LA business owner plays ‘Baby Shark' on repeat to deter homeless encampments
In downtown Los Angeles, a business owner resorted to an unconventional method to prevent homeless people from camping near his property: playing the children's song 'Baby Shark' continuously through a loudspeaker aimed at the encampment.
Tracy, who lives in a nearby encampment at the corner of West 11th and Main streets, described the experience to NBC4 Los Angeles, saying, 'They played 'Baby Shark' all night long. They're doing everything they can to make us move or drive us crazy. But it's doing the latter. It's driving people crazy.'
She added that the persistent noise had kept her and others awake throughout the night. 'This is ridiculous. We can't get any sleep. We can't get housing. We can't eat. And now they're trying to drive us crazy with children's music,' Tracy said.
Also read: 'No jobs in USA for international students': Founder says honeymoon period is over
Shalom Styles, owner of Styles Barber Lounge located nearby, defended the decision, emphasising that business owners are simply trying to survive in challenging circumstances. 'It's not always about being kind, because when people are taking away from business, and all the stores are going out of business, we're still here surviving, trying to put up for our family,' Styles told the outlet.
The situation unfolds against the backdrop of California Governor Gavin Newsom's ambitious plan to tackle the state's homeless crisis. Last week, Newsom unveiled details of a multi-billion-dollar initiative designed to prompt cities and counties into immediate action.
On Monday, Newsom introduced a model ordinance urging local governments to 'immediately address dangerous and unhealthy encampments and connect people experiencing homelessness with shelter and services.'
'There's nothing compassionate about letting people die on the streets,' the governor said in a news release.
The proposed ordinance is supported in part by $3.3 billion in new funding from Proposition 1, with Newsom's office stressing the urgency for local authorities to respond swiftly.
In addition to financial support, Newsom is encouraging municipalities to exercise their legal authority—affirmed by the US Supreme Court—to manage homeless encampments effectively.
'The Governor is calling on every local government to adopt and implement local policies without delay,' his office stated.
Newsom's administration has actively held communities accountable when state laws addressing homelessness are ignored. For example, in 2024, the state sued the City of Norwalk over its unlawful ban on homeless shelters.
While national homelessness increased by nearly 7% last year, California's rise was a comparatively modest 0.45%, lower than that of 44 other states.
'Governor Newsom is the first governor to actively address this issue in our state, and he is reversing a crisis that was decades in the making,' Newsom's office said.
Also read: 'Real Engineering' YouTuber says 'won't praise India again' after incorrect map controversy
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Will Trump get to pick US Supreme Court justices in his second term?
Legal experts suggest that Donald Trump may have the opportunity to appoint additional Supreme Court justices during a potential second term, potentially reshaping the court's direction for decades. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts may face pressure to retire, allowing Trump to install younger, like-minded individuals. Experts have said Trump might appoint loyalist justice. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Can Trump overhaul judiciary? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Can Trump pick judges? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Trump may seek loyalty over ideology During his first term in office, President Donald Trump appointed 226 federal court judges, including three US Supreme Court justices. Trump successfully installed judges who promoted his political agenda, including overturning the landmark ruling from 1973 that declared the Constitution guaranteed the right to abortion, Roe v. something unusual appears to be unfolding in his second term. Rather than reinforcing Trump-era policies, federal judges — even those appointed by Trump himself — are now halting key parts of the president's second-term initiatives. So, a question that keeps popping up on everyone's mind is that- Will Donald Trump appoint Supreme Court judges in the US?Trump may have the opportunity to appoint new Supreme Court justices during his second term in office, legal experts told Newsweek. During his first term in office, Trump appointed three justices to the US Supreme Court, thus significantly influencing the judiciary system. Trump may have another chance to nominate a justice in the coming years- —an appointment that could shape the Court's direction for decades. Such a move would likely have profound effects on public policy, particularly in areas like abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, and executive Justices Clarence Thomas (76), Samuel Alito (75), and Chief Justice John Roberts (70) are already facing calls from some on the right to consider retirement in the coming years. With Republicans currently holding control of the presidency and a 53-seat majority in the Senate, they are in a strong position to confirm new Supreme Court justices without Democratic argue that Republicans should take a lesson from Democrats, who have previously faced setbacks when their justices chose not to retire during favorable political Urman, a law professor at Northeastern University, told Newsweek that while it's impossible to predict exactly when a justice might step down, Justices Alito and Thomas are the most likely candidates for retirement—primarily to allow a like-minded successor to be appointed. However, he noted that this isn't a certainty, as both justices are now part of the majority after spending years as dissenting voices on the Court, a position they deeply from the right may not be convincing to the justices, he said."Judges and especially Justices are very independent, and I don't think they will be too influenced by the pressure campaign," he said. "It's ultimately a very personal decision and the Ginsburg example is important but she was older and faced more health issues than the current justices."None of the current justices on the court have publicly said they plan to retire anytime federal prosecutor Gene Rossi told Newsweek Thomas could wait until after the 2026 midterms to avoid giving Democrats a motivating issue ahead of the elections."However, if that happens, President Trump will pick a very young and conservative nominee because in his mind, he got burned with Justice Barrett," he said. "And he wants to put his further imprint on the tenor of the High Court."Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek: "It's likely Trump appoints at least one Supreme Court Justice, and maybe two. The odds increase over his four-year term, especially with Justices Thomas and Alito being in their mid-70s.""Trump's Cabinet and officer appointees during his second term have been largely loyalists without the experience or independent streaks that frustrated him during his first term. His Supreme Court appointment(s) will likely reflect those same values, especially given the importance of the judiciary in standing in the way of his executive orders."Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University, told Newsweek, "It's uncertain whether Trump will have another Supreme Court vacancy. But there's a good chance conservatives will begin urging Roberts, Thomas, and Alito to retire after this term so Trump could install younger, like-minded justices.'Legal analysts believe Trump may prioritize personal loyalty over ideological alignment when choosing future Supreme Court McQuade, a former federal prosecutor, told Newsweek that frustration with decisions made by Justices Barrett and Roberts may drive Trump to look for candidates who are not only conservative but personally loyal to him."Trump could seek justices who won't break from him on major rulings," McQuade said. "That could have a major impact on upcoming cases dealing with birthright citizenship, transgender healthcare, and the limits of executive power."Justice Amy Coney Barrett has occasionally sided against Trump's positions, including a ruling against deporting alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Her independent stance has drawn criticism from Trump-aligned analyst Urman agreed that loyalty may guide Trump's future selections, noting that he 'appears to value loyalty above all else in his nominees.' Any new appointments, Urman added, would likely align more closely with the judicial philosophies of Justices Thomas or Alito than Barrett.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
'Incredibly scary': Trump admin takes a huge step that could endanger lives of pregnant women
The Donald Trump administration announced on Tuesday it is rescinding Biden-era guidance that uses a federal law to require hospitals to stabilize patients in need of emergency care -- including by providing an abortion. In July 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance that, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), doctors must perform abortions in emergency departments -- even in states where the procedure is illegal -- particularly if it serves as a "stabilizing medical treatment" for an emergency medical condition. In 2022, shortly after the US Supreme Court overturned nationwide abortion protections, the Biden administration issued guidance aimed at safeguarding abortion access in critical medical situations. The guidance sought to ensure that women facing life-threatening emergencies—such as severe hemorrhaging or the risk of organ failure—could still receive necessary abortion care. The administration contended that, even in states with near-total abortion bans, hospitals were obligated to perform emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). This federal law mandates that emergency rooms accepting Medicare funds must provide medical examinations and stabilizing treatment to all patients. Since nearly every ER in the US depends on Medicare, the rule effectively applied nationwide. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Tired of High Power Bills? Plug in This Device elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Learn More Undo ALSO READ: Jeffrey Epstein's hidden wealth exposed: A secret investment made years ago is returning 325% return Trump revokes emergency abortion policy With Tuesday's announcement, the Trump administration declared it will stop enforcing the requirement, prompting huge concern among doctors and abortion rights advocates over the potential impact on access to emergency care. Even under the Biden administration's federal guidance, an AP investigation last year revealed that dozens of pregnant women were already being denied urgent medical treatment, including emergency abortions. Live Events The Biden administration had previously filed a lawsuit against Idaho, arguing that the state's restrictive abortion law—which only permits the procedure to save the mother's life—violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). While the US Supreme Court issued a procedural decision in the case, it left unresolved key legal questions, such as whether doctors in states with abortion bans can legally perform emergency abortions when a patient faces severe health risks. ALSO READ: 'Cringe, awful': Meghan Markle's unexpected and unusual video on daughter's fourth birthday sets Internet abuzz How will Trump's move impact guidance impact care? Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a legal group that defended Biden's interpretation of EMTALA in court, said that erasing the guidance would prove dangerous for pregnant women seeking reproductive healthcare in states with abortion bans on the books. 'The Trump administration's decision to withdraw EMTALA guidance guaranteeing pregnant people medical care in emergency situations will sow confusion for providers and endanger the lives and health of pregnant people,' she said, in a written statement. 'Every American deserves the right to access the necessary care in emergency scenarios, including pregnant people, without political interference.' Despite the change in the guidance, EMTALA remains in place, reports the Times. The Trump Administration did not directly instruct hospitals to deny abortions in emergency situations. However, in a memo announcing the policy reversal, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) clarified that the Department of Health and Human Services cannot enforce the Biden Administration's interpretation of EMTALA—which states that federal law overrides Texas' near-total abortion ban—citing court decisions that have temporarily blocked this guidance in Texas. ALSO READ: Hundreds of thousands in US asked to limit outdoor activities in multiple places, emergency declared in 2 states Abortion-rights advocates condemned the move, arguing that it puts the health and lives of pregnant individuals at serious risk. Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, strongly criticized the move. 'The Trump administration would rather see women die in emergency rooms than allow them to receive life-saving abortion care,' she said. 'In pulling back guidance, this administration is feeding the fear and confusion that already exists at hospitals in every state where abortion is banned. Hospitals need more guidance right now, not less.' 'It's making it incredibly scary for the American people and pregnant folks who would need access to emergency services,' Simpson says. 'People's lives are at stake.' 'We're making our health care professionals have to operate in a gray area when their work really needs to be clear,' Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong, a reproductive justice collective, told Times. 'They're in the business of providing life-saving care to people on a daily basis, and they don't need to be put in a position where their decision making is compromised.' When that confusion happens, she said, 'people die.' Simpson says that, for states that have banned or restricted abortion, like her home state of Georgia, rescinding the Biden-era guidance is 'just going to make things worse.'
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Trump's travel ban has come full circle
All the build-up around immigration in the last 100 days of the second Donald Trump administration has now culminated in the US President's decision to sign an executive order banning the entry of citizens from 12 countries into the US. These countries are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Trump's executive order lists seven additional countries — Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela — for partial restriction of the entry of nationals. The travel ban, in some ways, overlaps with the one in 2017, which the Joe Biden administration eventually reversed. The renewed ban has new facets. New additions to the list — such as Afghanistan, Myanmar, Republic of the Congo, Haiti, and Turkmenistan — suggest that Trump has focused on entry restrictions on people from regions engulfed in conflict or those reeling from the impact of past ones. This slight shift from the last ban (seen as a 'Muslim' ban) has both security and legal considerations. Trump has invoked national security, counterterrorism, and public safety provisions to justify it. Specifically, Trump has based his decision on Executive Order 14161, signed on January 20: Protecting the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats. It says that the administration 'must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to our national security.' The legal basis for the ban appears to be stronger than the last one. It is expected to withstand legal scrutiny because entry restrictions have now been tied to the broader spectrum of illegal immigration, national security, rising gang violence, visa overstay, the possibility of conflict in other countries reaching the shores of the US, and the alleged rise of antisemitism. In what could turn out to be a strong precedent in this case, the US Supreme Court had upheld Trump's travel ban in 2018. Although this move was in the pipeline for months, the recent attack in Boulder, Colorado by an Egyptian immigrant on a group of people protesting for the release of the hostages taken by Hamas, may have hastened the decision. Trump's decision to take action against the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, along with deportations of illegal immigrants with criminal records to high-security prisons in other countries such as El Salvador, also reflects his urgency to revise the socio-political milieu of the US. Trump has referred to Europe as a case in point and how marked changes have ensued in the continent in the last decade due to mass migration, especially from regions of conflict such as Syria. US Vice President J D Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year exemplified this policy assertion, along with one to deviate from its historical relationship with Europe. It remains to be seen whether the policies of the second Trump administration are consolidated over successive presidencies or if they will be reversed in the next 30-odd months. Apart from the fact that much of the intended policy changes will be contested in US courts, the first serious test will be the midterm elections. Until then, an oversized executive is certainly redrawing the arc of American politics, both at home and abroad. For a nation built and strengthened by immigrants, some of the Trump administration's immigration and visa policies risk upending the American Dream for millions who look to the US with hope. A policy of bans could also undermine America's competitive edge in skilled labour and manufacturing — especially at a time when Trump is pushing for increased domestic manufacturing and onshoring. While it may be time to revisit some of America's longstanding immigration policies, Trump must be cautious not to compromise security for short-term economic gains, particularly by overlooking states that openly sponsor terrorism, such as Pakistan. The writer is Visiting Fellow, ORF America and Deputy Director, Strategic Studies Programme, ORF
