#Supreme Industries

[mysharona1987]

[nyc-looks]

Sabreena, 34

“I’m in a Mademe x Alpha jacket, Supreme top, Eckhaus Latta denim paired with Miista clogs. My handbag is also Supreme. I love pops of color, textures, and different shapes. The 90s and 70s will always be a vibe for me.”

May 10, 2024 ∙ Lower East Side

[dylanconrique]

"it's like penguins. penguins, in nature, when one is sick, or when one is very injured, the other penguins surround it and prop it up. they walk around it until that penguin can walk on it's own. that's kind of what the cast did for me." — matthew perry about his fellow friends.

[ridenwithbiden]

PROJECT 2025

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

In late May, 19 Republican attorneys general filed a complaint with the Supreme Court asking it to block climate change lawsuits seeking to recoup damages from fossil fuel companies.

All of the state attorneys general who participated in the legal action are members of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which runs a cash-for-influence operation that coordinates the official actions of these GOP state AGs and sells its corporate funders access to them and their staff. The majority of all state attorneys general are listed as members of RAGA.

Where does RAGA get most of its funding? From the very same fossil fuel industry interests that its suit seeks to defend. In fact, the industry has pumped nearly $5.8 million into RAGA’s campaign coffers since Biden was elected in 2020.

The recent Supreme Court complaint has been deemed “highly unusual” by legal experts.

The attorneys general claim that Democratic states, which are bringing the climate-related suits at issue in state courts, are effectively trying to regulate interstate emissions or commerce, which are under the sole purview of the federal government. Fossil fuel companies have unsuccessfully made similar arguments in their own defense.

RAGA’s official actions — and those of its member attorneys general — closely align with the goals of its biggest donors.

The group, a registered political nonprofit that can raise unlimited amounts of cash from individuals and corporations, solicits annual membership fees from corporate donors in exchange for allowing those donors to shape legal policy via briefings and other interactions with member attorneys general.

A Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) analysis of IRS filings since November 24, 2020 shows that Koch Industries (which recently rebranded) leads as the largest fossil fuel industry donor to RAGA, having donated $1.3 million between 2021 and June 2024.

Other large donors include:

• American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry’s largest trade association

• Southern Company Services, a gas and electric utility holding company

• Valero Services, a petroleum refiner

• NextEra Energy Resources, which runs both renewable and natural gas operations

• Anschutz Corporation, a Denver-based oil and gas company

• American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a major trade organization

• Exxon Mobil, one of the largest fossil fuel multinationals in the world

• National Mining Association, the leading coal and mineral industry trade organization

• American Chemical Council, which represents major petrochemical producers and refiners

Many of these donors are being sued for deceiving the public about the role fossil fuels play in worsening climate change: many states — including California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island — as well as local governments — such as the city of Chicago and counties in Oregon and Pennsylvania — have all filed suits against a mix of fossil fuel companies and their industry groups. In the cases brought by New York and Massachusetts, ExxonMobil found support from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of the corporation.

Paxton has accepted $5.2 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry over the past 10 years, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets and reviewed by CMD.

Fossil Fuel Contributions to the Republican Attorneys General Association Includes aggregate contributions of $10K or more from the period November 2020 to March 2024.

Note: This funding compilation does not include law firms, front groups, or public relations outfits that work on behalf of fossil fuel clients, many of which use legal shells to shield themselves from outright scrutiny. For example, Koch Industries, through its astroturf operation Americans for Prosperity, has deployed a shell legal firm in a major Supreme Court case designed to dismantle the federal government’s regulatory authority.

CARRYING BIG OIL’S WATER

This is far from the first time RAGA members have banded together to try to defeat clean energy and environmental regulations. In 2014, the New York Times initially reported on how RAGA circulates fossil fuel industry propaganda opposing federal regulations.

The Times investigation revealed thousands of documents exposing how oil and gas companies cozied up to Republican attorneys general to push back against President Obama’s regulatory agenda. “Attorneys general in at least a dozen states are working with energy companies and other corporate interests, which in turn are providing them with record amounts of money for their political campaigns,” the investigation found. That effort, which RAGA dubbed the Rule of Law campaign, has since morphed into RAGA’s political action arm, the nonprofit Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF).

Since then, RAGA’s appetite to go to bat for the industry has only grown.

In 2015, less than two weeks after representatives from fossil fuel companies and related trade groups attended a RAGA conference, Republican AGs petitioned federal courts to block the Obama administration’s signature climate proposal, as CMD has previously reported. Additional reporting revealed collusion between Republican AGs and industry lobbyists to defend ExxonMobil and obstruct climate change legislation.

There was also the 2016 secret energy summit that RAGA held in West Virginia with industry leaders, along with private meetings with fossil fuel companies to coordinate how to shield ExxonMobil from legal scrutiny. Later that year, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey — aided by 19 other Republican AGs — successfully brought a case before the court that hobbled Obama’s signature climate plan.

Morrisey is currently leading the Republican effort to take down an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation that targets coal-fired power plants.

Often, the attorneys general bringing these cases share many of the same donors who backed the confirmation of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, as pointed out by the New York Times.

And in 2021, Republican attorneys general from 19 states sent a letter to the U.S. Senate committees on Environment and Public Works and on Energy and Natural Resources hoping to persuade senators to vote against additional regulations on highly polluting methane emissions, a leading contributor to global warming.

Since 2022, RLDF’s “ESG Working Group” has been coordinating actions taken by Republican AGs against sustainable investing. Communications from that group obtained by CMD show that it was investigating Morningstar/Sustainalytics and the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. Republican AGs announced investigations into the six largest banks for information on their involvement in the Net-Zero Banking Alliance later that year.

LEGACY OF RIGHT-WING ACTIONS

It’s not only about fossil fuels. Attorneys general who are members of — and financially backed by — RAGA have a long track record of pursuing right-wing agendas. In Mississippi, Attorney General Lynn Fitch helped bring the legal case that ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade. In Texas, Paxton has attempted to overturn the Affordable Care Act and sued the federal government over Title IX civil rights protections, and safeguards for seasonal workers, among other policy irritants to the far Right. With support from fellow Republican AGs, he also led one of many efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

In recent years, other pro-corporate major donors have included The Concord Fund, which is controlled by Trump’s “court whisperer” Leonard Leo, Big Tobacco, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform.

[kp777]

Excerpt:

Far-right fossil fuel allies have launched a stunning and unprecedented campaign pressuring the supreme court to shield fossil fuel companies from litigation that could cost them billions of dollars. Some of the groups behind the campaign have ties to Leonard Leo, the architect of the rightwing takeover of the supreme court who helped select Trump’s supreme court nominees. Leo also appears to have ties to Chevron, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Read more.

[queerism1969]

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Mother Jones:

Advertise with Mother Jones

The Chevron refinery in El Segundo, California.Genaro Molina/TNS/Zuma

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Far-right fossil fuel allies have launched a stunning and unprecedented campaign pressuring the Supreme Court to shield fossil fuel companies from litigation that could cost them billions of dollars.

Some of the groups behind the campaign have ties to Leonard Leo, the architect of the right-wing takeover of the Supreme Court who helped select Trump’s Supreme Court nominees. Leo also appears to have ties to Chevron, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

“He’s really crafted the Supreme Court,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of the progressive watchdog group True North Research and an expert on Leonard Leo’s network.

Honolulu is one of 40 cities and states suing big oil for an alleged decades-long effort to sow doubt about the dangers of burning fossils. If successful, the case could force the defendants to pay for climate damages.

In October, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the suit can go to trial. But oil companies petitioned the US Supreme Court in February to review the state court’s decision; they argued the cases should be thrown out because emissions are a federal issue that shouldn’t be tried in state courts.

Supreme court justices met on Thursday to consider whether or not to take up the fossil fuel companies’ request, and the justices could grant or reject the petition in the coming days.

If granted, the request could catalyze the dismissal of the wave of climate accountability lawsuits against big oil—a major win for the defendants seeking to limit their liability for the climate crisis. But it’s the kind of ask about which the Supreme Court would not normally offer its opinion, advocates and legal experts say.

“The court would probably not think this request is important, unless someone told them it was very important,” said Kert Davies, a director at the Center for Climate Integrity, which supports the litigation against big oil.

Some conservatives have been telling them exactly that. “I have never, ever seen this kind of overt political campaign to influence the court like this,” said Patrick Parenteau, professor and senior climate policy fellow at Vermont Law School.

In recent weeks, conservatives have published opinion pieces in Bloomberg, The Hill, the Wall Street Journal and the National Review calling on the court to grant the petition. “Honolulu is attempting to use the law of one state to dominate the others,” wrote Carrie Severino, president of the conservative dark money group JCN, formerly known as the Judicial Crisis Network, in the rightwing National Review.

JCN is a trade name for the Concord Fund, one of many nonprofits led by Leo, the powerful far-right judicial activist who also co-chairs the rightwing legal advocacy group the Federalist Society. Justice Clarence Thomas once quipped that Leo was the third most powerful person in the world.

Asked about the influence campaign, Severino told the Guardian: “Liberal dark money groups…are freaking out because the Supreme Court is being asked to step in and correct the damage those dark money groups are doing with their massive campaign to subvert the law and the constitution with a radical climate agenda.”

[alok021]

Supreme Pipes Specifications and Benefits | Leenus India

Supreme pipes have long been synonymous with quality, durability, and reliability in various industries. From plumbing to agriculture, these pipes have demonstrated exceptional performance, meeting the diverse needs of users worldwide. In this article, we delve into the specifications and benefits of Supreme pipes, shedding light on why they are the preferred choice for many

SPECIFICATIONS:

Material Composition: Supreme pipes are typically made from high-grade materials such as PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) or CPVC (Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride). These materials offer excellent chemical resistance, ensuring the pipes can withstand a wide range of corrosive substances

Size Range: Supreme pipes come in a variety of sizes to accommodate different applications. Whether you need small diameter pipes for residential plumbing or large diameter pipes for industrial purposes, Supreme offers a comprehensive range to meet your requirements

Pressure Rating: One of the key specifications of Supreme pipes is their pressure rating. These pipes are engineered to withstand high-pressure environments, making them suitable for applications where pressure resistance is critical, such as water distribution systems and irrigation networks

Temperature Resistance: Supreme pipes exhibit remarkable temperature resistance, allowing them to perform reliably in both hot and cold environments. Whether exposed to scorching summer heat or freezing winter temperatures, these pipes maintain their structural integrity, preventing cracks or leaks

Compliance Standards: Supreme pipes conform to stringent quality standards and certifications, ensuring they meet industry regulations and specifications. Whether it’s NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) certification for potable water applications or ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards for structural integrity, Supreme pipes are designed to comply with the highest industry benchmarks

BENEFITS:

Durability: One of the primary benefits of Supreme pipes is their exceptional durability. Constructed from robust materials and engineered for long-term performance, these pipes offer a lifespan far exceeding that of traditional piping materials. Whether buried underground or exposed to harsh weather conditions, Supreme pipes maintain their structural integrity, minimizing the need for frequent replacements

Corrosion Resistance: Supreme pipes boast superior corrosion resistance compared to metal pipes, making them ideal for applications where exposure to corrosive substances is common. Whether conveying acidic fluids or chemicals, these pipes remain unaffected, ensuring reliable performance and longevity

Easy Installation: Supreme pipes are designed for easy installation, saving time and labor costs for contractors and homeowners alike. With their lightweight construction and simple joining methods such as solvent welding or compression fittings, Supreme pipes can be installed quickly and efficiently, reducing downtime and project delays

Low Maintenance: Once installed, Supreme pipes require minimal maintenance, further adding to their appeal. Unlike metal pipes that may corrode or degrade over time, Supreme pipes are virtually maintenance-free, providing peace of mind to users and reducing ongoing operational costs

Versatility: Supreme pipes are incredibly versatile, catering to a wide range of applications across various industries. Whether used for water supply, sewage systems, agricultural irrigation, or industrial processes, these pipes offer unparalleled versatility, making them the go-to choice for professionals in diverse fields

Supreme pipes stand out as a top choice for plumbing and piping needs, thanks to their superior specifications and numerous benefits. From their durable construction and corrosion resistance to their ease of installation and low maintenance requirements, Supreme pipes offer unmatched reliability and performance. Whether you’re a homeowner, contractor, or industrial engineer, choosing Supreme pipes ensures you get a reliable solution that meets your needs both now and in the future.

Read more: https://www.leenusindia.com/unveiling-supreme-pipe-specifications-crafting-excellence-in-construction/

[deanpinterester]

it's that time in production when i'm seriously considering quitting my job again 🥴

[aunti-christ-ine]

Justice Samuel Alito’s wife leased land to an oil and gas firm as her husband heard cases involving the fossil fuel industry.

In May, Alito penned the majority decision for Sackett v. EPA, a decision which drastically scaled back the Clean Water Act.

[devogod]

I get a line on you we scorin

[cinemaocd]

Was it racism or snobbery about digital effects that led Nolan to remove those Indian VFX artists from the credits of Oppenheimer?

Yes.

In this day and age of there being credits for the drivers, the accountants, the caterers...why would you remove the actual artists working on the film if you didn't want to hide the fact that you had digital visual effects artists AS WELL as all the practical effects people that have been so hyped on this production. The bonus for American film bros that sit through the credits...they won't have to read a list of foreign names while the end music plays...

[hypaalicious]

WHAT!? YOUR BOOK IS GETTING PITCHED FOR A MOVIE/TV SERIES!? HOW ARE YOU NOT LOSING YOUR SHIT! That's so awesome!!!!

Well it helps that this isn’t a guarantee to a movie or a TV adaptation; this is like a, “if anybody reaches out to do this once your book releases, we have this on record to make sure your preferences are noted and prioritized” which I think is good to have on hand. Like, I cannot even fathom my shit even getting that big to be considered so I think that’s why I’m not freaking out LMAO!

I also am VERY skilled as dissociation. Like, very. I’m not even comprehending that my book comes out in a month. That is how I’m just surviving through life rn LOL!

But now I have to like… get familiar with actors QUICKLY. 😵‍💫 I’m the type of person who can count the amount of actors I vaguely know on one hand. I only had inspo from two actors for characters (Nicole Beharie for Jasmine the MC and Ludi Lin for one of the Draconians) but the rest I just… grabbed random models for the artists to reference. Now I’m like, “can any of these models act too? For science? Idk”

[thoughtportal]

Last Friday the Supreme Court issued a stay on a lower court ruling that revoked the Food and Drug Administration’s more than 20-year-old approval of mifepristone, one of two medications that have been prescribed together for decades in the U.S. to end unwanted pregnancies. The ruling temporarily preserves access to a safe and effective abortion medication while the case goes through appeals.

Two weeks earlier Texas district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk had ruled in favor of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group of antiabortion organizations and doctors demanding the withdrawal of mifepristone’s FDA approval. The Department of Justice and the drug’s manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, quickly appealed the decision. About a week later the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals only partially stayed the ruling, maintaining mifepristone’s approval but restricting its distribution by mail. The Supreme Court decision removes that limit for now.

Kacsmaryk’s initial ruling and the Fifth Circuit decision cited a 19th-century law known as the Comstock Act of 1873, which made it illegal to send “obscene, lewd or lascivious” materials by mail—including not just nude drawings but also materials or information related to abortion or contraception. That law was spearheaded by Anthony Comstock, a Christian moralist activist and head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. Congress passed the law and appointed Comstock as a special agent of the U.S. Postal Service, giving him the power to arrest people for violations. Comstock ultimately became a public laughingstock for his prudishness, and the Supreme Court overturned the law’s restrictions on birth control in 1965. But the rest of the Comstock Act quietly remained on the books—and the lawsuit over mifepristone is likely to put Comstock’s antiabortion policies back on the Supreme Court’s docket.

Science journalist and author Annalee Newitz spent years researching and interviewing people about the Comstock Act and Comstock himself for their 2019 novel The Future of Another Timeline, in which characters time travel to try to prevent Comstock from getting his law passed. Scientific American spoke with Newitz about what history their research uncovered and how a 150-year-old obscenity law is being used to restrict abortion and reproductive rights in the 21st century.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

Who was Anthony Comstock, and how did the Comstock Act come about?

Anthony Comstock was a very famous moral crusader based in New York [City] in the mid-19th century. His career started mostly because he was interested in stamping out obscenity—and by obscenity he meant any imagery [or literature] that contained nudity. He was extreme for his time, but at a certain point, he managed to connect with the New York City YMCA, which was also against what they were referring to as “obscenity.” By connecting with them, he got access to a lot of powerful New Yorkers who were able to fund his campaign. He got himself a position as a special inspector at the postal service. Much of the Comstock Act’s power comes from the ability to regulate communications across state lines.

The law forbids the sending of obscene materials through the mail. Comstock was enforcing the law by ordering thousands of items through the mail, from contraceptives and sex toys to erotic images and abortifacients [substances that end a pregnancy]. Then, after receiving the items, he would prosecute the people sending them. He was targeting people who were known to be selling the raw material but also, more importantly, people who were selling any kind of information that was education-related, not obscene—literally things like “Here’s how to make a baby” and also information about birth control and abortion. The Comstock Act was actually a First Amendment exemption law. It was a law about obscenity: what could be said and what could be passed through the mail. Under that, any information or material related to reproductive health or abortion or sex education was classified as obscene.

That is a very different model from how, in the contemporary world, we understand abortion—because abortion was kind of precariously made semi-legal in the 1970s under the Fourth Amendment, under privacy laws. So basically, to the extent that we started bringing the Comstock laws [a set of laws including and related to the Comstock Act] back, they do a complete end-run around any of the laws that we’ve made since that time to protect people’s ability to have abortions—because it’s not about privacy; it’s about obscenity.

In the early 20th century there was a meme that was started by the playwright George Bernard Shaw, who wrote an op-ed in the New York Times making fun of Comstock—because by the late 19th century, even though the laws were in effect, many modern young people thought that he was an idiot. These included people reading presidential candidate Victoria Woodhull's popular newspaper, Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly, which Comstock continually tried to shut down. George Bernard Shaw said America was suffering from “Comstockery.” He was using this term to refer to the censorship and puritanical nature of American art, and it became a meme. People started using ‘Comstockery’ to make fun of any kind of art or storytelling or writing or politics that was old-fashioned and puritanical.

How have the Comstock Act and related laws evolved over time?

Sign up for Scientific American’s free newsletters.

The Comstock laws were being actively used basically up through the 1960s, which is shocking. And in the 1970s we see on the Supreme Court a revolution in our understanding of what obscenity is and a kind of rejiggering of the First Amendment—because, remember, obscenity is an exemption to the First Amendment. In the early 20th century, this idea of Comstockery becomes really popular. The laws are viewed as old-fashioned. And they’re not really taken off the books, but they’re mostly ignored. And at the same time, courts are using them to continue limiting, especially, abortifacients, abortion information and reproductive health information.

In the 1930s there were some rulings around the Comstock Act that broadened its application to different kinds of birth control but at the same time limited how the law could be used if people were sending abortifacients for unlawful uses. So in the 1930s there’s this limit where it only counts under the Comstock Act if you deliberately are sending somebody something [to illegally abort a pregnancy]. Then, in the 1950s, there’s an expansion of the Comstock Act to include any substance that could lead to an abortion.

Then you get this shift in the early 1970s around privacy law, and reproductive health is placed under privacy. Pretty much every lawyer I’ve ever talked to about this who’s super knowledgeable about reproductive rights is like, Why did we do that? That was such a precarious ruling—so easy to roll back, as we’ve seen [with last year’s Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade]. But it seemed like a good idea at the time. But in the process, of course, that meant that these Comstock laws remained on the books in a lot of places.

In The Future of Another Timeline, characters travel back in time to try to prevent the Comstock laws. When you wrote the book, did you expect these laws would be used in a ruling like the recent mifepristone case?

Definitely not. I’m probably the only person who has written a time travel story about trying to defeat Comstock, although I’d love to be wrong about that. But there are a lot of folks who are law experts and obscenity experts, whose work I read over the years, who have said the laws that protect people’s rights to have an abortion and people’s rights to have access to birth control are super precarious—and what we really need to do is have a law that says abortion is legal and birth control is legal. But what we keep doing because of our Comstockery as a nation is saying, “Oh, we wouldn’t want to give people rights to have an abortion. Why don’t we just say that they have a right to do whatever they want in private, and then we’ll just avoid talking about the issue?” And what that means is that we continue to allow women to become second-class citizens whenever the fuck we want.

How did Comstock use the courts and other means to enforce his agenda?

In the 19th century, Comstock was like, I'm going to use ... surveillance, and I’ll use this brand-new position in the postal service [to police what he called obscenity]. He also had kind of an army of deputized suppressors of vice—he ran this organization called the New York Society for Suppression of Vice, which just sounds like something out of a Marvel comic. And they would do these arrests all the time. So it feels very much like, yes, it comes out of using the courts. But it also comes out of abusing police power because these were people who were, like, pseudo police officers, and they would figure out who was an abortion provider. Comstock once reported breaking into the house of someone who was performing an abortion and dragging him and the patient to the police station to make a point. He described the woman as 'very sick' when she arrived at the police station, which made me imagine that she was literally bleeding on the floor.

It’s all tied up with a lot of the same issues that we’re grappling with nowadays: What kinds of books should we allow children to read? What should police powers be? What is the role of courts? But you know, it’s funny, because now that they’re picking on mifepristone, I think we’re going to get a really funny backlash from an unexpected source, perhaps—which is the pharmaceutical industry. That’ll be interesting to see play out because I think that the pharmaceutical industry sees that, “oh, we know where this is going.” Like, “This is going to go after our bottom line.” I could easily see a judge saying, “We shouldn’t be sending Viagra [by mail] because it’s not for reproduction.”

We might get a similar situation to what Comstock faced in the 19th century, when he was really trying to prevent abortions and sex education. But because he went after art that contained nudity, he ended up pissing off a lot of people who were very powerful, who thought he was suppressing free expression and innocent expressions of intellectual curiosity.

What happened to Comstock himself?

He was basically laughed out of his positions of power. By the time he died, he really was considered to be just a joke. Right after he dies is when Margaret Sanger starts founding her clinics, which eventually become Planned Parenthood. So even that aspect of his work is kind of crushed under the wheels of this new era of family planning.

Given that the Comstock laws are being used to go after the distribution of abortion medication, could they also be used to go after contraception?

Yeah, I mean, I think that’s exactly why drug companies are sitting up and taking notice and sending briefs. This is now an attack on science. So they’re using abortifacients as an excuse to attack a broad range of medical interventions. [Editor’s Note: Congress repealed the parts of the Comstock Act dealing with contraceptives in 1971.]

If you were going back in time to rewrite your book, how would you write the next chapter in this story?

When I was working on the book, I was thinking about how Comstock’s strategy has continued into the present. But a big part of my book is about strategies of resistance and hope and how, in fact, Comstock was defeated pretty soundly. Not only were his laws ignored [after a series of Supreme Court decisions strictly limiting their application], but also he was a laughingstock. The way that happened was that very different groups of people came together. In my book, I show that the wealthy elite of New York had common cause with these marginalized women who were at the Chicago World’s Fair performing belly dances. And this is all based on a true story: Comstock tried to shut down one of the exhibits in the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair because they were putting on belly dancers, and he thought belly dancing was obscene. These are not groups that normally hang out together, but they did come together.

I think that’s why now it’s really interesting to see the power players who are coming together [to oppose restrictions on abortion]. We are seeing people resisting in the name of feminism and in the name of queer rights…. But then you also have drug companies—super capitalists—coming together with these groups that normally they’re not hanging out with. I think we’re seeing the beginnings of a new kind of resistance that combines powerful capitalists and powerful politicians with marginalized people who are the victims of these Comstock laws. So I think there’s a lot of hope.

[oldiesteatime]

This is a picture of Diana Ross's Supremes and Martha Reeves's Vandellas. You'd think that the two biggest girl groups of the '60s would get along somewhat, but they were actually some of the biggest rivals of the decade.

The Supremes started off as the "no-hit Supremes," as they were called by their Motown peers. Plagued by the inability to decide their lead singer and a string of misses, they begrudgingly sang "Where Did our Love Go" despite it being in a weird key for Diana and the members finding the song too "kiddie-ish." Despite this, the song shot to #1 and began The Supremes' 5 #1 hit song in a row streak.

It makes sense why The Supremes won the battle.

"Where Did Our Love Go" was a surprisingly angry and bitter song, released during the tumultuous era of the Civil Rights movement and after JFK's death. The 1964 music scene was pretty gritty. Adding onto this, The Supremes were just more appealing to white audiences. The Vandellas were marketed as tough, hip, and streetwise, with a lead singer well-versed in jazz, gospel, and even opera. The Supremes were their more pop-friendly counterparts, decked in glitter and decadence with a lead singer that was coached into singing in a more pop style.

As Mary Wilson of the Supremes put it: "Just eight months after our first big hit, the Supremes were Motown’s greatest commodity. But as great as the Motown machine was, it could only work on a couple of acts at a time…Martha and the Vandellas, for example, saw their position erode." Couple that with Diana's turbulent relationship with Motown CEO Berry Gordy and you'll begin to see why tensions were rising.

Jeanette Johnson of Candy and the Kisses (a group whose biggest hit was about a dance spawned from a Vandellas hit, funny enough) recalled witnessing Diana Ross and Martha Reeves arguing and cussing at each other for unknown reasons. Another isolated incident was Martha chasing Diana into a phone booth after one of their numerous arguments. Recalls Martha: "I was going to fight her."

Despite this, Reeves affirms that there never was a feud between the two. "There might have once been a confrontation over some costumes, but Diana and I were never rivals," she said.