Good morning. It is June 3rd. It is a sunny morning in New York City. The day is supposed to stay sunny while getting pretty warm and quite drya, and this is your Indignity Morning Podcast. I'm your host, Tom Scocca, taking a look at the day and the news. 

Israeli forces opened fire on Palestinians trying to get to a food distribution point in Gaza, reportedly killing at least 27 of them, in the second such massacre in the past three days, after Israel replaced the United Nations distribution centers throughout Gaza with a much more restrictive and chaotic arrangement of only four sites. 

The Washington Post reports that the Boston Consulting Group, which had been brought in to help Israel run those alternative aid distribution sites under the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, quit the project Friday and is pulling out of Israel and Gaza. 

The right-wing government of the Netherlands dissolved today. The flamboyantly anti-immigrant Geert Wilders, head of the largest and most xenophobic party in the coalition, announced it was pulling out because his partner parties were not willing to immediately implement the strictest anti-migrant policies that he was demanding. Dick Schoof, the compromised prime minister, chosen by the four parties together, said he would resign but lead a caretaker government until the next elections. The New York Times writes, “it was not immediately clear when the elections would take place, but they appear unlikely to happen before October, plunging the country into political uncertainty for at least the rest of the year.” 

The Washington Post reports that the Park Service plans to close the DuPont Circle Park in Washington, D.C.’s DuPont Circle neighborhood, during World Pride events this upcoming weekend. The Post writes, “Mike Litthurst, a spokesman for the National Park Service, said in a statement that the decision was made at the request of DC police to keep the community and visitors safe and protect one of DC's most treasured public spaces.” Right. And which communities have traditionally treasured DuPont Circle the most? And what have they treasured it for?

UPDATE. While we were recording the podcast, the Washington Post came out with new news that “the Park Service backed off a plan to bar people from celebrating pride in the park at DuPont Circle this weekend,” the Post reports now, “has been canceled. DC council member Zachary Parker said Tuesday the change comes less than 24 hours after the closing was announced and received pushback from elected officials.”

DuPont Circle is open for pride after all. There are some fights that the Trump administration just isn't ready to pick.

On the front of this morning's New York Times, the acknowledgement that Ukraine's weekend drone attacks against Russian air bases really did belong on page one, takes the form of a NEWS ANALYSIS story in the lead news column. Kyiv’s Drones Both Strategic And Symbolic” is the verbalist top headline. “Attacks Inside Russia Show Ability to Evolve,” and then the story takes off with some second order writing about what's really still a first order story. “Ukraine's drone attacks on airfields deep inside Russia on Sunday,” the Times writes, “were strategic and symbolic blows that military analysts said were designed to slow Moscow's bombing campaign and demonstrate that Kiev can still raise the cost of war for the Kremlin.” By the second paragraph, the first order news interests are crowding their way to the front. “After more than a year of planning,” the Times writes, “Ukraine was able to plant drones on Russian soil just miles away from military bases. Then in a coordinated operation on Sunday, Ukrainian drones attacked five regions in Russia. Some were launched from containers attached to semis. Their flights captured on videos verified by the New York Times. Plumes of smoke billowed above one base. At another, strategic bombers were hit.” It wasn't just a demonstration of the capacity for military action. It was a military action. One whose results and consequences are are still being sorted out. Next to that at the top of the front page, three columns wide, there's an infographic map. Under the headline, “Far From Home, Uyghur Workers in Factories Supplying Global Brands.” The map shows red arrows sweeping out of the red shaded Xinjiang province towards scattered red dots all over the eastern part of China. It's another one of the Times' Strength in Numbers project.

The story begins “China's mass detention and surveillance of ethnic Uyghurs turned its far western region of Xinjiang into a global symbol of forced labor and human rights abuses, prompting Congress to ban imports from the area in 2021. But,” the story continues. “The Chinese government has found a way around the ban by moving Uyghurs to jobs in factories outside Xinjiang. A joint investigation by the New York Times, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Der Spiegel found that state-led programs to ship Uyghur workers out of Xinjiang are much more extensive than previously known.” The story has to sort of work through the problem that the transfers don't just obscure the role of Uyghur labor, but they fit that labor into a larger pattern of people all over China moving from one place to another for work. The Times writes, “the workers are paid, but the conditions they face are unclear, and UN labor experts, scholars, and activists say the programs fit well-documented patterns of forced labor. China,” the story continues, “makes no secret of these labor transfer programs. It says that participation is voluntary and argues that moving Uyghurs into jobs across the country gives them economic opportunities and helps address chronic poverty in Xinjiang. But,” the story continues, “experts and activists say that Uyghurs usually have no choice but to accept the job assignments and that the programs are part of Beijing's efforts to exert control over a minority population that has historically resisted Chinese rule.” These stories direct on the scene reporting, reflects that cultivated ambiguity. When the reporting team went out to find Uyghur factory workers, the story says, “several workers suggested with some hesitation that they labored under close supervision. They said their jobs had been arranged for them and that they sometimes needed permission to leave factory grounds, usually upon arrival. Security guards at some factories also confirmed they had been sent Uighur workers by government agencies.” The story continues, “other workers said that they had taken the jobs willingly and were staying in them of their own accord. One worker in Hubei province told the Times that he and about 300 other Uyghurs lived in the dormitory separated from staff identified as from the majority Han Chinese population. He said they were assigned minders from their home counties in Xinjiang, were allowed to leave the factory premises and could return to Xinjiang if they gave a month's notice.” The story then says, “he said he worked up to 14 hours a day and earned a monthly salary of up to 6,000 yuan or $827, about the national average for a factory worker in China. The interview ended abruptly when several men surrounded the worker and demanded to know who he was and why he was not at work.” 

Next over from that on page one, “Economists See Trouble Ahead In G.O.P.’s Bill / Warning It’s Bad Time to Increase Deficit.” 

“There is a basic rule of thumb,” the Times writes, when it comes to the federal budget. The government should spend heavily during times of crisis, recessions, wars, pandemics, and then get its fiscal house in order when the crisis passes. The tax and spending bill passed by the House of Representatives last month,” the story continues, “turns that rule on its head, adding trillions to the debt when unemployment is low and the economy is solid by most measures.”

“That could make it much harder for the government to come to the rescue in the next downturn.” But luckily the Trump administration is doing everything it can to bring about a downturn. So that should sort itself all out, really. 

The left-hand column at the top of the page is, like the drone story, designed to put on the front page a story that belonged on yesterday's front page. “MAN IS CHARGED WITH HATE CRIME IN FLAME ATTACK AT MARCH IN COLORADO / Authorities Say Suspect Spent Year on Plan to ‘Kill All’ Zionists.” 

”The accused attacker, Mohammed Sabry Soliman,” the Times writes, “was federally charged on Monday with a hate crime in the attack on Sunday afternoon in Boulder, Colorado. The Boulder County District Attorney's Office also announced charges on Monday of multiple state counts of attempted murder, assault and possession of incendiary devices.” 

Down below that is a look at where all those Andrew Cuomo commercials are coming from, and at who exactly is invested, quite literally, in creating the appearance of inevitability around the Westchester resident’s bid to become mayor of New York City. “Business Interests Pouring Cash Into Super PAC Backing Cuomo” is the headline.” It begins. “A quarter million dollars came from the head of Suffolk Construction, a Boston based builder betting big on a New York City expansion. Another $150,000 arrived from the chairman of Vornado Realty Trust, who is searching for a way to revive a stalled Midtown Manhattan redevelopment so important that he once called it his ‘promised land.’ DoorDash, the food delivery service lobbying City Hall on regulations that could disrupt its business model, chipped in a staggering $1 million. The donations make up just a fraction of the checks from New York business leaders, billionaires, and special interest groups pouring into a super PAC, boosting Andrew Cuomo, the favorite in the Democratic primary for mayor on June 24th.” The story goes on “with $10 million raised so far. The super PAC, Fix the City,” fantastic semantic duality right there. “Fix the City is already the single largest outside spending force in New York City's political history, surpassing a record set in 2021. It has spent multiples more on ads than any campaign in the race, blanketing New Yorkers screens in pans to the former governor. The next biggest candidate super PAC,” the story says, “set up to back Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic socialist who is second in recent polls, has one fiftieth of the funds.” The whole thing is an amazingly straightforward and clinical piece of news writing by the times. It waits until well after the jump to even bother getting a quote from a watchdog group, and just goes ahead and describes the relationships that make up the Cuomo campaign without attributing those facts to any disembodied critics or concerned observers. “Many of Fix the City's donors,” the Times writes, “are longtime Cuomo supporters who share his moderate policy views or fear what Mr. Mamdani's tax-the-rich policies would do. Among them are Barry Diller, the media mogul. $250,000. Billy Joel, the musician, $50,000. Bill Ackman, the investor, $250,000. And Kenneth Langone, the Home Depot founder, $50,000. But,” the Times continues, “millions of dollars more have arrived from labor unions, tech companies, real estate developers, and landlords who have a direct financial stake in the election's outcome. Grand gestures that, while legal, raise pressing ethical questions about the motivations behind their generosity.” Here, rather than using the “raises questions” construction to let the ethical problems sort of drift away, the Times locks in on them. “The potential conflicts,” the Times writes, “can be seen in the donations from real estate, a multi-billion industry that relies on City Hall to approve land use agreements and zoning variances that can make or break a project. Many of the city's largest developers and landlords or their executives, have donated five or six figure sums, including related companies, the Durst Organization, Two Trees Management Company, RXR, and Vornado, whose Midtown Development Plan Mr. Cuomo supported as governor. Many of the donations”, the story continues, “came after Mr. Cuomo made a rare appearance at the Real Estate Board of New York, where Politico reported that he expressed regret for signing rent reforms as governor that landlords bitterly opposed.” Questions raised? Questions pretty much answered. 

That is the news. Thank you for listening. The Indignity Morning Podcast is edited by Joe MacLeod. The theme song is composed and performed by Mack Socca-Ho. You, the listeners, keep us going through your paid subscriptions to Indignity and your tips. Continue sending those along if you are able. And if nothing unexpected gets in the way, we will talk again tomorrow.