Good morning. It's May 2. It's a cloudy but rainless morning here in New York City, and this is your indignity morning podcast. I'm your host, Tom Scocca Taking a look at the day and the news. The cops stormed the protest encampment at UCLA last night as the nationwide crackdown against student protesters continued in New York, the cops moved in on demonstrators at Fordham. The Times reports that police also went after protesters at the University of Texas, at Dallas, at Dartmouth, and at Tulane. This morning's New York Times has yesterday's news from UCLA, albeit with the editors doing their damnedest not to say what it is. There's a front page picture of a brawl, a plywood partition falling over with the caption chaotic night at UCLA. The university cancelled classes on Wednesday after violent clashes over the war in Gaza. Just some violent clashes. Who was clashing? Well, you take the jump to page a 17 and the headline, classes are cancelled at UCLA after two protesting groups clash. And only then do you get to the lead of this story, which was presumably available for the headline writer and the front page designer to consult. Where are the Times reports after a group of counter protesters attacked a, uh, pro Palestinian encampment on the University of California, Los Angeles campus on Tuesday night as police officers and security guards looked on. State and local officials are demanding answers about what happened and the university's response. I don't really know any other way of describing the packaging on that story other than saying that my New York Times is trying to lie to me. Whoever set this story up was aggressively packaging the news to conceal the news. What happened Tuesday night was not that two protesting groups clashed any more than Nicole Brown Simpson and OJ Simpson got into a fight outside her house. There was a peaceful protest at UCLA. A bunch of goons went there to attack the protesters. The cops let them do it, and the whole thing became a pretext for the cops to come back and bust up the protest the next day. This is a hugely important development in the story of what's going on with the protests, with the cops, and with the right wing movement in America. And the Times is dedicated to making that as unclear as possible. The, Seattle Times reported yesterday that a healthy 45 year old man named Joshua Dean, a whistleblower who testified about quality problems at spirit era systems, which helps build the lethally defective 737 Max, died. The paper rights after a struggle with a sudden, fast spreading infection. Dean, the paper Wrights was represented by a law firm, um, in South Carolina that also represented Boeing whistleblower John Mitch Barnett. Barnett was found dead in an apparent suicide in March. He was in the midst of giving depositions alleging Boeing retaliated against him for complaints about quality lapses when he was found dead from a gunshot wound in Charleston, South Carolina, where Boeing has its 787 manufacturing facility. Back to the paper New York times I hope you have a place to live cause the Fed is not going to lower interest rates keeping housing unaffordable in the name of fighting inflation. Arizona repealed its 1864 law banning abortion. And in the lead news spot, uh, Blinken presses Hamas to accept terms for truce 7th mideast visit, demanding that Israel have a plan to protect civilians in Gaza. Again, a little disconnect between the headline setup and the story setup, as the lead describes the messages to Hamas and Israel as, uh, twin messages, not a top message and a subordinate message to Hamas. The secretary said, there is a proposal on the table, and as we've said, no delays, no excuses. The time is now. He also said, we cannot, will not support a major military operation in Rafa. Hey, that sounds good. Absent and effective plan to make sure that civilians are not harmed. And no, we've not seen such a plan. There are other ways, and in our judgment, better ways of dealing with the real ongoing challenge of Hamas that does not involve require a major military operation. Seems like there are two different messages here that the United States might want to help Israel sort out. One is that it would be brutal, stupid, and useless to attack Rafa. And it would be nice if the United States had said that it would not support it. But the other message was that Israel maybe could invade Rafaela if they did it right, although they have no plan to do it right. And that leaves open the possibility that the invasion will proceed as a series of tragic mistakes in which he planned to protect civilians while, uh, blasting away at an urban center overcrowded with more than a million people, just suffers from some failures of planning and follow through. That is the news. Thank you for listening. Please subscribe to indignity to keep us going, and if all goes well, we will talk again tomorrow.