Mojo - 2013...on-unstoppable?page=96

Corporate Donors Stick With GOP Hardliners After the Shutdown

| Mon Nov. 25, 2013 10:58 AM EST

October's tea party-inspired government shutdown was awful for big businesses. The anti-Obamacare crusade led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and House tea partiers kept the government closed for 16 days and won zero policy victories for the GOP, but their showboating robbed billions from the economy. Because of the shutdown, Standard & Poor's revised its economic growth projections for the last quarter of 2013 downward from 3 percent to 2.4. percent. The harm to the economy would have gone from unpleasant to catastrophic if Cruz and his partners in crime had their way and let the government hit the debt ceiling. 

Throughout the shutdown, corporations begged the Republicans to step back from the ledge and keep the government funded. Their protestations fell on the deaf ears of new members of Congress who feel less beholden to corporate donors than past generations of Republicans. For a moment after the shutdown was resolved, it seemed like big business finally had enough with the GOP's hardliners. Moderate GOP candidates jumped into primary challenges against tea partiers with the blessing of corporate donors immediately after the shutdown.

The dissatisfaction of Big Business didn't last all that long. Reuters analyzed donations from the biggest business political action committees and found that they are still funneling money to the Tea Partiers who wanted the government to crash and burn last month. Since Congress voted to re-open the government on October 16, the eight biggest corporate PACs have donated nearly $85,000 to the 162 Republicans who voted against the deal to raise the debt ceiling and end the shutdown. For context, those same PACs have also given $246,000 to the 366 members of Congress who voted for the deal. Reuters found that some companies, such as Honeywell, were still donating to hardline Republicans even while they were railing against the government shutdown.

Even if corporate America despise the tea partier's methods, it turns out business still cares more about lower marginal tax rates and lax regulation than a functioning government.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Republicans—Yes, Republicans—Are Joining the Battle Against Big Money Politics

| Mon Nov. 25, 2013 10:32 AM EST
Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wisc.), the author of a new campaign finance reform bill.

After the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee published a 100-page autopsy (PDF) nobly titled the "Growth and Opportunity Project" that pointed the supposed way forward for the humbled Grand Old Party. Regarding the dark-money-driven, super-PAC-mad politics of today, the document left little doubt about the party's view: Let the money flow. The RNC called for ending the ban on "soft money" (the 1990s-era equivalent of dark money that fueled the Clinton White House scandals), raising contribution limits, removing the aggregate limit on how much overall money a donor can give in one cycle, and further deregulating money in politics at the state and federal levels.

But as the cost of winning an election increases, fundraising swallows up more of a congressman's time, and candidates scramble to acquire their own super-PACs, several House Republicans are bucking their own party and demanding real reform.

Last week, Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wisc.) introduced a bill called the Citizens Involvement in Campaigns, or CIVIC Act, with the hope of spurring more small-dollar donations to political campaigns by reviving a pair of tax incentives. Petri's bill would offer small donors two options. They could receive a tax credit of up to $200 (or up to $400 on a joint tax return) for donations made to a campaign or national political party. Or that same donor could claim a tax deduction of up to $600 (up to $1,200 for a joint return) for political donations. The intent is obvious: entice many more small donations to candidates.

When he unveiled his bill, Petri lamented both the cost of running for federal office and the growing clout of very wealthy donors in the political process. "Campaigns are becoming more and more expensive with no signs of slowing down," he said. "And most would agree that the ideal way to finance a campaign is through a broad base of donors. Unfortunately, most Americans aren't in the position to donate hundreds or thousands of dollars—but they want to get involved. We should be encouraging political participation."

Fewer than 1 in 10 Americans have ever made a political donation, polls show. And for all of President Barack Obama's success in reeling in scads of small donations (aside large contributions), politics remains dominated by big money. In last year's elections, more than 60 percent of all donations came from donors giving more than $200, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. As for super-PACs and nonprofits, well, those are the playgrounds of millionaires and billionaires on both sides of the aisle.

Another House Republican, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), recently introduced a bill of his own aiming to reform another cash-crazy part of congressional politics: so-called leadership PACs. Leadership PACs are different from your typical campaign committee. Instead of raising money for a politician's own reelection bid, leadership PACs, which sprung up in the 1990s, allow members to raise money for distributing to their colleagues' reelection campaigns. By spreading money around to your pals, a lawmaker can earn some goodwill and climb the ranks within his or her own party. Thanks to a loophole in the law, however, lawmakers often use their leadership PACs to pay for golf outings, tickets to NFL games, and other swanky junkets that politicians can't pay for with their traditional campaign war chest.

Harris' bill would close that loophole. "Public opinion of Congress is already low enough," he said. "By banning the personal use of political committee funds, we can help improve the public trust in Congress."

Let's face it: In the Republican-controlled House, these bills stand little chance of passage. (The slew of Democrat-introduced reform bills, which tend to be more extensive and comprehensive, are also doomed.) Yet the fact that Republicans are joining the reform effort matters. In the past, when campaign spending has spiraled out of control and resulted in headline-grabbing political scandals, Congress' instinct has been to look for the reforms already on the table and to pass one or some of those reforms in the scandal's aftermath. And if the bills have a bipartisan imprimatur, all the better.

So Petri's and Harris' proposals may be DOA. But should another money-and-politics scandal strike, these bills will be ready to go—and they'll have Democrats and Republicans ready to jump onboard.

Twitter Just Made It Harder for the NSA to Read Your Private Tweets

| Fri Nov. 22, 2013 6:56 PM EST
Twitter

On Friday, Twitter announced that it has enabled a new form of Internet security, already used by Google and Facebook, that makes it considerably more difficult for the NSA to read private messages. With this new security, there isn't one pair of master "keys" that unlock an entire website's encryption, instead, new keys are produced and destroyed for each login session.

"If an adversary is currently recording all Twitter users’ encrypted traffic, and they later crack or steal Twitter’s private keys, they should not be able to use those keys to decrypt the recorded traffic," Twitter wrote on its blog. To put that into simple terms, that would be like giving a new set of keys to each visitor coming to your house, melting them down after the person gets inside, and changing the locks. The method is called "Perfect Forward Secrecy," and while it has been around for at least two decades, it hasn't been picked up by tech giants until recently, following the allegations of vast government surveillance by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden

This security system specifically takes aim at the NSA's alleged practice of scooping up the encrypted communications of millions of users—either through hacking or top-secret national security orders—and then storing them until the agency is able to get a company's keys to access all of the data.​ While Twitter was never implicated in the NSA's vast online surveillance program, PRISM, there is still quite a bit of private information the US government could be interested in on Twitter for its counterterrorism efforts—direct messages, time zones, user passwords, and email addresses, for example. 

To get a peek at how this security might play out in real life, look no further than the legal battle the Department of Justice is currently waging against Lavabit, an alternative email provider that was reportedly used by Snowden. When the founder of Lavabit refused to give up its master encryption keys to the US government—because it would have had access to thousands of email accounts—the company was held in contempt of court. If Lavabit had installed Perfect Forward Secrecy, however, the company wouldn't have been able to give up its master keys, since they would have already been destroyed. 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet privacy group, supports Perfect Forward Secrecy, arguing that "against the known threat of "upstream" data collection, supporting perfect forward secrecy is an essential step." However, as EFF notes, this doesn't necessarily make a company completely NSA-proof, since it doesn't protect data that's stored on a server (and NSA still managed to hack into Google, by breaking into its front end server, according to documents in the Washington Post).

The New York Times says that this new security will slow traffic down by about 150 milliseconds in the United States, and Tweeters are unlikely to notice. But it will "make the National Security Agency’s job much, much harder," the paper said. 

Will Fake Sugars Kill You?

| Fri Nov. 22, 2013 1:26 PM EST

Sugar kills. The delicious white crack has been linked to obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer's. So what's a person with a sweet tooth to do? Artificial sweeteners are a tempting choice, since they don't have calories or rot your teeth, and they're recommended for people with diabetes. But some of the fake stuff comes with its own potential health risks: Links to cancer in animal studies, reported side effects of dizziness and headaches, and exacerbated stomach problems, to name a few. And in one case, an artificial sweetener that the FDA had proposed banning was kept on the shelves after an aggressive advertising campaign from the pro-sweetener lobbying industry. Peggy Ballman, a spokesperson for Splenda, tells Mother Jones that, "We always encourage people to make informed choices by reviewing the credible research available." So without further ado, here's everything you need to know about the safety of your favorite fake sugar. 

1. Stevia (Brand names: Truvia, PureVia) 

Truvia.com

What is it? Stevia is short for Stevia Rebaudiana, a plant from the Chrysanthemum family that grows in parts of Brazil and Paraguay. The compound that makes the Stevia sugar is extracted from the leaves. It's used in the EU, East Asia, Russia, Mexico, Israel, and many South American countries, and is about 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? In the 1990s, the FDA rejected Stevia as a food ingredient after research linked it to reproductive problems and possible genetic mutations in rats. In 2008, the FDA approved a specific formula of pure Stevia—Rebaudioside A. PureVia and Truvia both contain the Reb A version of Stevia, which is FDA-approved. The FDA recommended daily dosage is no more than 1.3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, for healthy adults. You'd need to have at least 29 Truvia packets a day to exceed that. 

What do the experts say? If your Stevia isn't made from Reb A—like, for example, the whole-leaf extract version that's sold at natural food markets and labeled as a "dietary supplement"—it hasn't been vetted for safety by the FDA. For Truvia and PureVia, the FDA concluded with "reasonable certainty that Reb A is not harmful under its intended conditions of use" based on studies it looked at concerning reproductive, blood pressure, and toxicity effects. Although scientific studies in the 1960s and 1980s found that Stevia-derived products decreased fertility in female rats and potentially led to mutations, the FDA concluded that those problems didn't apply to Reb A, based on additional research. (The World Health Organization has also determined that Reb A has no cancer link.) The FDA did note that one form of Stevia was deadly to rats at a dose of 15,000 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, but that's an enormous amount of Stevia. Atalanta Rafferty, a spokesperson for Truvia, says that "A panel of independent experts reviewed a dossier of all available toxicity and safety information relevant to Truvia stevia leaf extract, and concluded that Truvia stevia leaf extract is safe." Pura Via says on its website that, "An extensive library of more than 85 studies exists for Reb A and other components of the stevia plant which supports Reb A’s use in tabletop sweeteners." 

2. Aspartame (Brand Names: Equal, NutraSweet)

Soap.com

What is it? Aspartame is made up of two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, and methanol, all of which are found in common foods. It's about 200 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? It was approved in the United States for limited use in 1974. But if you're taking more than 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day, you're exceeding the FDA's recommended daily limit. (A 165-pound person would have to be drinking more than 20 cans of diet coke to exceed that.)

What do the experts say? Aspartame has been controversial for decades. In 1987, the Government Accountability Office investigated the FDA after the sweetener was approved. It determined that the "FDA adequately followed its food additive approval process," but noted that 12 of the 69 scientists interviewed by GAO expressed "major concerns" about aspartame's safety.

In 2006, cancer researchers in Bologna, Italy, released the results of a $1 million, seven-year study of the use of aspartame in rats. The team found that, at a dosage equivalent to a 150-pound person drinking at least four 20-oz bottles of diet soda daily, the sweetener caused cancer in the animals. But the FDA shot down the study, noting that the researchers wouldn't give them all of their information, and found major shortcomings in the data that was available. According to the FDA, five other cancer studies found that the sweetener was safe. The American Cancer Society says on its website, "Aside from the possible effects in people with phenylketonuria [a rare genetic disorder], there are no health problems that have been consistently linked to aspartame use​" but adds that "research continues." The Center for Science in the Public Interest recommends that Americans avoid it on the basis that the independent studies have found that consumption of aspartame causes cancer in rodents (although again, not in humans), and it's been anecdotally linked to other health issues. In a 2002 FDA report, reported aspartame side effects included nausea, heart palpitations, headaches and depression, among other things. NutraSweet and Equal both say that its products are very safe. "Aspartame offers one simple step in helping people move closer to achieving a more healthful diet," notes NutraSweet's website. 

3. Sucralose (Brand Name: Splenda)

Splenda

What is it? Sucralose is a chemical that's produced by chemically reacting sugar with chlorine. It's about 600 times sweeter than sugar. 

When did the FDA approve it? Sucralose was approved in 1998. The FDA recommended daily dose is 5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. 

What do the experts say? There have been more than 110 studies on sucralose over a 20 year period, and the American Cancer Society says the studies have shown "no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or pose any other threat to human health." The Center for Science in the Public Interest says that "sucralose is safer than aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame-K, and cyclamate," but notes that people with inflammatory bowel disease and other gastrointestinal issues should try avoiding the substance, since it's been known to aggravate symptoms (Peggy Ballman, a spokesperson for Splenda, says that this finding "is not consistent with the extensive data base on sucralose and its more than 20 years of safe use.") In 2008, Duke University researchers also found that Splenda can harm intestinal bacteria, although that study was funded by a pro-sugar lobbying group, and Ballman says that "no regulatory agency has acted on the results from that study." In 2012, the same controversial research team in Italy that busted aspartame announced that sucralose increases cancer in rats, but the results of the study have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. "In contrast, more than 110 studies [have] proven the safety of Sucralose. Worldwide authorities, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada, and the World Health Organization, have reviewed these studies and confirm that results show no link between sucralose and any form of cancer," says Ballman. 

4. Saccharin (Brand names: Sweet'N Low)

Amazon

What is it? Saccharin is made from benzoic sulfilimine, a chemical compound that was accidentally discovered in 1879 when a professor, Constantin Fahlberg, was analyzing coal tar at Johns Hopkins University. He spilled saccharin on his hands and later noticed that the bread he was eating at dinner tasted sweeter, according to Elmhurst College. Saccharin is 200 to 700 times sweeter than sugar. 

When did the FDA approve it? Saccharin has been around since before the FDA governed food additives, but the FDA has put the acceptable daily limit at 5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. A 150 pound person could consume 340 milligrams of saccharin per day, which is equal to more than 48 12-ounce servings of Diet Wild Cherry Fanta. 

What do experts say? In the 1970s, tests showed that high doses of saccharin caused bladder stones in rats, which could lead to bladder cancer, particularly in male rats. Studies after that found similar results. Initially, the FDA proposed banning the substance—but on Congress' recommendation in November 1977, the FDA kept it on shelves, with warning labels that the sweetener was found to be a carcinogen. According to Christopher Foreman, Jr.​, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a number of congress members fought against actually banning the substance, pushed along by the Calorie Control Council, a sugar substitute and diet-food lobbying group, which "launched an advertising campaign ridiculing both the FDA and the studies on which it based its decision." In 1991, the FDA finally stopped proposing to ban the sweetener, and in 1996, the warning labels were done away with. In 2000, the US National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens finally removed saccharin from its list. According to the National Cancer Institute, "the bladder tumors seen in rats are due to a mechanism not relevant to humans [and] there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans." Stephanie Meyering, a spokesperson for Sweet'N Low, says, "Saccharin is the one of the most thoroughly tested food ingredients in the world and it has the longest safe human consumption record among non-nutritive sweeteners." The Center for Science in the Public Interest isn't convinced and puts it on its list of substances to "avoid." 

This Woman State GOP Chair Is Paid $20K Less Than Her Male Predecessor

| Fri Nov. 22, 2013 12:53 PM EST

A woman scorned.

Susan Hutchinson, the chair of the Washington state Republican party, earns $20,000 less than her male predecessor, and her request for equal pay has kicked off an ugly internal spat among state GOP leaders.

The Washington GOP executive committee voted to cut the party chair's salary from $95,000 to about $75,000 in August, shortly before Hutchinson was elected to the position. Officials cited a budget shortfall. But in an internal memo to the committee, which the Seattle Times uncovered earlier this week, Hutchinson said that the vote violated the party's bylaws and could be seen as "discriminatory and vindictive."

"The pay cut defies the concept of equal pay for equal work, playing into the 'war on women' narrative against Republicans," she wrote.

Last week, prior to sending the memo, Hutchinson met with the committee and asked them to raise her salary to match that of her predecessor, Kirby Wilbur. But, according to the memo, her request was denied and it "soured" the committee's mood.

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for November 22, 2013

Fri Nov. 22, 2013 11:03 AM EST

Two U.S. Army UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters assigned to the 1st Battalion, 10th Combat Aviation Brigade, Task Force Tigershark fly over Logar province, Afghanistan, during a personnel movement mission Nov. 11, 2013. U.S. Army photo by Capt. Peter Smedberg/Released.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Why Do CNN and HLN Keep Giving Airtime to George Zimmerman's White-Power Buddy?

| Fri Nov. 22, 2013 9:34 AM EST

Since George Zimmerman was arrested earlier this week for allegedly threatening his girlfriend with a shotgun, many of his defenders have gone silent or turned tail. Speaking on Fox News after Zimmerman's Tuesday arraignment, Geraldo Rivera, a former Zimmerman booster, went so far as to call him "borderline psychotic."

But Zimmerman's neighbor and de facto spokesman, Frank Taaffe, has pressed ahead with the media crusade he began in the runup to Zimmerman's trial on charges of murdering unarmed teen Trayvon Martin. And despite revelations that Taaffe is a convicted criminal and unabashed racist who hosts a white-power podcast, cable news networks have continued giving him a platform.

Most recently, Taaffe appeared on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight and argued that Zimmerman was suffering from post-traumatic stress. Morgan asked Taaffe what Zimmerman—who faces charges of aggravated assault with a weapon, domestic violence battery, and criminal mischief—was doing in a house full of guns. "Boys will have their toys," Taaffe replied. He also called Zimmerman's girlfriend, Samantha Scheibe, and his ex-wife, Shellie (who has alleged that Zimmerman threatened her and her father with a gun, too) "opportunistic."

Earlier this week, Taaffe appeared on HLN's  Nancy Grace and Dr. Drew On Call. "George is being oppressed by the press," he told an incredulous Grace, who asked: "So according to you, what is it? A conspiracy between the...the ATF officer, the girlfriend in 2006, the wife in September 2013, and me, I guess?" 

"No," Taaffe said. "He's allying himself with these women that he shouldn't be with."

Here is the Nancy Grace segment:

Here's a segment from Dr. Drew On Call:

In media interviews during Zimmerman's trial, Taaffe made similar personal attacks on Martin and posted virulently racist comments on Twitter—one read "the only time a black life is validated is when a white person kills them."

Taaffe himself has been arrested (though never convicted) repeatedly on stalking and domestic violence charges, and he served nine months in jail for trespassing in his ex-wife's home. But there was no mention of his criminal record on CNN or HLN, both of which have given him ample airtime in the past. As Mother Jones reported in August:

CNN and its sister network, HLN, have repeatedly invited Taaffe to weigh in on legal and technical aspects of the Zimmerman case, from the implications of witness testimony to the meaning of forensic evidence….When Valerie Rao, Jacksonville, Florida's chief medical examiner, testified during the trial that Zimmerman's injuries were minor enough to be treated with Band-Aids—an assertion that cast doubt on Zimmerman's claims that Martin had bashed his head repeatedly on the sidewalk—Taaffe appeared on the Nancy Grace show and argued that Rao was wrong. 

When Taaffe made these appearances, some still made the case that Zimmerman was a community-minded neighborhood watch volunteer who perceived Martin as a genuine threat. But this version of events seems far less plausible in light of his recent actions. And giving Taaffe a platform to bash Zimmerman's alleged victims is that much less defensible.

Are Coke and FedEx Worried About Sponsoring the Redskins?

| Fri Nov. 22, 2013 7:00 AM EST

As more and more people have called for Washington's pro football team to change its name, some folks have argued that the only way to get owner Dan Snyder to listen is to go after his wallet. That's right: Boycott the team or, failing that, target its corporate sponsors.

On its official website, the team displays five of its largest partners: Ticketmaster, FedEx Express, Bud Light, Ameritel Corporation, and Bank of America. Mother Jones reached out to each of these sponsors, as well as a few others, to see if they had any comment on the campaign to push Snyder to drop the R-word—and whether they had considered dropping their sponsorship because of the controversy. Here's what their spokespeople had to say:

Coca-Cola: "As sponsors, we do not play a role in decisions regarding NFL trademarks. Your questions can be better addressed by the team and the NFL."

 

FedEx: "We understand that there is a difference of opinion on this issue. Nevertheless, we believe that our sponsorship of FedEx Field continues to be in the best interests of FedEx and its stockholders."
 

 

New York Life: "The company has received no complaints. The company plans to assess the sponsorship at the conclusion of the season."

 


Virginia Lottery: "We have not received complaints regarding the Redskins sponsorship and we are not considering dropping it."

 

Ticketmaster: "We are declining to comment, but perhaps their sponsor StubHub would have something to say about this. StubHub is located right there in San Francisco."


Thanks for the suggestion, Ticketmaster PR! Unfortunately, StubHub—like Ameritel, Anheuser-Busch, and Bank of America—did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

This article has been updated.

FEC: We Won't Treat Tea Partiers Like Jim Crow-Era NAACP Supporters

| Thu Nov. 21, 2013 4:19 PM EST

By a 3-2 vote, the Federal Election Commission on Thursday rejected a national tea party group's request to stop disclosing its donors under an exemption that originated with protections given to the NAACP and its members who faced violence during the Jim Crow era. 

Here's the background: The Tea Party Leadership Fund is a year-and-a-half old political outfit that has received $2.5 million in donations from some 600 contributors. The Fund makes independent expenditures and also contributes directly to candidates, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Reps. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Steve Gaines (R-Mont.). Earlier this year, the Fund handed the FEC 1,400 pages of what it said was evidence of "harassment, threats, and reprisals" against the group and its donors. Citing all that evidence, the group asked the FEC for an exemption so that it no longer had to disclose its donors and other vital campaign finance information.

This exemption has been granted only rarely by the FEC: The most prominent recipient is the Socialist Workers Party, which has received this exemption for several decades after showing considerable evidence of threats and harassment of their supporters. (The NAACP's exemption was granted by the Supreme Court in 1958, which set a precedent for future exemptions.)

The decision over whether to give the Tea Party Leadership Fund the same exemption has been closely watched by campaign finance advocates and election lawyers. Some feared granting the exemption could set a precedent allowing many other political committees who felt harassed to get the same treatment, gradually eroding the nation's disclosure laws. "If the FEC allows it, it's a very slippery slope of this group and that group and this group all getting exemptions, too," says one Democratic campaign finance lawyer.

Opponents of the Tea Party Leadership Fund's request also argued that what the group considered harassment was far less severe than what the NAACP and Socialist Workers Party faced. "This tea party group comparing itself to the NAACP of old, whose membership feared for its lives and its livelihoods, would fail the laugh test if their request was not so offensive and so outrageous on its face," Paul S. Ryan, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, said on Wednesday.

At Thursday's meeting, the FEC's commissioners split on the matter. Republicans Matthew Petersen and Caroline Hunter agreed with the tea party group, citing the scandal over the IRS' targeting of tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status. The Democrats broke the other way. Chair Ellen Weintraub quoted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's 2010 comment that "running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage"; tea party donors, she said, needed to show that courage. Democrat Ann Ravel, meanwhile, agreed with the Campaign Legal Center's argument that the Tea Party Leadership Fund's evidence of harassment paled in comparison to what the NAACP and Socialist Workers Party experienced.

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for November 21, 2013

Thu Nov. 21, 2013 10:51 AM EST

An infantry instructor scans a field for enemies after firing a green star cluster flare during patrol week of Infantry Training Battalion near Camp Geiger, N.C. on Oct. 31, 2013. Patrol week is a five-day training event that teaches infantry students basic offensive, defensive and patrolling techniques. Delta Company is the first infantry training company to fully integrate female Marines into an entire training cycle. This and future companies will evaluate the performance of female Marines as part of ongoing research into opening combat-related job fields to women. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Tyler L. Main/Released.