Editor’s Note: GOOD’s parent company is a proud partner with Global Witness, sharing stories of their mission challenging abuses of power to protect human rights and secure the future of our planet.


Despite Chevron’s public comments in support of the Black Lives Matter movement, Global Witness finds that Chevron gives over four times more campaign funding to US politicians who fail to uphold racial justice and civil rights legislation.

As the United States faces a watershed moment in the country’s movement for racial justice, Chevron is aiming to portray itself as an ally to Black communities with public statements of solidarity in the struggle against systemic racism. However, Global Witness found that behind the scenes, the company funnels hundreds of thousands of dollars through its political action committee to politicians whose civil rights voting records earned “F” grades from the NAACP[1]. According to a Global Witness analysis, Chevron gave over 4 times more in political funding to candidates with “failing” civil rights grades than to politicians with “passing” grades, as scored by the civil rights organization’s 2019 Legislative Civil Rights Report Card for the 116th Congress.



In the aftermath of the brutal and highly visible police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota late May 2020, millions of people flooded the streets in major cities and small towns alike to vocally oppose longstanding police violence and racism. Corporations took to social media to publicly show their support for the Black Lives Matter movement. Yet, while companies like Netflix, Citigroup, and Amazon voiced their support, the fossil fuel industry was largely silent, with just a few releasing statements in the days that followed. Chevron was the only major US oil company to do so.




It wasn’t the first statement on racial justice to come from Chevron. The oil major, which calls itself a “human energy company,” has previously spoken out on racial justice issues. The company has boasted commitments to diversity and inclusion, highlighted partnerships with historically Black colleges and universities, and cited efforts internally to improve diversity in their workforce, including among leadership. Following Floyd’s death, the company tweeted their solidarity and shared statements from top executives.

But behind the public persona, Chevron is propping up politicians who consistently work to oppose and dismantle policies that would further racial justice and equality. According to public campaign finance records[2] for the current election cycle spanning 2019 and 2020, Chevron has given at least $529,500 through its political action committee to US Congressmembers with failing civil rights grades, as scored by the NAACP. This compares to $124,000 given to politicians with passing grades.

Nearly half of Congress received a failing grade from the NAACP, largely falling on partisan lines. However, 80% of the members of Congress whom Chevron has contributed to have failing civil rights marks. Many elected officials with poor civil rights records are also key advocates for the oil and gas industry, and Chevron is notorious for its massive political spending to push pro-industry interests[3]. But it appears the company’s political spending also props up politicians who use their positions of power to further entrench racial injustice.

For example, Chevron has contributed to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who recently penned a disturbing New York Times op-ed calling to “Send In the Troops” in response to ongoing protests against police brutality and racism. His argument to deploy the military on protestors caused many to point out how Cotton’s call to arms would put Black residents at risk.

In response, Cotton defended his article and referred to the backlash as the newsroom’s “woke progressive mob.” The senator, who called for justice for George Floyd in a sparse resolution also opposing calls to defund police, received a dismal NAACP civil rights score of 7%. His poor civil rights voting record is largely due to judicial confirmations that risk dismantling civil rights law, such as the appointment to an appeals court of Steven Menashi, the author of a controversial 2010 academic article appearing to promote ethnonationalism.

Or look to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the former Republican Senate Majority Whip who maintains a tremendous amount of influence in the party. Chevron gave the maximum possible donation to Cornyn as limited by FEC guidelines[4]. In the aftermath of Floyd’s killing, the senator said it was a reminder that “we have a long way to go in the fight for equal justice under the law,” and recently joined a handful of his Republican colleagues in a working group on legislation to overhaul policing. But he then went on to reject the notion that systemic racism within policing and beyond exists in the United States, seeming unable to accept the notion of implicit racial bias.

The Texas senator, who earned a disgraceful 7% civil rights score, is also cozy with fossil fuel interests. He is the top recipient of oil and gas money across the board, and recently introduced a bill to gift oil and gas companies a government handout amid the coronavirus pandemic.




Then there’s Sens. Martha McSally (R-AZ), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cory Gardner (R-CO), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) – all of whom received maximum contributions from Chevron and failing grades from the NAACP. They all make up part of a joint fundraising committee that includes a former conservative talk radio host with a well-documented history of racist and misogynistic comments.

McSally, who joined Senator Cotton in introducing the modest resolution calling for justice for Floyd, has also advanced hateful rhetoric. In 2018, she proposed, apparently in jest, a border wall between California and Arizona designed “to keep these dangerous criminals out of [the] state,” in a reference to California’s sanctuary city policies to not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. At the same time, she has been criticized for putting Big Oil ahead of the public health of her constituents and hosts an overwhelmingly anti-environment voting record.

When asked by Global Witness about its funding of politicians with failing civil rights records, Chevron reiterated its support for diversity and inclusion in the workplace and said: “We support candidates based on a wide number of factors including their views towards the need for affordable, reliable and ever cleaner energy. We engage with and support many elected officials who take positions on a wide range of issues. We are not always aligned with all of their views but it is important for us to be part of the dialogue and share our perspectives, including those on diversity and inclusion, with candidates.”

A pattern of hypocrisy

But Chevron’s spending doesn’t just go to politicians with poor racial justice records, they also give substantial amounts to outside groups. For instance, Chevron contributed $1.625M to the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), a super-PAC tied to Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The SLF has pledged nearly $11M in advertising through state-based affiliates to support McConnell, who as Senate Majority Leader has arguably been the largest single roadblock to progress on racial justice through the legislative process in recent years.

Consider “The Voting Rights Advancement” Act of 2019, an effort to restore and build upon the landmark civil rights legislation of 1965 that tackled racial discrimination in voter suppression. The 2019 bill passed in the House of Representatives, but has been blocked by McConnell for the better part of the year. Just this week, Democrats renewed calls to allow a vote in honor of the recent passing of civil rights icon and champion of the Voting Rights Act, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA). Yet McConnell has so far indicated no intention of doing so.

For all its lip service to racial justice and equality, Chevron’s backing doesn’t end with politicians who push hateful rhetoric and dismantle civil rights policies. In an analysis on corporate ties to police foundations, LittleSis found that Chevron holds a spot on the Houston Police Foundation board and previously partnered with the foundation to host a law enforcement conference in Houston. Police foundations, which partner with corporations to raise money that supplements police budgets, enable spending on technology and weaponry with little public oversight. Chevron’s ties to this police foundation show a willingness to ignore the calls of the Black Lives Matter movement to dismantle the systemic racism of policing even as they claim to support it.

The oil major also operates in insidious ways that directly oppose their proclamations of solidarity with marginalized populations. Just last month, E&E News revealed Chevron was likely behind a public relations scheme to convince journalists to push the message that environmentalists advance “radical” climate policies, such as the Green New Deal, that would hurt minority communities. The apparent slip-up listed Chevron’s name at the bottom of the press release, though Chevron has denied involvement in the campaign. The revelation, however, shows efforts to peddle a false narrative around environmental policies by stoking racial divides.

Time and again Chevron’s actions go against their proclamations. As many have ardently pointed out, including Drilled’s Amy Westervelt, Chevron’s #BlackLivesMatter statements ignore the charges of environmental racism perpetuated against communities of color where the company has polluted for generations.

In Richmond, California, where Chevron has presided since 1902, more than 80% of residents are people of color. Organizers from these communities have long fought for their health and safety, battling in the courts to try and hold Chevron to account for pollution violations and failed safety measures. Health conditions disproportionately impact Richmond residents, where children have roughly twice the rate of asthma as in neighboring areas and every community bordering Chevron’s facility is in the 99th centile for the respiratory illness. This is particularly alarming given the ongoing coronavirus pandemic that is thought to be exacerbated by air pollution and pre-existing respiratory conditions, and which impacts Black and Brown lives disproportionately.

Chevron actively harms the movement for racial justice they claim to support – in their operations, their public relations and their political funding. Their donations finance politicians who perpetuate systemic racism in the United States by barring legislation that would advance racial justice, confirming judges opposed to civil rights laws, and pushing policies that disproportionately harm communities of color. Chevron publicly claims to be an ally to Black communities and the Black Lives Matter movement, yet in reality they are part of the system that upholds structural racism in the US.

This article originally appeared on Global Witness. You can read it here.

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Ian Taylor PhotographerTwo young children play in the grass.

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Culture Stories

Internet

Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.