A military veteran who was sentenced to life in prison for selling $30 of marijuana will be freed – WXII The Triad

A military veteran serving a life sentence for selling less than $30 worth of marijuana will soon be released from prison, his attorney said.Derek Harris, who was arrested in 2008 in Louisiana for selling an officer .69 grams of marijuana, was recently resentenced to time served. He's already served nine years in prison.Initially, Harris was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison, according to the Louisiana Supreme Court. He was resentenced in 2012 to life in prison under the Habitual Offender Law, which allows judges to impose stricter sentences on someone who's been charged before.Prosecutors in Vermilion Parish agreed to release Harris from prison after the Louisiana Supreme Court granted him a new hearing last month, said his lawyer Cormac Boyle.The Louisiana Supreme Court agreed with Harris' argument claiming he had "ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing on post-conviction review." The matter was sent back to the trial court for an evidentiary writ.The District Attorney's office agreed that Harris "received ineffective assistance at sentencing and was entitled to a lesser sentence," Boyle said in a statement.He also noted that Harris had a substance abuse problem that started when he returned from Desert Storm, a U.S. military operation during the Gulf War launched in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990."His prior offenses were nonviolent and related to his untreated dependency on drugs," Louisiana Supreme Court Justice John Weimer wrote in his opinion.Weimer noted in his opinion that the trial judge said that Harris was "not a drug kingpin" and didn't fit what they thought of "as a drug dealer, so far as I can tell."Weimer wrote that those were the main reasons the maximum 30-year sentence was not imposed. He also said that the trial court imposed a life sentence when the multiple offender bill was passed.Related video: 12 trash bags full of marijuana found in Oklahoma creekCNN has reached out to the district attorney in Vermilion Parish but has not heard back.Boyle told CNN on Friday that he is working with the Louisiana Department of Corrections on Harris' release and hoped to have him out soon. He said the Harris would be moving to be closer to family in Kentucky and that he was looking forward to spending time with his brother, Antoine, and his family.Another decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court last week was roundly criticized: Justices voted to uphold a man's life sentence for stealing hedge clippers.Fair Wayne Bryant was convicted in 1997 on one count of attempted simple burglary and sentened to life in prison. His attorney called his sentence of life in prison "unconstitutionally harsh and excessive."Five white, male justices voted to uphold his conviction, while the lone Black, female justice provided the one dissenting vote.

A military veteran serving a life sentence for selling less than $30 worth of marijuana will soon be released from prison, his attorney said.

Derek Harris, who was arrested in 2008 in Louisiana for selling an officer .69 grams of marijuana, was recently resentenced to time served. He's already served nine years in prison.

Initially, Harris was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison, according to the Louisiana Supreme Court. He was resentenced in 2012 to life in prison under the Habitual Offender Law, which allows judges to impose stricter sentences on someone who's been charged before.

Prosecutors in Vermilion Parish agreed to release Harris from prison after the Louisiana Supreme Court granted him a new hearing last month, said his lawyer Cormac Boyle.

The Louisiana Supreme Court agreed with Harris' argument claiming he had "ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing on post-conviction review." The matter was sent back to the trial court for an evidentiary writ.

The District Attorney's office agreed that Harris "received ineffective assistance at sentencing and was entitled to a lesser sentence," Boyle said in a statement.

He also noted that Harris had a substance abuse problem that started when he returned from Desert Storm, a U.S. military operation during the Gulf War launched in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

"His prior offenses were nonviolent and related to his untreated dependency on drugs," Louisiana Supreme Court Justice John Weimer wrote in his opinion.

Weimer noted in his opinion that the trial judge said that Harris was "not a drug kingpin" and didn't fit what they thought of "as a drug dealer, so far as I can tell."

Weimer wrote that those were the main reasons the maximum 30-year sentence was not imposed. He also said that the trial court imposed a life sentence when the multiple offender bill was passed.

Related video: 12 trash bags full of marijuana found in Oklahoma creek

CNN has reached out to the district attorney in Vermilion Parish but has not heard back.

Boyle told CNN on Friday that he is working with the Louisiana Department of Corrections on Harris' release and hoped to have him out soon. He said the Harris would be moving to be closer to family in Kentucky and that he was looking forward to spending time with his brother, Antoine, and his family.

Another decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court last week was roundly criticized: Justices voted to uphold a man's life sentence for stealing hedge clippers.

Fair Wayne Bryant was convicted in 1997 on one count of attempted simple burglary and sentened to life in prison. His attorney called his sentence of life in prison "unconstitutionally harsh and excessive."

Five white, male justices voted to uphold his conviction, while the lone Black, female justice provided the one dissenting vote.

See the rest here:

A military veteran who was sentenced to life in prison for selling $30 of marijuana will be freed - WXII The Triad

How the Pandemic Defeated America – The Atlantic

Editors Note: The Atlantic is making vital coverage of the coronavirus available to all readers. Find the collection here.

Image above: A masked worker cleans a New York City subway entrance.

Updated at 1:12 p.m. ET on August 4, 2020.

How did it come to this? A virus a thousand times smaller than a dust mote has humbled and humiliated the planets most powerful nation. America has failed to protect its people, leaving them with illness and financial ruin. It has lost its status as a global leader. It has careened between inaction and ineptitude. The breadth and magnitude of its errors are difficult, in the moment, to truly fathom.

To hear more feature stories, get the Audm iPhone app.

In the first half of 2020, SARSCoV2the new coronavirus behind the disease COVID19infected 10 million people around the world and killed about half a million. But few countries have been as severely hit as the United States, which has just 4 percent of the worlds population but a quarter of its confirmed COVID19 cases and deaths. These numbers are estimates. The actual toll, though undoubtedly higher, is unknown, because the richest country in the world still lacks sufficient testing to accurately count its sick citizens.

Despite ample warning, the U.S. squandered every possible opportunity to control the coronavirus. And despite its considerable advantagesimmense resources, biomedical might, scientific expertiseit floundered. While countries as different as South Korea, Thailand, Iceland, Slovakia, and Australia acted decisively to bend the curve of infections downward, the U.S. achieved merely a plateau in the spring, which changed to an appalling upward slope in the summer. The U.S. fundamentally failed in ways that were worse than I ever could have imagined, Julia Marcus, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School, told me.

Since the pandemic began, I have spoken with more than 100 experts in a variety of fields. Ive learned that almost everything that went wrong with Americas response to the pandemic was predictable and preventable. A sluggish response by a government denuded of expertise allowed the coronavirus to gain a foothold. Chronic underfunding of public health neutered the nations ability to prevent the pathogens spread. A bloated, inefficient health-care system left hospitals ill-prepared for the ensuing wave of sickness. Racist policies that have endured since the days of colonization and slavery left Indigenous and Black Americans especially vulnerable to COVID19. The decades-long process of shredding the nations social safety net forced millions of essential workers in low-paying jobs to risk their life for their livelihood. The same social-media platforms that sowed partisanship and misinformation during the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Africa and the 2016 U.S. election became vectors for conspiracy theories during the 2020 pandemic.

The U.S. has little excuse for its inattention. In recent decades, epidemics of SARS, MERS, Ebola, H1N1 flu, Zika, and monkeypox showed the havoc that new and reemergent pathogens could wreak. Health experts, business leaders, and even middle schoolers ran simulated exercises to game out the spread of new diseases. In 2018, I wrote an article for The Atlantic arguing that the U.S. was not ready for a pandemic, and sounded warnings about the fragility of the nations health-care system and the slow process of creating a vaccine. But the COVID19 debacle has also touchedand implicatednearly every other facet of American society: its shortsighted leadership, its disregard for expertise, its racial inequities, its social-media culture, and its fealty to a dangerous strain of individualism.

SARSCoV2 is something of an anti-Goldilocks virus: just bad enough in every way. Its symptoms can be severe enough to kill millions but are often mild enough to allow infections to move undetected through a population. It spreads quickly enough to overload hospitals, but slowly enough that statistics dont spike until too late. These traits made the virus harder to control, but they also softened the pandemics punch. SARSCoV2 is neither as lethal as some other coronaviruses, such as SARS and MERS, nor as contagious as measles. Deadlier pathogens almost certainly exist. Wild animals harbor an estimated 40,000 unknown viruses, a quarter of which could potentially jump into humans. How will the U.S. fare when we cant even deal with a starter pandemic?, Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina and an Atlantic contributing writer, asked me.

Despite its epochal effects, COVID19 is merely a harbinger of worse plagues to come. The U.S. cannot prepare for these inevitable crises if it returns to normal, as many of its people ache to do. Normal led to this. Normal was a world ever more prone to a pandemic but ever less ready for one. To avert another catastrophe, the U.S. needs to grapple with all the ways normal failed us. It needs a full accounting of every recent misstep and foundational sin, every unattended weakness and unheeded warning, every festering wound and reopened scar.

A pandemic can be prevented in two ways: Stop an infection from ever arising, or stop an infection from becoming thousands more. The first way is likely impossible. There are simply too many viruses and too many animals that harbor them. Bats alone could host thousands of unknown coronaviruses; in some Chinese caves, one out of every 20 bats is infected. Many people live near these caves, shelter in them, or collect guano from them for fertilizer. Thousands of bats also fly over these peoples villages and roost in their homes, creating opportunities for the bats viral stowaways to spill over into human hosts. Based on antibody testing in rural parts of China, Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit that studies emerging diseases, estimates that such viruses infect a substantial number of people every year. Most infected people dont know about it, and most of the viruses arent transmissible, Daszak says. But it takes just one transmissible virus to start a pandemic.

Sometime in late 2019, the wrong virus left a bat and ended up, perhaps via an intermediate host, in a humanand another, and another. Eventually it found its way to the Huanan seafood market, and jumped into dozens of new hosts in an explosive super-spreading event. The COVID19 pandemic had begun.

There is no way to get spillover of everything to zero, Colin Carlson, an ecologist at Georgetown University, told me. Many conservationists jump on epidemics as opportunities to ban the wildlife trade or the eating of bush meat, an exoticized term for game, but few diseases have emerged through either route. Carlson said the biggest factors behind spillovers are land-use change and climate change, both of which are hard to control. Our species has relentlessly expanded into previously wild spaces. Through intensive agriculture, habitat destruction, and rising temperatures, we have uprooted the planets animals, forcing them into new and narrower ranges that are on our own doorsteps. Humanity has squeezed the worlds wildlife in a crushing gripand viruses have come bursting out.

Curtailing those viruses after they spill over is more feasible, but requires knowledge, transparency, and decisiveness that were lacking in 2020. Much about coronaviruses is still unknown. There are no surveillance networks for detecting them as there are for influenza. There are no approved treatments or vaccines. Coronaviruses were formerly a niche family, of mainly veterinary importance. Four decades ago, just 60 or so scientists attended the first international meeting on coronaviruses. Their ranks swelled after SARS swept the world in 2003, but quickly dwindled as a spike in funding vanished. The same thing happened after MERS emerged in 2012. This year, the worlds coronavirus expertsand there still arent manyhad to postpone their triennial conference in the Netherlands because SARSCoV2 made flying too risky.

In the age of cheap air travel, an outbreak that begins on one continent can easily reach the others. SARS already demonstrated that in 2003, and more than twice as many people now travel by plane every year. To avert a pandemic, affected nations must alert their neighbors quickly. In 2003, China covered up the early spread of SARS, allowing the new disease to gain a foothold, and in 2020, history repeated itself. The Chinese government downplayed the possibility that SARSCoV2 was spreading among humans, and only confirmed as much on January 20, after millions had traveled around the country for the lunar new year. Doctors who tried to raise the alarm were censured and threatened. One, Li Wenliang, later died of COVID19. The World Health Organization initially parroted Chinas line and did not declare a public-health emergency of international concern until January 30. By then, an estimated 10,000 people in 20 countries had been infected, and the virus was spreading fast.

The United States has correctly castigated China for its duplicity and the WHO for its laxitybut the U.S. has also failed the international community. Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. has withdrawn from several international partnerships and antagonized its allies. It has a seat on the WHOs executive board, but left that position empty for more than two years, only filling it this May, when the pandemic was in full swing. Since 2017, Trump has pulled more than 30 staffers out of the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions office in China, who could have warned about the spreading coronavirus. Last July, he defunded an American epidemiologist embedded within Chinas CDC. America First was America oblivious.

Even after warnings reached the U.S., they fell on the wrong ears. Since before his election, Trump has cavalierly dismissed expertise and evidence. He filled his administration with inexperienced newcomers, while depicting career civil servants as part of a deep state. In 2018, he dismantled an office that had been assembled specifically to prepare for nascent pandemics. American intelligence agencies warned about the coronavirus threat in January, but Trump habitually disregards intelligence briefings. The secretary of health and human services, Alex Azar, offered similar counsel, and was twice ignored.

Being prepared means being ready to spring into action, so that when something like this happens, youre moving quickly, Ronald Klain, who coordinated the U.S. response to the West African Ebola outbreak in 2014, told me. By early February, we should have triggered a series of actions, precisely zero of which were taken. Trump could have spent those crucial early weeks mass-producing tests to detect the virus, asking companies to manufacture protective equipment and ventilators, and otherwise steeling the nation for the worst. Instead, he focused on the border. On January 31, Trump announced that the U.S. would bar entry to foreigners who had recently been in China, and urged Americans to avoid going there.

Travel bans make intuitive sense, because travel obviously enables the spread of a virus. But in practice, travel bans are woefully inefficient at restricting either travel or viruses. They prompt people to seek indirect routes via third-party countries, or to deliberately hide their symptoms. They are often porous: Trumps included numerous exceptions, and allowed tens of thousands of people to enter from China. Ironically, they create travel: When Trump later announced a ban on flights from continental Europe, a surge of travelers packed Americas airports in a rush to beat the incoming restrictions. Travel bans may sometimes work for remote island nations, but in general they can only delay the spread of an epidemicnot stop it. And they can create a harmful false confidence, so countries rely on bans to the exclusion of the things they actually need to dotesting, tracing, building up the health system, says Thomas Bollyky, a global-health expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. That sounds an awful lot like what happened in the U.S.

This was predictable. A president who is fixated on an ineffectual border wall, and has portrayed asylum seekers as vectors of disease, was always going to reach for travel bans as a first resort. And Americans who bought into his rhetoric of xenophobia and isolationism were going to be especially susceptible to thinking that simple entry controls were a panacea.

And so the U.S. wasted its best chance of restraining COVID19. Although the disease first arrived in the U.S. in mid-January, genetic evidence shows that the specific viruses that triggered the first big outbreaks, in Washington State, didnt land until mid-February. The country could have used that time to prepare. Instead, Trump, who had spent his entire presidency learning that he could say whatever he wanted without consequence, assured Americans that the coronavirus is very much under control, and like a miracle, it will disappear. With impunity, Trump lied. With impunity, the virus spread.

On February 26, Trump asserted that cases were going to be down to close to zero. Over the next two months, at least 1 million Americans were infected.

As the coronavirus established itself in the U.S., it found a nation through which it could spread easily, without being detected. For years, Pardis Sabeti, a virologist at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, has been trying to create a surveillance network that would allow hospitals in every major U.S. city to quickly track new viruses through genetic sequencing. Had that network existed, once Chinese scientists published SARSCoV2s genome on January 11, every American hospital would have been able to develop its own diagnostic test in preparation for the viruss arrival. I spent a lot of time trying to convince many funders to fund it, Sabeti told me. I never got anywhere.

The CDC developed and distributed its own diagnostic tests in late January. These proved useless because of a faulty chemical component. Tests were in such short supply, and the criteria for getting them were so laughably stringent, that by the end of February, tens of thousands of Americans had likely been infected but only hundreds had been tested. The official data were so clearly wrong that The Atlantic developed its own volunteer-led initiativethe COVID Tracking Projectto count cases.

Diagnostic tests are easy to make, so the U.S. failing to create one seemed inconceivable. Worse, it had no Plan B. Private labs were strangled by FDA bureaucracy. Meanwhile, Sabetis lab developed a diagnostic test in mid-January and sent it to colleagues in Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and Senegal. We had working diagnostics in those countries well before we did in any U.S. states, she told me.

Its hard to overstate how thoroughly the testing debacle incapacitated the U.S. People with debilitating symptoms couldnt find out what was wrong with them. Health officials couldnt cut off chains of transmission by identifying people who were sick and asking them to isolate themselves.

Read: How the coronavirus became an American catastrophe

Water running along a pavement will readily seep into every crack; so, too, did the unchecked coronavirus seep into every fault line in the modern world. Consider our buildings. In response to the global energy crisis of the 1970s, architects made structures more energy-efficient by sealing them off from outdoor air, reducing ventilation rates. Pollutants and pathogens built up indoors, ushering in the era of sick buildings, says Joseph Allen, who studies environmental health at Harvards T. H. Chan School of Public Health. Energy efficiency is a pillar of modern climate policy, but there are ways to achieve it without sacrificing well-being. We lost our way over the years and stopped designing buildings for people, Allen says.

The indoor spaces in which Americans spend 87 percent of their time became staging grounds for super-spreading events. One study showed that the odds of catching the virus from an infected person are roughly 19 times higher indoors than in open air. Shielded from the elements and among crowds clustered in prolonged proximity, the coronavirus ran rampant in the conference rooms of a Boston hotel, the cabins of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, and a church hall in Washington State where a choir practiced for just a few hours.

The hardest-hit buildings were those that had been jammed with people for decades: prisons. Between harsher punishments doled out in the War on Drugs and a tough-on-crime mindset that prizes retribution over rehabilitation, Americas incarcerated population has swelled sevenfold since the 1970s, to about 2.3 million. The U.S. imprisons five to 18 times more people per capita than other Western democracies. Many American prisons are packed beyond capacity, making social distancing impossible. Soap is often scarce. Inevitably, the coronavirus ran amok. By June, two American prisons each accounted for more cases than all of New Zealand. One, Marion Correctional Institution, in Ohio, had more than 2,000 cases among inmates despite having a capacity of 1,500.

Other densely packed facilities were also besieged. Americas nursing homes and long-term-care facilities house less than 1 percent of its people, but as of mid-June, they accounted for 40 percent of its coronavirus deaths. More than 50,000 residents and staff have died. At least 250,000 more have been infected. These grim figures are a reflection not just of the greater harms that COVID19 inflicts upon elderly physiology, but also of the care the elderly receive. Before the pandemic, three in four nursing homes were understaffed, and four in five had recently been cited for failures in infection control. The Trump administrations policies have exacerbated the problem by reducing the influx of immigrants, who make up a quarter of long-term caregivers.

Read: Another coronavirus nursing-home disaster is coming

Even though a Seattle nursing home was one of the first COVID19 hot spots in the U.S., similar facilities werent provided with tests and protective equipment. Rather than girding these facilities against the pandemic, the Department of Health and Human Services paused nursing-home inspections in March, passing the buck to the states. Some nursing homes avoided the virus because their owners immediately stopped visitations, or paid caregivers to live on-site. But in others, staff stopped working, scared about infecting their charges or becoming infected themselves. In some cases, residents had to be evacuated because no one showed up to care for them.

Americas neglect of nursing homes and prisons, its sick buildings, and its botched deployment of tests are all indicative of its problematic attitude toward health: Get hospitals ready and wait for sick people to show, as Sheila Davis, the CEO of the nonprofit Partners in Health, puts it. Especially in the beginning, we catered our entire [COVID19] response to the 20 percent of people who required hospitalization, rather than preventing transmission in the community. The latter is the job of the public-health system, which prevents sickness in populations instead of merely treating it in individuals. That system pairs uneasily with a national temperament that views health as a matter of personal responsibility rather than a collective good.

At the end of the 20th century, public-health improvements meant that Americans were living an average of 30 years longer than they were at the start of it. Maternal mortality had fallen by 99 percent; infant mortality by 90 percent. Fortified foods all but eliminated rickets and goiters. Vaccines eradicated smallpox and polio, and brought measles, diphtheria, and rubella to heel. These measures, coupled with antibiotics and better sanitation, curbed infectious diseases to such a degree that some scientists predicted they would soon pass into history. But instead, these achievements brought complacency. As public health did its job, it became a target of budget cuts, says Lori Freeman, the CEO of the National Association of County and City Health Officials.

Today, the U.S. spends just 2.5 percent of its gigantic health-care budget on public health. Underfunded health departments were already struggling to deal with opioid addiction, climbing obesity rates, contaminated water, and easily preventable diseases. Last year saw the most measles cases since 1992. In 2018, the U.S. had 115,000 cases of syphilis and 580,000 cases of gonorrheanumbers not seen in almost three decades. It has 1.7 million cases of chlamydia, the highest number ever recorded.

Since the last recession, in 2009, chronically strapped local health departments have lost 55,000 jobsa quarter of their workforce. When COVID19 arrived, the economic downturn forced overstretched departments to furlough more employees. When states needed battalions of public-health workers to find infected people and trace their contacts, they had to hire and train people from scratch. In May, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan asserted that his state would soon have enough people to trace 10,000 contacts every day. Last year, as Ebola tore through the Democratic Republic of Congoa country with a quarter of Marylands wealth and an active war zonelocal health workers and the WHO traced twice as many people.

Ripping unimpeded through American communities, the coronavirus created thousands of sickly hosts that it then rode into Americas hospitals. It should have found facilities armed with state-of-the-art medical technologies, detailed pandemic plans, and ample supplies of protective equipment and life-saving medicines. Instead, it found a brittle system in danger of collapse.

Compared with the average wealthy nation, America spends nearly twice as much of its national wealth on health care, about a quarter of which is wasted on inefficient care, unnecessary treatments, and administrative chicanery. The U.S. gets little bang for its exorbitant buck. It has the lowest life-expectancy rate of comparable countries, the highest rates of chronic disease, and the fewest doctors per person. This profit-driven system has scant incentive to invest in spare beds, stockpiled supplies, peacetime drills, and layered contingency plansthe essence of pandemic preparedness. Americas hospitals have been pruned and stretched by market forces to run close to full capacity, with little ability to adapt in a crisis.

When hospitals do create pandemic plans, they tend to fight the last war. After 2014, several centers created specialized treatment units designed for Ebolaa highly lethal but not very contagious disease. These units were all but useless against a highly transmissible airborne virus like SARSCoV2. Nor were hospitals ready for an outbreak to drag on for months. Emergency plans assumed that staff could endure a few days of exhausting conditions, that supplies would hold, and that hard-hit centers could be supported by unaffected neighbors. Were designed for discrete disasters like mass shootings, traffic pileups, and hurricanes, says Esther Choo, an emergency physician at Oregon Health and Science University. The COVID19 pandemic is not a discrete disaster. It is a 50-state catastrophe that will likely continue at least until a vaccine is ready.

Wherever the coronavirus arrived, hospitals reeled. Several states asked medical students to graduate early, reenlisted retired doctors, and deployed dermatologists to emergency departments. Doctors and nurses endured grueling shifts, their faces chapped and bloody when they finally doffed their protective equipment. Soon, that equipmentmasks, respirators, gowns, glovesstarted running out.

American hospitals operate on a just-in-time economy. They acquire the goods they need in the moment through labyrinthine supply chains that wrap around the world in tangled lines, from countries with cheap labor to richer nations like the U.S. The lines are invisible until they snap. About half of the worlds face masks, for example, are made in China, some of them in Hubei province. When that region became the pandemic epicenter, the mask supply shriveled just as global demand spiked. The Trump administration turned to a larder of medical supplies called the Strategic National Stockpile, only to find that the 100 million respirators and masks that had been dispersed during the 2009 flu pandemic were never replaced. Just 13 million respirators were left.

In April, four in five frontline nurses said they didnt have enough protective equipment. Some solicited donations from the public, or navigated a morass of back-alley deals and internet scams. Others fashioned their own surgical masks from bandannas and gowns from garbage bags. The supply of nasopharyngeal swabs that are used in every diagnostic test also ran low, because one of the largest manufacturers is based in Lombardy, Italyinitially the COVID19 capital of Europe. About 40 percent of critical-care drugs, including antibiotics and painkillers, became scarce because they depend on manufacturing lines that begin in China and India. Once a vaccine is ready, there might not be enough vials to put it in, because of the long-running global shortage of medical-grade glassliterally, a bottle-neck bottleneck.

The federal government could have mitigated those problems by buying supplies at economies of scale and distributing them according to need. Instead, in March, Trump told Americas governors to try getting it yourselves. As usual, health care was a matter of capitalism and connections. In New York, rich hospitals bought their way out of their protective-equipment shortfall, while neighbors in poorer, more diverse parts of the city rationed their supplies.

While the president prevaricated, Americans acted. Businesses sent their employees home. People practiced social distancing, even before Trump finally declared a national emergency on March 13, and before governors and mayors subsequently issued formal stay-at-home orders, or closed schools, shops, and restaurants. A study showed that the U.S. could have averted 36,000 COVID19 deaths if leaders had enacted social-distancing measures just a week earlier. But better late than never: By collectively reducing the spread of the virus, America flattened the curve. Ventilators didnt run out, as they had in parts of Italy. Hospitals had time to add extra beds.

Social distancing worked. But the indiscriminate lockdown was necessary only because Americas leaders wasted months of prep time. Deploying this blunt policy instrument came at enormous cost. Unemployment rose to 14.7 percent, the highest level since record-keeping began, in 1948. More than 26 million people lost their jobs, a catastrophe in a country thatuniquely and absurdlyties health care to employment. Some COVID19 survivors have been hit with seven-figure medical bills. In the middle of the greatest health and economic crises in generations, millions of Americans have found themselves disconnected from medical care and impoverished. They join the millions who have always lived that way.

The coronavirus found, exploited, and widened every inequity that the U.S. had to offer. Elderly people, already pushed to the fringes of society, were treated as acceptable losses. Women were more likely to lose jobs than men, and also shouldered extra burdens of child care and domestic work, while facing rising rates of domestic violence. In half of the states, people with dementia and intellectual disabilities faced policies that threatened to deny them access to lifesaving ventilators. Thousands of people endured months of COVID19 symptoms that resembled those of chronic postviral illnesses, only to be told that their devastating symptoms were in their head. Latinos were three times as likely to be infected as white people. Asian Americans faced racist abuse. Far from being a great equalizer, the pandemic fell unevenly upon the U.S., taking advantage of injustices that had been brewing throughout the nations history.

Read: COVID-19 can last for several months

Of the 3.1 million Americans who still cannot afford health insurance in states where Medicaid has not been expanded, more than half are people of color, and 30 percent are Black.* This is no accident. In the decades after the Civil War, the white leaders of former slave states deliberately withheld health care from Black Americans, apportioning medicine more according to the logic of Jim Crow than Hippocrates. They built hospitals away from Black communities, segregated Black patients into separate wings, and blocked Black students from medical school. In the 20th century, they helped construct Americas system of private, employer-based insurance, which has kept many Black people from receiving adequate medical treatment. They fought every attempt to improve Black peoples access to health care, from the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in the 60s to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

A number of former slave states also have among the lowest investments in public health, the lowest quality of medical care, the highest proportions of Black citizens, and the greatest racial divides in health outcomes. As the COVID19 pandemic wore on, they were among the quickest to lift social-distancing restrictions and reexpose their citizens to the coronavirus. The harms of these moves were unduly foisted upon the poor and the Black.

As of early July, one in every 1,450 Black Americans had died from COVID19a rate more than twice that of white Americans. That figure is both tragic and wholly expected given the mountain of medical disadvantages that Black people face. Compared with white people, they die three years younger. Three times as many Black mothers die during pregnancy. Black people have higher rates of chronic illnesses that predispose them to fatal cases of COVID19. When they go to hospitals, theyre less likely to be treated. The care they do receive tends to be poorer. Aware of these biases, Black people are hesitant to seek aid for COVID19 symptoms and then show up at hospitals in sicker states. One of my patients said, I dont want to go to the hospital, because theyre not going to treat me well, says Uch Blackstock, an emergency physician and the founder of Advancing Health Equity, a nonprofit that fights bias and racism in health care. Another whispered to me, Im so relieved youre Black. I just want to make sure Im listened to.

Black people were both more worried about the pandemic and more likely to be infected by it. The dismantling of Americas social safety net left Black people with less income and higher unemployment. They make up a disproportionate share of the low-paid essential workers who were expected to staff grocery stores and warehouses, clean buildings, and deliver mail while the pandemic raged around them. Earning hourly wages without paid sick leave, they couldnt afford to miss shifts even when symptomatic. They faced risky commutes on crowded public transportation while more privileged people teleworked from the safety of isolation. Theres nothing about Blackness that makes you more prone to COVID, says Nicolette Louissaint, the executive director of Healthcare Ready, a nonprofit that works to strengthen medical supply chains. Instead, existing inequities stack the odds in favor of the virus.

Native Americans were similarly vulnerable. A third of the people in the Navajo Nation cant easily wash their hands, because theyve been embroiled in long-running negotiations over the rights to the water on their own lands. Those with water must contend with runoff from uranium mines. Most live in cramped multigenerational homes, far from the few hospitals that service a 17-million-acre reservation. As of mid-May, the Navajo Nation had higher rates of COVID19 infections than any U.S. state.

Americans often misperceive historical inequities as personal failures. Stephen Huffman, a Republican state senator and doctor in Ohio, suggested that Black Americans might be more prone to COVID19 because they dont wash their hands enough, a remark for which he later apologized. Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, also a physician, noted that Black people have higher rates of chronic disease, as if this were an answer in itself, and not a pattern that demanded further explanation.

Clear distribution of accurate information is among the most important defenses against an epidemics spread. And yet the largely unregulated, social-media-based communications infrastructure of the 21st century almost ensures that misinformation will proliferate fast. In every outbreak throughout the existence of social media, from Zika to Ebola, conspiratorial communities immediately spread their content about how its all caused by some government or pharmaceutical company or Bill Gates, says Rene DiResta of the Stanford Internet Observatory, who studies the flow of online information. When COVID19 arrived, there was no doubt in my mind that it was coming.

Read: The great 5G conspiracy

Sure enough, existing conspiracy theoriesGeorge Soros! 5G! Bioweapons!were repurposed for the pandemic. An infodemic of falsehoods spread alongside the actual virus. Rumors coursed through online platforms that are designed to keep users engaged, even if that means feeding them content that is polarizing or untrue. In a national crisis, when people need to act in concert, this is calamitous. The social internet as a system is broken, DiResta told me, and its faults are readily abused.

Beginning on April 16, DiRestas team noticed growing online chatter about Judy Mikovits, a discredited researcher turned anti-vaccination champion. Posts and videos cast Mikovits as a whistleblower who claimed that the new coronavirus was made in a lab and described Anthony Fauci of the White Houses coronavirus task force as her nemesis. Ironically, this conspiracy theory was nested inside a larger conspiracypart of an orchestrated PR campaign by an anti-vaxxer and QAnon fan with the explicit goal to take down Anthony Fauci. It culminated in a slickly produced video called Plandemic, which was released on May 4. More than 8 million people watched it in a week.

Doctors and journalists tried to debunk Plandemics many misleading claims, but these efforts spread less successfully than the video itself. Like pandemics, infodemics quickly become uncontrollable unless caught early. But while health organizations recognize the need to surveil for emerging diseases, they are woefully unprepared to do the same for emerging conspiracies. In 2016, when DiResta spoke with a CDC team about the threat of misinformation, their response was: Thats interesting, but thats just stuff that happens on the internet.

From the June 2020 issue: Adrienne LaFrance on how QAnon is more important than you think

Rather than countering misinformation during the pandemics early stages, trusted sources often made things worse. Many health experts and government officials downplayed the threat of the virus in January and February, assuring the public that it posed a low risk to the U.S. and drawing comparisons to the ostensibly greater threat of the flu. The WHO, the CDC, and the U.S. surgeon general urged people not to wear masks, hoping to preserve the limited stocks for health-care workers. These messages were offered without nuance or acknowledgement of uncertainty, so when they were reversedthe virus is worse than the flu; wear masksthe changes seemed like befuddling flip-flops.

The media added to the confusion. Drawn to novelty, journalists gave oxygen to fringe anti-lockdown protests while most Americans quietly stayed home. They wrote up every incremental scientific claim, even those that hadnt been verified or peer-reviewed.

There were many such claims to choose from. By tying career advancement to the publishing of papers, academia already creates incentives for scientists to do attention-grabbing but irreproducible work. The pandemic strengthened those incentives by prompting a rush of panicked research and promising ambitious scientists global attention.

In March, a small and severely flawed French study suggested that the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine could treat COVID19. Published in a minor journal, it likely would have been ignored a decade ago. But in 2020, it wended its way to Donald Trump via a chain of credulity that included Fox News, Elon Musk, and Dr. Oz. Trump spent months touting the drug as a miracle cure despite mounting evidence to the contrary, causing shortages for people who actually needed it to treat lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. The hydroxychloroquine story was muddied even further by a study published in a top medical journal, The Lancet, that claimed the drug was not effective and was potentially harmful. The paper relied on suspect data from a small analytics company called Surgisphere, and was retracted in June.**

Science famously self-corrects. But during the pandemic, the same urgent pace that has produced valuable knowledge at record speed has also sent sloppy claims around the world before anyone could even raise a skeptical eyebrow. The ensuing confusion, and the many genuine unknowns about the virus, has created a vortex of fear and uncertainty, which grifters have sought to exploit. Snake-oil merchants have peddled ineffectual silver bullets (including actual silver). Armchair experts with scant or absent qualifications have found regular slots on the nightly news. And at the center of that confusion is Donald Trump.

During a pandemic, leaders must rally the public, tell the truth, and speak clearly and consistently. Instead, Trump repeatedly contradicted public-health experts, his scientific advisers, and himself. He said that nobody ever thought a thing like [the pandemic] could happen and also that he felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic. Both statements cannot be true at the same time, and in fact neither is true.

A month before his inauguration, I wrote that the question isnt whether [Trump will] face a deadly outbreak during his presidency, but when. Based on his actions as a media personality during the 2014 Ebola outbreak and as a candidate in the 2016 election, I suggested that he would fail at diplomacy, close borders, tweet rashly, spread conspiracy theories, ignore experts, and exhibit reckless self-confidence. And so he did.

No one should be shocked that a liar who has made almost 20,000 false or misleading claims during his presidency would lie about whether the U.S. had the pandemic under control; that a racist who gave birth to birtherism would do little to stop a virus that was disproportionately killing Black people; that a xenophobe who presided over the creation of new immigrant-detention centers would order meatpacking plants with a substantial immigrant workforce to remain open; that a cruel man devoid of empathy would fail to calm fearful citizens; that a narcissist who cannot stand to be upstaged would refuse to tap the deep well of experts at his disposal; that a scion of nepotism would hand control of a shadow coronavirus task force to his unqualified son-in-law; that an armchair polymath would claim to have a natural ability at medicine and display it by wondering out loud about the curative potential of injecting disinfectant; that an egotist incapable of admitting failure would try to distract from his greatest one by blaming China, defunding the WHO, and promoting miracle drugs; or that a president who has been shielded by his party from any shred of accountability would say, when asked about the lack of testing, I dont take any responsibility at all.

Trump is a comorbidity of the COVID19 pandemic. He isnt solely responsible for Americas fiasco, but he is central to it. A pandemic demands the coordinated efforts of dozens of agencies. In the best circumstances, its hard to make the bureaucracy move quickly, Ron Klain said. It moves if the president stands on a table and says, Move quickly. But it really doesnt move if hes sitting at his desk saying its not a big deal.

In the early days of Trumps presidency, many believed that Americas institutions would check his excesses. They have, in part, but Trump has also corrupted them. The CDC is but his latest victim. On February 25, the agencys respiratory-disease chief, Nancy Messonnier, shocked people by raising the possibility of school closures and saying that disruption to everyday life might be severe. Trump was reportedly enraged. In response, he seems to have benched the entire agency. The CDC led the way in every recent domestic disease outbreak and has been the inspiration and template for public-health agencies around the world. But during the three months when some 2 million Americans contracted COVID19 and the death toll topped 100,000, the agency didnt hold a single press conference. Its detailed guidelines on reopening the country were shelved for a month while the White House released its own uselessly vague plan.

Again, everyday Americans did more than the White House. By voluntarily agreeing to months of social distancing, they bought the country time, at substantial cost to their financial and mental well-being. Their sacrifice came with an implicit social contractthat the government would use the valuable time to mobilize an extraordinary, energetic effort to suppress the virus, as did the likes of Germany and Singapore. But the government did not, to the bafflement of health experts. There are instances in history where humanity has really moved mountains to defeat infectious diseases, says Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Its appalling that we in the U.S. have not summoned that energy around COVID19.

Instead, the U.S. sleepwalked into the worst possible scenario: People suffered all the debilitating effects of a lockdown with few of the benefits. Most states felt compelled to reopen without accruing enough tests or contact tracers. In April and May, the nation was stuck on a terrible plateau, averaging 20,000 to 30,000 new cases every day. In June, the plateau again became an upward slope, soaring to record-breaking heights.

Read: Ed Yong on living in a patchwork pandemic

Trump never rallied the country. Despite declaring himself a wartime president, he merely presided over a culture war, turning public health into yet another politicized cage match. Abetted by supporters in the conservative media, he framed measures that protect against the virus, from masks to social distancing, as liberal and anti-American. Armed anti-lockdown protesters demonstrated at government buildings while Trump egged them on, urging them to LIBERATE Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia. Several public-health officials left their jobs over harassment and threats.

It is no coincidence that other powerful nations that elected populist leadersBrazil, Russia, India, and the United Kingdomalso fumbled their response to COVID19. When you have people elected based on undermining trust in the government, what happens when trust is what you need the most? says Sarah Dalglish of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who studies the political determinants of health.

Trump is president, she says. How could it go well?

The countries that fared better against COVID19 didnt follow a universal playbook. Many used masks widely; New Zealand didnt. Many tested extensively; Japan didnt. Many had science-minded leaders who acted early; Hong Kong didntinstead, a grassroots movement compensated for a lax government. Many were small islands; not large and continental Germany. Each nation succeeded because it did enough things right.

Read: What really doomed Americas coronavirus response

Meanwhile, the United States underperformed across the board, and its errors compounded. The dearth of tests allowed unconfirmed cases to create still more cases, which flooded the hospitals, which ran out of masks, which are necessary to limit the viruss spread. Twitter amplified Trumps misleading messages, which raised fear and anxiety among people, which led them to spend more time scouring for information on Twitter. Even seasoned health experts underestimated these compounded risks. Yes, having Trump at the helm during a pandemic was worrying, but it was tempting to think that national wealth and technological superiority would save America. We are a rich country, and we think we can stop any infectious disease because of that, says Michael Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. But dollar bills alone are no match against a virus.

Public-health experts talk wearily about the panic-neglect cycle, in which outbreaks trigger waves of attention and funding that quickly dissipate once the diseases recede. This time around, the U.S. is already flirting with neglect, before the panic phase is over. The virus was never beaten in the spring, but many people, including Trump, pretended that it was. Every state reopened to varying degrees, and many subsequently saw record numbers of cases. After Arizonas cases started climbing sharply at the end of May, Cara Christ, the director of the states health-services department, said, We are not going to be able to stop the spread. And so we cant stop living as well. The virus may beg to differ.

At times, Americans have seemed to collectively surrender to COVID19. The White Houses coronavirus task force wound down. Trump resumed holding rallies, and called for less testing, so that official numbers would be rosier. The country behaved like a horror-movie character who believes the danger is over, even though the monster is still at large. The long wait for a vaccine will likely culminate in a predictable way: Many Americans will refuse to get it, and among those who want it, the most vulnerable will be last in line.

Still, there is some reason for hope. Many of the people I interviewed tentatively suggested that the upheaval wrought by COVID19 might be so large as to permanently change the nations disposition. Experience, after all, sharpens the mind. East Asian states that had lived through the SARS and MERS epidemics reacted quickly when threatened by SARSCoV2, spurred by a cultural memory of what a fast-moving coronavirus can do. But the U.S. had barely been touched by the major epidemics of past decades (with the exception of the H1N1 flu). In 2019, more Americans were concerned about terrorists and cyberattacks than about outbreaks of exotic diseases. Perhaps they will emerge from this pandemic with immunity both cellular and cultural.

There are also a few signs that Americans are learning important lessons. A June survey showed that 60 to 75 percent of Americans were still practicing social distancing. A partisan gap exists, but it has narrowed. In public-opinion polling in the U.S., high-60s agreement on anything is an amazing accomplishment, says Beth Redbird, a sociologist at Northwestern University, who led the survey. Polls in May also showed that most Democrats and Republicans supported mask wearing, and felt it should be mandatory in at least some indoor spaces. It is almost unheard-of for a public-health measure to go from zero to majority acceptance in less than half a year. But pandemics are rare situations when people are desperate for guidelines and rules, says Zo McLaren, a health-policy professor at the University of Maryland at Baltimore County. The closest analogy is pregnancy, she says, which is a time when womens lives are changing, and they can absorb a ton of information. A pandemic is similar: People are actually paying attention, and learning.

Redbirds survey suggests that Americans indeed sought out new sources of informationand that consumers of news from conservative outlets, in particular, expanded their media diet. People of all political bents became more dissatisfied with the Trump administration. As the economy nose-dived, the health-care system ailed, and the government fumbled, belief in American exceptionalism declined. Times of big social disruption call into question things we thought were normal and standard, Redbird told me. If our institutions fail us here, in what ways are they failing elsewhere? And whom are they failing the most?

Americans were in the mood for systemic change. Then, on May 25, George Floyd, who had survived COVID19s assault on his airway, asphyxiated under the crushing pressure of a police officers knee. The excruciating video of his killing circulated through communities that were still reeling from the deaths of Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery, and disproportionate casualties from COVID19. Americas simmering outrage came to a boil and spilled into its streets.

Defiant and largely cloaked in masks, protesters turned out in more than 2,000 cities and towns. Support for Black Lives Matter soared: For the first time since its founding in 2013, the movement had majority approval across racial groups. These protests were not about the pandemic, but individual protesters had been primed by months of shocking governmental missteps. Even people who might once have ignored evidence of police brutality recognized yet another broken institution. They could no longer look away.

It is hard to stare directly at the biggest problems of our age. Pandemics, climate change, the sixth extinction of wildlife, food and water shortagestheir scope is planetary, and their stakes are overwhelming. We have no choice, though, but to grapple with them. It is now abundantly clear what happens when global disasters collide with historical negligence.

COVID19 is an assault on Americas body, and a referendum on the ideas that animate its culture. Recovery is possible, but it demands radical introspection. America would be wise to help reverse the ruination of the natural world, a process that continues to shunt animal diseases into human bodies. It should strive to prevent sickness instead of profiting from it. It should build a health-care system that prizes resilience over brittle efficiency, and an information system that favors light over heat. It should rebuild its international alliances, its social safety net, and its trust in empiricism. It should address the health inequities that flow from its history. Not least, it should elect leaders with sound judgment, high character, and respect for science, logic, and reason.

The pandemic has been both tragedy and teacher. Its very etymology offers a clue about what is at stake in the greatest challenges of the future, and what is needed to address them. Pandemic. Pan and demos. All people.

* This article has been updated to clarify why 3.1 million Americans still cannot afford health insurance.

** This article originally mischaracterized similarities between two studies that were retracted in June, one in The Lancet and one in the New England Journal of Medicine. It has been updated to reflect that the latter study was not specifically about hydroxychloroquine.

This article appears in the September 2020 print edition with the headline Anatomy of an American Failure.

Listen to Ed Yong discuss this story on an episode of Social Distance, The Atlantics podcast about life in the pandemic:

Subscribe to Social Distance on Apple Podcasts or Spotify (How to Listen)

Read more:

How the Pandemic Defeated America - The Atlantic

Your Worst Nightmare: Waking Up to the Sound of Your Door Being Kicked In – Blue Virginia

by Cindy

Youre asleep in your bed in the middle of the night, when you suddenly hear a crash coming from the living room. Your dog freaks out and runs to the living room, barking and growling. Amid the noise of stomping feet and barking, you hear a gunshot and Rufus is suddenly quiet.

What do you do?

If youre someone who owns a firearm for self-defense, this is exactly the kind of situation you probably had in mind. You quickly grab your gun from your nightstand, and run out your bedroom door into the dark hallway.

Its not clear how this story ends, but its highly likely it ends with either you shooting your intruders, or your intruders shooting you, or both. If youre someone who doesnt own a firearm, youre probably equally likely to end up being shot.

But heres the rub. They arent intruders. Theyre law enforcement officers, entering your house in the middle of the night, unannounced, with whats called a no-knock warrant to search your house.

The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees a right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. That reasonableness was found by the Supreme Court in 1995 to extend to the manner of serving a warrant, determining that the common-law policy of knock and announce should be the default. However, a 1997 Supreme Court case determined that an exception was allowed in specific cases where a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime.

This is another aspect of the war on drugs. No-knock warrants are issued to increase the odds of law enforcement finding the drugs before the individual has time to flush them down the toilet. Their use has skyrocketed from 3,000 per year in 1981 to at least 20,000 per year (50,000 estimated in 2005). And although they are meant to be an exception to the rule of knock and announce only in narrow cases, judges approve requests more than 95% of the time.

And the story ends in tragedy far too often. Breonna Taylorshot eight times and killed in her own house as officers stormed in shooting with a no-knock warrant meant for someone else across town. 92-year-old Kathryn Johnston, who fired one shot over the head of the officers who broke down her door and entered her Atlanta house in search of crack cocaine they never found; they returned fire with 39 shots, several of which struck her and killed her. Or Berwyn Heights, Maryland mayor, Cheye Calvo, whose dogs were killed when a SWAT team stormed into his house with a no-knock warrant to investigate a package of marijuana that had been mailed to his house.

Ending no-knock warrants is one of those rare ideas for which there is bipartisan support. Republican Rand Paul has introduced a bill to ban the practice at the federal level. The federal Justice in Policing Act introduced by Democrats in Congress includes a ban. The South Carolina Supreme Court has temporarily banned the practice. Kentuckys Republican Senate Leader is drafting a bill to ban the practice state-wide, and Oregon has banned no-knock warrants since 2009.

But there will be those who oppose. In the third House joint Courts of Justice/Militia, Police and Public Safety hearing, speakers from the Virginia State Police as well as the Fluvanna Sheriffs office spoke against banning no-knock warrants, saying they oppose anything that affects their crisis decision-making. While I think we clearly dont want to unnecessarily put law enforcement officers in life-threatening situations, there are many who argue that no-knock warrants do exactly that, by creating a fight or flight instinct in those who are being surprised by the officers. Additionally, even with knocking and announcing (often a matter of a few seconds), the officers plan the service, know well in advance the time and place, have protective gear available, choose numbers of officers according to the expected risk, and enter with weapons drawn, so the risks are minimized and dont differ greatly depending on knocking and announcing or not.

This kind of tragedy doesnt happen often fortunately, but its almost entirely avoidable. This is everyones worst nightmarebeing suddenly attacked in your home while youre doing nothing wrong. A typo in an address, a mistaken name, a bad tip, and a 26 year old EMT like Breonna Taylor is gone, her family distraught. Lets fix this before we lose another innocent life.

Continue reading here:

Your Worst Nightmare: Waking Up to the Sound of Your Door Being Kicked In - Blue Virginia

7 of the best Steven Soderbergh films to watch right now, from crime dramas to caper comedies – Minneapolis Star Tribune

In the history of the Academy Awards, Steven Soderbergh is the only director who had to compete against himself. And he won.

Prognosticators figured Soderbergh hurt his chances by directing two of 2000s five best pictures. (Actually, lets make that two of the four best; how did the insipid Chocolat make the cut?) The conventional wisdom was Soderbergh would cancel himself out with Traffic and Erin Brockovich splitting the vote, but he was the surprise victor for best director with Traffic. Thats even more surprising when you consider that best picture, an award that usually went hand-in-hand with best director in those days, went to Gladiator.

It cant hurt that Soderbergh is not only insanely prolific and smart but that actors by far, the biggest group of Oscar voters love to work with him. Many top Hollywood names are Soderbergh recidivists, including Julia Roberts, Don Cheadle and George Clooney. Maybe a bunch of those folks solved the double-nomination problem by conspiring to put their votes behind Traffic?

Well never know, but we do know something happened in Soderberghs career around 1998. After making a splash at the 1989 Sundance Film Festival with Sex, Lies, and Videotape, he built a reputation as a cerebral, experimental writer/director but never made anything resembling a popular movie until Out of Sight. That began a string of five wildly entertaining titles in a three-year span, including The Limey, Brockovich, Traffic and his biggest hit, the glittering remake of Oceans 11.

Although those movies vary in tone, ranging from the grit of Traffic to the larkiness of Oceans, they all share an element Soderbergh often returns to: the caper. His characters are usually trying to get away with something illegal and Soderbergh likes to let us in on the planning, so we can see where it goes right or, more often, wrong.

One of my favorites of his is the noirish caper The Underneath, starring Elisabeth Shue, but I cant find it streaming anywhere. The following seven, fortunately, are easy to find. (Out of Sight is not on the list because I included it on my list of best Steve Zahn movies a couple of weeks ago.)

Erin Brockovich (2000)

Not for the first time, I think the Oscars got it wrong with Soderbergh because Brockovich is better than Traffic. Probably the most conventional movie the prolific director has made a fish-out-of-water, little-guy-fights-city-hall biopic its a crowd-pleaser that doesnt make you feel stupid for loving it. A #MeToo movie before that movement launched, its also a showcase for Roberts, who won an Oscar for her weary, cut-the-crap performance.

The Informant! (2009)

Ive never understood why this comedy, written by Golden Valley native Scott Z. Burns (also the screenwriter of the next two movies on this list) wasnt a hit. It stars Matt Damon, at the peak of his popularity, as a moron whom the FBI enlists as a mole in an investigation of corporate malfeasance. (One benefit of working frequently with the same actors is that they trust Soderbergh to cast them in a variety of roles, and respond with the kind of vanity-free work Damon does here.) Its hilarious and, with its theme of government and business incompetence, troubling.

Side Effects (2013)

Soderbergh, also the cinematographer and editor of Side Effects, may have been born three decades too late. Hollywood loved twisty, clever thrillers in the 70s and 80s but had given up on them by the time this one hit theaters. Fans of The Usual Suspects will eat up the murder mystery, which, like quite a few Soderbergh titles, has nasty things to say about Big Pharma. Besides Channing Tatum, Rooney Mara, Jude Law and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the cast includes St. Paul native Laila Robins (thats her warning, Its gonna follow you around forever, in the trailer).

Contagion (2011)

Did she mention seeing anyone who was sick? is not a phrase any of us wants to hear in the era of contact tracing, but this melodrama about a pandemic feels creepily prescient. Partly set in the Twin Cities but shot outside of Chicago, it features yet another all-star cast (Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslet, Marion Cotillard) and yet another Minnesota native (Alexandrias John Hawkes).

Logan Lucky (2017)

The most gleefully silly of all of Soderberghs caper comedies, its another throwback, reminiscent of (but much better than) Smokey and the Bandit. The heist takes place at a NASCAR race, Daniel Craig plays a Southern safecracker named Joe Bang who turns incarcerated into five separate words, Adam Driver keeps losing his prosthetic arm and, eventually, all of that makes sense.

Traffic (2000)

Soderbergh probably won his Oscar for Traffic instead of Brockovich because Traffic (for which he also was the cinematographer) is a flashier demonstration of his skills. Juggling multiple story lines and settings, the drama about the war on drugs remains as potent today as it was 20 years ago.

The Limey (1999)

Soderbergh looks back again, this time to stylized 60s British crime dramas that starred people such as Michael Caine and Terence Stamp. Wittily, Stamp stars in this one, too. Hes a mobster seeking revenge in Los Angeles, and a big part of the movies efficient (less than 90 minutes) fun is how Soderbergh keeps us guessing with tricky editing and visuals.

Read more here:

7 of the best Steven Soderbergh films to watch right now, from crime dramas to caper comedies - Minneapolis Star Tribune

Advancing Equity: Women’s Crisis Center staff repeats this phrase and means it ‘We are still here’ – User-generated content

Part of a series by NKYs nonprofits who stand together against racism and any acts that dehumanize people.

We are still here.

As the impact of Covid-19 became increasingly evident, Womens Crisis Centers staff repeated this phrase quite often. Power-based personal violence such as sexual assault, stalking, and partner violence didnt disappear just because a pandemic showed up. The ugly truth, in fact, was that stay-at-home mandates meant that some people were stuck at home with the people who were hurting them. The way we helped folks in our community had to change. As a result, it was painfully urgent and incredibly important for us to let it be known that even though things looked somewhat different, we hadnt left. We were still there for those who needed us when they needed us. We were making sure to include that simple message in our social media posts, our press releases, in the various interviews, and even in the signs that hang on our front doors.

We are still here.

On May 25, the murder of George Floyd by four Minneapolis police officers became the most recent public display of the pillars of white supremacy upon which this country was built. George Floyds name was added to a centuries-long list of Black people who have been killed unjustly in our country. In our own state of Kentucky, Breonna Taylors life had been stolen by police officers just two months prior. Sam DuBose was shot and killed by a police officer a short five years ago just across the river in Cincinnati. And it doesnt seem that long ago that the streets of Cincinnati erupted in sadness and anger after Timothy Thomas was killed by police. Our state, our region, and certainly our country are no strangers to the oppression that continues to happen time and time again to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). This isnt a new issue. It can be traced back to racist stop-and-frisk policies. Or a war on drugs that disproportionately targeted communities of color. It can be traced back to Jim Crow laws and segregation. It can be seen in our Constitutions 13th Amendment, and indeed in the enslavement of people during the very formation of this country and for nearly a century after. The progress that we have seen hasnt carried us very far away from our racist roots. We are in a very familiar place.

We are still here.

Its infuriating that a phrase used by our agency to provide reassurance and stability to folks in our community can also be used to remind us what a poor job we have done addressing racial disparities, oppression, and hatred in our country and in our communities. How disheartening it is to still be having the same discussions with what feels like such little progress.

When a person walks through Womens Crisis Centers doors for help, they bring with them the traumas that they have experienced, the most apparent of which might be a recent encounter they have had with violence. However its important for us to remember as advocates, as service providers, and as human beings that different identities carry different traumas. When we support someone who has been impacted by violence, we need to remember the additional traumas they may have experienced due to racism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia. These traumas stack, compound, and can weave themselves together. This is all before even considering the generational trauma that exists in individuals belonging to groups who have been historically oppressed.

A large part of our agencys work is in violence prevention. We place enormous emphasis on the role that each individual plays in preventing violence. We work with middle school, high school, and college students as well as individuals throughout our communities to stop violence from happening in the first place, and to create a culture that is utterly intolerant of violence. We have seen hope, and we have seen small changes. But we know that we can not end one form of violence without ending all forms of violence. Just as our identities intersect, so does violence and the roles it plays. We can not eliminate power-based personal violence without also eliminating prejudice. We can not create policies to support survivors of sexual and domestic violence without also abolishing policies that have systemically upheld white supremacy. We can not be an agency for all people without recognizing that the word all has historically meant something entirely contrary. The same man who penned we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal enslaved over 600 people in his adult life. Racial oppression and white supremacy are present in the very fibers of our countrys fabric.

It is critically important at this time in history to specifically name those who have historically been excluded from all.

Black lives matter.Native lives matter.Trans lives matter.

These statements stand alone. It is unacceptable to be anything but deliberate in shouting these phrases that have been left unsaid for far too long.

As an agency, Womens Crisis Center has committed to reviewing and improving our own internal practices and trainings. Through the lens of absolute loyalty to survivors of power-based personal violence, we will examine and evaluate the relationships we hold with our communities, with partner agencies and the systems survivors navigate. We will amplify the voices of BIPOC through our internal and external messaging. We will strive to maintain better representation of BIPOC on our staff, within our leadership, and on our board. A full breakdown of our plan and commitment can be found at wccky.org.

We must understand the role we have played in maintaining white supremacy. We must recognize that our allegiances have not always been defined clearly enough. We must accept that we have been wrong. These statements are true not only for us as an agency, but as a much larger movement of violence prevention and intervention.

We are still here, and we want to be here in a better, more impactful, and much more intentional way for the BIPOC in our communities who rely on us. And we will be.

Womens Crisis Centers Christy Burch, Executive Director, Jamie Sivrais, Communications Coordinator, and Reagan Amith, director of Non-Residential Services, contributed to this commentary.

Read more:

Advancing Equity: Women's Crisis Center staff repeats this phrase and means it 'We are still here' - User-generated content

Interview: Ramona Diaz on Documenting Death By Disinformation in A Thousand Cuts – The Moveable Fest

Even if Ramona Diaz hadnt thought of herself in the same vein of the hard-charging reporter Maria Ressa, the subject of her latest film A Thousand Cuts, shes gotten even more of an insight into her world than when they spent time together over the course of the 2019 midterm elections in the Philippines as as Ressa has faced ongoing prosecution from President Rodrigo Dutertes regime as a way of silencing her outlet Rappler.

Ive never done breaking news, so its interesting to fight with news outlets, says Diaz, who has had to update the end credits a few times both leading up to and after the films triumphant premiere at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year. Thats what they do. They know how to do this and Im like, Oh my God, I just stay and stay and stay until everyone leaves and Im the last one in the room.

That persistence has yielded a form of justice for Ressa and for the cause of journalism in general that she has not been afforded in the courts, where the veteran reporter was found guilty of cyber-libel in June on specious charges (even without going into the particulars, the situation in question happened before laws were even in place for it to be illegal). If A Thousand Cuts proved to be a new experience for the filmmaker, it still fits in well into her body of work, celebrating the strength and resiliency of Filipinos while articulating the often unnecessary hardship that cultivates such grit with films including Dont Stop Believin: Everymans Journey, detailing the improbable rise of Arnel Pineda to become frontman for Journey, and Motherland, which allowed audiences to see grace under pressure amidst the frenzy of the countrys overmatched maternity wards.

With Ressa, the filmmaker finds that reporting the facts has become a crime under President Dutertes watch where countless murders happen every day under the cover of his war on drugs, which has been deployed to artificially lower the nations devastating poverty rate and execute political opponents. But as Diaz shows, his attack isnt only on the streets, but on the internet an equally important sphere in a country that spends more time online than any other in the world at 10 hours a day, on average where the distinction between actual reportage and baseless accusations can be easily blurred and a force of personality with a fervent following, no matter how small it is, such as Duterte can whip up supporters to strike fear into the hearts of those who stand against them.

As terrifying as it is to see the Duterte regime attempt to make an example out of Ressa, A Thousand Cuts becomes galvanizing in showing how she and other journalists at Rappler such as Patricia Evangelista and Pia Ranada remain undaunted as they cover the midterms, which as no shortage of intriguing candidates such as General Bato De La Rosa and social media star Mocha Uson who hope to ride the Presidents coattails to office by taking his bombastic approach to campaigning. Diaz finds an election with ramifications that ripple far beyond the borders of the Philippines and with the film arriving in virtual cinemas before the U.S. presidential election cycle which is bound to be rife with the same issues, the filmmaker spoke about becoming conscious of how perniciously disinformation travels, covering a sprawling campaign and Ressas impressively long memory.

How did this come about?

When Duterte became president in 2016, I knew I wanted to do something in the Philippines under Duterte because it seemed like martial law and Im a marital law baby. I grew up under the Marcos dictatorship, so I was afraid that something amiss was happening again. I was finishing Motherland when he became president and when he started the drug war, you start seeing pictures and I couldnt avert my gaze. I had to see. So I went to the Philippines and I realized that there were so many filmmakers and news [outlets] covering the drug war there, I said something else must be happening. And of course, Maria Ressa was happening, right? She was not only calling out the drug war and all kinds of impunity and abuses the administration was doing, but she was also talking about disinformation and connecting that to drug war impunity.

She was one of the first to talk about algorithms and Facebook and fake news and putting all that together in a very cogent way that Id never heard before. It blew me away because I knew about those things, but to unwrap it in that manner makes you think more [because] disinformation makes it a more global story. So you ask for access [to Maria] and then you ask again and again and again. [laughs] Until they say yes I always say I would never say yes to me, because what I want to be is in your life for a long time. [laughs] But we became friends and she trusted the process and gave me access to a lot of things, so I was very thankful.

You told this great story as part of the AFI Docs screening about how you actually turned down talking to Maria when she was a correspondent for CNN when were doing the rounds for Imelda, your film on Imelda Marcos, because she wanted to speak to you more about the fallout than the film itself. Was that an interesting way to start a relationship?

[laughs] I thought she had forgotten. And its interesting that I turned her down for an interview [because] it was like a note to to self, she doesnt forget stuff, so when she said, I dont forget people who turn me down so Im like Interesting. But more than anyone else Ive filmed, shes the one I really think we couldve been friends even without me filming her. We have very similar lives, but its almost opposite because I was born and raised in the Philippines, and I came to this country [America] for college and I lived here as an adult, and she did the opposite. She came here when she was 10, and then after college, moved to the Philippines, so we had intersecting experience and in some other life, we wouldve been friends, I think.

Its interesting to hear you talk about your own personal experience because I thought you surely might be able to relate to Marias predicament to the extent that it might be getting harder to film in the Philippines, given the attitude towards the press and your reputation at exposing these things.

You would think, but really, it gives me more access actually. The president knew I was making this film because I spoke to his spokesperson because we wanted to be close to him at those rallies. We wanted to be in the pit. We didnt want to be in the media box and that took really special permission, and then of course I was filming General Baton and Mocha Uson, who were both part of his administration then, so they were very aware I was making this film. I think their awareness, the fact that I was so present and so visible, protected me. If I had done it under the radar, I wouldnt have felt as secure.

Obviously, we were also filming Maria and every time she got arrested, you could see us on television because we were following her, so they were well aware we were following her and vice versa Maria knew I was following Mocha and Baton so to be really transparent for me is key. They know of my past work, but they also understand that I speak to an audience beyond the Phillippines because although I make my films there, I produce it here for this audience, so they wanted to be part of that.

From what Ive heard, Maria wasnt immediately the central focus, but grew into that role over time. When you still keep track of Mocha and General Baton, was it tricky dividing up resources to cover a campaign?

I had two units on the ground constantly, and when I decided that the midterm elections was going to be the backdrop of the film, I was still thinking in my head that it was going to be an ensemble of characters very Robert Altman-esque. But a few days after campaigning began, [Maria] got arrested, so her life became parallel with the midterm elections and you couldnt write that kind of stuff. Five weeks later, she got arrested again and at some point, she became the center of gravity for the film, but I had one unit on her exclusively and then the other unit still following Mocha and Baton wherever they were because I thought the campaign itself gave a lot of local color and context to the story. Its a global story of authoritarianism, but still rooted in specificity in the Philippines and local elections, and elections there are very kinetic and cinematic. Its all a spectacle, so I thought it was good.

So much of the story takes place on social media and online, which typically arent very cinematic, but become so here. Were you conscious of how youd weave that element into the film while you were filming?

Yeah, I knew somehow we had to use real exciting graphics, if graphics can be exciting, right? But graphics are organic to the film, so if you notice, the colors of the graphics are the same colors as the headlines of Rappler, and we made it all integrated. But my other films dont have graphics, [and we needed it] in order to unwrap what it is [Maria] talks about because she talks about this information not in terms of content because if you go after content, its a whack-a-mole game. Youll never get on top of it but if you look at systems and networks, you can actually see how disinformation just spreads like wildfire. We had to make that visual. The way she unwrapped it for me, I knew I had to unwrap it for an audience, so we just got what was in her head and tried to make it as cinematic as possible. Its key that people understand how this thing works and how under attack shes been for four years [with this] crazy gendered misogynistic trolling.

One of the other interesting elements of how you structure the film is when youll go back to this 2015 interview she does with Duterte, which you not only use for context, but it becomes more and more improbable that they were once speaking to one another in a civil fashion. How did you want to incorporate that into the film?

Oh my God, thats part of Rappler archives because we started after that [happened], and I couldnt believe that she interviewed him twice. They were very friendly because it was before all the animosity began and in my head, [Im thinking] weve just got to keep going back to it to remind them that this is a relationship between a journalist and a president. It isnt political opposites. I think that reminds people that this is the role of journalists to question power and she questions him really well while still being respectful. She says, You broke the law, Mr. President. Now youre the president and you have to make sure people dont break the law. How are you going to reconcile that? She says that in such a still respectful way, but is telling him, youve already broken the law, so what are you going to do about it? and it became very clear that that has to be a through line you keep going back to.

The film has some wonderful cinematography, particularly how youll have Maria in the foreground of some shots and you get a strong sense of what shes up against by how the background will loom large over her theres a particularly stunning shot involving Duterte on some TV monitors. Were there ideas from the start about how to visually tell this story?

Shooting in a newsroom is great because its full of monitors, and I said, monitors are going to be a theme in this film because social media and the press, so whenever Dutertes behind, its like, Okay, shes talking about increasing her security and Duterte is large on the screen, thats documentary like catching lightning in a bottle and having a really good cinematographer who sees that immediately and racks focus at the right time. That takes real engagement, but also a lot of talking beforehand of what are the visual themes of the film, what is possible, what is not possible and what will we come up against.

It really helps to have great cinematographers who can actually make that operational. Things go by so quickly, but to still have the presence of mind to say, Okay, oh my God, okay Dutertes there, Marias in the foreground, lets rack focus now, thats experience. Its a hard thing to do in an observational situation because if it were fiction, you could set it up and have all those visual themes, but to have a visual theme while trying to capture a story thats unfolding before the lens in real time is really tough. But you try and oh my God, sometimes you get lucky and youre like, Yes, this is why we do this.

It came together so beautifully. And unfortunately, this story doesnt seem to end it does have a natural stopping point, but was it difficult to pull yourself away?

I like containers to films. Like Journey was the first year of Arnel [Pineda] in the band. Motherland was the seven weeks that theyre in the hospital, from intake to discharge. This one was the midterm elections, because I have to have the finishing point in my head, but obviously Marias story goes on because she has all these cases. Even after we finished principal photography, we still traveled with her abroad and the version you saw [recently] was with a new coda, which makes it completely different because the cut we showed at Sundance ended at Christmas. That was very hopeful. Shes talking about love. And its June 15th and she gets convicted, so its a very different kind of ending, but its still optimistic because she says, Dont be afraid. Speak out. So were going to leave it at that because we see the urgency of putting the story out there. It would be crazy to wait. That wasnt even part of the discussion. But it becomes more relevant as the days pass, which in a way is unfortunate because that means its really our reality here is becoming closer to whats happening in the Philippines.

A Thousand Cuts opens in virtual cinemas on August 7th. A full list of theaters is here.

Related

Read more here:

Interview: Ramona Diaz on Documenting Death By Disinformation in A Thousand Cuts - The Moveable Fest

We must deal with drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal one – The RiotACT

The criminalisation of personal drug use has resulted in courts and jail systems overwhelmed by people who use drugs. Photo: File.

This week the ACT Greens will release its 2020 Election Drugs Policy package.

The plan responds to the reality that many people use drugs. It recognises that the war on drugs has failed and we need new approaches to keep people in our community safe. This means ending the unnecessary interactions with the police and justice system, and providing people experiencing drug dependency with the services and support they need.

Its easy to drag out slogans and frame every person who uses drugs as a criminal. But most people know by now that this doesnt help respond to the adverse effects of drug use in our community.

Instead, we know that the community wants evidence-based strategies that ensure that people are informed about the risks of drug use and are able to reduce harms associated with drug use. The community wants to be assured that people can access the support they need if they are struggling with dependency issues. This new approach isnt as easy, but its the right and the smart thing to do.

The criminalisation of personal drug use has resulted in courts and jail systems overwhelmed by people who use drugs, without any real strategy to support people dealing with a dependency issue. This is a plan that seeks to change that. Its also a plan that aims to redress a system where not every person who uses drugs is treated equally. We dont want to see a continuing situation where people of colour, First Nations people and people from poorer backgrounds are more likely to be penalised for minor drug offences than others.

These initiatives focus on people. This means providing more support. When people demonise drug use, they often forget we are talking about people someones son or daughter, their husband, mother, friend. These initiatives aim to ensure that people dont die or suffer irreparable harm because they make a poor choice or dont have enough information. They aim to stop the current situation where people unwilling to seek support when they need it because of fear, stigma and shame.

As part of this, a key initiative in the package is increasing funding for drug and alcohol treatment services. This is aimed at increasing the level of support available and in response to sustained calls from the sector and community that we need to provide more support.

It also includes initiatives to ensure that support and treatment are provided in ways that respond to peoples lives and needs services that are culturally appropriate and recognise that people live in families and communities rather than in a vacuum. It strives to increase diversionary programs, keeping people away from jail and putting them into programs that aim to constructively deal with the consequences of criminality related to drug use.

The ACT should be proud of the work that has occurred in recent years. It has seen significant collaboration between the Government, medical experts, services and the police, and has resulted in keeping people safer. Evaluations of the two-pill testing trials at festivals in Canberra also show what is possible, and how this work has saved lives and keep people safer.

Our future work needs to build on this good work, and there are initiatives contained in the package that do just this work to see how we can make people safer. These include regular pill testing at festivals and a permanent pill-testing site.

I think its time that we commit to addressing drugs as a health issue, not a criminal issue. I want a future where people are safer and where we respond to the adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug and substance use in our community. What do you think?

Rebecca Vassarotti is an ACT Greens candidate for Kurrajong in the upcoming Territory election and the campaign spokesperson for drug policy.

Excerpt from:

We must deal with drugs as a health issue rather than a criminal one - The RiotACT

Exposing Rodrigo Duterte’s War on the Free Press – Hyperallergic

From A Thousand Cuts (2020), dir. Ramona Diaz (all images courtesy David Magdael & Associates)

On July 10 of this year, the Philippines House of Representatives voted 70-11 against the license renewal for ABS-CBN, the countrys largest media network. Maria Ressa, executive editor of Rappler, another Filipino news outlet, has faced spurious charges of cyber libel and tax evasion. She sees this as retribution for her four-year crusade against the dictatorial President Rodrigo Duterte, as well as his ever-growing army of online supporters who cheer on his sexism, homophobia, and violence.

It is against this bleak political landscape that director Ramona Diaz sets her new documentary A Thousand Cuts, in which Ressa and Rapplers fight against Dutertes war on the press takes center stage. Diaz and Ressa sat down with Hyperallergic for an interview over Zoom. It started with me wanting to make a film on Dutertes war on drugs, Diaz explains. The global audience would probably look at that and think it to be something that was affecting only people in the Philippines. Marias was the loudest voice against Duterte. She was questioning the government-aided dissemination of disinformation and connecting it with Dutertes impunity. The issue of disinformation is very global, and I wanted people all over the world to take note.

It all goes back to Silicon Valley, Ressa adds. A Thousand Cuts follows the Philippines 2019 legislative elections, when for the first time in 80 years, the opposition failed to secure even a single seat. It illuminates the Duterte governments use of propaganda and social media to lie to their citizens, obscuring what many of them know to be the truth. This post-truth reality is one many people are now far too familiar with, even outside the Philippines. When Facebook sells our most vulnerable data to the highest bidder, we no more have facts to hold each other accountable by. Accountability from the tech companies is a prerequisite to claim our democracies back. You do not have democracy if you dont have facts, Ressa asserts. In one scene, Duterte tells a Rappler journalist, You will be allowed to criticize us. But you will go to jail for your crimes. I was immediately reminded of the likes of Gauri Lankesh and Vikram Joshi, journalists back home in India who were murdered for speaking out against the countrys Hindu nationalist government.

Diazs previous film, Motherland (2017), focused on the worlds busiest maternity ward in Manilas Dr. Jose Fabella Memorial Hospital. Its concurrent themes of womens bodies and the states multi-pronged control over them are carried into A Thousand Cuts. Dutertes government directly encourages rape threats and the sexist dehumanization of Ressa and her colleagues, such as reporter Pia Ranada. At the same time, the state uses the hyper-sexualized bodies of women like pop star Mocha Uson to titillate citizens into voting their way. We must never get used to it, Diaz insists. If every time he opens his mouth, something misogynist comes out, it should shock us every time. Ressa sums up the tragic virulence of this scenario when she responds, Which he are you referring to? As much as Dutertes jokes may shock, the women in his crowds hooting in approval deal the heaviest blow. Misogyny is infuriating, but its even worse to see who willingly serves as its foot soldiers.

In a scene at a rally, Duterte uses his microphone to demonstrate a vulgar joke about his penis. It inescapably brings to mind a president who was plainly recorded boasting about grabbing women by their private parts. Misogyny, fascism, repression of the press, and fake news go hand in hand, and this is not solely a Filipino problem. They surround people in so many countries so densely that we can become dulled to their effects. A Thousand Cuts is a firm refusal to let unholy intersectional fascism be normalized. During a Rappler holiday party, Ressa tells her colleagues, We cannot become monsters when fighting monsters. A Thousand Cuts is a document of journalistic resistance to monsters and their methods of seducing people into inertness. To finish her toast, Ressa says:And the only thing that keeps us from becoming monsters is love.

A Thousand Cuts opens in virtual cinemas August 7.

See more here:

Exposing Rodrigo Duterte's War on the Free Press - Hyperallergic

Guardia Civil execute huge drugs bust in the war on crime in Torrevieja – Euro Weekly News

The Guardia Civil made huge progress in the war against organised crime by taking down five very active drug outlets in Torrevieja.

THE criminal outfits were part of an organisation run by several brothers who had a team of drug dealers operating throughout the city.

In total, five homes were raided as part of this operation, four in Torrevieja and one in San Pedro del Pinatar, with a total of 115 grams of marijuana, 200 grams of a cutting substance, 1 precision scale, 3 doses of a doping substance, and 2 vehicles used to acquire more drugs from the outskirts of Murcia, all being seized. Upon thorough search of the properties, 11,000 in cash was also found.

An investigation began in October 2019 following a complaint from a neighbour about the amount of people moving in and out of a house, which happened at all hours of the day and night.

The extensive investigation eventually resulted in nine people being arrested, all between the ages of 25 and 50, and of Moroccan and Algerian nationalities.

They have all been charged and provisionally released pending trial.

Read the original:

Guardia Civil execute huge drugs bust in the war on crime in Torrevieja - Euro Weekly News

Defining defunding the police to help our community – The CT Mirror

If we asked 25 different people what defund the police means, we would likely get 25 different definitions. Our definition focuses on where the investment should take place while recognizing that public safety is a priority.

A 2014 Pew Research study reporting 52% of African Americans and 63% of Hispanics responded that police do a good job of enforcing the law. While the numbers are not overwhelming and likely have changed due to recent events, they do indicate that there is a level of recognition for a need for a police force. The need for reform will have to wait for another day.

The terms defund and invest are used intentionally as defunding the police does not mean merely saving money. It means investing in our people and our communities to defeat systemic racism, to start saving one person at a time, and to redefine what our expectations of police are. A 2015 report commissioned by President Obama and led by Chief Charles Ramsey, former Commissioner of Philadelphia Police Department and recent consultant on community policing with the Bridgeport Police Department, said that an overarching goal for 21st century policing should promote programs that take a comprehensive and inclusive look at community-based initiatives that address core issues of poverty, education, health, and safety.

On a personal/professional level, we repeatedly have had conversations with police officers themselves who have expressed frustration at societys expectation that they act as social workers, mental health experts, substance abuse counselors, and mediators. At the top of their frustration list is when school resource officers are asked to intervene in a school discipline issue. Naturally, this is the same frustration we hear from urban teachers (who throw in parenting as one of their expectations) who work for an institution that has been defunded for years. We cant make the same mistake here and reduce funding without reinvesting those dollars in interventions that work..

Police are currently asked to intervene in many situations where a crime has yet to be committed. Mental health issues, substance abuse issues, domestic violence cases, pets in trees or distress, health emergencies are all situations where a trained professional may be a better option. And they receive very little training for these activities.

In fact, if our conversations with police officers tell us how they feel about working on these issues they will generally tell you they are not trained to perform them and that they are the most difficult cases for them. So why not transfer these incidents to mental health, substance abuse, social welfare, healthcare professionals where they will be treated by skilled professionals in the field.

Unfortunately, data show Black and brown people are more likely to be treated harshly by law enforcement than white people. The question for us is not to defund the police, but to examine all the ways police are involved in peoples lives and determine their appropriateness and whether they might be handled more effectively by trained professionals and do not result in an arrest.

In our research, we have recently read about Cahoots, a partnership between the Eugene, Oregon Police Department and a community agency that has saved the city $8.5 million dollars annually with the real impact on individuals being transformational. New Orleans has recently outsourced minor traffic accidents to a private company at no cost to the city. Many police departments such as West Palm Beach, Fla. are piloting an Australian co-responding model with a social worker or substance abuse counselor who can respond to overdoses, domestic abuses, or other mental health situations.

We all know that substance abuse/mental health issues are better dealt with by behavioral health specialists who are trained to de-escalate conflicts that may arise because of the substance abuse or mental health issue. Unfortunately, substance abuse has been the primary reason the United States imprisons more people than any country in the world.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, over 70 million Americans have a criminal record and we know the War on Drugs has focused most of its attention on Black and brown communities. Further strengthening the treatment-versus-incarceration argument is the National Institute on Drug Abuses finding that $1 invested in addiction treatment results in $12 in savings on the justice system side.

The actions of young people with developmental disabilities are often misconstrued to mimic criminal behavior. For example, autistic children may be either overly affectionate, which looks like wrestling, or they cant be touched because when you touch them they strike out; both of which they may be arrested instead of more benign and appropriate treatment.

School resource officers or SROs are called to intervene in all sorts of disturbances at school better handled by teachers, administrators, guidance counselors and social workers. Bridgeport Police have removed the physical presence of SROs in schools for a few years now, which has resulted in many fewer school arrests and much more appropriate intervention.

Police also are called whenever there is a health emergency; they accompany firefighters to fires; they respond to lost pets or pets up trees; etc. We have repeatedly heard the narrative backed by multiple research papers about Black people being stopped for broken tail lights, lost mirrors, simply driving while Black or simply looking suspicious. We have seen the narratives of the next step of going for their license and registration that escalate into arrests and even death like Philando Castile.

By utilizing alternative options as discussed above, we prevent and avoid a number of potential negative interactions between police and the community. We provide the space for the police to serve as public safety officers, the space for social workers and mental health counselors to support and treat mental illness, and the space for substance abuse counselors to treat addiction. All professionals get to do what they are good at, what they are trained for, and, most importantly, what they are passionate about.

By ensuring the right professional responds, we keep citizens out of the justice system and reduce the likelihood of negative interaction with the police that sometimes escalates into criminal behavior. Our community is therefore safer. These investments can be incorporated as a team and community response alongside and in partnership with the police and will result in a safer and healthier community.

All of this results in a safer, happier, healthier community and we can agree that that outcome is not a political argument. Our communities need a police force. We just need it to look differently.

Marc Donald is Executive Director of RYASAP (Regional Youth Adult Social Action Partnership) and Robert Francis is the organizations former Executive Director.

CTViewpoints welcomes rebuttal or opposing views to this and all its commentaries. Read our guidelines andsubmit your commentary here.

Read the original post:

Defining defunding the police to help our community - The CT Mirror

WE’RE IN THE MONEY, MAYBE | Cap City – Illinois Times

With nearly $32 million available from recreational marijuana taxes, the state expects to award grants next month to help repair damage from the war on drugs, and Springfield hopes to be a player. Mayor Jim Langfelder says the city has applied for a grant that would fund home rehabilitation to help neighborhoods deemed by the state to have been disproportionately impacted by the government's war on drugs. The mayor pegged the request at more than $700,000, which he said was the maximum allowable, and added that the city also has made a smaller request for planning efforts. Both public and private entities are eligible for grants set to be awarded by a state board that includes elected officials and representatives of agencies ranging from the Department of Corrections to the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. Langfelder says that he's endorsed a grant application submitted by The Outlet, a nonprofit agency that provides mentoring to fatherless kids. Michael Phelon, Outlet founder and chief executive officer, could not be immediately reached for comment.

Here is the original post:

WE'RE IN THE MONEY, MAYBE | Cap City - Illinois Times

China Is Waging Cyber-Enabled Economic War on the U.S. How to Fight Back. – Barron’s

For all practical intents, the United States is at war with China. This may come as a surprise since no bullets have been fired nor declarations made. Yet there is little question that, for over a decade, the Chinese government has engaged in a sustained campaign of cyber-enabled economic aggression against us and our allies. They have targeted our most productive economic sectors and are currently winning. But as we restart our economy after Covid-19, we have a unique opportunity to shift this fight decisively back in our favor.

At the heart of this conflict is a series of grand economic competitions across key industries, including telecommunications, advanced computing, robotics, energy generation, resource extraction, aerospace, and the medical sciences, to name just a few. We are currently facing off with China on 5G technology, machine learning, quantum computing, nuclear and solar power, satellites, rare earth metals, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. Fundamental to the Chinese strategy for winning in each of these areasand many moreis the rampant theft of American intellectual property.

The Chinese playbook is deceptively simple: Why spend trillions of dollars on basic science or advanced research when it can be stolen with almost no penalties? The Chinese government is stunningly good at this theft. Not only do they employ thousands of government operatives to engage in this effort, a new federal indictment charges that they have fostered a criminal hacker class that works for its personal economic gain as well as for the Chinese state.

This brazen theft is not just limited to intellectual property. It also involves the pilfering of massive amounts of datafrom the likes of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Equifax, Marriott, and Anthemthat will fuel intelligence operations and train machine learning algorithms, generating economic and political gain for decades.

Chinese companies also look to acquire American technology through investment, acquisition, litigation, and bankruptcy, turning our own markets and courts against us. They masquerade as American companies while under the control of the Chinese government. Even worse, they take advantage of our companies looking to do business in China by extorting them into creating joint ventures, transferring intellectual property, and providing data to the Chinese Communist Party.

They likewise send students and researchers to our best research universities, all the while pressuring them to steal information for the Chinese state. The recent indictment of a Chinese military officer allegedly masquerading as a researcher at Stanford is but one such example. Chinese intelligence agencies likewise seek to co-opt American academics by providing grant funding for joint research projects and invitations to write for cash.

All of this economic warfare is directed at one key goal: to replace the United States as the global leader. Their agents do this by handing over the spoils of the state-run hacking and extortion campaign to Chinese companies which, in turn, exploit Chinese (and other) workers to make goods at reduced cost, selling them back to us and our allies, making us more reliant upon them.

Weve all now seen the price of this reliance in the difficulty many Americans face in getting medical gear and life-saving drugs. But our reliance is hardly limited to these goods. We also rely on China for all manner of finished goods and key inputs, the loss of which could grind our economy to a virtual halt overnight. Indeed, years ago, the Chinese created a plan to make us reliant on them in a dozen key areas. They now see Covid-19 as an opportunity to surge forward. But it need not be so. We have a chance, in this very moment of economic turmoil, to regain the edge.

First, the U.S. government must stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our private sector to protect and push back. Just as the Chinese back their companies in competition with us, we must do the same for our industry. We should collect and share actionable threat intelligence and actively collaborate with the private sector to protect them through collective defense. We must also push back, using all elements of national power, to end the Chinese campaign of cyber-enabled economic warfare, including through the use of trade measures, sanctions, persistent cyber engagement, and, where necessary, more aggressive actions. We cannot allow trade deals or our desire for cheap Chinese goods to force us to sit on our hands, leaving our private sector alone to fight this war. Doing so means certain defeat.

Second, we must also work with our allies across the globe, including in the Indo-Pacific region, which the administration has identified as the single most consequential region for our future. Indias recent travails at Chinas hands should be a warning to all in the region and we must reject this aggression just as we have in the South China Sea. Likewise, having brought the British back on board on 5G, we must also now convince Germany to join this unified front. America need not stand alone. Making common cause with our longstanding allies is the right approach.

Finally, as we look to restart our economy, we must incentivize Americans to invest their money here and protect our innovation base. We must create tax and regulatory incentives that encourage investment in American companies struggling to survive and protect their intellectual property. These investors should be able to take advantage of low-cost capital to reorganize and reorient companies working on dual-use technologies to accelerate us into recovery and bring manufacturing and jobs back to the United States.

If we are to preserve this nation and remain a global leader, we cannot permit the continued theft of our childrens future right from under our noses. Now is the time to act.

Gen. (Ret) Keith B. Alexander is the former director of the National Security Agency and Founding Commander of United States Cyber Command, and currently serves as chairman, president and co-CEO of IronNet Cybersecurity, a start-up technology company focused on network threat analytics and collective defense and is on the Board of Advisors for the National Security Institute at George Mason Universitys Scalia Law School. Jamil N. Jaffer is the former chief counsel and senior advisor to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and served in senior national security roles in the George W. Bush Justice Department and White House, and currently serves as senior vice president for strategy, partnerships and corporate development at IronNet Cybersecurity and as the founder and executive director of NSI.

See more here:

China Is Waging Cyber-Enabled Economic War on the U.S. How to Fight Back. - Barron's

Juvenile Records Laws Must Be Reformed to Prevent Ongoing Racism – Juvenile Justice Information Exchange

The juvenile justice system was created 120 years ago to reform and rehabilitate wayward youth to ensure they had the opportunity to achieve productive futures. To this end, it was widely accepted that juvenile system involvement should remain confidential and that all records should be sealed or eradicated to ensure youth a clean slate upon reaching adulthood. Juvenile records laws were enacted to protect the privacy of system-involved youth.

Today, however, the privacy protections afforded by juvenile records laws have hollowed out by loopholes and limitations that make confidentiality the exception more than the rule for many juvenile offenders. The broad accessibility permitted by juvenile records laws combined with technological innovation in data storage and mining make juvenile record information more available than ever. This means, more often than not, that the record of offenses children commit can be accessed by law enforcement, employers, landlords, schools and the public.

The consequences of the loss of juvenile system anonymity are far-reaching for youth and include an inability to secure housing, maintain stable employment and pursue post-secondary opportunities. The impact of these collateral consequences is supported by the data: In college admissions, 62.5% of system-involved youth were discouraged from completing college applications because of a records disclosure requirement, while 20% of applicants who disclosed records information were automatically denied admission.

Andrew Keats

Of the over 90% of employers who run background checks on applicants, over 40% reported that they would definitely or probably not hire an applicant with a record for a job not requiring a college degree, while 50% were less likely to call back or extend a job offer. Furthermore, 11% of these employers reported that even an applicant with a minor criminal infraction would not be hired. The existence of a juvenile record may also foreclose a young person and/or their entire family from securing public housing.

Black youth suffer the collateral consequences of juvenile record disclosure most severely. It is widely known that Black youth are subject to disproportionate system involvement. It is less widely recognized, however, that the records of this disproportionate system involvement enable a disproportionate level of racial discrimination long after their actual system involvement is over.

While Black youth represent only 15% of the U.S. population between the ages of 10-17, they represent 26% of all juvenile arrests and 30% of all delinquency referrals. Black youth represent 45% of all preadjudication decisions and 46% of cases transferred to adult criminal court. These records are all searchable by and available to the individuals with power to provide youth opportunities.

So why is a system intended to rehabilitate kids being used to mark them for a lifetime of discrimination?

The answer lies in the changing nature of Americas own unique brand of institutionalized racism over the last century. As a result of sweeping civil rights victories in the 1960s, America increasingly relied on the criminalization of Black people, and especially Black children, to justify continued oppression and inequality.

From the war on drugs to the myth of the child superpredator, racist stereotypes of Black people and particularly Black youth, together with discriminatory policies (like Broken Windows and stop-and-frisk) afforded white America the opportunity to transform skin color into a record of system involvement that could legally justify continued discrimination.

Harsh punishments enacted in the 1990s amplified the stakes of early system involvement mandatory sentencing schemes, youth transfer and new three strikes laws ushered in our modern era of mass incarceration. Under this system of white supremacy, juvenile records laws that afford broad access transform juvenile missteps into life sentences that serve to immobilize and disenfranchise Black communities.

In 2014, Juvenile Law Center published the first-ever comprehensive evaluation of each states juvenile records laws. The results of that study demonstrated that, as measured against best practices, over 50% of states fail to adequately protect juveniles from the consequences of juvenile records. Now, six years later, a new juvenile record scorecard report shows continued and widespread deficiencies in the protections necessary to keep juvenile records secure.

Recognizing that broad access to juvenile records advances inequality and systemic racism and holds kids back from achieving their full potential, it is imperative that every state review its records laws and take all steps necessary to protect our youths right to privacy by mandating automatic sealing and expungement of juvenile records.

Andrew Keats is a staff attorney at the Juvenile Law Center, where his work currently focuses on addressing economic justice and equity and second chances for youth in the juvenile justice system and youth tried as adults in the criminal justice system. Before that he spent a decade as a litigator with a leading global law firm in Los Angeles and New York, where he litigated a broad range of complex commercial disputes plus securities, class action, bankruptcy and real estate matters.

Read more:

Juvenile Records Laws Must Be Reformed to Prevent Ongoing Racism - Juvenile Justice Information Exchange

Reparations is a nonstarter in Congress. Not in this Southern city. – The Christian Science Monitor

Reparations to Black Americans for slavery is an old and fraught national topic. It has been taken up recently by activists seeking racial justice and police reform in cities, including Asheville, North Carolina, which styles itself as a progressive city but has a history of urban renewal that largely excluded Black people from sharing in the wealth created.

In July, the Asheville City Council passed a reparations ordinance, one of only a handful enacted in the U.S. Among other measures, it pledges new investment in Black homeownership as a way to redress the racial wealth gap. As in other segregated cities, Black children in Asheville are far more likely to grow up in poor neighborhoods.

Ashevilles ordinance doesnt provide financial restitution for past discrimination and its unclear how much money will be committed. But advocates say it represents a potentially new approach to reparations, one that puts the emphasis on local actions as a building block toward a national effort to tackle structural racial inequities.

Anthropologist Paul Mullins says Asheville is acknowledging its role in perpetuating injustices and providing a path forward. And thats deep-down what reparations are about: How can we have a measure of response to injustice that leads to some sort of racial reconciliation?

Asheville, N.C.

For all the funky exterior of a progressive mountain redoubt, this city has until now often looked the other way when it comes to racial inequity.

Two months after days of intense racial justice protests, however, a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee that had stood for nearly a century is gone. And an obelisk in the honor of Confederate-era Gov. Zeb Vance is now wrapped in black plastic, as the city considers its removal.

But those symbolic changes have been followed by something that could prove more concrete. Last month, the majority-white Asheville City Council unanimously passed a reparations ordinance aimed at righting not just historic injustice against Black Americans, but more recent wrongs against Ashevilles Black population.

In the past 40 years, residents say, urban renewal and discriminatory banking practices dispossessed especially older Black residents from historic Asheville neighborhoods. Today, 60% of public housing residents are Black, even though they only make up 12% of Ashevilles population, reflecting thenational trend in which Black children are far more likely than their white peers to grow up in poor neighborhoods.

Asheville is a microcosm of the nation right now, says John Hennon, a retired corporate executive turned pro-Black rights protester. Its done talking and its now acting.

The city ordinance isnt strictly reparations, which involve the direct redistribution of wealth. Its real contribution, though, may be to sharpen the optics for a national rethink of the concept: how laws and practices that were both explicitly and implicitly discriminatory have reinforced yawning gaps around wealth, health, even of hope.

Closing those racial gaps runs up against entrenched opposition. Even white liberals have balked at reforms like building public housing in gentrified neighborhoods. President Donald Trump has touted his save-the-suburbs campaign by undoing federal executive orders intended to add low-income housing in predominantly white middle-class districts.

These tensions arent going to go away magically if we ignore them, and frankly were in a historical moment where the [reparations] conversation is ... more publicly palatable, says Indiana University anthropologist Paul Mullins, author of Race and Affluence: An Archaeology of African America and Consumer Culture.

He frames the Asheville ordinance as a political statement that acknowledges racial injustices around land ownership and dispossession after World War II. Moreover, it outlines a first step toward some sort of reconciliation. And thats deep-down what reparations are about: How can we have a measure of response to injustice that leads to some sort of racial reconciliation?

The idea of compensating formerly enslaved Black Americans has been around since before the Declaration of Independence. Even some white Southerners urged the idea as an economic stimulus for the postwar South. More recently, the U.S. has paid reparations to Japanese Americans interned during World War II.

Still, two-thirds of Americans regularly pan the proposal. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the Senates only Black Republican, has likened reparations to trying to unscramble that egg. President Barack Obama in 2016 called the idea impractical.

Polls show most Black Americans agree with the concept of reparations. But even as support has grown in that community in recent months, overall white support has barely budged.

White people opposed to reparations say it would be unfair to force modern-day Americans to underwrite a wealth transfer for injustices they didnt personally commit. Scholars have estimated that the price tag could be as much as $10 trillion, or nearly half the nations annual economic output.

Ruben Dejernette is one of those torn by the concept. The white Asheville homeowner bought a house four years ago in what used to be the citys Black neighborhood on South French Broad.

There is no escaping that we have been doing the Black community wrong, but every time I go over it in my head I dont know what can actually be done to fix it, says Mr. Dejernette.

Nearly all Democratic presidential candidates, including Joe Biden, have come out in favor of a national commission to study reparations. A House study bill that would do just that has gone nowhere in Congress for 30 years.

Conservative Black commentator Vince Ellison says the Black community would be foolish to expect progressive Democrats to remunerate them for slavery. He calls reparations a lie.

Black people should look at white people who think theyre going to solve my problem and say, Who the hell do you think you are? says Mr. Ellison, a Virginia-based pastor and author.

Reparations just make you a slave looking for a master. Reparations is about making them pay, but youll never get enough. Forgiveness cannot be earned, and it shouldnt be expected.

In 2014, the journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates penned a case for reparations in a widely-read cover story for The Atlantic. [A]s surely as the creation of the [racial] wealth gap required the cooperation of every aspect of the society, bridging it will require the same, he wrote.

Yet as the slow walk for the House study bill shows, even studying reparations is deeply unpopular, says David Bateman, co-author of Southern Nation: Congress and White Supremacy After Reconstruction.

The question is, how do you actually amass a winning and enduring coalition that can sustain a particular vision? How do you define it and what would it look like? That might be easier done at the local level,thoughmost localities dont have the fiscal capacity or reach necessary to achieve a meaningful redistributive program.

In June, the California Assembly voted to create a reparations task force, and in July, Providence, Rhode Island, embarked on a truth telling and reparations process. The effort in Rhode Island underscores the extent to which Northern cities also profited from slavery and segregation.

In November, Evanston, Illinois, by an 8-1 vote, became the first entity to establish a reparations fund through a future recreational marijuana tax. How the money will be dispersed is still not clear.

Advocates for reparations say such efforts may ultimately nourish a broader national reparations bill by laying groundwork for what reparations look and feel like to Americans living in segregated areas, whether in the North or South.

This is a situation where many different entities states, cities, religious institutions, industries are beginning to recognize and realize that each unjustly benefited from the stolen labor during the enslavement era and through continuing laws and practice like gerrymandering, redlining, the war on drugs, and mass incarceration, says Washington, D.C., civil rights attorney Nkechi Taifa.

They are looking in their own backyards to rectify some of these abuses they themselves not personally, but institutionally were responsible for.

Patrik Jonsson/The Christian Science Monitor

Black rights activist John Hennon holds a sign next to the Zeb Vance monument in Asheville, North Carolina, on July 29, 2020. In response to racial justice protests, the city wrapped the obelisk, a monument to a Confederate-era governor, in plastic.

Through the 1960s and 1970s, a familiar pattern played out here in Asheville, which has become known as a beer brewing mecca.

Urban renewal brought the promise of a fresh start, and in some ways it laid the groundwork for the tourist destination the city is today. But renewal came at the expense of Black people. The cheapest properties to buy were targeted, with the city clearing out parts of the South French Broad neighborhood where Mr. Dejernette lives. Today, even a small home there can fetch $700,000.

But it wasnt just white people who benefited from Ashevilles gentrification. Retired paper mill worker Amanuel Lytle, who is Black, bought his newly vacant lot for $1, with a promise that he would build a new house on it.

A lot of the homes were falling down, says Mr. Lytle. The people who lived there didnt have enough money for upkeep, and the taxes kept going up.

A white builder agreed to cosign Mr. Lytles mortgage so that the bank would pay for the house that now stands there.

Many others, says Mr. Lytle, didnt have such benefactors. Today, most Black people live in public housing. Rates of Black homeownership in the city have declined as housing values and white wealth have soared.

These disparities, rooted in economic and social policy, are now part of the reparations conversation here.

Ashevilles reparations ordinance offers an official apology and vows to create policy and programs that will establish the creation of generational wealth and address reparations due in the black community. It also asks the state legislature and federal government to do the same.

That process may involve replacing lost housing stock by using city-owned land and its bonding authority to create new housing that will boost Black wealth, Sheneika Smith, a Black city councilor, has said.

If a community says were going to redevelop the urban core and were going to favor descendant communities ... you could dramatically and radically reshape a city that way through modest kinds of policies that dont cost a ton of money, says Professor Mullins.

See the article here:

Reparations is a nonstarter in Congress. Not in this Southern city. - The Christian Science Monitor

The road to riches – Illinois Times

click to enlarge

Illustration by Chris Britt

Dr. Lawrence Hatchett says he feels like he's stuck in a desert.

He grew up in Colp, a southern Illinois village once known as a safe place for African Americans amid sundown towns where folks who weren't white couldn't venture after dark. Basketball was his ticket out. Good enough to land a scholarship at Marquette University, he didn't star but went on to graduate from medical school at the University of Chicago. After a residency in North Carolina, he landed a fellowship at Harvard and ultimately returned to the region of his upbringing, where he practices urology in Marion.

"My best friend, he went to prison; I went to Harvard," Hatchett says. "He's still my most trusted friend."

If all goes well, Hatchett hopes to help folks like his friend by getting into the cannabis business with a little help from the state and perhaps Doc Rivers, who coaches the Los Angeles Clippers and played college ball with Hatchett, who says he's contacted his former teammate asking if he'd like to invest.

Hatchett is waiting for the state to decide whether he'll get licenses to grow and sell weed. By now, he should know. The law says that 75 dispensary licenses were supposed to be awarded on May 1, and 40 licenses to grow pot were due on July 1. But, like hundreds of other applicants for pot licenses in what experts predict will be one of the nation's most lucrative weed markets, Hatchett is waiting long after deadlines have passed.

State regulators blame coronavirus for delays. Hatchett, who is seeking two grow operations and 10 dispensaries, says he's spent $200,000 on the venture with no guarantee of a return. Each application can consume hundreds of pages, fueling a cottage industry of lawyers and consultants to provide guidance and advice on negotiating regulations to come up with a winning plan. Those who want to grow pot must show they have sites available, which can mean paying for options on real estate if applicants don't already have property.

"I'm like a camel that's out in the desert, and I need some water," Hatchett says. "I'm at the point of no return."

Loopholes and going slow

Hatchett and his partners have plenty of company. The state has received thousands of applications for licenses to grow or sell pot, mostly from folks who claim social equity status under a provision designed to give the disadvantaged a leg up.

Dispensaries and cultivation centers now in business that began as medical marijuana operations are mostly white, and often corporate, undertakings. The state says it wants people impacted by the war on drugs to profit from pot, and so it has established a licensing system designed to benefit "social equity" applicants. With 20 percent of the grade based on whether an applicant qualifies under the social equity program, it is the single biggest consideration in awarding licenses.

Hatchett says that he's been approached by well-heeled investors who wouldn't qualify as social equity applicants. " 'Do you really want to do that application on your own are you sure you don't want to join us?'" he recalls.

The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation has received 4,517 applications for dispensaries, with 4,400 coming from applicants who say they qualify for social equity points. Entities can have more than one license, and of more than 900 entities that have applied, more than 800 have claimed social equity status, the department says. The Department of Agriculture has received 853 applications to grow, transport and make edibles and other non-smokable products from cannabis, with 721 of the applicants asserting they qualify under the state's social equity program.

The numbers make Hatchett wonder.

"How can there be such a high percentage who say they are social equity applicants?" he asks.

Akele Parnell, attorney with the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, has an answer: The law has loopholes, he says, and the definition of "social equity applicant" is overly broad.

"I've seen a lot that makes me wary," says Parnell, who was a lawyer for Green Thumb Industries, a Chicago-based marijuana company with stock traded on the Canadian stock exchange, before taking his current job last year.

Dr. Lawrence Hatchett has applied for licenses to start 10 dispensaries and two grow operations.

People who've been arrested on marijuana charges but not convicted, whether as adults or juveniles, qualify, as do people who've been convicted. Spouses, parents and children of people who've been arrested or convicted of pot offenses also qualify. And so a wealthy person who hired top-notch lawyers to handle his son's arrest for pot possession would meet the standard, Parnell notes. He uses the example of George W. Bush, who was once arrested for driving under the influence: If it had been weed, Bush and his parents if they were still alive and his daughters would all qualify as social equity applicants if they moved here (the law requires that social equity applicants, but not other applicants, live in Illinois). Eric Clapton, who beat the rap in 1968, also would qualify, as would Snoop Dogg, who's been busted more than once.

Where someone lives, or has lived, can also make a difference. Based on demographics that include poverty rates and arrest statistics, the state has identified census tracts deemed to have suffered disproportionately from the war on drugs, and people who have lived in such areas for at least five of the past 10 years qualify. The areas include Jerome, which is adjacent to a dilapidated apartment complex that's been cleaned up, and Humboldt Park in Chicago, where gentrification has taken hold, Parnell says. And so a well-off Humboldt Park denizen who doesn't know anyone who's been arrested could qualify, as would Jerome Mayor Mike Lopez. Dr. Hatchett says he qualifies by virtue of living in a census tract deemed disproportionately impacted.

Parnell also sees a loophole in a provision allowing license seekers to qualify as social equity applicants if they have at least 10 employees and more than half live in areas deemed disproportionately impacted. Employees who've been arrested or convicted of marijuana offenses also count, as do employees who have spouses, parents or children who've gotten busted for low-level marijuana crimes. Parnell notes that there is no requirement that applicants keep such folks on the payroll once licenses are awarded. The entire provision, he argues, should be abolished: Ownership, he says, is what should matter, not whether applicants have hired disadvantaged people.

Parnell also argues for a tiered approach. A rich person with a relative who got busted for weed but was never convicted shouldn't be treated the same as a poor person who served time for pot. Instead, he suggests, give more consideration to people who have suffered the most.

"I think there's going to be a lot of folks who win who are not social equity applicants in the spirit of social equity," says Parnell, who predicts that nearly all of the licenses will go to social equity applicants. "My prediction is, less than 50 percent, maybe 25 percent, will be real social equity applicants. That's a little cynical. I hope that's not the case."

The law also rewards applicants who submit diversity plans that explain how they would provide opportunities in management, contracting and employment. In the case of grow operations, a diversity plan can earn an applicant 100 of a possible 1,000 points, more points than can be gained with plans to train employees or ensure product safety and accurate labeling. Points are awarded in 12 categories, with only social equity status, plans for security and recordkeeping, and business plans that include financing sources and evidence of business acumen carrying more weight than diversity plans. While operators will be required to submit diversity reports when renewing licenses, it's not clear how the state will ensure that diversity plans submitted by successful applicants will be carried out.

Applications are not subject to public disclosure, but the importance of diversity plans was evident last month, when backers of a proposed Pleasant Plains grow operation told neighbors that owners would concentrate on hiring minorities. Chris Stone, who's been in the pot business since the state legalized medical marijuana, explained the proposal to neighbors and said that employees who've been with the company for more than three years will get stakes through a stock ownership program after the business has been in operation for five years.

"The owners...want to provide opportunity for the creation of generational wealth for those that do not have these opportunities currently," backers wrote in a handout distributed to neighbors who attended an informational meeting.

Also, there is a question of scale. Each of the 21 existing cultivation centers established when medical pot was legalized can grow 210,000 square feet of marijuana for recreational use; there is no cap on how many square feet of medical marijuana can be grown. No more medical cultivation licenses will be issued under current law, and no additional large-scale cultivation centers for recreational pot are anticipated. New growers will be capped at 14,000 square feet at full build out. Parnell asks why startups shouldn't be allowed to establish grow operations as large as ones now allowed in an industry dominated by white people.

Photo by Bruce Rushton

LInes are common outside Illinois pot dispensaries, where nearly $240 million worth of pot and cannabis products were sold during the first six months of this year despite shortages.

"The larger ones are going to benefit from economy of scale: It's not a competitive business model," Parnell says. "Can you even survive and, if so, for how long? That's not something that's talked about a lot, but it should be, and it will be."

Toi Hutchinson, a former state senator who helped push the pot legalization bill through the legislature last year and now oversees the state's recreational cannabis program as an adviser to Gov. JB Pritzker, acknowledges that tweaks might be needed as the state gains experience.

"As a former legislator, I know there's no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation I came into this knowing that my whole role would be to identify what we figured out in the beginning and what we're learning as we go," she says. "This is a growth industry that's going to adapt and change and move."

There's nothing to prevent successful applicants who meet social equity requirements from selling licenses, although reduced licensing fees as well as state grants and low-interest loans reserved for social equity enterprises would have to be repaid if licenses are sold within five years of being granted. Larry O'Hern, who owns a Fulton County cultivation center and an interest in a Peoria dispensary, says entities that stand little chance of winning licenses are watching. "There are multiple companies from out of state, like hawks on a fence, waiting for them to be awarded so they can pick them off," he says.

While Hutchinson says the state's cannabis program is set up to promote diverse ownership that endures, there are no guarantees, and licensees can do what they wish with licenses once they are awarded. "I do not want to reduce the property rights of a minority owner so they have less property rights than white counterparts," Hutchinson said.

Hutchinson said uncertainties are why Illinois has adopted a go-slow strategy. The limited number of Illinois dispensary and growing licenses each will come with five-figure annual fees to successful applicants. The law also decrees how many dispensaries will be allowed in given cities. Springfield, where two dispensaries now do business and licenses for two additional dispensaries have been issued, has been allotted one new dispensary in the initial round of applications. By the end of next year, the state is due to issue another 110 dispensary licenses and an additional 60 licenses to grow marijuana. Beyond that, the state has set a hard cap of 500 recreational dispensaries and 150 new recreational grow facilities.

Other states have issued far more licenses, more quickly, and without geographic restrictions. The law requires Hutchinson to deliver a report next spring on whether discrimination exists in the industry and what might be preventing people from entering the pot business.

"We'll be looking at how ownership changes, how it actually ends up growing and changing in real time," Hutchinson said. "These are all reasons why this is a slow, multiyear, phased approach. ... When we get through this phase, we will study this whole process, how it started, how the application process worked, who got licenses, where are the barriers, what does the industry look like."

"We're super-excited"

Dr. Hatchett lauds the goal, and he agrees with limiting the number of licenses. "I give credit to Illinois for this process I really think they're trying to do it the right way," he says. But the wait has not been easy.

Former state Sen. Toi Hutchinson, who helped write the marijuana bill and advises Gov. JB Pritzker, says that starting slow is best.

"It's stressful that we're being put on delay," he says. "We're praying for September."

Hutchinson blames coronavirus for delays in granting licenses that were due in May and last month. The General Assembly, due to a truncated session, didn't pass legislation setting tiebreaker rules in the event top applicants have identical scores, she notes. Absent rules written into statute by lawmakers, the state Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, which establishes rules necessary for agencies to oversee laws, must approve rules. The earliest that can happen is next month.

Also, the application scoring process has taken longer than expected. The state has hired KPMG, an accounting firm, to score applications for dispensaries and growing operations, and more applications were submitted than expected. According to a recent report in the Chicago Sun-Times, the state's contract with KPMG has ballooned from $2.5 million to $6.7 million. The newspaper also has reported that the contract required KPMG to physically pick up applications for dispensary licenses, which wasn't possible because the firm instituted a travel ban in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Parnell says some applicants are skeptical that a travel ban could delay license awards for this long. "A lot of folks are suspicious, I'll say that," he says. "What's the real cause of it? I don't know." But Parnell doesn't dispute that rules to resolve ties are needed, in part to avoid litigation from losers.

Given the number of applicants, there will be plenty of losers. Still, experts say that Illinois is among the most promising marijuana markets in the nation, with predictions of annual sales ranging as high as $4 billion once there is sufficient product and retail outlets to meet demand. During the first six months of this year, nearly $239.2 million in weed, edibles and other cannabis products were sold in the state's 55 recreational dispensaries. Recreational pot isn't legal in any state that touches Illinois, and nonresidents accounted for $56.8 million of the total.

"With its permissive laws for visitors and intelligently constructed plan to make medical dispensaries the first (recreational) dispensaries, the state seems primed for an effective transition and the opportunity to bring in massive business from neighboring states," wrote attorneys for Thompson Coburn, a law firm, in a 2019 ranking of states based on how favorable they are for pot businesses. The silk-stocking firm, which provides legal advice to marijuana businesses, includes such past and present partners as John Cullerton, former Illinois Senate president, Kit Bond, former Missouri governor and U.S. senator and the late Thomas Eagleton, former U.S. senator from Missouri.

Illinois shot from number 18 to number 6 in the firm's rankings, thanks to legalization of recreational pot and a regulatory scheme the firm calls "expansive and canny." Other top-tier states include Oregon, Colorado and Nevada, which have granted far more licenses at lower cost and with less bureaucracy than Illinois. "I would say it comes down to your preference in business," says Michael Rosenblum, a Thompson Coburn lawyer who helped prepare the rankings. "If you feel you can acquire a limited number of licenses, barriers to entry will protect you." On the other hand, small businesses, he says, might prefer states with large numbers of licenses issued at low cost because it's easier to get started.

In a June appearance on "Mad Money," a CNBC television program on the stock market, Ben Kovlar, CEO of Green Thumb Industries, set the future value of the Illinois market at $3 billion. "There are going to be many, many, many winners," he said. "We're super-excited about the Illinois market."

Akele Parnell, a lawyer for the Chicago Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights, sees loopholes and predicts that fewer than half of licensees will meet the spirit of the law designed to create social equity.

GTI, which has two large cultivation centers and five recreational dispensaries in Illinois along with operations in 11 other states, plans to establish an incubator program for startups, which is one way established companies can meet a state requirement to provide financial assistance and otherwise help new licensees. Another way is to write checks for deposit into a state fund set up to provide loans and grants to social equity enterprises. In its most recent annual report, GTI says it has partnerships with other enterprises in four states, including Illinois. "The company structures its joint ventures on a case-by-case basis but generally maintains operational control over the joint venture business and a variable economic interest," the company says.

Partnerships are welcome, Hutchinson says. "It's a fact that small businesses are competing against very big businesses," she says. "I'm hoping to see a lot of these small enterprises hook up or partner. I love to hear entrepreneurs think about it in a very fulsome way."

It is better for regulators to go slow and small at the start than big and fast, Hutchinson says, because what happens now will define the future. "I can't erase the fact that the medical (marijuana) industry existed for six years before we did this," she says. The state, she says, needs to be cautious. "You can't go backwards, you can't unring that bell," she says. "Once they're there, they're there."

Meanwhile, applicants wait. Despite requirements that growers not discriminate in selling product to dispensaries, Hatchett says he needs a growing facility in addition to dispensaries to ensure an adequate supply of product. He isn't banking on getting everything he's asked for.

"If I get more than one location, I'll be tremendously happy," he says. "We're going to have diversity and we'll try to be as independent as possible and bring in people of color."

Contact Bruce Rushton at brushton@illinoistimes.com.

See the original post:

The road to riches - Illinois Times

Opinion Defining defunding the police to help our community – The CT Mirror

If we asked 25 different people what defund the police means, we would likely get 25 different definitions. Our definition focuses on where the investment should take place while recognizing that public safety is a priority.

A 2014 Pew Research study reporting 52% of African Americans and 63% of Hispanics responded that police do a good job of enforcing the law. While the numbers are not overwhelming and likely have changed due to recent events, they do indicate that there is a level of recognition for a need for a police force. The need for reform will have to wait for another day.

The terms defund and invest are used intentionally as defunding the police does not mean merely saving money. It means investing in our people and our communities to defeat systemic racism, to start saving one person at a time, and to redefine what our expectations of police are. A 2015 report commissioned by President Obama and led by Chief Charles Ramsey, former Commissioner of Philadelphia Police Department and recent consultant on community policing with the Bridgeport Police Department, said that an overarching goal for 21st century policing should promote programs that take a comprehensive and inclusive look at community-based initiatives that address core issues of poverty, education, health, and safety.

On a personal/professional level, we repeatedly have had conversations with police officers themselves who have expressed frustration at societys expectation that they act as social workers, mental health experts, substance abuse counselors, and mediators. At the top of their frustration list is when school resource officers are asked to intervene in a school discipline issue. Naturally, this is the same frustration we hear from urban teachers (who throw in parenting as one of their expectations) who work for an institution that has been defunded for years. We cant make the same mistake here and reduce funding without reinvesting those dollars in interventions that work..

Police are currently asked to intervene in many situations where a crime has yet to be committed. Mental health issues, substance abuse issues, domestic violence cases, pets in trees or distress, health emergencies are all situations where a trained professional may be a better option. And they receive very little training for these activities.

In fact, if our conversations with police officers tell us how they feel about working on these issues they will generally tell you they are not trained to perform them and that they are the most difficult cases for them. So why not transfer these incidents to mental health, substance abuse, social welfare, healthcare professionals where they will be treated by skilled professionals in the field.

Unfortunately, data show Black and brown people are more likely to be treated harshly by law enforcement than white people. The question for us is not to defund the police, but to examine all the ways police are involved in peoples lives and determine their appropriateness and whether they might be handled more effectively by trained professionals and do not result in an arrest.

In our research, we have recently read about Cahoots, a partnership between the Eugene, Oregon Police Department and a community agency that has saved the city $8.5 million dollars annually with the real impact on individuals being transformational. New Orleans has recently outsourced minor traffic accidents to a private company at no cost to the city. Many police departments such as West Palm Beach, Fla. are piloting an Australian co-responding model with a social worker or substance abuse counselor who can respond to overdoses, domestic abuses, or other mental health situations.

We all know that substance abuse/mental health issues are better dealt with by behavioral health specialists who are trained to de-escalate conflicts that may arise because of the substance abuse or mental health issue. Unfortunately, substance abuse has been the primary reason the United States imprisons more people than any country in the world.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, over 70 million Americans have a criminal record and we know the War on Drugs has focused most of its attention on Black and brown communities. Further strengthening the treatment-versus-incarceration argument is the National Institute on Drug Abuses finding that $1 invested in addiction treatment results in $12 in savings on the justice system side.

The actions of young people with developmental disabilities are often misconstrued to mimic criminal behavior. For example, autistic children may be either overly affectionate, which looks like wrestling, or they cant be touched because when you touch them they strike out; both of which they may be arrested instead of more benign and appropriate treatment.

School resource officers or SROs are called to intervene in all sorts of disturbances at school better handled by teachers, administrators, guidance counselors and social workers. Bridgeport Police have removed the physical presence of SROs in schools for a few years now, which has resulted in many fewer school arrests and much more appropriate intervention.

Police also are called whenever there is a health emergency; they accompany firefighters to fires; they respond to lost pets or pets up trees; etc. We have repeatedly heard the narrative backed by multiple research papers about Black people being stopped for broken tail lights, lost mirrors, simply driving while Black or simply looking suspicious. We have seen the narratives of the next step of going for their license and registration that escalate into arrests and even death like Philando Castile.

By utilizing alternative options as discussed above, we prevent and avoid a number of potential negative interactions between police and the community. We provide the space for the police to serve as public safety officers, the space for social workers and mental health counselors to support and treat mental illness, and the space for substance abuse counselors to treat addiction. All professionals get to do what they are good at, what they are trained for, and, most importantly, what they are passionate about.

By ensuring the right professional responds, we keep citizens out of the justice system and reduce the likelihood of negative interaction with the police that sometimes escalates into criminal behavior. Our community is therefore safer. These investments can be incorporated as a team and community response alongside and in partnership with the police and will result in a safer and healthier community.

All of this results in a safer, happier, healthier community and we can agree that that outcome is not a political argument. Our communities need a police force. We just need it to look differently.

Marc Donald is Executive Director of RYASAP (Regional Youth Adult Social Action Partnership) and Robert Francis is the organizations former Executive Director.

CTViewpoints welcomes rebuttal or opposing views to this and all its commentaries. Read our guidelines andsubmit your commentary here.

The rest is here:

Opinion Defining defunding the police to help our community - The CT Mirror

Drug addiction a mental health issue: Lock-em-up mentality not the answer – Hattiesburg American

Brett Montague, Guest columnist Published 5:00 a.m. CT Aug. 1, 2020

DEA data obtained by The Washington Post showed the opioid prescription boom from 2006 to 2012. Montgomery Advertiser

The average citizen today can see problems associated with issues like overcrowded prisons, police-community relations, and racial economic disparities.

This is largely due to the global pandemic in our midst. Make no mistake about it though; these issues are both long-standing and highly interwoven problems that need to be given attention by leaders everywhere. However, there is a fourth area of needed reform that, if tackled, would bring about tremendous progress towards solving these other challenges.

Brett Montague(Photo: Submitted/Special to Clarion Ledger)

We need to fundamentally rethink how we deal with drugs and drug use.

Consider this first just as a matter of practicality.

America first adopted its national policy of drug prohibition in 1914, and catapulted its passage by waging a "War on Drugs." This war was based on the idea that we could end drug use, eliminate drugs from the world by outlawing them, and then crime would fall throughout North America. But after 106 years, drug use and addiction rates today are as high ever, and the illegal drug market today is greater than a $500 billion a year industry, according to the Washington Post.

Opinion: My son died of an opioid overdose. We must change our approach to save lives.

This fact alone plainly shows that the outright prohibition of a substance neither squashes demand, nor eliminates the drug supply.

Over the past year, I have spent time with various mental health professionals, pharmacists, judges, law enforcement officers, and elected officials alike regarding our drug laws. We discuss things like Harm Reduction initiatives, what prohibition does, and what regaining a real law and order control of the drug trade in the long run means. The atmosphere is always open, because virtually everyone knows we have to change our one-size-fits-all criminal approach to drugs, but many valid questions and concerns still remain. The most common objections I get are:

I know that along the path of my own journey, I have wrestled with these same exact concerns. If you study this stuff though, and take the time to think in earnest about the groups in question here our children, addicts, and law enforcement there is no way around the fact that America's kids and cops, alike, are unduly exposed to vast amounts of harm caused by drug prohibition. After all, as the War on Drugs continues, we have unknowndealers selling vast amounts of unknown substances to unknown users all over the place. They don't ask for I.D. And if a rival gang moves in, the only competitive advantage they have is violence.

To be certain, this is going to be hard to wrap our head around, much less embrace. We have all constantly been told that the only way you can control a drug is to prohibit it, and that if we ever reverse course, chaos, crime, and a scourge of death will promptly ensue.

We can kid ourselves no longer! We are losing over 185 Americans daily to overdose, according to the CDC, and nearly 1 million young African American men are currently in America's prisons, according to the Prison Policy Initiative. Law enforcement's capacity to truly protect and serve has suffered. Let's end our criminal approach to drugs. Let's end it for good.

Brett Montague, a Hattiesburg native who is a drug policy reform advocate, served as event coordinator for the End It For Good summit last year in Hattiesburg.The summit was held to discuss the opioid crisis and how drug policy impacts local communities. To contact him, email brettbam.716@gmail.com.

Read or Share this story: https://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/story/opinion/2020/08/01/drug-abuse-mental-health-issue-commentary/5510096002/

Excerpt from:

Drug addiction a mental health issue: Lock-em-up mentality not the answer - Hattiesburg American

Opinion: Permitting Cannabis Businesses Could Be Tax Boon for San Diego County – Times of San Diego

Share This Article:Cannabis plants. Photo via PixabayBy Laura Wilkinson

The Board of Supervisors is being asked by the people of San Diego County to take a step towards permitting and regulating cannabis businesses. Gov. Gavin Newsom has deemed cannabis businesses as essential businesses, and the supervisors can encourage economic opportunity by voting yes as numerous other counties in California have already done successfully.

Support Times of San Diego's growthwith a small monthly contribution

First, lets update the facts.

According to no less an authority than the U.S Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA, no deaths due to an overdose of cannabis have ever been reported. Zero. According to the NIH and Centers for Disease Control, this year 458 people will die from a Tylenol overdose and over 88,000 from alcohol abuse. Some 130 people will die today and every day this year from an opioid overdose. Those substances are readily available all over our city and country and pose much greater risks.

UC San Diego runs a state-funded medical cannabis research facility conducting peer-reviewed medical studies on cannabis. Cannabis has saved the lives of children with severe seizures and helped cancer patients and many others who cope with daily pain. Even the Department of Veterans Affairs has issued directive 1315 for VA health care providers to discuss the use of cannabis relief with veterans suffering from PTSD and other maladies and assuring veterans that using cannabis will not put their VA benefits at risk.

Thirty-three states have legalized cannabis and eleven have allowed adult use. Seven more have ballot measures this November (including Mississippi and Nebraska). It is evident that San Diego County is falling behind the nation in allowing legal cannabis enterprises.

We use the term cannabis, because the name marijuana (originally spelled marihuana) is a pejorative term coined in 1933 by the then-head of the FDA (then the Federal Bureau of Narcotics), an avowed racist, Harry Aslinger, who thought it sounded foreign and scary because Mexican-Americans used that term. It paved the way for decades of laws allowing people of color to be disproportionately targeted and jailed.

According to Business Insider Magazine, in the first full year after the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was passed, black people were about three times more likely to be arrested for violating narcotic drug laws than whites. And Mexican-Americans were nearly nine times more likely to be arrested for the same charge. Most of us know someone who was affected by the failed War on Drugs that has destroyed families through the mass-incarceration of so many Americansmostly minorities. Californias Proposition 64 was passed partially to correct this injustice. Developing genuine, workable social equity solutions is critical for the county to truly serve its citizens equitably.

According to BDS Analytics, there is evidence that sales of both prescription and over-the-counter pain killers are down in states where cannabis products, which include tinctures, transdermal patches, beverage and edible forms of the plant, are legally sold all of it in state-mandated child-proof packaging. Property values have risen in neighborhoods that permit and allow cannabis retail dispensary storefronts, according to an initial study conducted in collaboration by several university business schools. Surprisingly, several studies show teen use is trending down in markets where adult-use of cannabis is legal.

The economic opportunity is enormous. Legal cannabis jobs are projected to grow 250% over the next ten years (four times the number of home health aides and solar tech installers) by 2024. And still, San Diego County bears the cost of prohibition by battling illegal market operators and putting law enforcement needlessly at risk.

The Santa Maria Times reported on July 19 that Santa Barbara County cannabis taxes have increased 89% from 2019 to 2020, enough to fully cover the cost of cannabis enforcement, backfill the loss of Proposition 172 funds, and cover the shortfall due to COVID-19 impacts. Supervisor Steve Lavagnino was quoted saying of cannabis legalization, Its been controversial, its been messy, but this budget without cannabis revenue would have been an unmitigated disaster.

San Diego County is facing unprecedented fiscal pain during this public health crisis. Our supervisors can help prevent the same unmitigated disaster. We urge the supervisors to move the cannabis regulation and permitting process forward as other forward-looking counties throughout California have, to help eliminate the illegal market costs and embrace the legal industry to help legal small cannabis businesses thrive and contribute to our economy. It is an idea whose time has come.

Laura Wilkinson is the founder and CEO of AFC Products/Caligrown. She serves on the board of the South County Economic Development Council and is active in the National Cannabis Industry Association.

Opinion: Permitting Cannabis Businesses Could Be Tax Boon for San Diego County was last modified: August 5th, 2020 by Editor

>> Subscribe to Times of San Diegos free daily email newsletter! Click here

See original here:

Opinion: Permitting Cannabis Businesses Could Be Tax Boon for San Diego County - Times of San Diego

Formerly incarcerated woman runs to be 1st Black woman in Congress from Tennessee – Birmingham Times

By Marina MoseleyABC News

(WASHINGTON) Keeda Haynes believes she brings a unique perspective to the race for Tennessees 5th Congressional District. After spending over three years in prison for a crime she says she didnt commit, she hopes a spot in Washington will allow her to speak for vulnerable constituents and make a little history as well.

Haynes, a former public defender, is in a three-way race that includes 17-year Democratic incumbent Rep. Jim Cooper.

The primary election, which is slated for Aug. 6, has no Republican in the race so the winner will almost certainly be elected to Congress come November.

I have a unique perspective that a lot of people dont have. Ive been a defendant and defender, Haynes told ABC News. I really saw just how this war on drugs really decimated Black and brown, low-income communities.

If elected, the progressive Democrat would make history as the first Black woman in Tennessee ever elected to Congress. The state has only had two Black representatives elected to Congress, with the last candidate elected over two decades ago, according to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Along with supporting criminal justice reform and the Black Lives Matter movement, the 42-year-old Haynes is also passionate about issues such as providing access to affordable housing, raising the minimum wage and reducing student loan debt.

We are reimagining each and every system so that Black lives can matter across every single spectrum, she said.

Haynes, who is from Franklin and later moved to the states capital of Nashville, was the second of five children. She graduated from Tennessee State University with a degree in criminal justice and psychology. But just two weeks after graduating college, she had to turn down a position as a legal assistant because she had to report to federal prison.

At 19, she started dating a man in Nashville for a few years and began accepting packages for his cellphone and beepers shop, she told ABC News. She later found out that those packages actually contained marijuana. She spent three years and 10 months in prison on what was initially a seven-year mandatory minimum sentence on charges of conspiracy to distribute marijuana.

In 2006, Haynes was finally released from prison while continuing to maintain her innocence. She went on to pass the bar exam and work in a public defenders office for over six years.

Her historic run comes as a record number of Black women are running for Congress across the U.S. In 2019, a record number of Black women were serving in state legislative offices, according to The Center of American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. In the last two years Black women saw the largest gain in representation at the state legislative level since 1994.

Haynes advice for young Black girls hoping to follow in her footsteps is to remember that you have the ability to make the impossible possible.

Prison did not deter me from doing what I said I was going to do, she told ABC News. There will be people that will tell you that you cant do things and that things are impossible, but you have to stay focused.

Haynes called late civil rights pioneer Rep. John Lewis, who was laid to rest Thursday in Atlanta, an iconic figure in the fight for justice and equality, and expressed eternal gratitude for the work that Lewis accomplished throughout his remarkable life.

Even in the face of police violence, he still believed in something bigger and still fought for liberation. I personally feel obligated to do this work in his name, Haynes said.

Like Loading...

Read the original:

Formerly incarcerated woman runs to be 1st Black woman in Congress from Tennessee - Birmingham Times

Tarriona Tank Ball, Waxahatchee, The War On Drugs & More To Perform At Free Voter Registration Virtual Concert – Recording Academy | Grammys

GRAMMY-winning soprano Rene Flemingwill launch a webinar series exploring the impact of music and arts on human health and the brain.

Music and Mind Live with Rene Fleming will feature scientists and practitioners in the "intersection music, neuroscience, and healthcare" including child development, pain and anxiety and management in conversation with the singer, according to a statement. The first webinar will happen Tuesday, May 19 at 5 p.m. EST/ 2 p.m. PST withDr. Vivek Murthy.

Murthy will discussmusic, loneliness and isolation as well as his book, Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World.The series will alsoinclude a Q&A portion.

Fleming, an arts and health advocate, said now is the time to talk about how art impacts health.

"Research is revealing amazing things about the way arts influence human health and the brain, Fleming said in a statement. With our working lives halted, the covid-19 pandemic has also fostered an explosion of creativity and good will. What better time to examine our need as human beings to create and experience the arts, and the basis of this in science?"

Fleming's role as theArtistic Advisor to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in partnership with the National Institutes of Health and the National Endowment for the Arts inspired her to create the series..

The webinars can be watched live on Facebook. Those who cannot tune into the livestream can catch a replay on theKennedy Center's website. The live episodes can also be watched on the Kennedy Center's Facebook and YouTube.

See the full schedule of the series below:

May 19 Music, Loneliness, and Isolation

Vivek H. Murthy, MD (former US Surgeon General, author)

May 26 "Community of Voices, Sound and Music Perception, and a Resource for the Future"-

Julene Johnson, PhD and Charles Limb, MD (University of California San Francisco); Sunil Iyengar (National Endowment for the Arts)

June 2 At Home with Children: Musical Tool Kit

Miriam Lense, PhD, (Vanderbilt University Music Cognition Lab); Sara Beck, PhD (Randolph College)

June 9 "Integrative Approach to COVID-19 and the Mind"

Deepak Chopra, MD (The Chopra Foundation)

June 16 "Using Music for Health and Wellbeing during COVID-19"

Wendy Magee, PhD (Temple University); Tom Sweitzer, MMT, MT-BC (A Place to Be)

3 Songs That Are Helping Me Manage My Mental Health During Quarantine

View post:

Tarriona Tank Ball, Waxahatchee, The War On Drugs & More To Perform At Free Voter Registration Virtual Concert - Recording Academy | Grammys