Starkman: Beaumont Executive Paid $932000 by Hospital Vendor Whose Implants Were Pushed on Surgeons – Deadline Detroit

Posted on by

The writer, a Los Angeles freelancer, is a former Detroit News business reporter who blogs atStarkman Approved.

By Eric Starkman

Dr. Jeffrey S. Fischgrund, M.D., is a man of many titles. Hes chief of clinical care programs at Beaumont Health. Hes associate chief medical officer at Beaumonts flagship Royal Oak hospital. Hes chairman of orthopedic surgery at Beaumont Royal Oak. And hes professor and chairman of orthopedic surgery at the Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine.

Fischgrund obviously is a very big kahuna at Michigans biggest hospital network. With so many job responsibilities, one might expect he wouldnt have time to tend to a lucrative side business.

But he does.

Since 2013, Fischgrund has received $931,549.46 for consulting and other services from Stryker Corp., a Kalamazoo-based medical technologies firm. And wouldnt you know it, Beaumont in 2019 signed a contract with Stryker committing to use the companys medical implants for 75 percent of its orthopedic trauma procedures. In 2019 Fischgrunds payments from Stryker totaled $193,956.08, the most he received in a single year from the company.

Fischgrund in 2019 also received $156,000 in payments from Relievant Medsystems, a privately held company in Minneapolis that pioneered a minimally invasive procedure to treat lower back pain. The companys website features a product endorsement from Fischgrund, who served as principal investigator of its product trials.

Doctors serving as consultants to drug and medical device companies is common, particularly in orthopedics. But the moonlighting isnt without controversy. Thats why the government mandated that consulting fees paid to doctors be disclosed, so the public can see the financial relationships between manufacturers and hospitals and doctors. Fischgrunds Stryker and Relievant largesse is disclosed on cms.gov.

Beaumonts Stryker contract, which I understand would result in millions in rebates if Beaumont reaches the mandated 75-percent threshold, is controversial with the hospitals orthopedic trauma surgeons. Most of them prefer to use a rival product which they feel is far superior. Orthopods must get Fischgrunds permission to use non-Stryker products, and he asked that the requests be made on the phone, not in writing.

Fischgrund is a spine surgeon, a specialty using medical devices different than those used by orthopedic trauma surgeons. Stryker also has a comprehensive portfolio of spine products, which presumably Fischgrunds consulting work relates to.

Physicians as Consultants

Beaumont spokesman Mark Geary typically ignores my requests for comment or sends links to rival publications citing Beaumont statements. But when asked about Fischgrunds Stryker payments, Geary had something to say:

Almost all medical supply, device and pharmaceutical companies use physicians as consultants to help develop their products and advance their technology. This is particularly true in large academic medical centers.

These types of consulting arrangements allow physicians to provide valuable feedback about new technology and developments that could improve a patients experience. These arrangements are appropriate and legal as long as the consulting relationship does not result in an inducement to use a particular product. As you noted, there is quite a bit of transparency around these kinds of relationships that is publicly accessible.

Beaumont requires all physicians and key leaders to disclose any and all financial relationships or other potential conflicts they have with other organizations. These reports are reviewed by our compliance and research teams.

After issuing the statement, Geary sent a follow-up email saying the majority of approvals are done in writing, not orally.

Beaumonts orthopedic surgeons, ranked as the 11th best in the country in a closely followed U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals issue released last week, are not alone in being pressured to use products not of their choosing. Beaumont surgeons specializing on the intestinal system are required to use a stapler manufactured by a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary rather than one made by Medtronic, which many believe is far superior.

Beaumont about a year ago signed a contract with the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary to use its Ethicon stapler. Surgeons wanting to use the Medtronic stapler must get Fischgrunds approval.

According to his Beaumont profile, Fischgrund graduated from George Washington University medical school in 1987 and interned and did his residency at the University of Maryland. He did his fellowship in spine orthopedics at Beaumont.

Fischgrund succeeded Harry Herkowitz as chairman of Beaumonts orthopedic surgery in 2013 after Herkowitz died of a massive heart attack while waiting in line at the Starbucks in Beaumonts Royal Oak hospital. Underscoring how beloved and respected Herkowitz was among Beaumonts employees, the hospitals flags were flown at half-staff after his passing.

Exodus of Doctors

Beaumont, with 19 adult specialties ranked among the top 50 in the recent U.S. News Best Hospitals issue, is experiencing an acceleration of top surgeons and specialists leaving for other hospitals. The exodus began last fall when Marc Sakwa, chief of cardiac surgery at Royal Oak, and Jeffrey Altshuler, another prominent cardiac surgeon, resigned to join a hospital in Southern California.

In another major blow to Beaumonts highly lucrative and nationally ranked cardiology group, Michael Faulkner, chief of cardiac and critical care anesthesia at Royal Oak, is understood to have resigned. According to Faulkners Beaumont profile, he attended medical school at University of Michigan and did his residency and fellowship at Johns Hopkins, widely regarded as one of the most prestigious medical centers in the world.

Also departing is George Hanzel, who specializes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement, which involves replacing heart valves without open heart surgery. Hanzel is said to be joining Emory Healthcare in Atlanta.

Alan Koffron, Beaumont Royal Oaks chief of transplant, liver, and pancreatic surgery, and his spouse Julie, also a very accomplished liver and pancreatic surgeon, have let colleagues know theyve accepted positions elsewhere. More than 20 cardiology specialists at Beaumont Royal Oak and Troy are known to be actively negotiating to join rival Detroit-area hospitals.

Word of widespread dissatisfaction among Beaumonts elite specialists has spread nationally and leading hospitals are aggressively trying to poach them. Insiders say that Beaumont is in danger of losing internationally renowned plastic surgeon Kongkrit Chaiyasate, who was featured in an Detroit Free Press profile three years ago.

Beaumonts doctors, nurses, and other health care specialists are fed up with Beaumont CEO John Fox and COO Carolyn Wilson, who they insist are more focused on boosting profits at the expense of patient care. The final straw was Wilsons recent decision to give a contract to a low-cost outsourcing firm to oversee and manage anesthesiology services at most of Beaumonts hospitals, including Royal Oak and Troy. The contract is going to lead to the replacement of more than 100 anesthesiologists currently working at Beaumont hospitals, the majority of whom have advanced residency training.

Beaumont employees also are angered about Foxs plans to merge Beaumont into Advocate Aurora, a giant hospital network with dual headquarters in Illinois and Wisconsin. Few, if anyone, believes the merger will lead to improved patient care. None of Advocate Auroras more than 20 hospitals remotely have Beaumonts national prestige or are teaching centers.

The merger is expected to lead to a generous payday for Fox, who was earning close to $6 million in compensation annually prior to the pandemic.

A petition has been circulating among Beaumont doctors for weeks declaring no confidence in Fox and David Wood Jr., Beaumonts chief medical officer. Beaumonts board held an emergency meeting last Monday and doctors on Wednesday were asked to anonymously fill out a questionnaire about their confidence in management, their feelings about the proposed Advocate Aurora merger, and other questions.

Cardiology, surgical, and other specialty representatives are soon expected to make a presentation to the board. Its been communicated to the representatives the board has 100 percent confidence in Fox.

Indeed, despite Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel recently saying it would take her office six to nine months to closely scrutinize the Advocate Aurora merger, the union already seems likes its moving forward.

Advocate Aurora has posted an ad for a supervisor of surgical services in Detroit. The company doesnt have any publicly known facilities in the metro Detroit area. Fox has repeatedly maintained that Beaumont would retain its own name after it merges with Advocate Aurora.

Beaumont spokesman Geary said, "We are not working with Advocate Aurora in any capacity on these searches."

Reach Eric Starkman ateric@starkmanapproved.com.Beaumont employees and vendors are encouraged to reach out, with confidentiality assured.

Columns by this writer:

Read the rest here:

Starkman: Beaumont Executive Paid $932000 by Hospital Vendor Whose Implants Were Pushed on Surgeons - Deadline Detroit

Students need to be tested every 2-3 days for colleges to safely reopen – Yale News

Posted on by

To safely reopen college campuses this fall, students need to be screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection every two or three days, finds a new study led by the Yale School of Public Health.

The research, published today inJAMA Open Network,comes asuniversities across the United States are grappling with whether and how to reopen for the fall 2020 semester. Residential campuses with their communal living and dining spaces, crowded classrooms, and populations of young adults eager to socialize pose a particular challenge. For many U.S. colleges, COVID-19 represents an existential dilemma: Either they open their doors to students in September or they face severe financial consequences.

Investigators led by Professor A. David Paltiel used epidemic modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis to assemble data on SARS-CoV-2 screening performance including frequency, diagnostic accuracy, turnaround time, and cost to design a monitoring program that would minimize cumulative infections and reduce strain on colleges isolation and quarantine capacities at a justifiable cost. With this new testing program, researchers found, most colleges would be able to prevent significant outbreaks of the disease.

It is possible to reopen U.S. residential colleges safely in the fall, said Paltiel, but it will require high-cadence screening in addition to strict adherence to masking, social distancing, and other preventive practices.

Researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital and the Harvard Medical School co-authored the study.

Two findings surprised the investigators. First, it is possible to screen too frequently. Too much screening overwhelms isolation facilities with false positive results, generating unnecessary expenditures, fueling anxiety, and undermining confidence in the ability of the university to keep its students safe, said senior study author Rochelle P. Walensky, chief of the Massachusetts General Hospitals Division of Infectious Diseases and professor at Harvard Medical School.

Second, the frequency of screening is much more important than the accuracy of the test. Testing every two days, even with a low-quality test (e.g., one the has a 70% chance of correctly detecting the presence of infection and a 98% chance of correctly detecting the absence of infection) will avert more infections than weekly testing with a higher-quality alternative (e.g., one that has a 90% chance of correctly detecting the presence of infection and a 99.8% chance of correctly detecting the absence of infection).

Due to the limitations on regulating student behavior on campus, it will not be sufficient for colleges to simply monitor students for the symptoms of COVID-19 and use signs of illness to trigger isolation and contact tracing, the researchers said.

You cannot move swiftly enough to contain an outbreak if you wait until you see symptoms before you respond, said co-author Amy Zheng of Harvard Medical School. This virus is too readily transmitted by highly infectious, asymptomatic, silent spreaders, especially if there might be sporadic parties that lead to outbreaks.

The researchers acknowledge thatthe findings of their study set a high bar logistically, financially, and behaviorally that may be beyond the capacity of many universities and the students in their care. Paltiel concedes that the analysis recommended protocolsmay not, in fact, befeasible. But, he adds, the adverse consequences of an outbreak will be disproportionately visited upon the non-student members of a college community its staff, faculty, and the more vulnerable members of the surrounding community.

Any school that cannot meet these minimum screening standards or maintain uncompromising control over good prevention practices has to ask itself if it has any business reopening, Paltiel said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholars Award.

More here:

Students need to be tested every 2-3 days for colleges to safely reopen - Yale News

Taking Medicine and Tech to the Next Level: Ranney on New Brown-Lifespan Center for Digital Health – GoLocalProv

Posted on by

Friday, July 31, 2020

GoLocalProv News Team

View Larger +

Dr. Megan Ranney

"We are excited to announce the launch of the brand new Brown-Lifespan Center for Digital Health. This center represents a deep and innovative collaboration between our major university Brown and major academic medical center of Lifespan. Were excited to take digital health innovation to the next level here in Rhode Island," said Ranney, who is a regular guest on CNN as an expert on the response to the coronavirus.

"Now, more than ever, I think all of us know how important technology is to our life and so thinking about new ways that we can use this virtual world to help us stay healthy is just so important," she said.

STAY AHEAD:SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL'S FREE DAILY EMAIL HERE

Collaboration as Key"We have a number of projects and services already in development and a number more under the planning stage," Ranney told GoLocal. "Right now, were working on things ranging from working with companies that are doing predictive analytics to decide if you actually have COVID symptoms or not; were working on projects with social media to try and identify when teens are in distress and need some extra help."

"We have projects working with telehealth in my own department Brown Emergency Medicine," she said. "We recently launched a new telecare initiative to try to extend access to care to Rhode Islanders so that they dont have to come into the emergency department for that initial evaluation."

"We have projects using wearables Fitbits and Apple watches to try and identify folks at risk of falls, to try to deliver in the moment interventions to help people be healthier. The idea is to get ideas that come from the community, from our patients, from our insurers, from the folks who are trying to deal with this new world and use the best science that Brown and Lifespan have to offer, to create products that really work and are enjoyable, so that we can maintain a connection to each other in the midst of COVID," said Ranney.

"There are so many exciting levels that we can expand to so the first step is getting all of us on zoom or on the phone and comfortable for both the doctors and the patients with doing these visits virtually," said Ranney. "The next step is remote monitoring, so ways for us to keep track of you at home and ways for us to keep track of you at home and ways for us to check in to do again check-ins through an Apple watch or through an app to see how you're doing to see if you need some extra care."

"There's some work going on at Lifespan right now with doing telehealth for hospice and for palliative care which especially in the midst of COVID-19 is just so critical because we don't want to expose vulnerable patients to folks coming into their home if we don't have to so there's a lot of exciting directions it can go in," said Ranney. "Again to me the best part of it is going to be when we get all these different modalities to work together -- when we use social media, when we use our Apple watches and our smartphones and when we use the best of video and telehealth into one seamless product that can help us to extend our workforce and keep people safe and keep people connected."

Equity at Center"Equity is a key pillar of our new center and has been from my work for over a decade," said Ranney. "It's one of the reasons that actually a lot of our research looks at how we can use text messaging to improve and change and support healthy behavior because we know that 99 percent of Rhode Islanders that have a phone use text messaging."

"We also know from surveys of our patients that most everyone in Rhode Island has a smartphone, but not everyone is linked up to cell service -- but most of us have a smartphone that we use on wi-fi when we go to McDonald's or to Dunkin' or in normal times to the local library," said Ranney.

"So using that smartphone can be a way to handle that digital divide and make health products available to people who may have other kind of economic challenges," she added. "It's also why it's important for us to work with the community part of our work at the Center for Digital Health is setting up a community advisory board to make sure that health equity is baked into every product that we developed because this is useless if it's only for people on the East Side right or only folks that live in East Greenwich -- we need it to be applicable to all of our citizens whether they live in Pawtucket, in Warren, in Coventry right?

Many of my collaborators actually work across the world so some of our folks at the center for digital health are doing work in Rwanda and Bangladeshand other countries with even lower connectivity than we have here in Rhode Island." The Center has already built partnerships with the New England Medical Innovation Center, Ada Health, and Mosio to name a few.

"So that is a big part of our consideration of how do we make things that are cheap and accessible and that don't ask folks who are already living in a time of economic uncertainty to have to extend themselves further we want to make it easy for people to stay healthy," said Ranney.

Innovation in Rhode Island"I have to say that the mere creation and support of the Center for Digital Health by Brown and Lifespan is in and of itself innovative and nimble right? The organizations have not traditionally worked together and so this shows the path towards a new academic medical center and towards a new way of working," said Ranney.

"The other part is is that because we do sit in between the two organizations, one of the things that we're working on is creating 'shark tank' type seed funding sources, so that we can quickly fund and get off the ground those MVPs, those minimum viable products, that can be proof of concept that can then be launched into either larger grants or into commercial entities in a way that cuts through red tape," said Ranney.

"We can provide the expertise to allow that testing and development to happen and then through working with Brown's technology innovation office, through working with the Nelson Center for Entrepreneurship, and by working with our local community -- Rhode Island Bio, Rhode Island Commerce, that we can use the best and brightest of science and healthcare and launch it quickly out into the world and that's the whole idea of the center."

Learn more HERE

Read the original:

Taking Medicine and Tech to the Next Level: Ranney on New Brown-Lifespan Center for Digital Health - GoLocalProv

Brexit, Australian style: will leaving the EU breathe new life into an old friendship? – The Conversation UK

Posted on by

This piece is republished with permission from GriffithReview69: The European Exchange, edited by Ashley Hay and Natasha Cica, and published in partnership with the Australian National University

When Boris Johnson unveiled his governments new points-based immigration system in February 2020, designed to deliver Brexit by shifting Britains migrant intake away from a reliance on cheap labour from Europe, the spin cycle was at full tilt. This was no raising of the drawbridge, but a signal that the UK is open and welcoming to the top talent from across the world inspired by the shining example of Australia.

Throughout the 2019 election campaign, Johnson had relentlessly touted an Australian-style points-based system in order to take back control of Britains borders. Though criticised by his own advisers for signalling different things to different people, the Australian-style tag stuck.

Capitalising on the encouraging voter response, Johnson took the Australian connection a step further within days of getting Brexit done on January 31. In a major address to business leaders, the prime minister went out of his way to dispel outmoded conceptions of Britains future options outside the European Union. The choice is emphatically not deal or no deal, he insisted. The question is whether we agree a trading relationship with the EU comparable to Canadas or more like Australias. In either case, I have no doubt that Britain will prosper.

This instantly had pundits scrambling for their international trade-deal manuals. Although Canadas free-trade agreement with the European Union has long figured as one of several possible alternatives for Britain, at no point during the interminable Brexit negotiations had an Australian model ever been tabled. There is a simple reason for that, of course Australia doesnt have a formal trade agreement with the EU.

As it happens, Australias trading history with the European Union is one of decades of frustration, recrimination and sheer hard slog in the face of Europes infamous protectionist barriers. Although the situation has improved in the more liberal trading climate of recent years, Australia is hardly the place to turn for a model of frictionless borders and free-market access. But that was immaterial to Johnson, who calculated that an Australian-style deal sounded less calamitous than no deal at all. By a deft turning of the Antipodean dial, he sought to neutralise the deal or no deal debate that had plagued the nation for years. Somehow, the mere mention of Australia worked as an analgesic. It cast the hardest conceivable Brexit in a safer, more familiar guise.

To understand how this was even remotely plausible, considerMatesong the Australian Tourism Commissions recent AU$15 million campaign featuring Kylie Minogue as a seductive siren, beckoning Brexit fatigued Britons with a breezy ironic melody. Launched on British television screens on Christmas Day 2019 immediately before the Queens speech the advert promoted Australia as the natural antidote to a tough and confusing year of negotiating tricky trade deals. Despite their battle with the EU, the audience were reassured, they could always rely on Australias instinctively sunny disposition:

But all of Australia loves you

And well never judge you

You just need some space.

As though drawing on Johnsons own market research, the song chimed with the spirit of a beleaguered people craving unconditional friendship abroad:

When you need an end to what ails ya

Call on your friends in Australia

Glorious United Kingdom

Lean on your wing-men and women.

Far more than just a welcome getaway, Australia was portrayed as a pal to rely on, a shoulder to cry on because helping a mate, is a national trait.

And not just any old mate. The implication throughout was that Australia owed a special duty of care to its British sisters and brothers.

For all the evident lightheartedness, there was serious intent in the campaigns core pledge: Well put you right. Like Brexit itself, the ad nurtured the fantasy that no matter the adversity, the Brits could always call on their besties across the ocean.

It is unlikely that the majority of Australians actually feel that way about Britain today but thats beside the point. The campaign was made for Britain, tapping into how the Brexit-voting public would like to think Australians feel about the mother countrys peril at the hands of obdurate Europeans.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison (himself a former senior tourism executive) gave further encouragement with a suitably fawning tweet congratulating Johnson on his December 12 electoral victory. Lookingforward to the stability this brings and a new deal for Oz with the UK. Say gday to the quiet Britons for us.

Morrison left no room for doubt that Australia and Britain were on the same side when it came to Brexit.

One of his predecessors, Tony Abbott, seemed even more mate-struck. In one of his scribblings for the Brexit-worshipping Daily Telegraph, he heralded the imminent restoration of the unrestricted commerce that we enjoyed for 150 years as a historic vindication of Australias deepest loyalties. It was, Abbott declared, the best 2019 Christmas present either of us could have.

Really? There is surely no rational, self-interested economic argument for Australia to champion Brexit from the sidelines, not least at a time when the prospects for an AustraliaEuropean Union trade agreement have never been better. Britain has remained a key market for certain sectors such as the wine industry, but its overall importance to the Australian economy has become increasingly marginal (as its thirteenth-largest trading partner, wedged between Thailand and Vietnam). Trade with the remaining 27 European Union members combined has outgunned Britain by three to one, and a significant portion of Australias exports to Britain have been destined ultimately for European consumers.

Where Britain has remained crucial to Australia is as a colossal source of investment capital, but this also contains considerable risks should Brexit-related volatility rebound sharply on British financial markets.

That was essentially the view of the Australian government under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull at the time of the Brexit referendum in 2016.

Perceiving that the disruptive effects on the global economy could only be to Australias detriment, no official encouragement was given to the idea whatsoever. The referendum itself received only low to medium-level media coverage in Australia, a far cry from the drama of the 1960s and 1970s when the tortuous path of British entry into the Common Market (as it was then known) was front-page copy for a country still heavily reliant on the British market to sustain a wide range of key primary-producing sectors, from wheat to beef, dairy goods, sugar, apples and pears.

In the intervening 47 years, Australians have long since recovered from the shock of Britains decision to turn its back on traditional Commonwealth suppliers for the benefits of an exclusive new preferential trading zone. There was no matesong sung when Australias Deputy Prime Minister Doug Anthony returned empty handed from London in 1971 in a last-ditch bid to salvage a portion of the British market for Australian producers. It was the cold, clinical terms of separation that enabled Australia to embark on a thorough process of self-examination, contemplating a future without Britain.

How, then, to make sense of the recent stirring of such obviously outworn affinities? Johnsons predilection for Australian-style is perhaps not quite so recent nor solely focus-group driven. During a visit to the Melbourne Writers Festival in 2013, he latched on to the story of an Australian teacher forced out of Britain when her work permit expired. This disgraceful, disgusting, indefensible treatment of hard-working Australians, he ventured, was the infamous consequence of entering the EU in 1973. It was a decision that amounted to the betrayal of a people who were much more intimately cognate with Britain.

Even then, it was a view better attuned to EU enmities in Britain than any lingering resentment in Australia. Some 25 years ago, I started work on what would become Australia and the British Embrace a history of Britains purported sellout of Australia at its point of entry into the new Europe; the very burden of Johnsons beef. It was a time when Australias economy and political culture had been so profoundly reoriented towards the Asia-Pacific region that Europe generally and certainly any residual acrimony over Britains place in Europe had entirely receded from view. I doubt I would have come across the subject at all had I not made the unfashionable choice to study European history and languages.

It was while working in Europe for a Brussels-backed project on the history of European integration that I first stumbled onto the Australian side of the story of Britains courtship of the Common Market. It had never featured in my school or university curriculum and I had no recollection of anyone ever mentioning the existential dread that had conditioned Australias official response to Britains early European overtures. But in British and European archives, the raw feeling and dogged recidivism of Prime Minister Robert Menziess government in coming to terms with Britains choice was unmistakable.

It was not just that entire rural communities, from fruit growers to dairy farmers to sugar producers, faced financial ruin from the loss of imperial preferences in the British market. It was a question of loyalty, of an Australia devoted to the civic rites and rituals of being British, suddenly and unceremoniously edged from the imperial nest (in the words of one contemporary newspaper). Cartoonists had a field day depicting Britain variously as the neglectful mother, the wayward spouse, the fairweather friend, while whispers of ingratitude for wartime sacrifices were frequently insinuated.

There was every reason why Australian primary producers would want to fend off an urgent threat to their livelihood, but what seemed extraordinary was the emotional leverage they were able to muster. Commerce was inseparable from matters of fealty, of implicit codes of conduct and unwritten obligations that any self-respecting British government was duty-bound to honour.

What intrigued me about the material was its sheer remoteness from the Australia of the 1990s. Within a mere matter of decades, the assumptions, sentiments and everyday common sense of Australias organic ties to Britain had seemingly fallen by the wayside.

In Britain, too, although euroscepticism was a familiar feature of the political landscape in the post-Thatcher era, it no longer drew on the language and imagery of kith and kin overseas to uphold its moral claims. Talk of a momentous choice between Commonwealth and Common Market had all but disappeared in the wake of the first referendum in 1975. Britains place in Europe per se was no longer the bone of contention; it was more a question of how much Europe there should be, and the scope of its permissible intrusions into British national life.

The events of the past four years have turned all this on its head, although it would be a mistake to make too much of Britains renewed love for the Commonwealth. Significantly, Johnsons signature post-Brexit vision of building a Global Britain was only coined three weeks after his Brexit triumph of June 2016. He went on to road-test it several times in the autumn of that year before deeming it a serviceable sales pitch, furnishing a shell-shocked Conservative government with some semblance of a way forward. It never formed a part of the Brexit package that had been sold to the electorate in the spring of 2016. Indeed, the Leave campaign deliberately shied away from global messaging out of fear of alienating core constituencies that wished to completely rid the country of pernicious outside influences.

It therefore cannot be assumed that voters were consciously swayed by dreams of restoring links with the old white British world.

Nor has Global Britain been developed beyond a fleeting soundbite. That has fuelled suspicion that it is merely an exercise in cynical euphemism to conjure older, discredited enthusiasms. The British parliaments Foreign Affairs Committee took the extraordinary step in 2017 of launching an official inquiry into the term itself concluding that for Global Britain to be more than a worthy aspiration, the slogan must be backed by substance. But this missed the point entirely. For a government that thrives on ambiguity, the very vagueness of Global Britain its capacity to take in everywhere and nowhere in a single gesture is its principal asset. Unsurprisingly, Johnson made zero effort to rail in the uncertainty about its ambivalent historical resonances.

Similarly, Johnsons intimately cognate feel for Australia is nowhere near as instinctive as he has imagined. His antipodean affinities, like so many of his enthusiasms, resemble a superficial skimming of the semantic surface. He avails himself of easy cross-cultural references the Ashes, the rugger, the cursory likeness with the Morrison government though seemingly without conviction. He recently pledged to bring the two countries closer together than ever before while waving a packet of Arnotts Tim Tams, trivialising the very object of his purported affections. Like Global Britain, his overtures are more made up than real, grasping at shards of a shared inheritance rather than seriously attempting to reboot the Commonwealth.

Such outward displays of an instinctive rapport can also be extraordinarily insensitive. At the height of Australias bushfire carnage in early January, popular British broadcaster Jeremy Clarkson devoted his column in The Sun to the notion that Australia is Gods laboratory and people were not actually meant to live there. For all his signature effrontery, he concluded on a note of fraternal outreach: So if youre reading this down there, please come home. Youll like it. It never stops raining. And we are better at sport.

Equally, Abbotts presumption in rejoicing for Britain on behalf of all Australians was as much an outlet for his own pent up frustrations from the political wilderness. Rest assured that Britains friends are cheering you on as you reclaim your destiny as a sovereign nation, he urged in a follow-up splash in the Telegraph, casting Australia yet again as the spear-carrying mate-in-chief.

No doubt there is much goodwill towards Britain in Australia, but it is virtually certain that this doesnt translate into blind, broad-based support for a policy that has brought so much division in Britain itself.

All of which suggests that there was something decidedly forced and inauthentic about the rekindled enthusiasms of Matesong. It was evidently (and exclusively) the exigencies of Brexit that necessitated Johnsons seaward tack to Global Britain. Why his Australian sponsors elected to sail along was less obvious. Partly it had to do with the polarisations of the culture wars, where Brexit has become tenuously aligned with a raft of right-wing causes from climate change denial to draconian border laws to the all-out assault on political correctness.

When US President Donald Trump can feel perfectly at home in the company of Mr Brexit himself, Nigel Farage, tweeting gratuitous denigrations of the European Union, there is every reason to suspect that more is at stake than British parliamentary sovereignty. Boosting Brexit has drawn on a deeper well of discontents, a new front in the rear-guard defence of the old order, with an Australian contingent at the ready to do their bit.

But when all is said and done, it is hard to deny that Australia still harbours something of the old, Menziean allegiance to the UK something that I had not expected to resurface.

The temptation to indulge in elaborate theories about time looping backwards needs to be resisted, however. The Brexit debate has furnished a profusion of speculation about the Empire striking back. But although the past seems ubiquitous in the putative striving for Global Britain or a revitalised Anglosphere, blaming history-in-reverse can also be a distraction from the political and commercial imperatives of the present.

I am reminded of the complexity and plurality of differing temporalities, as historian Bill Schwarz terms it. This is the distinction between the course of history itself and the imprint it leaves on our imaginations, allowing the reveries of the past to be reactivated in the present, apparently immune to the fact that the historical conditions that originally gave them life had come to an end. It is as apt a description as I can find of the tortured imaginative twists that brought us Brexit, Australian-style.

It is not the past inhabiting the present but the other way around. Fragments of residual feeling harnessed to present-day impulses where their modalities their ways of seeing can be rendered serviceable. Not to be confused with the past, nor even a reliable facsimile, it is the repackaging of old emotional investments in ill-fitting garb.

These things, of course, are never static. In the past few months alone, the political agenda has been utterly transformed by the relentless onslaught of COVID-19. Though Johnson has insisted throughout that his Brexit timetable remains unchanged, there can be no denying that the all-dominant issue of the last four years has receded amid the mayhem of managing a global pandemic.

Yet upon his release from hospital after a near-fatal run in with the disease, the convalescent prime minister could not resist a subtle nod to Global Britain. In paying heartfelt tribute to the NHS staff who saved my life, he singled out two nurses the one Portuguese, the other from New Zealand who stood by his bedside during the critical hours when things could have gone either way. It was the latter Jenny from Invercargill who monopolised the imagination of the ensuing media frenzy. Luis from Porto was relegated to the other nurse. It was a portrait in miniature of the skewed affections that pervade the politics of Brexit Britain. Had Jenny from Invercargill hailed from Inverell, New South Wales, she would equally have served Johnsons purpose.

See more here:

Brexit, Australian style: will leaving the EU breathe new life into an old friendship? - The Conversation UK

New report claims pro-Brexit academics are being ‘silenced’ because they have to ‘self-censor’ – The New European

Posted on by

PUBLISHED: 10:23 03 August 2020 | UPDATED: 10:23 03 August 2020

Adrian Zorzut

Radcliffe Camera, Oxford University; Carl Court/Getty Images

2016 Getty Images

A union has hit back at a report that claims academics are being silenced in their work over their pro-Brexit views.

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Become a Supporter

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only continue to grow with your support.

The report, by think tank Policy Exchange, suggested there is a structural discriminatory effect towards academics who identified as being on the right of politics.

Entitled Academic Freedom in the UK, the paper suggested that hostile or just uncomfortable attitudes signal to those subject to such discrimination that they should conceal their views and narrow their research questions to conform to prevailing norms, if they wish to progress and enjoy a positive workplace experience.

Researchers suggested pro-Leave professors were being forced to self-censor out of fear that sharing such views could hamper their career opportunities.

The challenge today is that a serious threat to academic freedom may now, in addition, arise from within universities.

This internal threat derives from the way that some in the university-both students and faculty members-relate to others on campus, being willing to penalise them on the basis of their perceived or actual political views, it warned.

But the report - based on 820 working or retired academics - found very little evidence of political discrimination.

Jo Grady, general secretary of University and College Union (UCU), called the reports findings a myth.

The idea that academic freedom is under threat is a myth, she said.

The main concern our members express is not with think tank-inspired bogeyman, but with the current governments wish to police what can and cannot be taught at university.

Others on Twitter agreed. One user wrote: We all know there are many right wing Brexiteers. We have a Tory government and we are out of Europe. Now things are going down the toilet, all of a sudden they dont have a voice? Please.

Garry said: They are not being forced to hide their views, theyre scared of debate and of being challenged to back up their views. If they can present their views with evidence and fact to back it up, maybe they wouldnt be so reticent to express them.

Andy King questioned the reports subjectivity: A scan through the Alumni page of the Think [tank] that brought this report show every MP they have or had on their books are all Conservative, including no other than Rishi Sunak. One assumes their reports will have a certain bias.

The Office for Students, a university regulator, is planning to issue guidance on how higher education institutions can meet principles relating to academic freedom and free speech in the autumn.

A Universities UK (UUK) spokesman said: Academic freedom and freedom of speech are critical to the success of UK higher education and universities take seriously their legal obligations on both.

Robustly protecting these characteristics in a constantly evolving world is of the utmost importance to universities.

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press with your support. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.

Continue reading here:

New report claims pro-Brexit academics are being 'silenced' because they have to 'self-censor' - The New European

Brexit: new residency cards will be sent direct to your home – The Connexion

Posted on by

Covid-19 delays

The site accessible via the Brexit option at tinyurl.com/vvey9z6 was due to open in July.Officials from the Interior Ministrys residency section told Connexion that concerns that prefectures would not have been able to cope with the additional demand had prompted the decision to delay the sites launch.

One said: We wanted to allow Britons who benefit from the deal to have residency cards as soon as possible though they wont be obligatory until July 1, 2021. During that time, Britons benefiting from the WA are not obliged to hold any residency card.Whats more, the government could decide to put it off a bit beyond that, perhaps to autumn 2021. On the other hand, there are people who are citizens of other third-country states, who must always have a valid residency card, whose cards were expiring during the confinement period."

"We gave them a six-month extension, but it meant that as soon as prefectures reopened, they had to deal with them urgently, as well as those whose cards were about to expire and who had not had an extension. Its going to take months to deal with them all and the prefectures would ...

See more here:

Brexit: new residency cards will be sent direct to your home - The Connexion

Where is Gibraltar heading to after Brexit? – Gibraltar Chronicle

Posted on by

By Robert VasquezDo the hawks perched in the GSLP-Liberal Government and party members still claim that there is nothing to fear about Brexit? If an agreement over Gibraltar is reached, there could be inroads made that will lead to an increased separation from the UK, and greater connection with the EU, and so with Spain. This distancing is beginning to be a visible consequence of Brexit that can be deduced from the little that is public about discussions over Gibraltar.

The recent meeting between Spanish Foreign Minister, Arancha Gonzlez Laya, and Chief Minister Fabian Picardo emphasises this conundrum that faces Gibraltar now. Additionally, we hear In the Spanish Parliament of a charm offensive voiced by socialist political parties, which is an additional danger.

The core Spanish position of all political parties in Parliament and the State position of Spain on Gibraltar does and has not changed: Spain claims the sovereignty of Gibraltar and does not and will not renounce that claim.

What the socialist Government of Spain is changing is the strategy that they consider will make achieving that objective more probable. A strategy that Spain has developed by reference to geographical location, past failures and external factors engaging wider international affairs that impact directly on Gibraltar, mainly the effect of Brexit.

Spain has already made small inroads into Gibraltars British sovereignty.

The UK has signed a Tax Treaty with Spain that governs tax issues concerning Gibraltar. That treaty gives Spain large elements of tax sovereignty over its nationals, companies and other entities residing or operating within Gibraltar.

The Gibraltar Protocol to the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement has several Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) attached. These cover citizens rights, the environment, police and customs and tobacco and other products.

The MoUs give Spanish input on each of these subjects, thus giving Spain a say on what happens in our (British) sovereign territory. The MoUs are said to expire on the 31st December 2020, but will this be so in practice?Well, the issue of citizens rights is amply covered in the Withdrawal Agreement and are effective beyond that date. The changes to the Gibraltar law governing tobacco prices are not said to expire on that date.

Further, in the real world, can matters covered in the Gibraltar Protocol and the MoUs actually come to an end on that date? Well, yes, it is possible, but what will be the effect of ending these, when they have been agreed as being acceptable to Gibraltar, time does not change that? International relations rarely work on the basis of stepping back, without such a change in position having repercussions.

Gonzlez Laya has said that her meeting with Picardo did not touch on issues concerning sovereignty, and that this is an issue exclusively between Spain and the UK. Further she emphasises that her meeting with Picardo only touched on the MoUs.

The reunion with Picardo was held in the context of a visit to the area to meet with and understand from Campo Mayors and some other local dignitaries what the issues faced by them at Brexit engaging Gibraltar might be. The question that we in Gibraltar should ask is, was our Chief Minister seen and treated by Gonzlez Laya in the same category as the others she met with?

The Partido Popular (PP) criticises that meeting by elevating it to a State occasion. It is, undoubtedly, a view which many will consider has argument and substance. Further it is an opinion, which, if correct, strengthens Gibraltar and the Chief Minister. The danger to Gibraltar, however, is highlighted by the arguments of Spains socialist parties.

Briefly these views are, that Spains claim to sovereignty is not renounced or undermined in any way, rather by increasing and emphasising Gibraltars dependence on Spain, showing friendship and improving the economic wellbeing of the Campo attitudes and opinions will change in Gibraltar over time. In that context, Gonzlez Layas meeting with Picardo, in the eyes of the current Spanish Government was a resoundingly positive step favourable to Spains sovereignty claim.

The PPs opinion is undermined and the views of the socialist parties are reinforced by reports in El Pais (29th July 2020) that Gibraltar is seeking to keep links with the EU after the Brexit transition period ends on the 31st December 2020. The harsh reality is that a post-Brexit solution is needed, by both Gibraltar and Spain, that will safeguard cross-frontier free movement of persons and goods beyond that date; much of Gibraltars economy and public finances are dependent on that.

The article suggests that the UK and Spain with Gibraltar are looking at various options. All of them, in some small way, separate us from the UK and bring us closer to and more dependent on the EU and so Spain; Spain being the EU interlocutor on matters involving Gibraltar.

The options, which are intended to retain ties between Gibraltar and the EU (and so keep us close to Spain), that seemingly are being looked at are, that Gibraltar joins either the EU customs union or the Schengen passport-free area.

This is not unusual for non-EU members. Monaco, for example, is a part of the customs union, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland are part of the single market and Schengen and Switzerland is part of Schengen. What is a mystery is, whether or what Spain may demand in return?

It is further reported that Spain made an offer on aspects of bilateral relations over Gibraltar, at a meeting in Malaga in June. The terms of this offer remain secret, beyond Spains desire to create a zone of shared prosperity in part reflecting its desire to protect cross-frontier workers and to achieve an attractive neighbouring territory.

All this is in the public domain for those who care to look. What is strange is the ominous silence from our Government, beyond mirroring Spains call for shared prosperity, by expressing its own desire to achieve prosperity for the area. Otherwise, not one peep of denial, just continuous reaffirmations of Gibraltar remaining British.

Wake up all political parties, especially the currently responsible GSLP-Liberal Government! See that Spain has put its sovereignty claim to one side without renouncing it. See that Spain has changed its strategy to achieve that sovereignty. What is the GSLP-Liberal Governments plan to counter that danger without destroying Gibraltars economy, or that of any party that might replace it in Government?

No one knows because they dont say, or is it because the Government does not have one, beyond Picardo having high-profile meetings with Spains Foreign Minister to attract media attention? These meetings are dangerous without a clear strategy. Well some advice to our Government: keep your electorate informed, because if you dont you may face a backlash when any arrangements become public.

Robert Vasquez is a barrister. He stood as an independent candidate at the last general election.

Read the original post:

Where is Gibraltar heading to after Brexit? - Gibraltar Chronicle

Embassy launches info drive for UK nationals in Estonia ahead of Brexit – ERR News

Posted on by

The move comes as part of a Europe-wide public information campaign launched by the U.K.'s embassies across the EU, and will cover need-to-know actions U.K. citizens resident in Estonia are required to take to maintain their full rights and access to services, including on Estonian residency, healthcare, drivers' licenses and ID cards.

Britain's ambassador to Estonia Theresa Bubbear said: "Protecting the rights of U.K. nationals is an absolute priority for us. This is why we have been providing advice and reassurance to U.K. nationals, to make sure they have all the information they need and certainty about their rights."

"Brits in Estonia should visit our 'Living in Guides', where they can find out about the steps they will need to take and get important information about residency, healthcare, passports and drivers' licenses in Estonia."

The U.K. Foreign Office's "Living In Guide" for Estonia is here.

The embassy says it will also step up its activities in the coming weeks, with more information to be provided on its Facebook page here.

Outreach to over a million Brits Europe-wide

The Foreign Office says its campaign targets more than one million U.K. nationals resident across Europe, with support and advice on steps to protect their rights after the transition period ends on December 31 2020, using social media and other channels, and offering assistance on residency or registration applications via a 3-million (3.3 million) support fund.

The campaign builds on initiatives the embassy in Tallinn has already held over the past couple of years, including "town hall" meetings and Q&A sessions with the ambassador, consular and foreign office officials, and personnel from relevant government ministries in Estonia.

The embassy reminds U.K. nationals that the onus is on them to secure their residency and other rights in Estonia or other EU member states, and ambassadors from across Europ have recorded a video address highlighting just that, here.

British Ambassadors from across Europe have recorded a video encouraging U.K. nationals to take action which can be found on the British Embassy in Tallinn's Facebook page.

Download the ERR News app for Android and iOS now and never miss an update!

Continued here:

Embassy launches info drive for UK nationals in Estonia ahead of Brexit - ERR News

Cardinals, COVID-19 could stop Cubs before they get to St. Louis – NBC Sports Chicago

Posted on by

At least the Cubs got to try out that new extra-inning rule. They even got five innings of scoreless baseball from their much-maligned bullpen before the weekend was done.

But where does the hottest-starting team in the National League go next?

Nobody could be sure Sunday as worsening COVID-19 news swirled around the Cardinals during the Cubs extra-inning victory over the Pirates.

Various reports suggested as many as four more Cardinals players and staff tested positive for the coronavirus Saturday night, in addition to the four confirmed cases from earlier in the week. That led to another round of testing Sunday to confirm the results of the potentially positive cases all playing out five days before the Cubs are scheduled to open a three-game series in St. Louis.

I would imagine that were probably not playing those games this weekend. But I cant fully speak to that, veteran pitcher Jon Lester said. Thats just my opinion. Maybe theres a way where we flip the schedule around where were playing somebody else. I think guys right now just want to keep playing.

It sucks that were dealing with this, but its the nature of the beast right now. The league Im sure will alter the plans going forward. If were in St. Louis on Friday, were in St. Louis on Friday. Well figure it out, and well try to beat the Cardinals and move on to the next day. But right now, as of today, I dont see that happening.

Click to download the MyTeams App for the latest Cubs news and analysis.

The Cardinals already have had four days of games postponed the second team to deal with an outbreak after the Marlins had 18 players test positive in the days following their opener in Philadelphia. The Marlins havent played in a week. Their outbreak prompted MLB to juggle the schedules of other teams impacted by the Marlins shutdown to allow them to keep playing during the week.

If the Cardinals news doesnt improve fast, it could mean a much tougherdecision for commissioner Rob Manfred, who in recent days had pledged to persist with the season, even if it meant teams would finish with different numbers of games played.

Cubs general manager Jed Hoyer said on Saturday his conversations with MLB and officials from other teams in recent days offered no sense of clarity on the viability of play during the first-week crisis even as MLB mandated safety compliance officers for each team and stressed greater adherence to protocols.

I dont think theres any consensus, Hoyer said. Our experience so far has been positive, and based on what I have viewed this is absolutely survivable. But our experience hasnt been the rule.

RELATED:Why no Cubs have expressed intent to opt out amid MLB COVID-19 outbreaks

The Cubs are the only team in the league that hasnt had a player test positive since intake testing began more than a month ago though star third baseman Kris Bryant has self-quarantined since reporting a stomachache to team officials Saturday. He has continued to test negative, was said to feel better Sunday, and might be cleared to play Monday or Tuesday depending on the results and timing of two more tests.

Whether the 7-2 Cubs and everyone else have a season to keep playing by the time he were to return much less a Cubs-Cardinals series to play Friday remains in flux.

Depending on how widespread the Cardinals outbreak becomes, the Cubs might already have faced a higher risk series in their sweep of the Pirates who faced the Cardinals five days before taking the field at Wrigley.

Those are the kinds of things you start thinking about during this, Hoyer said. Youd be crazy not to start thinking about the number of days and making sure that [the Cardinals] outbreak is under control. I think you have a right to have those concerns and ask those questions.

Thats probably the area that Im focused on right now, is that as they test, the positives have to stop before we can really have a sense of what were dealing with.

Until then, the team that has looked impressive against the Brewers, Reds and Pirates and even better in containing the virus within its bubble could be on the brink of having all its best laid plans and early performance wiped out by teams outside their bubble and factors beyond their control.

You dont want to see something go down just because of, I guess, a couple teams, said Kyle Schwarber, who drove in his sixth run Sunday, threw out a runner at the plate in the 10th and has an .851 OPS so far. Hopefully, this is something quick [with the Cards]. Hopefully, theres able to be a fix and theyre able to keep the season going.

It would be a disappointment just because you see the group in here, what weve been doing, he added. Weve been responsible in everything that were trying to do because we know were part of something greater here.

Thats about doing their part to make sure a two-month season and playoffs can be completed during a global pandemic as much as it is about doing what they can to still be one of the teams playing at that point.

The Cubs say all they can do now is show up Monday for their game against the Royals until or unless they hear otherwise.

You cant worry about Team X testing positive three or four or 10, 11 times, Lester said. We have to worry about whats in front of us.

And if the commissioner comes and says were done, then were done. And if he says play on, then we play on.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE CUBS TALK PODCAST FOR FREE.

Read more:

Cardinals, COVID-19 could stop Cubs before they get to St. Louis - NBC Sports Chicago

3 Things Covid-19 Will End In Higher Ed – Forbes

Posted on by

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA - JULY 22: A cyclist rides by a sign in front of the U.C. Berkeley campus on ... [+] July 22, 2020 in Berkeley, California. U.C. Berkeley announced plans on Tuesday to move to online education for the start of the school's fall semester due to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

College Covid questions are about to be answered.

We will know in just a few weeks whether college enrollments for the fall tanked, whether schools will brave an in-person teaching model, a blend or go entirely online, whether schools can enforce social distance and mask regimens, and much more. Right now, everyone is speculating.

Back in June, Id already speculated about five things that the Covid-19 ordeal will etch on college for the long term. It has been a challenge to think of five things this Covid-19 odyssey has knocked into the dustbin, college-wise. I only came up with three.

E-mail

Using e-mail as a primary communication tool is so 2010. Its all text and push notifications now. And nothing made that more apparent than the rapid disbursement of students from campus in the Spring. Colleges found out that the best way, the only way to keep their communities informed was through their apps.

The University of North Carolina, Greensboro, which won an international award for Best Overall App among colleges, is pretty clear about what is happening.

We have been watching trends with Generation Z and one of the key observations is that they are not using email as much as previous groups, said Craig Biles, University Digital Design and Mobile Communications Developer at UNCG. Even when they do, we find they are hesitant to mingle their personal email with their school email. Push notifications give us a way to communicate that better fits their lifestyle and preferences.

It's not that e-mail will disappear; it may just shift to a secondary medium for current and upcoming college students. And this Spring, having to communicate with urgency, colleges saw a preview of what may be the new normal.

Testing Centers

Many, probably even most teachers dont give tests and exams in class anymore. Gone are the days when professors would pass around testing books or scrawl exam questions on the whiteboard and watch student hunch over and scribble. Instead, many colleges built testing centers where students could go on their own schedule and take the exam under the watchful eye of a center monitor. It made sense, more schedule flexibility, less professor time.

But due to Covid-19, colleges could not do anything in person. And many had their first large scale engagements with online testing. And, as that technology proves indispensable, putting students in another face-to-face environment to take a supervised test will seem both unnecessary and an unnecessary risk. Remote, online exam proctoring is not cheap, but neither was the old way. Upkeep of physical space and the cost of paying in-person monitors, was not nothing. Accordingly, its a cost many colleges may be happy to swap out. With colleges across the world evaluating their physical spaces for social distance, a floor and ceiling testing center may be among the first to go.

Full Tuition for Online Programs

The summary is that most students were unsatisfied with online education when they were forced into it this Spring. There were lawsuits. Nearly all (93%) said online tuition should cost less than in-person tuition. Some colleges have given in, lowering the tuition sticker price of online programs.

Its difficult to overstate what a big deal that may turn out to be.

Thats because, from the dawn of online education, schools, and the businesses that make online programs possible, have said that there is no difference between studying online or on campus. They dug in on charging the same price for each because, they insisted they were the same. And they did not want students or the public or employers to equate online with a cheap, second-rate alternative.

But now that the dam has broken, now that some schools have reduced the price of their online programs, it will be a steep challenge to go back. Consider, for example, this opening sentence in the Philadelphia Inquirer from July 28, Some colleges in the region are starting to acknowledge that taking classes online isnt quite the same as being on campus and theyre cutting tuition because of it.

That linkage will be a difficult genie to put back, especially since its seen as an acknowledgement, a confirmation of what we already knew. And as more and more colleges fold on this point, the genie will only get bigger, making it implausible that schools will be able to sell their online programs as equal to their in person ones in the future. Or charge accordingly.

Read the rest here:

3 Things Covid-19 Will End In Higher Ed - Forbes

2 deaths, 58 new cases of COVID-19 reported in ND for August 1; statewide 6,660 – KX NEWS

Posted on by

The North Dakota Department of Health Sunday morning has confirmed 58 new cases of COVID-19 in the state during testing August 1, bringing the statewide total to 6,660.

Of the new cases, 17 were in Burleigh County and 4 were in Morton County. Williams County had 1 and Ward County had 1. Stark County logged 5 new cases.

The two deaths reported for August 1, were a woman in her 50s from Burleigh County and a man in his 70s from Grand Forks County. Both had underlying health conditions.

A total of 105 people have died with COVID-19 so far in North Dakota.

Of those, 91 are directly attributable to COVID-19 according to official death records. Another 10 deaths are where COVID-19 is not the primary cause of death. Two death records are pending.

The health department reports 5,477 people are considered recovered from the 6,660 positive cases, an increase of 81 people from July 31.

This means there are actually 1,078 active COVID-19 cases in the state as of August 1.

According to state health department numbers (which have been revised several times for specific dates), the statewide active cases first peaked on May 21 at 672 active cases, then began falling until they hit a low of 213 on June 22.

After that, the statewide active cases have once again been trending upward.

According to the numbers, 82 percent of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 in North Dakota to date have recovered from the virus.

The number of people reported recovered from COVID-19 on August 1 (81) is higher than the number of new COVID-19 cases reported that day (58).

50 people are currently hospitalized due to COVID-19 as of August 1. A total of 377 hospitalizations have been reported since data tracking began.

COVID-19 cases have been reported in all 53 of North Dakotas counties.

Other county numbers are availablehere.

A total of 157,023 unique individual tests have been conducted to date, with 150,363 coming back negative for COVID-19. The daily positivity rate for August 1 is 1.5%.

While COVID-19 is seen as a virus that mostly impacts older people, in North Dakota, 59 percent of those testing positive for the virus are under 40.

Those in the 20 to 29 year age range have the most positive cases among those tested to date.

The health department is releasing test results daily around 11:00 a.m. The results cover all testing performed the previous day.

You can read more on the daily statistics as well as other COVID-19 information and resources at the North Dakota Department of Health websitehere.

Here is the original post:

2 deaths, 58 new cases of COVID-19 reported in ND for August 1; statewide 6,660 - KX NEWS

One day in the life of COVID-19 across L.A. shows wrenching inequities – Los Angeles Times

Posted on by

Faro Tabaja, owner of Waves Barbershop & Boutique in Manhattan Beach, gives a haircut to Gene Geiser. Tabaja moved the barbers chair into the entry way to create a safer environment to cut hair due to the coronavirus outbreak.

(Mel Melcon/Los Angeles Times)

John Settles had just finished getting his hair cut. The Rancho Palos Verdes resident stepped out of the barbers chair and turned to check out the results. In the window of a nearby BMW.

Because the mirror at Waves Barbershop & Boutique is inside the tiny ocean view shop on Rosecrans Avenue. And the haircuts happen more or less outside, now that California is on its second COVID-19 shutdown and the only legal salon is an al fresco one.

Its hard to have a more Southern California experience than an open-air grooming session in tony Manhattan Beach, even with a late-season gloom and a slightly chilly ocean breeze.

VIDEO |

Cutting hair outside is the only way to go

That didnt stop Faro Tabaja, Waves owner, from flinging open the shops French doors first thing in the morning, dragging the shiny barbers chair to the very edge of the shop and placing it so the footrest and his clients feet stuck out of the storefront and over the sidewalk.

Men awaiting a much-needed trim cooled their heels in a pair of office chairs Tabaja had positioned across the sidewalk, hard by the parking meters. A surfer wetsuit peeled to his waist, board tucked under his arm headed to his car. A woman with pink hair strolled by with a pair of French bulldogs.

I have a mask on, Tabaja said as he snipped away at a clients salt-and-pepper locks. He has a mask on. Its a different life.

Two miles east on Rosecrans, in the Manhattan Marketplace strip mall, Posh Nails also was doing a brisk outdoor business. The seven sidewalk stations were full. Manicurists in full protective gear bent over clients hands, filing nails, scraping cuticles, brushing on polish.

RonAnn Myers of Hawthorne receives a pedicure from Hue Thi Nguyen, left, and a manicure from Tina Nguyen (no relation) right, in front of Posh Nails in Manhattan Beach.

(Mel Melcon/Los Angeles Times)

Women soaked their feet, pre-pedicure, in plastic-lined tubs. An armored car rumbled by, followed by a UPS truck. Where the outdoor nail salon ended, a half dozen shoppers lined up (six feet apart, of course) waiting to get into Helens Cycles.

VIDEO |

Nail salon opens for business outdoors

Jan and Hillary Rosenfeld were out for a late afternoon manicure, a little mother-daughter bonding before Hillary leaves for the University of Wisconsin. Jan has waited out the pandemic in her Manhattan Beach home, cooking, phoning distant relatives, picking up a new hobby or two.

But on this afternoon, she was really, really happy to be outside getting her nails done.

Its nice to be able to pamper yourself, she said, adjusting her slipping face mask. It feels like a little bit of normalcy.

Maria La Ganga

Excerpt from:

One day in the life of COVID-19 across L.A. shows wrenching inequities - Los Angeles Times

Thousands gather in Berlin to protest against Covid-19 restrictions – CNN

Posted on by

A march earlier Saturday that was criticized by police for not adhering to rules on social distancing and face masks was halted by organizers.

The march, which was named by organizers as "Day of Freedom -- The End of the Pandemic," included anti-vaccine groups and some far-right and neo-Nazi organizations. On livestreams of the event, some protesters could be heard yelling, "We are the second wave."

Current coronavirus guidelines in Germany stipulate that people must maintain a distance of 1.5 meters, or about 5 feet. Where that is not possible, face masks must be worn. Berlin police said on Twitter that most of the protesters were not adhering to social distancing rules or wearing masks.

"Our colleagues are using loud speakers to urge the adherence to the rules. We are also documenting non-compliance for possible later prosecution," Berlin police tweeted, adding that a criminal complaint was filed against one of the march's organizers for not adhering to hygiene rules.

Police warned the roughly 17,000 protesters who participated in the march they would only be allowed to participate in the demonstration if they wore face coverings and maintained social distance.

A livestream from the protest showed almost no one wearing a face mask, although the master of ceremonies told the crowd from the stage to maintain physical distance so as not to give the authorities "a pretext" for breaking up the event.

The data was published Saturday morning but reflects Friday's numbers. The last time Germany recorded a higher number of new coronavirus cases was in May.

The German government has been warning about a new spike in coronavirus cases after the pandemic had largely been brought under control.

The institute says lax enforcement of social distancing and hygiene rules as well as travelers returning from abroad are to blame for the steep rise in cases.

"Especially since it is not large 'hot spots' but smaller clusters of infections. The main risks need to clearly be named so that a more targeted prevention becomes possible," Altmaier wrote.

Starting Saturday, all travelers coming to Germany will be able to get free coronavirus tests up 72 hours after arrival, according to a new directive from Germany's health ministry.

Read more from the original source:

Thousands gather in Berlin to protest against Covid-19 restrictions - CNN

Up-And-Coming Countries Have Some Of The Largest Outbreaks Of COVID-19 : Goats and Soda – NPR

Posted on by

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to rage around the world, some of the largest outbreaks are in countries that fall into one particular economic category. They're not rich. They're not poor. They're middle income.

In fact, of the countries reporting the most cases globally, 6 of 7 are middle-income nations.

And they're not just any middle-income countries. They're some of the most influential players in the global south. Brazil, India, Mexico, Peru, Russia and South Africa are not only major emerging market economies, they're regional political powers.

Middle-income countries are defined by the World Bank as having annual per capita income between $1,000 and $12,000. The U.S., by comparison (the one high-income country in the top 7), has an average annual income of $66,000.

In mid-July, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa called the pandemic the "gravest crisis in the history of our democracy" as he reimposed strict lockdown measures.

South Africa has now reported nearly a half-million cases of the coronavirus. Health officials project cases to continue to rise at least into September. And the impact of the pandemic goes far beyond the number of sick or dead. South Africa's borders remain closed. Nonessential workplaces remain shut. The country's official unemployment rate, which had been in the mid-20% range, was pushed above 30% by the pandemic.

Indeed, the strain on countries in the middle-income category is tremendous. And the number of people affected is huge. According to the World Bank, 75% of the world's population live in middle-income countries.

Collectively over the past decade, these countries have lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty.

Amanda Glassman, the executive vice president of the Center for Global Development, says these countries have a lot to lose in this pandemic.

"Most of their populations in this group would fall back into poverty given a shock like this one," she says.

For instance, Brazil's economy is expected to shrink by as much as 6.5% this year because of the coronavirus crisis. Brazil has the second-highest number of cases after the U.S. Nearly 100,000 people have died. The president and several of his top ministers have been infected. And as the pandemic continues to spread, more and more Brazilians are losing work.

"Even a country like Brazil that was so wealthy, 90% of the country earned less than $10 a day," Glassman says.

"I'm worried that we're setting back the process of economic and social development that has gone so quickly over the past decade," she says. "And it will take us many years to catch back up."

The entrepreneurial spirit that made countries like India, Brazil and South Africa dynamic emerging markets also put them at greater risk of having large outbreaks. These are places with a lot of "hustle," as Glassman puts it. Their economies were global. Business travelers and tourists jetted in and out. They have decent domestic transportation networks offering the coronavirus or other pathogens easy avenues to spread. They have health systems capable of detecting the disease.

"In India, for example, they're doing a lot of testing," says Jonathon Keymer, an intelligence analyst at the global risk management firm WorldAware. "In Russia, they're doing a lot of testing. The more people you test, the more confirmed cases you're going to have."

Keymer specializes in Russia and the former Soviet bloc countries for WorldAware and has also been modeling the impact of COVID-19 in these nations.

He says some middle-income countries globally look worse than others in this pandemic simply because they are open, dynamic societies and their case numbers are being reported. But that's not true everywhere.

He points out that both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, two middle-income former Soviet states, have reintroduced nationwide lockdowns in the past couple of weeks despite reported case numbers remaining relatively low.

"And then in Turkmenistan, which is a much more difficult place to get information about, they've closed the borders and I don't think they've officially got a single case of COVID," Keymer says. "But you can bet your bottom dollar that they've got COVID."

The World Health Organization has raised alarms about Turkmenistan despite its continued insistence that it has no cases.

But on paper at least Turkmenistan looks like it has far less of a COVID-19 problem than Peru, which has tested aggressively and openly reported results. Peru has a testing rate of roughly 70,000 tests per 1 million people a rate more than five times the global average.

Tanzania is another middle-income country reporting remarkably few infections. The east African nation actually hasn't officially reported any cases to WHO since April, when the president declared that the virus had been driven out of his country by prayer.

Even with the marked differences in middle income countries everything from governance to public sentiment to economic structure there are certain commonalities. It is clear that middle-income countries face similar risks as wealthier nations for coronavirus outbreaks but have far fewer resources to deal with them.

Interestingly, the relative wealth of a middle-income country appears to have little to do with how many infections it has.

Deborah Barros Leal Farias, a lecturer at the University of New South Wales, says the experience of middle-income countries shows that a nation's economic status doesn't determine its success in battling this pandemic. "If you take the U.S., the U.K. and Sweden, they are also having horrible numbers," Farias says. "And then you can take a country like Vietnam or Thailand and they're having phenomenal numbers."

She says the real issue in keeping case counts down even more than resources appears to be leadership.

Of the four countries with the most cases globally the U.S. and three middle-income nations: Brazil, India and Russia all have conservative or right-wing leaders who espouse populist or anti-science views.

In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro downplayed the seriousness of the disease as tens of thousands of Brazilians died from COVID. Even when he tested positive for it himself, Bolsonaro continued to tout the anti-malarial drug hydrochloroquine as a cure despite studies showing it wasn't effective against the virus.

Ester Sabino, a virologist at the University of Sao Paulo, says Brazil never had a cohesive national plan for how to address the outbreak and she says Bolsonaro has been a distraction.

"In April and May, the main discussion [in Brazil] was whether we should or should not use chloroquine instead of saying how do we stop this," Sabino says. "There was not a good plan. That's my opinion. A lot of time was spent on things that were not the key things for the control of the disease."

Research by Sabino and her colleagues shows there were more than 100 different introductions of the virus into Brazil in the early days of the pandemic, mostly from travelers who had been in Europe. Then the virus spread to every corner of the vast country.

Lockdowns managed to slow the initial explosive spread, but Sabino says there needs to be more focus to contain the ongoing outbreak.

"There is no magic. There is no free lunch. If you want to control epidemic, it's hard," she says. "And you have to work a lot. We can't think about politics."

And that appears to hold true regardless of whether a country is rich, poor or somewhere in the middle.

More:

Up-And-Coming Countries Have Some Of The Largest Outbreaks Of COVID-19 : Goats and Soda - NPR

COVID-19 totals trend down but 37 deaths in a week is a record – Cache Valley Daily

Posted on by

Critics say that specific information about Coronavirus infection patterns is needed for the general public to make sound decisions about their activities.

LOGAN With 506 new COVID-19 positive tests Saturday and 473 Sunday, the weekend total of 979 is the fewest reported by the state health department since mid-June as numbers are trending downward.

However, with a single COVID-19 death Sunday the state acknowledges 37 deaths which is the most in a seven-day span since the start of the pandemic in early-March.

At the same time, the Bear River Health Department found 15 new cases in the district Saturday and 20 Sunday. Among the Saturday positives, four came from Cache County and 11 were found in Box Elder County. Sundays totals broke down to 19 in Cache County and one in Rich County.

To date, there have been 2,163 positive tests recorded in the Bear River district with 1,828 in Cache County and 328 in Box Elder County with seven in Rich County.

Also, among the 2,163 total positive cases in the Bear River District, 1,771 are termed recovered.

There are still nine COVID patients from the district who are hospitalized, seven from Cache County and two from Box Elder County.

There have been 311 COVID-19 deaths in Utah. There were six Utahns who died from the disease Saturday and one Sunday.

There have been 41,175 positive tests for the disease in Utah since the start of the pandemic.

Included in the numbers reported Sunday 536,716 Utahns have been tested for the disease and the rolling seven-days average for positive tests is 447 a day. The rolling seven-day average for percent of positive lab tests is exactly 10 percent.

Currently 203 Utahns are hospitalized with COVID-19, the lowest figure of the week. The total of hospitalizations from the start of the pandemic is 2,430. The total number of cases described as recovered has grown to 29,389.

In Idaho there are currently 21,114 confirmed COVID-19 cases.

There have been 197 COVID-19 deaths in Idaho and Saturday marked the sixth consecutive day of multiple COVID deaths in the state. There have been 47 positive tests in Franklin County with six positives in Bear Lake County and eight in Oneida County.

Excerpt from:

COVID-19 totals trend down but 37 deaths in a week is a record - Cache Valley Daily

Remote Education Is A Covid-19 Retiree Opportunity For You – Forbes

Posted on by

getty

The pandemic inspired economic shutdowns have had a demonstrably negative impact on the economy. The Department of Commerces U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) issued its first preliminary estimate of second quarter Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and it was devastating.

While a second estimate will be released later this month, the BEA announced the Real GDP decreased at an annual rate of 32.9%. It attributed the decline in second quarter GDP to the response to COVID-19, as stay-at-home orders issued in March and April were partially lifted in some areas of the country in May and June, and government pandemic assistance payments were distributed to households and businesses.

This hasnt gone unnoticed by retirees. A recent survey indicates a change in attitudes.

The SimplyWise July 2020 Retirement Confidence Index reveals the following:

The bottom-line, according to Sandra Hurley, Operations Manager at Hayden Girls in Los Angeles: Unless youve done extremely well for yourself, you can probably always use a little extra income for those extra expenses. Whether its a vacation, a nicer car, or a club membership, it helps to earn some cash.

Of course, there may be more reasons than just making ends meet that might entice you to seek a side hustle in retirement.

Retirees might want, and need to earn supplemental income in retirement for personal satisfaction such as staying engaged, having a purpose, and contributing to society, says Capitola, California based Martha Shedden, President and Co-Founder of the National Association of Registered Social Security Analysts. They might have the desire to help their grown children financially, pay for grandchildrens education, travel, make home improvements, or just cover basic living costs. Many retirees are not done working when they retire from a full-time job, but are simply interested in a more flexible schedule and an opportunity to do something meaningful in these years.

By and large, however, the primary objective of a part-time job in retirement is to add a little more cash to the coffers. For one thing, it can make up for the lack of revenue from fixed income investments. Indeed, this might be needed not for luxuries, but for essentials.

The newly and nearly retired suddenly have to make up some financial ground, says Charlotte-based author of The Career Lattice Joanne Cleaver. In a low-interest-rate environment, with unprecedented economic volatility, launching a side gig can provide a potential safety net for the loss of a full-time job, or can supplement income early in retirement. This extra income can offset market losses; plump up an emergency fund to better weather future economic shocks; pay for long-term health care insurance or stoke savings for health care expenses; or pay for home improvements that support aging in place.

Even if you feel secure in retirement, you shouldnt take anything for granted. With the unpredictable political and economic environment, everyone should be planning for a more stable financial future, says Lindsey Wander, Founder and CEO of WorldWise Tutoring LLC in Chicago. Retirees could supplement their retirement income with money earned doing something fun and rewarding. Plus, when you rest, you rust; keeping an active mind slows down aging.

What can be more rewarding than passing on your years of cumulative experience, especially if it earns some income to pay those never-ending bills? And the Covid-19 shutdown may have provided just the opportunity you need to use your lifetime skills to help others.

Patti B. Black, Partner at Bridgeworth Wealth Management in Birmingham, Alabama, says, Health insurance before Medicare begins is expensive! If you find a part-time job, like helping with homeschooling, that helps offset that cost, it can significantly help boost your chances of a financially successful retirement.

What has your local school district decided to do regarding opening in the fall? Many school districts have already determined they will, at the very minimum, opt for a hybrid if not a fully remote-based teaching model for the coming fall. You may just find your services can bring home those extra dollars.

One major change that COVID-19 has brought is an increased focus in online learning, says Ryan Shuchman, Partner of Cornerstone Financial Services in Southfield, Michigan. Retirees can consider reaching back to their professional expertise and perhaps teach or tutor in a virtual environment.

Heres the real advantage of this new educational paradigm: you dont need to leave the safety of your home to deliver the service. That works both waysfor you and the student.

With the heightened awareness of school remote learning situations, retirees could help teach kids as a part time opportunity, says Brian Halbert, Retirement Advisor at WD Pensionmark in Austin, Texas. Many families will be keeping kids remote this fall, and while working from home, this might be a good opportunity for many retirees to step in as a house-teacher to back up parents. Or, another opportunity is to provide runner services for families who have to teach, work and parent throughout the day.

Sophisticated school districts will immediately seize this chance to involve the broader community into its curriculum. This is no different than bringing in paraprofessionals or consultants to teach students a very specific lesson. Depending on district policies, these might be limited to volunteers, but they might pay for these services. Beyond public school districts, home schoolers and private schools may be easier markets to enter. In either case, the wind is at your sails.

As more home-based and online education becomes a reality, skilled tutors, mentors and guides who can provide individualized attention will be crucial to keeping students engaged, says Mark Silverman, CEO of AMAVA in Menlo Park, California. With so much professional and life experience and the desire to remain socially engaged and continue earning, retirees can play an important role.

In fact, it might be better if you avoid getting caught up in public school curriculum rubrics and focus instead on your specific experiences. These life lessons that youve learned can be adopted for younger students in ways that may help take them further than the traditional three Rs.

And its not like you have to learn how to teach, either. You already have the talents necessary to teach. You actually used them already in your career. And you wont believe the demand that exists for your unique talents.

Parents definitely are looking for extra help, says Cleaver. And, people who understand how career skills transfer to the current situation can find some nifty applications of career experience to education.

Cleaver offers this specific example of something you can do, something you may have already done: One person I worked with in a recent workshop has carved out a specialty of sing-alongs of classic songs. Historically, he has done these at senior centers but its easy to use Facebook Live for virtual sing-alongs that also illustrate musical principles. Another workshop participant translated experience at a wholesale plant nursery to a yard to table consulting service that showed homeowners how to design a garden that fit their nutritional goals. Thats another concept that can be handled online using photos and online resources to pull together a design and timeline.

If this whole teaching thing is new to you, or if the idea of setting up a side business is something that youve never done before, you might prefer to start at the easiest level. Beyond that, though, especially if you find yourself motivated, the current chaos has opened a whole world to you.

Tutoring and grading jobs are one option, but savvy retirees would want to look into the online learning consultant position, says Shayne Sherman, CEO of TechLoris, in Brookline, Massachusetts. Most schools and universities have people on-campus who are available to explain programs, degrees, financing, school history, and other important concepts to students and parents alike. In a time of confusion this type of role is more important than ever, and schools are willing to hire remote workers to help with these duties.

Look, youre retired. Its not like you have too little time on your hands. You have the luxury of working at your own pace. Hurley says, Because youre no longer working full-time, you, like other retirees, have all the time in the world to really take care of preparing lessons, working with the students to make sure they understand, and generally just pay extra attention to education.

Think about it. Pandemic headlines make it sound like were becoming isolated. Some are pushing against this. You could leverage the situation to explore new personal frontiers and bring people closer together.

With so much free time that cant be spent on much else, this is one of the many positive things you can do to contribute and be recognized for it, says Allan Borch the Founder of Dotcom Dollar in Sheridan, Wyoming. One of the things you can provide to the home-based educational model is your attention and free time coupled with the experiences youve had along the line.

You may be living in a perfect coincidence of circumstances. You may think your career is over, but it may be that your true calling has appeared before you.

Retirement can lead to a lack of purpose whereas continuing to work (assuming you enjoy what you do) can be fulfilling, says Black. If you enjoy working with kids, helping homeschool may make your days more meaningful.

Everything is aligned for you to be the difference youve always wanted to be. You can make your retirement more comfortable and, at the same time, give a boost to the next generation.

Is there no better legacy than that?

See the original post:

Remote Education Is A Covid-19 Retiree Opportunity For You - Forbes

‘We feel like our hands are really tied’: Appleton farm market can’t expel abortion protesters – Post-Crescent

Posted on by

Question:Why was an anti-abortion group allowed to set up in the middle of the Downtown Appleton Farm Market? The group had very graphic, disturbing posters that were inappropriate for a family event. Does this group pay for space like the farmers do? And with social distancing supposedly in effect at the market, why were children without masks allowed to come within 6 feet of shoppers to hand out anti-abortion literature? I left without buying anything.

Answer:The abortion protesters who appeared at the farm market on July 11 and 25 have caused a significant amount of concern among vendors and customers, but there is little that Appleton Downtown Inc., the organizer of the farm market, can do about it.

Jennifer Stephany, executive director of ADI, said the abortion protesters are not a permitted vendor of the farm market and donot pay for space. Rather, theywalkin and station themselves at the intersection of College Avenue and Morrison Street.

"ADI has been informed by legal counsel and the Appleton Police Department that the First Amendment protects demonstrators such as those that have been on College Avenue during the farm market in recent weeks," Stephany said.

RELATED:Evers issues statewide order to wear masks indoors through September

WATCHDOG Q&A:Duke Behnke answers your questions

The Downtown Appleton Farm Market is operating with precautions, including masks for all vendors, to minimize the spread of the coronavirus.(Photo: Courtesy of Appleton Downtown Inc.)

ADI staff asked the protesters to relocate to open space in Houdini Plaza or to an area outside the farm market, but they refused.

"We feel like our hands are really tied," Stephany said. "It's a very challenging situation for us."

Appleton police responded to the farm market for complaints about the protesters and determined their activities were protected as free speech.

"They were in a public place," officer Meghan Cash said. "Even though an event permit for the market was in place,it is not a private location."

Regarding the second concern,ADI requires its staff, vendors and service providers to wear masks and socially distance to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. It also strongly encourages people attending the farm market to wear masks and socially distance.

That's as far as it cango.

"Since there is no legal requirement to wear masks or socially distance on the public streets, ADI does not have the ability to stop interaction between those persons legally at the farm market," Stephany said.

Gov. Tony Eversissued anexecutive order Thursday requiringWisconsin residents to wear face masks, but it's only applicable indoors.

Post-Crescent reporter Duke Behnke answers your questions about local government. Send questions todbehnke@gannett.comor call him at 920-993-7176.

Read or Share this story: https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/2020/07/31/free-speech-protects-abortion-protesters-appleton-farm-market/5525459002/

Read the original post:

'We feel like our hands are really tied': Appleton farm market can't expel abortion protesters - Post-Crescent

Human Rights Media Announces Petition Against Reddit.com for Unfair Trampling of Free Speech and Opinion – Hood River News

Posted on by

PORTLAND, Ore., July 31, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- A Change.org petition has been created to demand transparency and the protection of free speech on the popular social-media website Reddit.com.

Reddit has made efforts to clean up its online communities by banning subreddits that were considered hateful in nature. In June, about 2000 subreddits were taken down, from popular ones like the Trump-supporting /r/The_Donald, to the pro-LGBT community /r/RightwingLGBT.

But a closer look at what they decided to ban shows significant inconsistencies and subjectivity in how the company enforced the rules. And with many communities banned without explanation, rule-abiding users are left in the dark. Will they be allowed to speak freely? Or will they be the next to be banned?

Prior to a recent edit due to community uproar, one example of Reddit's lack of clarity was its rule on protecting minority groups. One user highlighted this rule back in the post titled "Update to our Content Policy." It stated, "the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate." The user then asked "So can we be racist towards black people in a black-majority country, and racist to white people in a white-majority country?" This inconsistency is a simple example of how Reddit's rules and values were not thought through, and were problematic at best.

If a subreddit faces a ban, Reddit offers an appeals process to find out more information. But in reality, these requests don't reach the right people, and efforts to elevate and raise these issues are often ignored.

With Reddit enforcing its rules in such an opaque way, the site has drifted away from values of free speech to a tyrannical rule of law. This sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the site: no longer is it a place where one can speak freely. Rather, the site is governed by its vague rules and by the ideologies and political leanings of those in charge.

To protect the future of Reddit.com, the Change.org petition calls for the site and its users to do better. To create an online community that is inclusive and welcoming, Reddit must require transparency in all decisions regarding banning, suspension, and content removal, and open communication without repercussion between users and moderators.

Read through and sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/reddit-demand-transparency-and-protection-of-free-speech-from-reddit

ABOUT THE HUMAN RIGHTS MEDIA:Human Rights Media is a nonprofit news organization dedicated to covering the human rights issues of the past, present, and future. For more information, please visit https://humanrightsmedia.org.

Jesse MoorePhone: 503-470-7924Email address: 244540@email4pr.com

More here:

Human Rights Media Announces Petition Against Reddit.com for Unfair Trampling of Free Speech and Opinion - Hood River News

Pompeos surreal speech on China – Brookings Institution

Posted on by

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave one of the most surreal speeches of the Donald Trump presidency at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California, on Thursday. In his speech, titled Communist China and the Free Worlds Future, he declared the failure of 50 years of engagement with China and called for free societies to stand up to Beijing.

I am sympathetic to the argument. I wrote abookin 2017 about how Western hopes that China would converge with the liberal international order have failed. I haveargued for almost two years that when Trump leaves office, the United States should put the free world at the center of its foreign policy.

Unfortunately, Pompeo, like his targets in Beijing, is engaged in doublespeak whereby he offers win-win outcomes, but his words are at odds with his actions. He says the U.S. will organize the free world, while alienating and undermining the free world; he extols democracy, while aiding and abetting its destruction at home; and he praises the Chinese people, while generalizing about the ill intent of Chinese students who want to come to America.

Pompeo is also ultra-loyal to a president who cares not one whit for democracy, dissidents, freedom, or transparency overseas. Trumps long track record on this is well documented, and it has defined his personal approach to China.

On June 18, 2019, Trumpspokewith Chinese President Xi Jinping by phone and told him he would not condemn a crackdown in Hong Kong. On August 1, Trumptold the press that the unrest in Hong Kong was between Hong Kong and China because Hong Kong is a part of China. Theyll have to deal with that themselves. They dont need advice.

In his book, the former national security adviser John Bolton wrote that on two separate occasions, TrumptoldXi that he should go ahead with building the [concentration] camps in Xijiang, which Trump thought was exactly the right thing to do. Pompeo said nothing about these revelations, although hecalled Bolton a traitor.

And in January and February of this year, Trump infamously praised Xis response to the COVID-19 pandemic, even though the World Health Organization wasprivately alarmed by Beijings actions and its lack of transparency (it praised China publicly in the hopes of coaxing it into cooperation). The Trump administration would have known this and could have built a coalition to increase pressure on China, but instead it ignored the behavior.

For three and a half years, senior members of the administration have tried to downplay Trumps words as if they dont make policy. But they do, especially if consistently expressed. His serial dismissal of the values of the free world has a real impact. Pompeo has some nerve to now claim that what is upside down is right side up.

An ideological struggle is underway between China and free societies, but Trump is on the wrong side. The Chinese Communist Party wants a tributary international system where smaller countries are deferential to larger powers, instead of a rules-based international order where small countries enjoy equal rights. The CCP also sees no place for universal rights or global liberal norms, and wants to ignore the principles of open markets to pursue a predatory mercantilist economic policy. So does Trump. Indeed, Trump never speaks in terms of a competition of systems between democracy and authoritarianism. He rarely criticizes authoritarian governments on their human-rights records. He has done little to press China to free the Canadian hostages. He and Pompeo sought to rehabilitate Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia after the brutal murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. He has embraced the Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orbn as he shredded his countrys democratic institutions. The only countries that need to fear a reprimand from Trump on human rights are those led by left-wing Latin American authoritarianseveryone else gets a pass.

Meanwhile, Trump and Pompeo have turned social distancing into a diplomatic doctrine. The subject of Russian election interference has never featured on the agenda of NATO summits. Officials told me they wanted to but worried that Trump would walk out in protest. The administration repeatedly rejected requests from Europe to work together on China until a few weeks ago. The Trump administration also sees its traditional allies countries that belong in the free world as economic competitors. If other countries economies are doing badly, the U.S. looks better, or so they think. With that type of mindset, there is no incentive to think deeply about how to tackle our shared challenges.

Even discussing the ideological component of the U.S.-China rivalry is a delicate matter. I have lost count of the number of times European diplomats have told me they want to work with the U.S. on China but get nervous and reluctant whenever ideology is broached.

In his speech, Pompeo painted a picture of a Chinese leader driven by Marxism-Leninism and executing a plan to fulfill his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism. Ideology is at play in the U.S.-China rivalry, but in a much more complicated and nuanced way than Pompeo suggests. The U.S. and China both offer different social and governance models one is generally free and open and the other is authoritarian and closed. Each threatens the other, not necessarily because of the foreign-policy choices the leaders make, but because of what the governments are at their core. Beijing believes that the freedom of the press, the internet, social media, NGOs, economic interdependence, and exchange programs all have the potential to undermine their regime. They are not wrong. Indeed, many Americans saw this as a positive side effect of engagement.

Many Americans rightly understand that Chinas authoritarian model has negative externalities that threaten U.S. interests and freedoms. Tools of repression domestically find their way overseas. Beijing seeks to censor all criticism of its regime by coercing other governments, companies, and individuals. It sucks up data on foreign citizens. It employs mercantilist techniques to pursue dominance of new technologies. China is actively seeking to eviscerate liberal norms around human rights, anti-corruption, and freedom of speech. The regime interferes in democracies to advance its interests.

Neither side can accommodate the other without compromising the essence of its system. Americans would like China to become less repressive, but there is zero chance of that under Xi. China would like the U.S. to respect what it calls its core interests, but this would mean unpalatable concessions that would compromise our values and interests such as acquiescing in the suppression of free speech. So we are destined for rivalry. The question is how to inoculate the free world against the negative effects of the authoritarian model while also engaging with China on shared interests.

This clash of systems is actually fairly accurately described in parts of the White Houses officialstrategy on China, which bears the hallmark approach of Matthew Pottinger, the deputy national security adviser. Pottinger is a hawk on China, but he has gained the bipartisan respect of Asia experts and that of U.S. allies, including in Europe, by staying out of the limelight and by making a sophisticated and nuanced version of the case, albeit one that has its own shortcomings and is still inconsistent with Trumps personal worldview. Pottinger has also engaged in patient, low-key diplomacy on China in Europe from early on in the administration and avoids any hectoring or partisanship.

Pompeos account, by contrast, is a Manichean politicized caricature. For instance, consider the difference between Pottingers document and Pompeos speech on Chinese students. The official strategy says:

Chinese students represent the largest cohort of foreign students in the United States today. The United States values the contributions of Chinese students and researchers. The United States strongly supports the principles of open academic discourse and welcomes international students and researchers conducting legitimate academic pursuits; we are improving processes to screen out the small minority of Chinese applicants who attempt to enter the United States under false pretenses or with malign intent.

At the Nixon Library, the sum total of what Pompeo said about Chinese students was the following:

We know too, we know too that not all Chinese students and employees are just normal students and workers that are coming here to make a little bit of money and to garner themselves some knowledge. Too many of them come here to steal our intellectual property and to take this back to their country.

In the first, the U.S. welcomes the Chinese people to its shores and recognizes that a small minority could have ill intent. The second is torn right out of the Trump I assume some are good people playbook.

Its a subtle but important difference that repeats itself again and again. The official strategy talks about Chinas hegemonic aspirations in Asia, particularly in the maritime domain, and not global domination of Chinese communism. It says that the United States stands ready to welcome Chinas positive contributions and mentions several examples and ways of going about that. Pompeo is utterly dismissive of any cooperation or engagement. Some, he says,

are insisting that we preserve the model of dialogue for dialogues sake. Now, to be clear, well keep on talking. But the conversations are different these days. I traveled to Honolulu now just a few weeks back to meet with Yang Jiechi. It was the same old storyplenty of words, but literally no offer to change any of the behaviors.

That was as constructive as it got.

Pompeos tirade will discredit the case for competition with China among allies, in Asia and Europe, who are petrified of a full-blown Cold War where the U.S. and China have no interest in diplomacy. He couldnt resist a thinly veiled, and inevitably counterproductive, sideswipe at German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is under pressure to take a tougher stance on China, saying cryptically,

We have a NATO ally of ours that hasnt stood up in the way that it needs to with respect to Hong Kong because they fear Beijing will restrict access to Chinas market. This is the kind of timidity that will lead to historic failure, and we cant repeat it.

By far the biggest problem with Pompeo, or the administration, invoking the free world is that he said nothing about the free world itself. Free societies are in trouble. As the NGO Freedom House hasdocumented, the world has become less free over the past four years, due in large part to illiberal forces within democracies. Many democracies also struggle to cope with fundamental challenges, including inequality, racial injustice, the automation of work, and new technologies such as artificial intelligence. Free societies also face the very real threat of political interference from authoritarian states and networks of corruption.

Getting serious about defending the free world has to start with restoring the rule of law and democracy at home and seriously examining what it will take to remain free and democratic in the decades to come. Instead of tackling this problem, the Trump administration has thrown more fuel on the fire raging inside the free world. Trump has said he may notaccept the results of the forthcoming election. He has claimed that mail-in voting, a staple of American democracy, is fraudulent. He has sent troops into American cities against the wishes of their mayors. And he has called for Russia and China to interfere in the election process.

America is a work in progress. The U.S. is entitled to carry the banner of freedom, as it did in the Cold War, even as it wages the struggle for freedom at home. But it is quite another matter for an administration that is actively undermining American democracy to claim the mantle of the free world.

A different administration has an opportunity to put the free world at the heart of its strategy. It would involve working with other free societies to modernize our systems of governance so they are collectively resilient to shockswhether they are financial, environmental, political, or public-health-related. This will, by necessity, involve major changes domestically. It means tackling international networks of oligarchs and corruption that exploit a countrys openness in order to penetrate their systems and distort their democracy. It also allows for a robust national and international conversation about what a free society means in the modern worldone that should include voices from across the political spectrum.

Competing with China is an important component of the free-world strategy but only one part, and the competition is not an end in itself. Some critics will still worry that talking about the free world will bring about a Cold War with China, dividing the world in two. But this fear is misplaced. Kelly Magsamen of the Center for American Progress recently put it succinctly. Rather than organizing U.S. foreign policy purely around competition with China, she told me, we should be organizing it around our democratic allies with the goal of strengthening and catalyzing the free world. Thats a far more affirmative theory of the case that would better reflect American values, play to our comparative advantages, and frankly get better collective results. That strategy is the way to get allies and Americans on board with a competition between governance systems because it recognizes that the challenge comes from within and is something the U.S. should do even if there were no competition with China.

Read more:

Pompeos surreal speech on China - Brookings Institution

The Rank Hypocrisy of a TikTok Ban – WIRED

Posted on by

On Friday the president of the United States declared that he intends to ban a vibrant source of American speech. And that he intends to eliminate competition in a giant industry that doesnt have nearly enough of it. Its a rare feat to upturn two such fundamental democratic valuesfree speech and free marketsat the same time.

TikToks fate in the US remains uncertain. Trumps declarations could be part of a negotiating strategy, with the intended goal of getting Bytedance, TikToks Chinese parent company, removed entirely from the platforms ownership. Microsoft may then swoop in. Trumps proposed executive order could face legal review, and TikTok has vowed that its not planning on going anywhere. But regardless of how this all shakes out, the presidents declaration stinks of hypocrisy.

WIRED OPINION

ABOUT

Nicholas Thompson (@nxthompson is the editor in chief of WIRED.

Its certainly true that all Chinese companies must play footsie with the state, sharing data if and when the ruling Communist Party demands it. (TikTok has consistently denied that it has done so.) Its true, too, that the Chinese government of Xi Jinping does not wish the United States well, and that its hacking and espionage operations have deep and malevolent roots. And smart people have raised valid concerns about TikToks security. (Any company that copies what you put on your clipboard is one that deserves very little trust.)

But thats a reason to ban the app on the phones of American soldiers and diplomats, and its reason to warn others about the risks. Its an argument, too, that US data privacy laws are woefully inadequate to protect people from data over-reach by any app, regardless of the country of origin. But the public evidence that TikTok is a fundamental and unique threat to US security is simply not there.

TikTok, however, is a threat to Facebook. Its a legitimate competitor that has been able to thrive without being captured or killed. During the antitrust hearings on Wednesday, one of Congresss central critiques was that Facebook uses all the secret information it gathers to sniff out its nascent opposition. Will [Zuckerberg] go into destroy mode if I say no? Instagram founder Kevin Systrom asked one of his board members, Matt Cohler, while discussing a potential Facebook acquisition of his company. Probably, came the reply, according to a memo released during the hearings.

Instagram and Whatsapp were gobbled by Facebook, and Snapchat was hobbled. But TikTok has survived Facebooks destroy mode. The US company didnt recognize its growth and misunderstood its genius. By the time Facebook first tried desperately to copy and clone it, it was too late. But now, with Trumps aggressive stance, Facebook has been given a gift from above. Its new TikTok twin, Instagrams Reels, launches soon. Without TikTok, the road to its success would be more open and clear.

There has been a certain amount of conspiratorial talk about Trump and Zuckerberg since the two had dinner last November: theorizing perhaps that they reached some sort of tacit agreement that Zuckerberg would allow Trump to use the platform as he saw fit, and Trump would help Zuckerberg in other ways? Ive always doubted that there was anything explicit. But powerful diplomacy doesnt work that way. It happens through subtle signals, winks, and nods. And I doubt that Zuckerbergs kindness toward the White House didnt weigh somewhat in Trumps mind.

But this of course just lays bare the hypocrisy in Trumps move. Its a move against free speech, and to the extent that Facebook has been gentle on the president, its because of Zuckerbergs defense of that fundamental right. And if one is an avid believer in free speech, how can one even threaten the death penalty for a social media platforrm? TikTok is full of garbage and sometimes hate. But its free and open, even in ways that other platforms arent. Conservative critics who rail about Twitters lack of respect for the First Amendment are often just working the refs. But many are sincere. I am eager to see how they react to todays news. (The White House did not respond to my request for comment.)

More here:

The Rank Hypocrisy of a TikTok Ban - WIRED