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

Exploring the reaches of the First Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs – Williamsport Sun-Gazette

Should the First Amendment really permit neo-Nazis to come to Williamsport and yell through a bullhorn F*** your n***** mayor? When I heard the words replayed on a Facebook post, I was more livid than if I read it in a magazine or newspaper. I had difficulty sleeping that night to appreciate that psychopaths abusing the First Amendment can be tolerated. Is such conduct speech at all? The devout purpose of the neo-Nazis who came to Williamsport on July 18 was to evoke violence, while carrying their AK-47s, so as to create another Charlottesville situation. We knew they would be armed because it is contained in their e-mails to City Hall revealed as a result of a Right-to-Know request.

Is there any limit to the First Amendment? The neo-Nazis who came to Williamsport were denied a permit and theoretically could have been arrested on the spot. The mayor correctly thought that protection from COVID-19 was more important at this juncture than the right of crazy people to scream unacceptable vulgar epithets at other people.

The neo-Nazis not only created a clear and present danger but violated Pennsylvanias laws on gathering as a militia, something outlawed when the National Guard was created.

All of the legal developments that we are now witnessing presage the question as to how far the First Amendment can go to protect religious and speech rights and whether there are any discernable limits.

The First Amendment has been turned into a sword as well as a shield in modern times. Three recent court opinions, albeit very different in certain respects, demonstrate the vitality that still defines the scope of First Amendment protections. The First Amendment, as most people fully appreciate, generally addresses religion and speech.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School vs. Morrissey-Berru, (July 8, 2020) written by Justice Alito required the court to determine whether the First Amendment permits courts to intervene in employment disputes involving teachers at religious schools who are entrusted with the responsibility of instructing their students in the faith of the school where they work.

The religious education and formation of students is the reason for the existence of most private religious schools. Some private religious schools are just a form of prep school. However, most religious schools select and supervise teachers who are consistent with the religious mission of the institution. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities, wrote the court, would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.

The same day as Our Lady of Guadalupe School, Justice Thomas wrote the opinion in Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Pennsylvania, (July 8, 2020). The question in Little Sisters was whether the government created lawful exceptions from a regulatory requirement implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2020 (ACA), 124 Stat. 119. Certain employers are required to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees through group health plans. Although contraceptive coverage is not required or addressed in the Affordable Care Act provision reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the government mandated such coverage by promulgating interim final rules shortly after the ACAs passage. This is known as the contraceptive mandate.

The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Department lacked statutory authority to promulgate these exceptions. The U.S. Supreme Court held this was erroneous. The departments had the authority to provide exceptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements from employers with religious and conscientious objections. The 3rd Circuit was therefore reversed.

Another important First Amendment religious freedom case is Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue, (June 30, 2020), written by Chief Justice Roberts. The Montana Legislature established a program to provide tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools. The program grants a tax credit to anyone who donates to certain organizations that in turn award scholarships to selected students attending such schools. When petitioners sought to use the scholarships at a religious school, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the program. The court relied on the no-aid provision of the state constitution, which prohibits any aid to a school controlled by a church, sect, or denomination. The question was whether the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution barred the application of the no-aid provision.

The provision, said the U.S. Supreme, was said to burden not only religious schools but also families whose children attend or hope to attend them. The court noted that it had previously recognized the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

The decision in B.L. vs. Mahanoy Area School District, (June 30, 2020), is a bit more difficult to appreciate. The decision by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals concerned a woman who did not make her high school varsity cheerleading team. In a weekend away from school, the student posted a picture of herself with the caption F*** Cheer to Snapchat. She was suspended from the junior varsity team for a year and sued her school in federal court. The District Court granted summary judgment in B.L.s favor, ruling that the school had violated her First Amendment rights. The 3rd Circuit Court agrees and affirmed that the suspension represented a violation of the students First Amendment rights.

The 3rd Circuit Court easily found that the snap fell outside the school context. This is not a case in which the relevant speech took place in a school-sponsored forum, Fraser, 478 U.S. at 677. Nor is this a case in which the school owns or operates an online platform. Instead, B.L. created the snap away from campus, over the weekend, and without school resources, and she shared it on a social media platform unaffiliated with the school. While the snap mentioned the school and reached 16 MAHS students and officials, J.S. and Layshock claim that those few points of contact are not enough. B.L.s snap, therefore, took place off campus.

Most citizens would find it difficult to understand how a student could post vulgarities on social media and not pay any consequence for it.

Cliff Rieders is a board-certified trial advocate in Williamsport.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Go here to read the rest:

Exploring the reaches of the First Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs - Williamsport Sun-Gazette

Varner: Trials and tests of the First Amendment – Bloomington Pantagraph

Sign Up Today and Support Local Journalism

Enjoy more articles from Bloomington's Most Trusted Information Source. Subscribers can log in for unlimited digital access

We interrupt this column Dad was 20 and driving near the farm and his we interrupt was Pearl Harbor. For me, it was Kennedy, Challenger and 9/11. This is not nearly at the same level, but I wrote what is below celebrating American freedom over the Fourth of July weekend and yesterday came the splash headlines of the Trump niece tell-all book.

President Donald Trump has recently failed twice to censor unfavorable writings. The 1960s case New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan is almost total protection for those who are critical of public figures. As discussed below, free speech is upfront and unambiguous. However, the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man free speech waits until paragraph 11. It says it is one of the most precious of rights, but then lists exceptions to that freedom. In the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, they get around to free speech in article 10. There are four lines on freedom and about a dozen lines on exceptions to free speech.

Now, on to what I wrote over the weekend. America, I am so proud to say, is the world leader, the beacon-on-the-hill of free speech. On the other side, one finds Cuba, North Korea and China giving them a run for the money for last place. Those governments would assay good social order is more important than irresponsible speech. We will see you dont have to be in Cuba to hear that line.

Review first, James Madison, the first sentence of the Bill of Rights: Congress shall make no Law abridging the freedom of Speech. The three dots are a hares HARES? on establishment of religion, and my German students went right for it that in 18th century English and modern German, nouns are capitalized. Free speech is not a gift from government, but an inalienable right that Congress dare not tread upon.

Go here to see the original:

Varner: Trials and tests of the First Amendment - Bloomington Pantagraph

Editorial: Tune in to keep an eye on Loveland City Council – Loveland Reporter-Herald

Looking for some entertaining summer television viewing?

The last hour of last Tuesdays Loveland City Council meeting was riveting, although also at times, as Councilor John Fogle carefully put it, a fertilizer show.

The council, like the country, is grappling with big issues ethics, racism (ageism and sexism also were mentioned), First Amendment rights, bullying on social media and the general frustration that is boiling over in this time of disease, unemployment, the ramped-up politics of a presidential election year and the fears they are bringing out. And those issues boiled over on public display Tuesday.

The meeting, for those who didnt catch it live, can be viewed online at https://bit.ly/3fFFv6G. Start in the eighth section.

Among the issues discussed were concern over whether Councilor Steve Olson violated the councils ethical standards by making accusations against Councilor Andrea Samson and Mayor Jacki Marsh on social media, concern about the Black Lives Matter movement and a question of whether the City Council should commit to not defund police but to provide them with more money for training and equipment to deal with threats and with financial liability protection for officers.

Samson was criticized by fellow councilors in February for commenting on Facebook they had a head buried in the sand perspective about social media. She recalled that Olson told her then he would never trust her again. She said she learned from that incident but was surprised to see Olson do the very thing he had criticized her for when he posted on social media that she and Marsh do not support police and that they support a Marxist organization and violence because they have attended local rallies supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.

Olson flatly refused to apologize to Samson for making those accusations, although at the end of the night he said he would sit down and talk with her if she wanted. I think that would be nice; I appreciate that, she responded.

Samson said earlier in the meeting that she believes the councils role as leaders is to communicate and to have conversations with community members, especially in this time of seemingly increased division.

If the two councilors do have that meeting and truly listen to each other, they will be setting a good example.

In Loveland, which is as Samson pointed out 93% white, people who are not may have a very different experience than those who are. Asking them about their experiences is the first step toward understanding where inequality exists, which could help lead to finding ways to reduce it.

Police also face increasing tensions on the job, even in Loveland where they are under scrutiny after the arrest of a black man on July 13 in the Target parking lot. That case is under review.

The Loveland City Council should bring the matter of police support back in a study session and have a full public review of Olsons requests, finding out from police what they think they need and hearing comment from the public as well.

Watching the council video leads to some reactions:

Will council members be able to find common ground to better serve the community?

Will Samson and Olson listen to each others views?

Will council members besides Marsh and Samson reach out to minority members of the community to learn more about their problems?

Will the Loveland City Council take up the issue of whether to provide Loveland police more funding, training and protection from personal liability?

Tune in again on Tuesday nights.

More here:

Editorial: Tune in to keep an eye on Loveland City Council - Loveland Reporter-Herald

Texas AG on NY AG seeking to dissolve NRA: In Texas we care about what the founders put in the Constitution – Fox News

TexasAttorney GeneralKen Paxton slammed New York Attorney General Letitia James for trying to dissolve the National Rifle Associationand welcomedthe organization to his state sayingthat in Texas we care about what thefounders put in the Constitution.

Paxton made the comment Sunday on Fox & Friends Weekend,three days after James announced that her officehas filed a lawsuit against the National Rifle Association and its leadership, including Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

On Sunday Paxton said he is absolutely welcoming the NRA to come to Texas because they have done amazingwork over the years defendingthe Second Amendment.

I can tell you one thinginTexas that we care about,and I think wewill always care about, is Godand guns, he said, explaining that the First Amendment protects freespeech and religious expression and the Second Amendment protects theright of people to own guns.

James accused the NRA of having "a culture of self-dealing," taking millions of dollars for personal use and granting contracts that benefited leaders' family and associates.

NRA LAYS OFF DOZENS OF STAFFERS, CUTS PAY DURING CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC

In addition to asking for the organization to be dissolved, James' office seeks to have LaPierre and general counsel John Frazer removed from their positions, and a declaration from the court saying "that directors or members in control of the NRA have looted or wasted the NRAs charitable assets, have perpetuated the corporation solely for their personal benefit, or have otherwise acted in an illegal, oppressive or fraudulent manner[.]"

Host Griff Jenkins saidmany NRA members have wondered foryears why the NRA seated its charter inNew York to begin with to exposeit.

He then asked Paxton, Would they have a betterprotection? Would there besomething to benefit themlegally in Texas?

I think its a littlelate now, but we certainly wouldinvite them to come to Texas toavoid this in the future becauseif they're in New York, it opensthem up to investigation by theattorney general's office in away that I don't think wouldhappen in Texas, soI would encourage them to moveas soon as they can, Paxton said.

Jenkins then asked Paxton if he thinks there is achance that James actually winsthis?

We don'tknow all the facts yet, Paxton said, adding that his problem is with how the situation is being handled, noting that the lawsuit was filed right before an election with a big press conference.

It looksextremely political, Paxton said.

If you want to do thisinvestigation, do it quietly, he said.If youre going to announce something,announce it after the election, but what it looks like and she [James] claimsthey're a terroristorganization this looks like aterrorist operation goingagainst the NRA in trying to makeit political as opposed to alegitimate investigation.

I think it really hurts thecredibility of the New Yorkoffice when theyve done it inthis manner, Paxton said.

NRA President Carolyn Meadows called the lawsuit "a baseless, premeditated attack," claiming it targeted not just the NRA, but the constitutional rights it defends. She also noted the timing of the lawsuit and said it was a transparent attempt to score political points.

"You could have set your watch by it:the investigation was going to reach its crescendo as we move into the 2020 election cycle," Meadows said in a statement. "Its a transparent attempt to score political points and attack the leading voice in opposition to the leftist agenda. This has been a power grab by a political opportunist a desperate move that is part of a rank political vendetta. Our members wont be intimidated or bullied in their defense of political and constitutional freedom.

Meadows added that the NRA"will not shrink from this fight we will confront it and prevail.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

To that end, the NRA countersued James, seeking a court declaration that they are following state not-for-profit law and alleging that The New York Attorney General is targeting the organization for its political positions, violating its free speech rights.

Fox News Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.

See more here:

Texas AG on NY AG seeking to dissolve NRA: In Texas we care about what the founders put in the Constitution - Fox News

Editorial: Racist is the only word to describe what we witnessed – Traverse City Record Eagle

Yes, sir, you are racist.

In fact, there is no other word to appropriately describe the rhetoric spewed by Leelanau County Road Commissioner Tom Eckerle last week.

Eckerles first utterance, a vile reference to those ns in Detroit during the preamble to a public meeting, probably was enough for us all to get the picture. That was before the 75-year-old Suttons Bay resident confirmed his bigotry to the world by doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on his previous racist statements.

It appears Mr. Eckerle hasnt met a reporter to whom he wont confirm his racism with an encore barrage of n-word laced recitations of his world view.

In several instances, Eckerle coupled escalations of his rhetoric with claims he is not a racist.

We beg to differ.

His right to espouse such repugnant, ignorant and foul beliefs is protected by the First Amendment. But freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from repercussions.

We were heartened by the immediate, and decisive reaction by Leelanau County residents who, when news of Eckerles rhetoric broke, denounced his behavior and pledged to remove him from office through a recall if he didnt leave of his own volition.

And for about a day it appeared an arduous recall process would be necessary as Eckerle declared he had no plans to resign.

The only other way to boot an elected official from office is through executive action by the governor, and we appreciate Gov. Gretchen Whitmers reluctance to step between public officials and their constituents.

Eckerle and his behavior provides an opportunity for a countywide statement of values either through public declarations and reforms or at the ballot box.

We were relieved when Eckerle reversed course and loosened his stubborn grip on the office he isnt fit to hold.

The semi-retired farmer, who is two years into a six-year term on the county road board, told a Record-Eagle reporter late Friday he plans to forfeit his seat. Not because of the nationwide backlash. Or because his racism has dealt irreparable damage to his community. No, Eckerle said he will resign because he doesnt want to burden a newly-hired, soon-to-start road commission manager with the problems he created.

Thats sure thoughtful from a guy who a day ago seemed hell-bent on digging a pit big enough not just to bury himself, but to take down Leelanau County with him.

We hope all elected and appointed officials pay close attention to the lessons Eckerle presented them. Not the racist dog whistles he spends so much time repeating. No, the lesson here is one of public service.

Holding elected office comes with a bundle of sacrifices time, stress and self interest to name a few.

Self interest is the one on display this week in Leelanau County. Tom Eckerle showed us all how not so serve the constituents who relied upon him to represent them while in office.

He reminded us that some people simply are unfit for office.

The experience also begs for introspection from us all. How we respond to those who casually seed conversations with racial slurs and other more covert racism matters.

Silence is support.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Original post:

Editorial: Racist is the only word to describe what we witnessed - Traverse City Record Eagle

RCFP: Journalists covering Portland protests should not be required to obtain a license – Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Amicus brief filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 16 media organizations

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division

Date Filed: Aug. 5, 2020

Update:On Aug. 6, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon extended the temporary restraining order against federal officers, without modifications, through Aug. 20. During a hearing, Judge Simon thanked the Reporters Committee for its friend-of-the-court brief in the case, and said he was no longer considering the idea of having journalists obtain credentials from the ACLU.

Background: In June, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of journalists targeted by law enforcement while covering Black Lives Matter protests in Portland, Oregon.

A month later, a federal district judge temporarily blocked law enforcement from arresting, assaulting, threatening, or dispersing journalists and legal observers during demonstrations, and said that police could not search or seize journalists equipment. After the government asked the court to modify the temporary restraining order, the judge asked the parties whether the court should restrict the protections to professional or authorized journalists who would be clearly identifiable by wearing vests provided by the ACLU.

Our Position: The district court should not require journalists covering protests to register or obtain a license with the government, ACLU, or any other organization.

Quote: The First Amendment bars any system that would require journalists to be licensed by the government, third party, or otherwise to gather and report the news. Such a system would constitute both an unconstitutional prior restraint and an unacceptable impediment to the publics right to know.

Related: The Reporters Committee has urged public officials in California, New York, Minnesota, and Colorado to immediately stop attacking and arresting journalists covering the Black Lives Matter protests, and to train police officers about First Amendment protections for reporters.

Read this article:

RCFP: Journalists covering Portland protests should not be required to obtain a license - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Temporary order of protection issued against Meiers Corners woman in hate-crimes case – SILive.com

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- A Meiers Corners woman charged with multiple counts of harassment as a hate crime was a burden and potential threat to several of her neighbors, including multiple children as young as 3 years old, authorities allege.

Lenore Arce, 70, faces charges that include five-counts of first-degree hate crime/harassment, three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, five counts of third-degree stalking and five-counts of fourth-degree stalking.

Racial epithets hurled at neighbors over the course of several months included white trash, n*****, and ch***, while in some cases she followed the victims around their property, the criminal complaint alleges.

Arce, whose first name is also spelled as Leonore in court documents, was arraigned on the charges Friday in Criminal Court in St. George, where a judge released her on her own recognizance.

A temporary order of protection was issued on behalf of the alleged victims, with a following court date scheduled for Nov. 6.

NEIGHBORS ALLEGEDLY BERATED, THREATENED

Arce continuously harassed five households on her Meiers Corners block from Jan. 1 to June 30, in some cases following neighbors around their properties and making remarks based on their race and sexual orientation, the complaint alleges.

One of her targets on multiple occasions was a grandparent and their grandchild, at one point issuing a threat: Im coming for you, you and your white trash family, authorities allege.

The complaint alleges Arce harassed another family, including two children ages 10 and 12, with verbal assaults including, F*** you, you illegal ch***.

Another neighbor was allegedly called a thief and a fa****.

The Advance/SILive.com first reported on the situation in July, publishing disturbing video where she could be heard uttering a stream of racial epithets at a neighbor.

Youre a f****** sick negro ... Put it up your f****** n****** a**, the woman can be heard saying in one video. Youre f****** black trash.

You dont run this f****** neighborhood, n*****, she said in another.

Arce has been a resident of the block for approximately 20 years, neighbors said.

Interviews with a half-dozen residents, some of whom requested anonymity for fear of retaliation from Arce, presented corroborating accounts of residents who said the womans constant harassment affects their everyday lives even causing her neighbors to change their daily routines to avoid coming into contact with her.

I got to look out my window before I come out, said one neighbor who wished to not be named. If I see her outside, I wont go out. But as soon as you step out of your house, she comes running out.

Joshua Benjamin, Arces defense attorney, described the case as a neighbor dispute and said it does not belong in Criminal Court.

Ms. Arce is 70 years old and on a fixed income, he said. She has never been in trouble with the law. She has the absolute legal right to speak her mind. Speech, even speech we dont like, is protected by both Article 1 Section 8 of the New York Constitution and by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

He continued: They can only make a hate speech charge if there is an underlying crime. There is no underlying crime. They are trying to penalize and criminalize a New Yorker for having a big mouth. That is against our laws and the beautiful New York value of speaking your mind.

DE BLASIO CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION

In late July, Mayor Bill de Blasio called a video documenting the racist tirades Arce hurled toward her neighbor shameful and disgusting and vowed an investigation would take place.

These are not New York values, and not what this city represents. Were investigating this, de Blasio said at the time.

Read the original here:

Temporary order of protection issued against Meiers Corners woman in hate-crimes case - SILive.com

Weighting the scales – Idaho State Journal

Appellate court decisions result in winners and losers in any specific case, but the issues involved often are worked through murky gray areas. Consider for example the July 30 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Little v. Reclaim Idaho.

The background is fairly well known in Idaho. The group Reclaim Idaho has been trying to promote an Invest in Idaho tax and schools initiative for the November election ballot. When the pandemic hit and Gov. Brad Littles stay-home order was issued, its petition-gathering which in the normal process has to be done face to face was blocked, which meant a part of Idahos election process also was blocked.

That point, essentially an argument over voting civil rights, went to federal court. Idaho U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ordered that the state either simply place the proposed initiative on the ballot or allow the group to collect the signatures electronically. The state appealed, and the case with startling speed went to the U.S. Supreme Court. On a 4-2 decision, the court sided with the state, ordering a stay of the Winmill decision.

Story continues below video

The Supreme Court, as often happens, didnt go to the center of the issue the voters-rights matter and it did not specifically reverse the Winmill decision, though it may have felt that way. But whats there is worth considering.

First, the majority decision (written by Chief Justice John Roberts) pointed out that, oddly enough, different federal courts have established different guidelines for what states can and cant do in initiative procedures (one reason the high court might have granted certiorari permission to bring this case to it). It said, the States depend on clear and administrable guidelines from the courts. Yet the Circuits diverge in fundamental respects when presented with challenges to the sort of state laws at issue here. According to the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, the First Amendment requires scrutiny of the interests of the State whenever a neutral, procedural regulation inhibits a persons ability to place an initiative on the ballot. ... Other Circuits, by contrast, have held that regulations that may make the initiative process more challenging do not implicate the First Amendment so long as the State does not restrict political discussion or petition circulation.

The Supreme Court didnt really land on this turf in its Idaho decision, but the majority did focus on the right of the state more than the right of the initiative proponent: The District Court did not accord sufficient weight to the States discretionary judgments about how to prioritize limited state resources across the election system as a whole.

Thats not an unreasonable point, but it leaves a massive gap in how to review something like this. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor zeroed in on balancing harms to stay applicant against harms to respondent in other words, balancing the interests of the state and the initiative backers, rather than simply disregarding the interests of the backers. She acknowledged that allowing the electronic signature would be a burden on the state and counties and it would be but she argued it should be considered in context.

Putting a still finer point on it, The stay granted today puts a halt to their signature-collection efforts, meaning that even if respondents ultimately prevail on appeal, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to collect enough qualifying signatures by any reasonable deadline for the November ballot. In other words, the delay occasioned by this Courts stay likely dooms to mootness respondents First Amendment claims before any appellate court has had the chance to consider their merits (and, indeed, before this Court has had the chance to consider any potential petition for certiorari).

So in balancing the rights of a state government against those of its voters, the Supreme Courts majority seems to be putting its thumb on the state side of the scale. That may be worth giving some careful thought when you look, as historically we long have, to the nations highest court as a protector of the rights of the American people.

Read more here:

Weighting the scales - Idaho State Journal

Symposium: Religious freedom and the Roberts courts doctrinal clean-up – SCOTUSblog

This article is part of aSCOTUSblog symposiumon the Roberts court and the religion clauses.

Richard W. Garnett is the Paul J. Schierl / Fort Howard Corporation professor of law at the University of Notre Dame and is the founding director of the schools Program on Church, State and Society. He wrote or joined amicus briefs in several of the cases described below, including most recently joining an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioners in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru.

Those who think and write about the Supreme Court, including many of the justices themselves, tend to collect and deploy colorful adjectives and epithets to describe the state of its religion clauses doctrine and case law. It is not necessary to go full-thesaurus or to march out the entire parade of pejoratives here. A hot mess was the recent pronouncement of one federal court of appeals. And my own favorite is still Justice Antonin Scalias 1993 portrayal of the so-called Lemon test as a ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being repeatedly killed and buried.

An important part of the Roberts court story, though, is that it has both continued and facilitated developments-for-the-better in law-and-religion. Chief Justice John Roberts, following in several ways the example and path of his predecessor, William Rehnquist (for whom he and full disclosure I clerked), has directed, not merely endorsed or observed, these changes. The standard, habitual denunciations no longer seem to apply. As Larry David might put it, the law of the religion clauses is actually pretty, pretty good.

Many scholars and commentators would disagree, of course. To them, these developments represent the crumbling, demolition or some other masonry-related downgrading of the wall of separation between church and state, or they supply evidence of a judicially ascendant Christian nationalism or even theocracy. In fact, though, the Roberts court has moved the law of religious freedom and church-state relations toward coherence and clarity, and better aligned it with American history, tradition and practice and with an appropriate understanding of judges capacities and the judicial role in a democracy.

A number of recent decisions, including several cases from the 2019-20 term, illustrate this movement. And one that is already scheduled for the fall and another that the justices have been asked to review provide an opportunity to continue it. But before discussing recent rulings and upcoming arguments, it is worth asking how and why things went wrong.

The Supreme Court, during its first century and a half, had almost nothing to say about the judicially enforceable content of the right to religious freedom, about the role of religious believers and arguments in politics and public life, or about the terms of permissible cooperation between church and state. Questions about these matters were, for the most part, worked out politically and practically, and in ways that (for better or worse) did not often depart from public consensus, habit and expectations. With the gradual incorporation of the Bill of Rights, though, and the Supreme Courts emerging understanding of its counter-majoritarian role, this changed.

As the court took up the task of interpreting and enforcing the religion clauses, at least three things contributed, eventually, to the much-derided state of doctrinal affairs. The first was the constitutionalization indeed, the fetishization of a James Madison pamphlet and a phrase in one of Thomas Jeffersons constituent-service letters. In his 1947 opinion for the court in Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black of Alabama presented as canonical a potted and partial history of Americas religious-freedom experience in which a Virginia controversy and Jeffersons passing reference to a wall of separation between Church and State and not the broad range of views about the meaning of disestablishment were foundational and controlling. Particularly in school-funding cases, this focus (or myopia) would cause the justices to convert the First Amendments no-establishment rule into a command that, somehow, governments avoid advancing religion.

A second misstep was the embrace of an understanding of constitutionally required neutrality that consisted not in even-handedness or nondiscrimination among Americas increasingly diverse array of religious traditions and communities, but instead in the absence of (something called) religion from (something called) the secular sphere. That is, neutrality was often said to require the forced confinement of religion to the purely private realm, preventing it from playing any role in the routines of public schools and other spaces.

Finally, there was the relatively late-emerging problem of public religious displays, symbols and expression. Although these did not, strictly speaking, impose any obligations, penalties or disadvantages, or confer any privileges, they came to be seen by the court as threatening or contributing to political divisions along religious lines or as endorsing religion and thereby telling some that they are less than full citizens or outsiders in the political community. At the same time, judges and justices were often unwilling to follow through to the extent of outlawing all public displays, symbols and art connected with religious holidays and themes, or undoing the national motto, or cancelling longstanding practices like legislative chaplains. The line between an unlawful endorsement and a permissible acknowledgment of religion seemed to depend on little more than the intuitions, or the aesthetic preferences, of the one drawing it.

For these and other reasons, the evocative denunciations by various justices of, say, the interior-decorating and semiotics aspects of courts attempts to apply the endorsement test and of the strange contrasts involved in school-funding cases between the religion-advancing effects of books and maps, had force. However, to make a long story short, under the Rehnquist and now the Roberts courts, things have improved.

For starters, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, a unanimous 2012 opinion authored by Roberts, the court reminded us that the point of separating, or differentiating between, church and state is not to erect a cooperation-killing wall but instead to protect religious freedom by preventing governments from interfering in religious matters and from purporting to answer religious questions. In June, the justices re-affirmed this understanding, and the corresponding right of religious communities to select their own teachers and teachings, in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru.

By 2002, a gradual but unmistakable evolution in the cooperation-with-religion context culminated in the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision, in which the court downplayed the Lemon tests quixotic aim of avoiding any advancing of religion and instead applied a more straightforward and enforceable requirement of formal neutrality. And, this past term, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the court ruled that not only may governments provide funding to persons who choose religious schools, hospitals and social-welfare agencies for the important public goods they provide, they may not discriminate against religion when doing so.

And another example of doctrinal clean-up came in 2019s decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, in which the justices rejected an establishment clause challenge to a large and longstanding war-memorial cross on public property. Instead of hypothesizing about the messages on civic status communicated by the cross to judicially constructed reasonable observers, a majority of justices called for respecting, and deferring to, history and tradition when deciding whether a particular symbol amounts to an establishment of religion. Noncoercive and time-honored displays and practices should not be uprooted on the complaint of offended observers in the name of an abstract understanding of the secular.

The remaining category of American religious-liberty controversies involves exemptions for religious exercise and accommodations for religious people. The Roberts court has several times affirmed, sometimes unanimously, that religious exercise may, and should, be legislatively accommodated and may be treated as special by governments in keeping with the particular solicitude shown for it in the First Amendments text and throughout American history. The long-running dispute over the Affordable Care Acts contraception-coverage mandate, which returned to the court last term with Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, provides a contested illustration of the courts willingness to interpret legislative accommodations of religion broadly, but the controversy surrounding this particular controversy should not obscure the broad, clear consensus that reasonable accommodations of religious dissenters promote both religious freedom and civic peace.

So far, the Roberts court, with its conservative majority, has left in place the rule, laid down 30 years ago in Employment Division v. Smith, that, although generous accommodations of religion are permitted, exemptions from generally applicable and nondiscriminatory laws that burden some religious practices are not required by the free exercise clause. The Smith rule has come in for criticism that is every bit as harsh, and at least as widespread, as the critiques of the Lemon and endorsement tests. And the justices have agreed to hear a case this fall that offers an opportunity to reject or revise it.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia involves the citys decision to exclude Catholic Social Services from participating in the enterprise of foster-care placements because that agency refuses, for religious reasons, to certify same-sex couples as foster parents. Although the justices could rule for Catholic Social Services on the narrow ground that the citys policies are not really neutral or generally applicable an approach similar to the route chosen in the 2018 case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission the question whether Employment Division v. Smith should be revisited is squarely presented.

The Roberts courts interpretation and application of the religion clauses have continued an evolution that made First Amendment doctrine more coherent and also more consonant both with historical practice and the judicial role. Exactly how a revisiting of Smith would fit in with this evolution remains to be seen. Stay tuned.

Posted in Symposium on the Roberts court and the religion clauses, Featured

Recommended Citation: Richard Garnett, Symposium: Religious freedom and the Roberts courts doctrinal clean-up, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 7, 2020, 9:57 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/08/symposium-religious-freedom-and-the-roberts-courts-doctrinal-clean-up/

Read more here:

Symposium: Religious freedom and the Roberts courts doctrinal clean-up - SCOTUSblog

Anaal Nathrakh enter into an age of ‘Endarkenment’ with hectic new song – Kill Your Stereo

Anaal Nathrakhs brand of extreme blackened, grinding death metal is as consistent as it thought-provoking and heavy. That was true of A New Kind Of Horror (2018) and the very same is looking to be accurate for their next album, Endarkenment. With its recently released first single and eponymous cut being the kind of explosive, riff-heavy style the band are highly regarded for. With all of multi-instrumentalist Mick Kenneys noisy guitars and sick blast beats, and vocalist Dave Hunts huge power-metal refrains sitting in their usual places.

Like other Anaal Nathrakh albums, theres many liner notes to accompany the themes and messages of their songs. Endarkenment is no different. With Dave sharing about this forthcoming album and its subsequent titular songs theme of post-truths, personal selfishness and political dogma, that:

There has been, and continues to be, increasingly widespread rejection of Enlightenment-style values such as rationalism, skepticism, the rejection of faith in favour of judgements dependent on empirically verifiable phenomena and so on. There are local versions in many places, but in our native UK, this was summed up by politician/sinister gnome Michael Goves famous claim that weve had enough of experts. Thus we enter the age of endarkenment.

In the tracks fiendish second verse, Dave sums up that flawed thought process as he savagely, ironically, screams: Fuck you if you think I am wrong. The answers I have are all the answers I need. Which is the most astute comment Ive heard from a band in 2020 about the rut of political discourse and academic debate we find ourselves in. Where people make up their mind based on personal preferences first; distort, reject or cherry pick evidence to the contrary second; and refuse new information and perspectives third. (Which is represented by the band portraying such people as blind swine sadly mislead by bad actors in the below music video.)

That objectivity isnt for someones commentary about movies, books, video games or albums. No, its regarding legitimate issues policy, economics, immigration, race, colour, faith, politics that carry tangible effects and real world implications. Thats why an age of endarkenment can be so dangerous. People substituting the opinion of experts and scientists in lieu of their own beliefs (or the talking heads they follow) in a misguided defence of personal liberties, everyone else be damned. Something weve seen no shortage of from those who stutter and stammer as they rehash their rehearsed mental script about freedoms whenever a shopping-centre staff member kindly asks them to wear a mask or leave.

The Birminghamduos 11th album, Endarkenment, is out October 2nd, 2020.

Read this article:

Anaal Nathrakh enter into an age of 'Endarkenment' with hectic new song - Kill Your Stereo

JobKeeper changes timely and nuanced – The Canberra Times

comment, editorial,

The 250,00 to 400,000 Victorian workers expected to be thrown out of work as a result of the imposition of the hardest lockdown seen in Australia to date will be breathing a collective sigh of relief as a result of the Federal government's decision to amend the criteria for JobKeeper. This comes on top of the recent decision to extend the scheme, which has played a pivotal role in helping millions of Australians to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table since March, for a further six months beyond its original legislated termination date. With up to one-and-a-half million Victorians expected to be relying on the payment by early next month, it would have been a catastrophe for that state - and for two-and-a-half million other people around the country - if the program had been allowed to wind down. One of the most significant changes was to shift the employee reference date (the relevant date of employment for an eligible employee) from March 1, 2020, to July 1, 2020. This means that many workers who had found employment since the economy started to open back up again since June will now also be eligible for JobKeeper. That tweak is potentially crucial to the economic welfare of tens of thousands of people. The other big shift was the decision to modify the criteria for a business's eligibility for the scheme by changing the "turnover reference period". Companies now only have to demonstrate that their income has dropped by the mandated percentage (which varies according to the size of the business) over a single quarter. This means that businesses which may have moved back towards the black during the period the pandemic was effectively under control and restrictions were being eased won't be penalised for that brief period of fiscal spring. The combined effect of these two changes will be to increase the cost of JobKeeper by around $15.6 billion during 2020-2021. The final cost may prove to be far higher given, as the Prime Minister has stressed repeatedly, economic forecasting is extremely problematic given the speed at which the situation can change. The really good news is that because JobKeeper is a national program, the changes announced on Friday will take effect nationwide. That is important given it is, as yet, unknown what impact the Victorian lockdown is going to have on other states. When you shut down one quarter of the national economy, albeit for the very best of reasons, it is going to have a massive flow-on effect. Jobs will be lost in every state and territory, including in the ACT, as a result of the interruption to supply lines sourcing goods and services out of Melbourne and the surrounding area. This is a national crisis. It's not just a case of Victoria catching a bad cold and going back to bed for a bit. The most important takeout from the changes is the timely reminder that this government, once lambasted over it's ideological commitment to economic rationalism, is willing and able to "flex" when the situation demands it. That said, in view of the fact that many Australians are going to be on JobKeeper - and JobSeeker - for far longer than was originally expected, consideration should be given to holding off on the reductions in the level of payments due to take effect later this year. While it is important to wean businesses off taxpayer-funded support payments once the situation eases, the reality is that we are not at that point yet. The Treasurer's work is far from done.

https://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/fdcx/doc79s4whfo0ab1nhfplerd.jpg/r9_435_4244_2828_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

The 250,00 to 400,000 Victorian workers expected to be thrown out of work as a result of the imposition of the hardest lockdown seen in Australia to date will be breathing a collective sigh of relief as a result of the Federal government's decision to amend the criteria for JobKeeper.

This comes on top of the recent decision to extend the scheme, which has played a pivotal role in helping millions of Australians to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table since March, for a further six months beyond its original legislated termination date.

With up to one-and-a-half million Victorians expected to be relying on the payment by early next month, it would have been a catastrophe for that state - and for two-and-a-half million other people around the country - if the program had been allowed to wind down.

One of the most significant changes was to shift the employee reference date (the relevant date of employment for an eligible employee) from March 1, 2020, to July 1, 2020. This means that many workers who had found employment since the economy started to open back up again since June will now also be eligible for JobKeeper. That tweak is potentially crucial to the economic welfare of tens of thousands of people.

The other big shift was the decision to modify the criteria for a business's eligibility for the scheme by changing the "turnover reference period". Companies now only have to demonstrate that their income has dropped by the mandated percentage (which varies according to the size of the business) over a single quarter.

This means that businesses which may have moved back towards the black during the period the pandemic was effectively under control and restrictions were being eased won't be penalised for that brief period of fiscal spring.

The combined effect of these two changes will be to increase the cost of JobKeeper by around $15.6 billion during 2020-2021. The final cost may prove to be far higher given, as the Prime Minister has stressed repeatedly, economic forecasting is extremely problematic given the speed at which the situation can change.

The really good news is that because JobKeeper is a national program, the changes announced on Friday will take effect nationwide. That is important given it is, as yet, unknown what impact the Victorian lockdown is going to have on other states. When you shut down one quarter of the national economy, albeit for the very best of reasons, it is going to have a massive flow-on effect. Jobs will be lost in every state and territory, including in the ACT, as a result of the interruption to supply lines sourcing goods and services out of Melbourne and the surrounding area.

This is a national crisis. It's not just a case of Victoria catching a bad cold and going back to bed for a bit.

The most important takeout from the changes is the timely reminder that this government, once lambasted over it's ideological commitment to economic rationalism, is willing and able to "flex" when the situation demands it.

That said, in view of the fact that many Australians are going to be on JobKeeper - and JobSeeker - for far longer than was originally expected, consideration should be given to holding off on the reductions in the level of payments due to take effect later this year.

While it is important to wean businesses off taxpayer-funded support payments once the situation eases, the reality is that we are not at that point yet.

The Treasurer's work is far from done.

Read the original here:

JobKeeper changes timely and nuanced - The Canberra Times

GomSpace + ESA Working Together To Implement Juventas Smallsat For Hera Mission – SatNews Publishers

Recently, GomSpace Luxembourg SARL and the European Space Agency (ESA), signed a contract to continue development and implementation of the Juventas CubeSat in support of the Hera mission.

The contract value is approximately 11,000,000 euros and is focused on the delivery of the Juventas spacecraft and its associated payloads for launch with Hera in 2024. The amount will be divided between several partners, whereof GomSpace share is about 6,100,000 euros.

Together, NASAs DART and Hera missions, and the international research collaboration known as the Asteroid Impact and Deflection Assessment (AIDA), will demonstrate deflection technology that could be used to protect Earth from hazardous asteroids by shunting them off a collision course. Juventas is a 6U smallsat containing a low frequency radar, named JuRa, as its primary payload (see Heras CubeSat to perform first radar probe of an asteroid).

The smallsat will operate in close proximity to the Didymos asteroid system, focusing radar and radio-science experiments targeting the moon of the binary asteroid, named Dimorphos. Juventas will complete its mission by attempting to land on the surface of Dimorphos, making measurements on the landing dynamics from likely bouncing events to capture details of the asteroids surface properties and end with measurements taken by a gravimeter payload to give insight to the dynamical properties of the asteroid.

GomSpace Luxembourg is the project prime and is also working with GomSpace Denmark and GomSpace Sweden on some spacecraft platform components. The project continues the successful collaboration built from the initial design phase and includes the partners:

With both GomSpace Luxembourg and EmTroniX centrally positioned in the project it fully supports Luxembourgs long-term vision for space exploration and exploitation.

Executive Comments

The Juventas mission will be complementing the larger Hera mothercraft significantly increasing our science return. JuRa will provide the first ever direct measurement of the interior structure of an asteroid. Juventas will also attempt the first ever small body landing by a cubesat to reveal important surface properties. We are very excited to start the implementation phase together with the strong consortium led by GomSpace, said Ian Carnelli of ESA, Project Manager of the Hera project.

We are happy to continue our collaboration with ESA and the Hera project on this exciting mission. Juventas will be the first GomSpace designed nanosatellite in deep space demonstrating its capabilities in the harshest environment thus far. As part of the project we will continue to build our deep space capabilities and organisation based in GomSpace Luxembourg, added Niels Buus, CEO of GomSpace.

The Luxembourg led Juventas satellite is a very important pathfinder mission cementing our national position as a pioneer in developing the required capabilities for peaceful exploration and sustainable use of space resources, noted Marc Serres, the CEO of the Luxembourg Space Agency.

The rest is here:

GomSpace + ESA Working Together To Implement Juventas Smallsat For Hera Mission - SatNews Publishers

I chewed brain-boosting nootropic gum for a week straight. Heres how it went – Digital Trends

Genevieve Poblano/Digital Trends Graphic

As a writer who covers the tech scene, Im always hearing about people in Silicon Valley doing wild and crazy things to boost their performance at work things like micro-dosing shrooms or taking drugs like the narcolepsy medication modafinil. These supposedly brain-boosting smart drugs, often referred to as nootropics, have been gaining popularity over the years and now appear in a wide range of different products, but the extent to which they actually work is unclear.

Wild claims have been made about the effects of nootropics over the years, but the science surrounding their effects is foggy at best. Most nootropics havent been studied in any kind of clinical trial, so its hard to know if they work or not.

One nootropic Ive heard mentioned a lot recently is called Neuro Gum, which contains caffeine, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, and an amino acid called L-theanine. The caffeine and vitamins are meant to give you energy and improve your focus while the L-theanine, which is known for its calming effects, is meant to keep things balanced out.

However, like most other nootropics, Neuro Gum has never been the subject of a clinical trial. So instead of spending half a year wading through the scientific literature on each of its component chemicals to determine its legitimacy as a brain booster, I decided that the best thing to do was to try it myself and see if it actually works. Who needs objective observation when youve got subjective experience?

To start things off, I hopped on Amazon, bought a 20 pack of mint-flavored Neuro Gum, and waited eagerly for it to arrive. When it did, I chewed it every day for a week straight.

For the first few days, I only chewed one piece of gum in the morning after a meal. I also didnt drink any coffee or use any other stimulants that might mess with the experiment, so I was only flying on pure, unadulterated Neuro Gum.

The experience was surreal. I remember walking up to a blackboard on the first day, and there was an equation scribbled on it that it was clear no one had ever been able to solve. I was able to solve it immediately. I could also see in four dimensions, and was suddenly fluent in Japanese.

Just kidding. heres how it actually went:

On the first day, I felt the effects of the gum pretty immediately. It may have been psychosomatic, or it could be that I havent been drinking coffee lately so I noticed the effects of the caffeine more than others might. Each piece of gum has 40mg of caffeine in it, plus the vitamin B, which means its not far from the 64mg of caffeine youd get from an average shot of espresso.

The gum had a nice if a little intense mint flavor, and the physical effects were surprisingly familiar. It was a bit like doing a bump of cocaine, but without the uncomfortable jaw clenching that often comes with it. I felt both energized and focused, and those feelings persisted for at least a few hours before they went away.

Luckily, I didnt crash in any noticeable way after the effects faded. I wouldnt say this gum is a hangover cure, but it definitely helped abate a hangover I was experiencing at the time.

On day two, the effects were similar but perhaps a little less pronounced. I was focused while I was writing and was able to get a slightly-higher-than-normal amount of work done. On day three, it was again a little less effective. Perhaps I was developing a tolerance to it? Whatever the reason was, I decided on day four that I would chew two pieces of gum in the morning, as the package says to take one or two pieces at a time.

The first two-piece day was remarkable. I would say my IQ jumped by at least 20 points. I was shooting lasers out of my eyes, too.

Not really. Two pieces amplified the effects rather noticeably, but I also didnt feel cracked out. Again, it felt like doing a bump of cocaine. I had a productive day, and everything was good.

Days five and six werent noticeably different from day four. So on day seven, I decided to kick things up a notch and take three pieces in the morning.

Suddenly, I was punching through concrete walls and nevermind. Youve caught on by now. Three pieces gave me a significant amount of energy, and I did some good writing, but I also found myself quite tired within a couple of hours of chewing the pieces. Im not sure if I was experiencing a general caffeine crash, if the L-theanine was relaxing me too much, or if it was something else entirely. So I did the only logical thing to do in such a situation: I took a nap. Thankfully, I felt fine after that.

Overall, my experience with Neuro Gum was a good one. Ive actually been taking it for eight days now, because I took two pieces this morning just for a little extra energy. Im on it right now!

Its certainly not the wonder drug from Limitless or anything, but its a very practical stimulant, and Id say its worth trying if youre in the market for something thatll put some extra pep in your step. If you decide to try it, Id start with one piece and then graduate to two if that doesnt do much for you and see what you like. If I end up trying four pieces at once sometime soon and Im suddenly able to make nuclear fusion work, Ill let you know.

This whole experience has made me more curious about nootropics, and I may very well try some others in the future. This gum did help me focus, even if its effects may not have been that much different than just taking a caffeine pill but who knows if another nootropic might do even more for me. Perhaps soon Ill go further down the rabbit hole and write about those experiences. Anything for science, I always say.

See more here:

I chewed brain-boosting nootropic gum for a week straight. Heres how it went - Digital Trends

Celebrating ABLE to Save Month with our Partners – Columbia Star

Because our citizens living with disabilities deserve the same chance to achieve financial independence and stability as all South Carolinians do, Im proud to serve as administrator of the Palmetto ABLE Savings Program. Palmetto ABLE provides eligible South Carolinians living with disabilities and their loved ones the opportunity to save, invest and build the financial future they desire, all without losing important benefits like Supplemental Security Income or Medicaid. The spotlight shines on this program throughout August as we observe ABLE to Save Month, celebrating and highlighting the benefits of ABLE accounts.

While promoting awareness of Palmetto ABLE is something we do year-round at the State Treasurers Office, its not something we do alone. Since opening for enrollment in 2017, a variety of partners in the states disability community, legal community and financial services community have joined us to educate residents across the state about the benefits of owning a Palmetto ABLE account. Thanks in large part to their willingness to promote its value among those they serve, we now have more than 1,400 active account owners who have been empowered to take control of their own money and save for the future.

So, during this ABLE to Save Month, I would like to turn the spotlight on themour many partners across the stateand give thanks for their support. From our statewide partners like the S.C. Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, Family Connection of South Carolina, and the S.C. Developmental Disabilities Council to numerous local organizations throughout the state, we appreciate all they have done individually and collectively to support Palmetto ABLE.

The State Treasurers Office is grateful to be a part of this network of organizations that serves South Carolinas disability community. Through events such as community gatherings, benefits fairs, speaking engagements, and the webinars that have become so important during this time of remote work, our collaboration with community partners and advocates has allowed us the opportunity to share how the Palmetto ABLE Savings Program can provide a pathway to financial independence and security. Our partners have truly become champions of the program and have helped grow it to better serve the disability community.

While, together, we have made significant strides, there is still much work to be done. My office remains committed to making financial independence an accessible opportunity for all and will continue to spread this message. With the help of dedicated individuals and organizations in communities across the state, we can continue to share this valuable resource with those who will benefit the most.

If you are interested in becoming a program partner or advocate, please contact Programs@ sto.sc.gov.

To find out if you or a loved one is eligible to open a Palmetto ABLE account, visit PalmettoABLE. com.

Read more:

Celebrating ABLE to Save Month with our Partners - Columbia Star

Maryland to receive $1 million from DOJ to combat human trafficking – WTOP

Maryland will be awarded nearly $1 million in federal funds to assist victims of human trafficking with finding safe housing, employment and counseling services.

Maryland will be awarded nearly $1 million in federal funds to assist victims of human trafficking with finding safe housing, employment and counseling services.

The U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Maryland announced in a news release Tuesday a $999,990 award from the Justice Departments Office of Programs and the Office for Victims of Crime to provide stable housing options and employment opportunities for human trafficking survivors.

These new resources, announced today, expand on our efforts to offer those who have suffered the shelter and support they need to begin a new and better life. said U.S. Attorney Gen. William Barr.

These new resources, announced today, expand on our efforts to offer those who have suffered the shelter and support they need to begin a new and better life.

The White House on Tuesday announced more than $35 million in Justice Department grants to organizations that provide safe housing for victims of human trafficking.

The grants will be shared by 73 organizations in 33 states including Maryland to provide anywhere from six to 24 months of transitional or short-term housing assistance to survivors, including to pay rent, utilities or related expenses, such as a security deposit.

Marylands $1 million allotment will go the Salvation Army of Central Maryland and the University of Maryland SAFE Center for Human Trafficking Survivors, helping provide two years of short-term housing assistance for victims including with rent, security deposits or relocation costs.

The money will provide support for survivors seeking permanent housing, secure employment and occupational training or counseling.

This OVC grant will enable us to expand our services to also provide supportive transitional housing and independent housing assistance, as well as partnering with business and community leaders to build out initiatives focused on employment and financial independence, said Beth Luthye, who directs the Salvation Armys Baltimore-based anti-trafficking program.

Stable housing is foundational to human trafficking survivors ability to rebuild their lives, said Susan Esserman, director and founder of the University of Marylands SAFE Center. We feel fortunate to be partnering with the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services in a rapid rehousing model to address this urgent housing need.

Worldwide efforts to combat human and labor trafficking have struggled financially amid a surge in people vulnerable to exploitation during the coronavirus pandemic. American and Canadian non-governmental organizations said traffickers are increasingly taking advantage of heavier Internet usage during lockdowns to target young people.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Like WTOP on Facebook and follow @WTOP on Twitter to engage in conversation about this article and others.

Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

2020 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

Read the rest here:

Maryland to receive $1 million from DOJ to combat human trafficking - WTOP