Local educators bring Teach Truth movement to Laguna Beach
Laguna Beach residents have always found fresh produce at a farmers market each Saturday right outside City Hall, but they were also recently offered some food for thought.
As the public passed a misfit booth at the market a week ago, many stopped and talked with those who had set up a table seeking to start conversations about defending the freedom to learn.
Local educators had decided to put out the pop-up exhibit, joining the fifth annual Zinn Education Project Teach Truth day of action.
The discussions centered around book bans across the country, as well as teaching an accurate history of the nation. The Teach Truth movement aims to shed light on laws and policies that place restrictions on education.
'We want to make sure that all students feel safe and welcome and their humanity is affirmed in the classroom, no matter their gender [or] immigration status,' said Heather Hanson, a European history teacher at Laguna Beach High.
'The Teach Truth event is about raising awareness about legislation that has been introduced federally, most currently the executive actions which would seek to ban teaching the truth about the role of racism, sexism [and] heterosexism oppression throughout history, and various book bans throughout the country.'
Among the books displayed at the table, some found titles they had read in their school days were now subjected to bans. Those included George Orwell's 'Animal Farm,' J.D. Salinger's 'The Catcher in the Rye,' and Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse-Five.'
'I think every single person that stopped was surprised to see what kinds of books were being banned and what kinds of topics were under fire,' Hanson added.
The installation featured interactive elements such as selfie props and a board where people could write down the ways they can commit to supporting librarians, teachers and schools.
There were more than 200 actions planned nationwide for the Teach Truth movement on June 7, Hanson said.
Zoe Tran, a junior at Laguna Beach High, was among the students who volunteered at the event. It represented a lesson in civics, as Tran and her peers learned the power of advocacy.
'I think it was definitely a great opportunity for us to be taking action and sort of advocating for the pressing issue that I feel like is affecting primarily students my age across the country,' Tran said. 'At least in our district, we're really fortunate that there haven't really been book bans, and a lot of these books that we see being banned across the country are actually part of our curriculum.
'It's really important that we get the opportunity to kind of speak up and advocate against book banning and bring awareness to this.'
David Milton, an exhibitor at the Sawdust Art Festival and a proponent of the cause, paid a visit to the Teach Truth stand. He noted the importance of making varying perspectives available for public consumption.
'If we're to have liberty in the world, and especially in America, we need to make free speech actually available to everyone from every perspective,' he said. 'It's got to be open 100%.'
Milton has created artwork concerning the matter, including a painting that has been reproduced on clothing, posters and other products. The proceeds from those sales, he said, go to the American Library Assn.
'About a year and a half ago, I came up with the idea of doing a painting that would feature the most banned books in the world,' Milton said. ''1984,' as it turns out, is actually the world's most-banned book, and someone would say, 'Well, how Orwellian is that?''
One of the attendees wore a shirt showcasing the design, which includes a dozen books.
'What I wanted to do was portray the idea that the very books that most people read in an English course in high school, or grammar school, are now actually banned books,' Milton added. 'How outrageous is that, that classics of American and European literature would be actually considered off limits and not a good thing for young people, or anybody for that matter, to know about?
'I put the [books] together, and I found a piece of rusty barbed wire to circle the books. If you look at the shirt, there's a wire around it to give a symbolism of off limits.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Opinion: Offshore balancing – The proper solution to Trump's whims with Europe
Over the past few months, Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw the United States from NATO, citing concerns about a lack of European defense investment. Later on, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Secretary Hegseth confirmed Trump's sentiments, stating that they were 'pushing our allies in Europe to own more of their own security — to invest in their defense, things that are long overdue' so 'we can increase our focus on the Indo-Pacific, our priority theater.' This is the perfect time to begin planning a new grand strategy, one that replaces our long history of firm interventionism in favor of a restrained approach that preserves US national security, reduces costs, and empowers allies. The most promising option appears to be offshore balancing. What is Offshore Balancing? Offshore balancing is a selective, interventionist approach. It advocates for withdrawal of US forces from regions without a great power or a firm national security interest. Instead, the United States would equip and strengthen local forces – with arms, training, and intelligence – as a counterweight to regional powers. But, if regional allies are ineffective in deterrence or a local country grows too powerful, the United States would intervene into the region to protect its and its allies' security. Europe is a perfect place for the United States to exercise restraint. Due to large equipment and personnel losses, Russia is weak and unable to pursue attacks against other nations. This presents a unique window of opportunity for the US to shift the burden of defense onto Europe. Why Offshore Balancing? Currently, the United States faces threats in three, main global theaters: the Persian Gulf, South China Sea, and Europe. For years, this 'three-war standard' has significantly strained the US military and industrial base. In fact, signs of trouble have already started to show. The number of defense contractors in the US has dwindled to less than 10 due to consolidation, thus hurting product quality, while the United States is struggling to 'to maintain robust munitions levels' and supply our allies adequately. At the same time, our allies are particularly under-equipped. Europe is overly dependent on the United States for its technological capabilities, has limited interoperability across weapon systems, and invests a limited amount of money into its own defense. Overall, this situation is dangerous as it provides our adversaries – China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran – an opportunity to mount a challenge against the liberal international order the United States has worked so tirelessly to create. Under current geopolitical situations, Washington would be unable to defend all regions simultaneously, forcing a tradeoff between abandoning hegemony or quickly ramping resources (at a great financial cost) to defend regional allies. By employing a grand strategy of offshore balancing in Europe, the United States can find a balance between credible deterrence and military overstretch. First, by significantly withdrawing from Europe, the US military would free up resources (weapon systems, personnel, money) that they can instead commit against China, the biggest threat to US national security. While Russia does pose considerable risks to the US, its status quo engagement in Ukraine limits its overall influence and strong regional allies can counterbalance against them. Additionally, in Europe, the United States would shift some of the defense burden to its allies, forcing them to act as a unified front (something lacking right now) and work together for collective security. If successful, in the advent of a conflict, Europe can support the US military by leveraging its own capabilities (weapons production, technology sharing, etc) and taking control of a majority of the fighting in Eastern Europe, thus maintaining US hegemony. Concerns? At first glance, this proposal may seem as if we are abandoning NATO and endangering our alliances globally. However, the baseline for comparison shouldn't be the status quo, rather the future. Due to military overstretch, the ability for the United States to maintain military presence in Europe is rapidly decreasing, negatively affecting our ability to protect our alliances in the long-term. Offshore balancing, if designed right, can not only address the aforementioned long-term threats to our alliances, but can also cushion any international fallout the US might face. By gradually withdrawing US forces, our European allies can be given plenty of time to ramp up their own defense production and military capabilities. By maintaining our nuclear deterrent and a limited ground presence in the region, the United States can firmly demonstrate commitment to its allies. Absent offshore balancing however, European allies have no i55ncentive to share the defense burden: despite agreeing in 2006 to spend 2% of the GDP on defense, most NATO member states only reached that target now, after Trump's threats. At the same time, harsh rhetoric on Europe should be avoided. Earlier, Trump had stated he would not protect and instead encourage Russia to attack non-paying NATO member states. This language distances our allies and weakens our ability to form a regional bloc to counter a rising and revisionist Russia. The Future As new global threats gain traction, the United States will need to calibrate its military grand strategy accordingly. Offshore balancing is a realistic solution that simultaneously empowers allies and bolsters US defense capabilities. For Europe, there is a limited window of opportunity for it to build its defense up. Maj. Gen. Davis (rtd.) estimates that only 3 to 5 years after Ukraine, Russia will have the capabilities to mount another challenge against a European state.
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
No, this likely isn't the start of WWIII. But here's what to watch next and how it all can impact you.
Here's a clear-eyed look at where things stand now, what to watch for, and how this moment could matter to your daily life. Advertisement So, World War III didn't just begin? All signs say it has not. Saturday night's attacks may be the most aggressive — and possibly final — step the United States takes in this conflict. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up World wars are typically defined by the involvement of multiple great powers on both sides, spanning continents, and with global stakes. That is not the case here. This is a bilateral conflict (Israel vs. Iran) with few signs it will draw in the world's major militaries. On Israel's side, no major powers are lining up to join the fight. The major European powers, Canada, Australia, Japan, and others are all calling for de-escalation. Even the United States now appears focused on restraint: Asked on Sunday news shows whether the U.S. is at war with Iran, both Advertisement Iran, meanwhile, is learning just how few real allies it has. While Tehran maintains a loose alignment with Russia, China, and North Korea, there is no mutual defense pact or formal military commitment among them. This is not NATO. Russia and China have both called for calm and show no appetite for military involvement. Russia, preoccupied with its war in Ukraine, also has a long, complicated — sometimes cooperative — relationship with Israel. Consider: While Iran began supplying drones to Russia for use in Ukraine starting in 2022, Russia's initial response to Hamas's October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel was sympathetic to Israel. That said, Russia still maintains diplomatic ties with Hamas and casts itself as a mediator in Gaza and not an Iranian partisan. China, for its part, avoids direct military conflicts. Its support tends to come in the form of economic investment or rhetorical backing. China views Iran as a key energy partner, but it notably did not condemn Israel's preemptive strikes and quickly called for de-escalation following the US attack. All signs suggest that, even if this becomes a prolonged conflict, it is likely to remain limited to Israel and Iran. What's next? While a long-term war may stay confined to Israel and Iran, the short-term still holds real risk, especially for further Iranian retaliation involving the United States. Iran will almost certainly respond in some form. On Sunday, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations told the Advertisement Here are four: 1. Target US troops in the region Roughly 40,000 American troops are stationed within missile range of Iran across Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and Oman. When President Trump ordered the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020, Iran responded with missile strikes on US bases in Iraq, resulting in over 100 traumatic brain injuries but no deaths. This time, the U.S. has reportedly warned Iran that any attack on American personnel will trigger additional consequences. And it's worth noting: there's no confirmed evidence that any Iranians were killed in the US strikes on Saturday, which occurred around 2:30 a.m. local time. 2. Disrupt the Strait of Hormuz This narrow waterway — just 90 miles wide at its tightest — is a vital artery for global oil transport. About a quarter of the world's exported oil passes through it. Iran's navy has the ability to mine the strait, disrupting global markets and potentially trapping American destroyers in the upper Gulf. But doing so would hurt Iran's own economy and threaten China's oil supply, up to 40 percent of which comes from Iran via the strait. 3. Launch a cyberattack, possibly with North Korean help North Korea is one of the world's most capable cyber warfare actors and a quiet ally of Iran. A coordinated cyberattack could target US infrastructure, disrupt financial markets, or even knock out power grids or internet access in parts of the country. That may be a more attractive option for Iran than a conventional military response. Advertisement 4. Use terrorist proxies to strike inside the United States The most dangerous — and perhaps most tempting — option for Iran would be to activate terrorist networks it funds to launch an attack on US soil. Iran could deny involvement, preserving plausible deniability. If it openly claimed responsibility, a NATO-backed military response could follow, potentially leading to regime change in Iran. How this affects you Polling shows Americans across the political spectrum are deeply wary of another Middle East war. The current administration seems to share that sentiment, in spite of these recent actions. Like President Biden's stance on Ukraine, leaders have clearly stated there will be no deployment of US troops on the ground. If that holds, there's little risk of mass deployments or a draft. Yes, the threat of terrorism or cyberattacks is real, but it has been for decades. A large-scale cyberattack could disrupt your ability to access bank accounts or make credit card purchases, but such risks already exist and are monitored closely by US intelligence. The most direct impact would be economic: If Iran disrupts the Strait of Hormuz, even briefly, gas prices could surge. That would ripple through the economy, increasing costs across the board. The guiding principle at the moment: keep calm and fill up the gas tank. James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Project 2025 Coauthor: Trump Tariffs Could Endanger Health Care
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump is right to play hardball on trade with Europe. The European Union targets leading American companies with rules, fines, and other punitive actions that undermine their ability to do business in EU countries and deliver technologies to their citizens and small businesses. However, there are some lines that we should not cross in response to trade tensions—like the tariffs President Trump is expected to impose on imported medicines any day now. The president can levy so-called Section 232 tariffs on imports deemed a threat to national security. While that rationale may apply to medicines from China, imports from Europe and Japan pose no such threat. Tariffs on European and Japanese medicines would harm Americans who rely on prescription drugs. They would disrupt the small firms that underpin our health care system—disproportionately hurting early-stage biotech startups, specialized manufacturers, and independent pharmacies, especially in rural communities. These companies operate lean and are laser-focused. Most emerging biotechs, in fact, revolve around a single drug candidate. They have small teams, tight budgets, and years of regulatory hurdles ahead. Many rely on active pharmaceutical ingredients sourced from Europe to develop their therapies. Tariffs on those imports wouldn't just slow medical progress—they could stop it in its tracks. That's because small firms aren't on the sidelines of drug development. They are the front line. In 2024, nearly two-thirds of all U.S. clinical trials were launched by emerging biopharma companies. Last year, small businesses developed 85 percent of newly approved drugs and brought more than half to market on their own. Breakthroughs require reliable, affordable inputs. A full one-third of the active pharmaceutical ingredients in Americans' medicines come from Europe. Building new U.S. pharmaceutical plants can take up to a decade and cost $2 billion. Waiting that long isn't an option for a startup betting everything on one product. Even established manufacturers aren't immune. Many of America's nearly 1,600 domestic facilities—which produce approximately one-half of U.S. medicines—still depend on European ingredients. Tariffs would spike their costs and strain an already fragile supply chain. Some may be forced to pull workers off the factory floor. WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 02: U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a 'Make America Wealthy Again' trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2,... WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 02: U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a 'Make America Wealthy Again' trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. MoreThen there are the pharmacies. Unlike big chains, independent pharmacies often can't negotiate bulk deals or absorb sudden price hikes. A steep tariff could erase already thin margins, forcing many to shut their doors, including in underserved and rural communities that already lack sufficient access to pharmacies. In 2023 alone, the U.S. imported close to $130 billion in pharmaceutical products from Europe. A tariff, of 25 percent for instance, could translate to tens of billions in new costs for our health care system. Those dollars won't just hit corporate balance sheets. They'll show up in Medicare and Medicaid budgets, insurance premiums, and out-of-pocket costs for seniors and working families. Placing tariffs on medicines is not like taxing handbags or hubcaps. There's often no clear "substitute" for the medicine that works best for a particular patient. If a treatment is made in Ireland or Switzerland, a tariff doesn't create a U.S. version. It creates delay, financial strain, or worse—outright loss of access. Developed countries have long treated medicines as off-limits in trade disputes for one simple reason: patients' lives should never be used as leverage in a trade war. If President Trump's goal is to keep America from relying on adversaries like China for key medicines, life-saving European drugs shouldn't be caught in the crossfire. Entrepreneurs and small business owners are not asking for special favors. They merely want predictability, light government intervention, access to markets, and a fair shot. Drug tariffs will inject turmoil into a sector that needs stability. For biotech startups and other small businesses, these tariffs aren't just a cost increase—they are an existential threat. President Trump is right to confront trade inequities, intellectual property theft, and other countries' lack of compliance with previous trade deals. But when it comes to medicines, tariffs will cause broad-based harm. Practically speaking, tariffs will not build domestic capacity any time soon and they will not protect American innovation. Medicines must remain exempt from tariff actions against allies like Europe and Japan. American patients and the small businesses powering our health care system need this stability and assurance. Karen Kerrigan is president and CEO of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council ( in Washington, D.C. She was the author of Project 2025's chapter on the Small Business Administration. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
