questions linger about the validity of the 2020 election results for a significant portion of the public, despite the insistence of certain media outlets—including The Washington Post—that there’s no evidence of fraud.
Former President Donald Trump, for his part, has maintained that the 2020 election was stolen—a claim that he’s currently defending in two separate criminal cases.
Capitol Breach
The rest of the Washington Post-UMD survey focused primarily on attitudes surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
Overall, the results show a slight softening in the public’s perception of the event, with 50 percent now saying that the protesters were “mostly violent,” compared to 54 percent who said the same previously.
Among that group, Republicans again marked the largest shift over time, dropping from 26 percent to 18 percent. By contrast, both Democrats (77 percent) and independents (54 percent) alike were just 1 percent less likely to view the protesters as mostly violent, while those who viewed them as “mostly peaceful” (21 percent) or “equally peaceful and violent” (28 percent) increased slightly.
Another finding was that fewer Americans hold President Trump responsible for the breach. Where 60 percent said he bears either “a great deal” or “a good amount” of responsibility for the event in 2021, only a slight majority (53 percent) now say the same.
Republicans again account for most of that change, with just 14 percent holding the 45th president responsible, compared to 27 percent in 2021. However, it’s worth noting that Democrats saw the second-largest drop in this category, from 92 percent to 86 percent, while independents shifted just 1 point down to 56 percent.
The results are noteworthy, given that two states recently disqualified the 45th president from appearing on their presidential primary ballots based on his alleged activities on and about Jan. 6, 2021.
The Colorado Supreme Court and Maine’s Democrat Secretary of State Shenna Bellows argue that President Trump is ineligible to hold presidential office under the 14th Amendment, which bars certain individuals from holding federal offices if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States.
That legal theory has been floated by critics of the former president in multiple states as a reason for keeping him off the ballot.
President Trump’s legal team disputes the clause’s applicability to the presidency and the depiction of the Capitol breach as an insurrection. His attorneys have appealed both states’ decisions, which have been suspended as the litigation plays out.
This Is The Most Dangerous Time To Drive In Each US State
Thousands of commuters around the world lose their lives in vehicular accidents each year, and in the U.S., the most dangerous time to drive can actually depend on which state you’re in.
According to the CDC, car crashes are the eighth leading cause of death globally, and the leading cause for young people between the ages of 5–29 years old. Each day, the U.S. alone sees an average of 102 fatal traffic accidents.
Visual Capitalist’s Freny Fernandes introduces this graphic by Clunker Junker uses data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to identify the most dangerous time to drive in each state of the country, based on traffic fatalities.
The Deadly Hours
On average, U.S. commuters lose over 50 hours of their time in rush hour traffic every year. In addition to being a frustrating drive, NHTSA data found that this time frame is also the most dangerous in some states.
The number of fatal traffic accidents across various parts of the U.S. increases after 5pm, peaking between 9pm and 10pm.
State
Most Dangerous Time to Drive
Alabama
5:00‒5:59 p.m.
Alaska
2:00‒2:59 p.m.
Arizona
7:00‒7:59 p.m.
Arkansas
5:00‒5:59 p.m.
California
9:00‒9:59 p.m.
Colorado
5:00‒5:59 p.m.
Connecticut
7:00‒7:59 p.m.
Delaware
5:00‒5:59 p.m.
Florida
8:00‒8:59 p.m.
Georgia
6:00‒6:59 p.m.
Hawaii
8:00‒8:59 p.m.
Idaho
4:00‒4:59 p.m.
Illinois
6:00‒6:59 p.m.
Indiana
9:00‒9:59 p.m.
Iowa
5:00‒5:59 p.m.
Kansas
1:00‒1:59 p.m.
Kentucky
2:00‒2:59 p.m.
Louisiana
9:00‒9:59 p.m.
Maine
4:00‒4:59 p.m.
Maryland
9:00‒9:59 p.m.
Massachusetts
6:00‒6:59 p.m.
Michigan
9:00‒9:59 p.m.
Minnesota
4:00‒4:59 p.m.
Mississippi
8:00‒8:59 p.m.
Missouri
3:00‒3:59 p.m.
Montana
2:00‒2:59 p.m.
Nebraska
4:00‒4:59 p.m.
Nevada
8:00‒8:59 p.m.
New Hampshire
2:00‒2:59 p.m.
New Jersey
8:00‒8:59 p.m.
New Mexico
6:00‒6:59 p.m.
New York
6:00‒6:59 p.m.
North Carolina
6:00‒6:59 p.m.
North Dakota
4:00‒4:59 p.m.
Ohio
8:00‒8:59 p.m.
Oklahoma
3:00‒3:59 p.m.
Oregon
5:00‒5:59 p.m.
Pennsylvania
3:00‒3:59 p.m.
Rhode Island
9:00‒9:59 p.m.
South Carolina
8:00‒8:59 p.m.
South Dakota
1:00‒1:59 p.m.
Tennessee
8:00‒8:59 p.m.
Texas
9:00‒9:59 p.m.
Utah
3:00‒3:59 p.m.
Vermont
5:00‒5:59 p.m.
Virginia
6:00‒6:59 p.m.
Washington
5:00‒5:59 p.m.
West Virginia
3:00‒3:59 p.m.
Wisconsin
3:00‒3:59 p.m.
Wyoming
3:00‒3:59 p.m.
This is reported to be an outcome of various factors: low visibility at night, glaring headlights, more cars on the road, and a higher number of drunk drivers. In some states, regional geography and weather also contribute to dangerous road conditions, including hills and mountains, rain, snow, and strong winds.
Another factor is congestion. More populated states with longer average commutes like California and Maryland had the most dangerous time to drive as later (between 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.), while central states with smaller populations like Kansas and South Dakota had earlier peak dangerous times (between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.)
The safest times to drive across all states? Early in the morning from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m.
The Most Dangerous Time to Drive by Month and Day
While holidays are a time for relaxation and celebration, they can be hazardous on the roads.
According to NHTSA data, the summer and fall months are the most dangerous by average fatal accidents.
June through August are the peak months of vacation travel in the U.S. and see increased traffic (often on high-speed highways and unfamiliar roads) and fatalities. But September is actually the most dangerous month to drive in America, as the Labor Day weekend and the new school term bring new drivers to the roads.
Other popular U.S. holidays, including the Fourth of July, New Year’s Eve, and Halloween, are also more dangerous than average. In addition to increased instances of drinking and driving, many holidays involve long-distance travel, leading to fatigue.
And finally, according to the NHTSA, the U.S. sees an average of 4.68 fatal accidents on Saturdays making it the most dangerous day. This reaches a peak of over seven fatal accidents between 9 and 10pm every Saturday.
