Author: cmshannon2002

With the May 5, 2026 announcement that Primm, Nevada’s last casino will close, many travelers are wondering if this once-bustling desert stop will slowly transform into a modern ghost town. 

With a population at 774 residents in 2023- many tied to road-trip traffic and casino jobs- the population now faces an uncertain future. While some new owners may be interested in taking over certain businesses (such as the popular gas stations and EV charging locations), bigger questions remain. What will happen to the workers, empty hotel towers, the Star of the Desert Arena, Prizm Outlets, and quirky amusement park attractions that once made Primm, NV a memorable stop along this lonely stretch of the Mojave Desert?  

Major casinos such as Buffalo Bill’s, Whiskey Pete’s and Primm Valley Resort were once central to Primm’s bustling tourist town, located some 45 miles south of Las Vegas on Interstate 15. Primm was the last gambling opportunity in Nevada before crossing into California. Californians heading toVegas often stopped in Primm, NV for its outlet mall shopping, cheap buffets, casino gambling- and of course the towering Desperado roller coaster.

The Primmadonna Company LLC officially announced the shutdown of Primm Valley Resorts (the last fully operational casino), Buffalo Bills’s Resort & Casino (which had only been open for special events), and Whiskey Pete’s Hotel & Casino (closed for over a year). The Primm Center gas station, the Lotto Store, and the Flying J truck stop are also shuttering. Prizm Outlets (formerly called Primm Outlets), has been effectively closed- though Sanithrift was a sole remaining mall tenant- and still currently shows hours of operation on its website.  

Visitors have nostalgic memories of Whiskey Pete’s Hotel- named after the bootlegger that was allegedly buried standing up in the desert with a whiskey bottle in hand. There was a popular Bonnie and Clyde’s death car exhibit there. Cult-following gamers loved Whiskey Pete’s in particular because parts of the establishment were used as inspiration in the video game Fallout: Las Vegas (the game recreated a post-apocalyptic Primm).  

Buffalo Bill’s Resort and Casino with its “Old West” theme and buffalo-shaped pool was part of Primm’s neon-roadside atmosphere long before glitzy Las Vegas fully took over the desert. Buffalo Bill’s boasted the Desperado roller coaster and Adventure Canyon flume ride. But its “star” attraction was their 6,500-seat Star of the Desert Arena, which hosted rodeos, boxing matches, and touring acts for almost three decades. Performers included Ringo Starr and his All-Starr Band, Kenny G, Isley Brothers, Patti LaBelle, Los Lobos, and many others. 

The upscale Primm Valley Resort was the flagship of the Primm properties, featuring a large casino and hotel tower, and the Primm Valley Golf Club. With two championship style courses, designed by renowned golf course architect Tom Fazio, the club attracted serious golfers from both Southern California and Las Vegas.  

Long-time Vegas drivers remember the huge “Terrible’s” signs along the interstate that advertised for tourists to visit Terrible’s Hotel & Casino in Primm. This rebranded casino property was best known for its low-cost gas, and budget gambling promotions, which made it a familiar stop for road-trippers over the years.   

So now, as all the Interstate 15 travelers who grew up stopping in Primm say their fond farewells, it marks the end of a peculiar era. Perhaps it is time for the ghosts of the desert to take one last ride in the Bonnie and Clyde death car, drifting away from this fading town. Or maybe what sounds like laughter and distant shouts by the amusement park rides are just the wind moving past empty buildings and abandoned parking lots. And perhaps, inside the darkened casino rooms, there are still a few imagined sounds of rolling dice- echoes from those unwilling to leave the last table behind. 

Rest in peace, Primm- you were part of an era.

Photo by Elizabeth Ferreira

Many Americans may not fully grasp the deeper implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Callais v. Louisiana, which weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The following excerpt from the dissent by Justice Kagan, joined with Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson, helps clarify the implications of racial vote dilution:  

Consider the story of a hypothetical congressional district in a hypothetical State, subjected to a redistricting scheme. The example is admittedly stylized, but in its essence simulates the dispute before us and clarifies the immense issues at stake. The district, let’s say, is a single county, in the shape of a near-perfect circle, sitting in the middle of a rectangular State. The State is one with a long history of virulent racial discrimination, and its many effects, including in residential segregation and political division, remain significant even today. The population of the circle district is 90 percent Black; the rest of the State, divided into five surrounding districts, is 90 percent white. And voting throughout all those districts is racially polarized: Black residents vote heavily for Democratic candidates, while white residents vote heavily for Republicans. The circle district thus enables the State’s Black community to elect a representative of its choice, whom no neighboring community would put in office. But that arrangement, in this not-so-hypothetical, is not to last. The state legislature decides to eliminate the circle district, slicing it into six pie pieces and allocating one each to six new, still solidly white congressional districts. The State’s Black voters are now widely dispersed, and—unlike the State’s White voters—lack any ability to elect a representative of their choice. Election after election, Black citizens’ votes are, by every practical measure, wasted. That is racial vote dilution in its most classic form.  A minority community that is cohesive in its geography and politics alike, and that faces continued adversity from racial division, is split—“cracked” is the usual term—so that it loses all its electoral influence. Members of the racial minority can still go to the polls and cast a ballot. But given the State’s racially polarized voting, they cannot hope—in the way the State’s white citizens can—to elect a person whom they think will well represent their interests.

Electoral influence is the key– the political power of voters in Congress is based on the state delegates that are sent to it. Districts where black voters have opportunity to influence delegate outcome can affect close votes in the House, change the parties in power, or influence legislation with committee control and leadership roles.  Gerrymandered districts where black voter influence has little impact outside of 1 district ultimately have little effect on Congress. Racial vote dilution results in black voters being unable to elect representatives of their choice to Congress. These delegates do not reflect race alone, but the black community’s preferences and priorities for issues that disproportionately affect them (such as housing, healthcare access, or policing concerns).

Promoting unequal racial representation in government is not the direction for the Supreme Court of the United States to take. The Voting Rights Act was especially effective at expanding black access to the ballot- dramatically increasing black voter registration and gaining them increased political representation. That representation is vital in addressing ongoing issues facing black citizens. Here are a few data-driven examples of implicit bias and structural disparities that black communities continue to face in America today:

• Wealth gap–  White household median wealth is $285,000 compared with $44,900 for black households- white Americans (57% of the population) hold 83.5% of the country’s wealth vs blacks Americans (13.7% of the population) with 3.4% of the country’s wealth.
• Homeownership– Homeownership is at 75% for whites, and 45% for blacks.
• Infant mortality– Black infants die at a rate 2.53 higher than that of white infants. 
• Criminal justice disparity- Blacks are 5.9 times as likely to be incarcerated as whites, and black men make up 35% of those incarcerated, despite being only 13% of the US population.
• Higher unemployment– White unemployment is 3.4%, the black unemployment rate is 5.3%.

Despite gains in representation following changes brought about by the Voting Rights Act, inequalities affecting black voters continue to persist in broader economic or social systems. Policy changes remain frustratingly slow when addressing wealth, education and housing gaps that have developed over generations. 

In summary, the Court’s limitation of key provisions of the Voting Rights Act appears to rest on the view that it is problematic to remedy racism with race-conscious laws that treat one group differently. To be fair, shouldn’t voting rules be race-neutral? 

But theoretical neutrality does not necessarily produce fairness in practice. When past or current systems have created unequal starting conditions, race-neutral policies that ignore those differences do not level the playing field and achieve fairness. For example, rules like stricter voter ID requirements or closure of polling places appear neutral on the surface- yet they can impose greater burdens on some communities more than others. Or drawing electoral districts without any consideration of race in areas with historically polarized voting can dilute minority voting power, even if that was not the explicit intent. It’s like two runners that start a race from different distances from the finish line. Treating them the same with identical rules during the race doesn’t change the gap in their earlier starting points. Ignoring inequities does not achieve fairness- and ends up just preserving the inequities instead.

At its core, this Supreme Court decision regarding the Voting Rights Act raises difficult questions. If laws no longer take any account of racial disparities- if they treat unequal conditions as though they do not exist- how can they remedy anything at all? By emphasizing race-neutral voting rules that prioritize theoretical neutrality over practical fairness, the Supreme Court risks preserving the very conditions that perpetuate racial inequity in America. 

Photo by Sora Shimazaki

If you don’t believe that US companies can monetize anything, take pot smokers’ unofficial holiday of 4/20.

Marijuana’s high holiday reportedly began in the 1970’s with some high school buddies from San Rafael High School in CA’s Marin County. “The Waldos”- as they called themselves- would meet after classes at 4:20pm by the school statue of chemist Louis Pasteur and smoke. A brother of one of the Waldos was a friend of Grateful Dead bassist Phil Lesh. The ‘420’ slang supposedly spread via the Waldos’ Deadhead connections- and the rest became stoner history.

Fast forward to the present. 4/20 has certainly become monetized. Dispensaries run sales and 4/20 deals, with limited edition strains and offers. There are festivals like SF Space Walk and Bay Blaze Fest. Colorado’s 4/20 concert at Red Rocks showcased legends Ice Cube, Big Boi and Snoop Dogg and others.  Major cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, Dallas, and New York host art shows, live music, local vendors, and food trucks. 

Of course the resulting munchies that smokers reportedly exhibit are met by nation-wide restaurant deals and fast food offers too. BJ’s Restaurant & Brewhouse offers $4.20 Pizookies for night owls, starting at 9pm. Dog Haus gives members a free Cheeseburger Slider if they spend $4.20 or more. Chipotle, Red Robin, Taco Bell, Wingstop and others have their own specialized promotions as well.

4/20’s evolution raises a bigger question: Is it good or bad that capitalism so quickly recognizes any demand, then packages and sells it? On the positive side, it drives innovation and creates economic opportunities. On the downside, the system suggests that everything can be monetized, leaving no ideals, ideas, or culture untouched. 

Capitalism proclaims that profit is power- the ability to turn your dreams into something profitable. Yet it is ironic that the anti-establishment ethos behind 4/20 has itself been repackaged and sold, with rebellion becoming marketable. Whether that is contradiction or progress, the 4/20 counterculture moment has now found its niche in the marketplace.  

Photo by Sergei Starostin

Europe May Be Closer to Fuel Disruption Than Many Realize. According to the International Energy Agency, Europe has as little as 6 weeks of jet fuel left if supplies remain restricted.  

The IEA- responsible for energy policy, security, and sustainability for its 32 member countries of North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific- has sounded alarms about fuel shortages before. During 2022-2023, major disruptions to oil and gas supplies were triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Back then, the IEA orchestrated the release of 182 million barrels of oil to offset the disruptions. However this latest 2026 fuel crisis is unprecedented. According to the head of  IEA, Executive Director Fatih Birol, this current situation is “the largest energy crisis we have ever faced.” 

“I can now announce that IEA countries have unanimously decided to launch the largest-ever release of emergency oil stocks in our agency’s history,” he continued on Wednesday, April 15. The historic release of a record 400 million barrels of oil is intended to counteract Iran’s blockage of the Strait of Hormuz by calming the immediate effects of market disruptions and price shocks. 

But this record release of oil by IEA countries will just buy time, not solve the underlying supply issue. If the 6 week period is passed with no resolution, impacts will continue to unfold incrementally across the world.

Impacts of limited fuels typically show up first in aviation. Flight cuts, reduced routes and higher fares have begun (e.g. Norse Atlantic is dropping their LAX to Europe flights for the summer). Low cost carriers with thinner margins are particularly vulnerable to fuel cost fluctuations (e.g. airlines like Spirit Airlines face mounting financial pressure). Many airlines are cutting back on flights, and increasing their baggage fees and fares to offset costs.

Fuel is the core cost to move goods. Transportation and shipping costs will certainly rise across numerous industries, so retailers will pass along the increased costs for groceries, clothing and consumer goods to consumers. E-commerce that is dependent on quick delivery slows down- and costs more. Eventually delays in raw materials for manufacturing spawn shortages- slowing production of items such as cars, appliances, or electronics. Construction and cost overruns are likely. 

Globally, countries have already begun to encourage voluntary energy conservation measures. Sri Lanka has introduced fuel rationing and a four-day work week. The Philippines have mandated its government employees to observe a four-day work week, with office thermostats to be set no lower than 75 degrees. Two Australian States are offering free public transportation. The Vietnamese government is urging employers to allow staff to work from home. News anchors in Thailand removed their jackets on-air to showcase the government’s push to use less air conditioning. To cut spending, Pakistan closed schools for 2 weeks, paused salaries for cabinet ministers, and ordered 30,000 fans to watch a popular cricket tournament from home rather than go to local stadiums.

Mandatory government-imposed limits on fuel would be the next escalation (e.g. fixed rations for fuel, priority use for essential workers, car-free days in cities, limits on non-essential travel or delivery services). Early responses also show countries seeking to secure alternative fuel supplies, and implementing fuel subsidies, and financial aid for businesses and consumers.

In the end, Europe may be the first to feel the strain of energy shortages, but in an interconnected world, the impacts won’t remain regional. Economies across the world will feel the effects. How far, and how quickly, remains to be seen. 

(This is a repost from my LinkedIn posted on 4-17-26 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/first-europe-whats-next-cathy-shannon-o4ecc/

Senator Bernie Moreno of OH has proposed an “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025”– a bill that would require all current dual citizens to choose within one year which citizenship they want to hold. Those who fail to pick will be deemed to have voluntarily relinquished US citizenship.

Millions of Americans- both naturalized citizens and U.S.born citizens who acquired second passports through ancestry- would be impacted if such a bill passed. Dual citizenry spans all levels of American society- even First Lady Melania Trump and her son Barron are dual citizens of Slovenia. Senator Moreno’s legislation attempts to redefine whether millions of dual citizens- including the First Lady and son- are “real” fully American citizens.

Predictably there is significant backlash to Moreno’s proposed bill:

Loving America is possible even if you love where your family came from. 

Layered identities formed by families who built lives in the U.S. should be celebrated, not outlawed, particularly given America’s long history as a nation of immigrants. 

Nationalism framed as patriotism redefines who counts as a “real American”- treating certain citizens as less legitimate based on origin, ancestry or legal pathway to citizenship. 

Setting legal precedents for persecution against specific groups is troubling, since history shows how revoking citizenship has been used as a tool of persecution (e.g. the Jews in Germany who were stripped of rights and targeted).  

Dual citizenship is not inherently disloyal to America, but simply practical for many- second passports facilitate care for elderly family members abroad, or enable participation in international business interests where a local passport may be required. 

Employment of dual citizens in global businesses- such as aviation, shipping, manufacturing, or finance- helps companies operate seamlessly across borders, without legal or logistical delays. 

Moreno’s proposed bill runs counter to the law and Constitution. The US Constitution’s 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The State Department acknowledges that U.S. citizens can hold dual citizenship. Various Supreme Court precedents (Afroyim v. Rusk, Vance v. Terrazas) reinforce that Congress has no power to strip a person of U.S. citizenship without a person’s voluntary renunciation that is intentional and volitional. Additionally, voluntarily renouncing American citizenship is a complex, expensive, and irreversible process.  

Moreno’s “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” bill is less about loyalty to the United States or national security, than about policing identity- using the law to decide who qualifies as a “real American.” Ultimately citizenship in America should rest on constitutional rights- and not be turned into a dangerous political weapon.