Connect with us

News

Austin Welcomed Elon Musk. Now It’s Weird (in a New Way).

Published

on

Austin Welcomed Elon Musk. Now It’s Weird (in a New Way).

Each weekend for the past few months, Mike Ignatowski has gone to one of two Tesla dealerships in Austin, Texas, to protest Elon Musk, Tesla’s chief executive and the most famous transplant to the state’s most left-leaning city.

Not too long ago, Mr. Ignatowski, a 67-year-old computer engineer, was an admirer of Mr. Musk — before Mr. Musk aligned himself with President Trump. Now Mr. Ignatowski waves a “Fire Elon” sign during the protests, even as he conceded he’s not quite mad enough to part with the blue Model 3 Tesla that he bought “before we knew Elon was crazy,” as his bumper sticker attests.

That’s how it goes in Texas’ capital, where Mr. Musk’s sharp rightward shift has been received with a mix of anger and hair-pulling agony. Austin’s conflicted feelings reflect both the billionaire entrepreneur’s economic influence on the city and the city’s broader transformation from a medium-sized college town arranged around the State Capitol to a tech-fueled metropolis with a glass-and-steel skyline and a changing image.

Tie-dyed T-shirts still urge residents to “Keep Austin Weird,” mostly in hotels and tourist shops. But a different kind of counterculture has taken root amid an influx of decidedly right-of-center figures (including Mr. Musk), self-described freethinkers (like the podcasters Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman), and conservative entrepreneurs (like Joe Lonsdale). Already in town was Austin’s resident conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, and his far-right Infowars. There’s even a new, contrarian institution of higher learning looking to compete with the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Austin.

Weird, perhaps, but not in the way of the old bumper-sticker mantra.

Advertisement

“If you say ‘Keep Austin Weird’ to somebody under the age of 40, they would think of that as an antique-y slogan, like Ye Old Shoppe,” said H.W. Brands, a historian at the University of Texas. “It doesn’t have any resonance for their lived experience of Austin.”

The city’s transformation followed a deliberate, decades-long project to attract technology companies to its rolling hills.

“I’m one who thinks it has changed for the better,” said Gary Farmer, who helped attract new businesses as the founding chairman of Opportunity Texas, an economic development group. “The culinary arts, the performing arts, the visual arts, the music scene — it’s all better.”

At the same time, housing prices have skyrocketed, and the population — already the whitest among big cities in Texas — has shed some of its diversity.

In 2023, more people moved out of Austin’s Travis County than moved in, and the share of Hispanic residents in Austin declined even as across all of Texas, the Hispanic population has grown to become a plurality. Black families have also been leaving Austin, said Lila Valencia, the city’s demographer.

Advertisement

The biggest increase in new residents has been among households making more than $200,000 a year, which grew by 70 percent from 2019 to 2023, Ms. Valencia said. The share of households making below $100,000 a year declined.

Austin now has about 100 accredited private schools, more than double the 39 it had two decades ago. Enrollment in the city’s public schools has been falling.

For years, locals resisted development, to no avail.

“They were building a lot of freeways in Houston and Dallas, and Austin turned away that money,” said Tyson Tuttle, the former chief executive of Silicon Labs, who moved to Austin in 1992. “They were saying, if we don’t build it, they won’t come. And they came anyway.”

Many in Austin’s new elite have chafed at the progressive policies in city and county government over issues such as homelessness and policing. Last year, some of them, including Mr. Musk, backed a primary challenger to the local Democratic district attorney, José Garza. In a companywide email, Mr. Musk encouraged Tesla employees to vote in support of the challenger.

Advertisement

Mr. Garza won the primary by a two-to-one margin.

“If an asteroid fell from the sky and hit a Democratic candidate for office in Travis County and killed that person, that person’s corpse would still beat a live Republican,” said Evan Smith, a former leader of the Texas Tribune, an Austin-based nonprofit news site.

Still, the city’s demographic transformation has led many to lament its fading identity as a place of street buskers and a cross-dressing, homeless mayoral candidate. The Austin Chronicle, an alternative weekly newspaper, even sells a shirt that reads “R.I.P. Old Austin.”

Earlier this year, passers-by stopped to listen to an impromptu street performance on Congress Street, like old times, except the guitarist was the Trump-friendly Ted Nugent, and his appearance had been organized by hard-right Republicans.

Almost as common are complaints about the complainers.

Advertisement

“I’m not one of those naysayers about Austin who say it was all better in the old days,” said Terry Lickona, who for 50 years has produced “Austin City Limits,” a public television showcase for local and national musicians. He added, “Austin has always attracted outsized characters,” including Willie Nelson and Michael Dell, the computer maker.

The struggles at Tesla, where profits have dropped sharply since Mr. Musk began closely aligning himself with Mr. Trump, could directly affect the city. At the same time, Austin is set to be the proving ground for his next big venture: self-driving Tesla taxis, which Mr. Musk promised for June.

Mr. Musk did not respond to an interview request.

“Having Tesla here is a huge benefit to the city,” said Mr. Tuttle, who has recently founded an artificial intelligence startup. “I wish that Elon would come home and focus on his business.”

The arrival of Mr. Musk and Tesla five years ago was a key moment for the city, punctuating a yearslong transformation that was accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Many people, including celebrities and dissatisfied Californians whose politics were shifting amid the lockdowns, sought out the relative openness of Texas.

Advertisement

“It’s, like, most of the good stuff and very little of the bad stuff,” Mr. Rogan said during a 2021 interview with Mr. Adler, months after moving there.

The result has been a slight moderation of the city’s politics and tensions over Mr. Musk between those who hate his actions in Washington and those who love his role as a technology entrepreneur.

The city “attracts people that are on all sides of issues,” said Joshua Baer, the founder of the Capital Factory, which helps finance and nurture technology startups. “My world is generally Elon fans and supporters.”

On a recent evening, more than two dozen Austinites convened in a church meeting room adorned with colorful messages of inclusivity for a gathering of Resist Austin, which organizes protests against Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump at Tesla dealerships.

“Our mission is lawful nonviolent resistance of authoritarians,” Ian Crowl, an organizer, said to the group, which included retirees, tech workers and graduate students. “If you want to throw a rock at a Tesla,” he added, “that’s not what we’re doing here.”

Advertisement

Such tensions have been on the mind of Tesla drivers in Austin as well. Vikki Goodwin, a Democratic state representative, said she tries to be “invisible” when driving around in hers. When a car rammed into her at a stop light recently, she worried it might have been intentional.

“Oh my God,” Ms. Goodwin said she thought, “is it anger that caused him to drive into my car?”

The driver, in fact, was using his wife’s gas-powered car, Ms. Goodwin said he told her, and he assumed it would slow down quickly when he took his foot off the gas pedal — like his Tesla does.

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending