Select Page ::

Does Transitional Justice Belong in the United States? – Just Security

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

(Editors Note: This article is part of a specialJust SecurityRacing National Securitysymposiumedited by editorial board memberMatiangai Sirleaf. Thegoal of the symposium is to render race visible in national security to shift the dominant paradigm toward addressing issues of racial justice.)

In the pre-Trump world, the Obama Administration endorsed economic reparations, truth commissions, and memorial building for countries transitioning out of repressive regimes. Promoting these processes was a core moral responsibility of the United States, it said.

When a New York Times columnist asked whether the United States is such a country in transition, an Obama State Department spokesperson replied: I wont have anything further for you.

This uncomfortable silence reflects a broader trend within the field of transitional justice, which addresses how societies can deal with conflictual histories. For decades, U.S.-based discussions of transitional justice have gazed outward internationally, while overlooking the legacies of slavery, segregation, and white supremacy at home.

Certainly, there have been exceptions to this trend. Greensboro, North Carolina and the states of Illinois and Maryland engaged in localized truth and reconciliation processes. Civil rights leader Sherrilyn Ifills 2007 book On the Courthouse Lawn elaborated transitional justice principles for American struggles with racism. Ta-Nehisi Coatess 2014 Atlantic article reminded Americans that broader reparations are still pending more than two centuries after freedwoman Belinda Royall successfully petitioned for a pension of 15 pounds and 12 shillings from her former enslavers estate. Religion professor Anthony Bradleys 2018 essay applied the Chicago Principles of Post-conflict Justice to individual American states. Yet, despite these efforts and arguments, the United States has proceeded as if transitional justice does not belong here.

No more. Following the tragic killings of Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Ahmaud Arbery, and countless others, protestors and advocates have reissued demands for civilian accountability boards to address police violence, reparations for decades and centuries of racist oppression, and truth and reconciliation processes to acknowledge historical and ongoing injustices.

Such demands are fundamentally calling for transitional justice.

My recent and forthcoming work argues that the United States remains a nation in transition, still far from surmounting its racist past. Laws concerning affirmative action, school desegregation, voting rights, and disparate impact are part of Americas racial transition. Yet, a number of factors have prevented widespread application of a transitional justice framework to the United States.

Some factors have to do with the field of transitional justice itself. Since its inception, this field has been more concerned with transitions to democracy such as in Argentina and Chile as they emerged from dictatorships than with transformations within established democracies. From a traditional viewpoint, transitional justice is inapposite to the American context because the United States is assumed to be an established democracy, because it lacks the sort of explicit regime break found in many transitional contexts, or because too much time has passed since its antebellum and Jim Crow histories.

Other factors are specific to the United States, such as a belief in American racial exceptionalism. This notion depicts the United States as the leader in the global struggle for liberty whose own march to racial equality was completed with the Civil Rights Movement, or the election of Barack Obama. As United Nations Special Rapporteur on racism, E. Tendayi Achiume, recently wrote for Just Security, this exceptionalism implicitly treats existing domestic law as a high watermark for achieving justice and equality, when this law falls short even of global human rights anti-racism standards. The United States is exempted from political and legal considerations applied to other transitional societies, despite its centuries-long struggle with state-sponsored racial violence.

On a closer look, such distinctions between the United States and the rest of the world are as illusory as they are problematic. If Canada could be moved to address Indian Residential Schools dating back to the 1800s through the establishment of a truth commission, nothing should prevent the United States reckoning with its racist legacies. For three sets of reasons, beliefs about Americas democracy and exceptionalism must not place it beyond the reach of transitional justice.

American Democracy

Some claims place the United States outside the purview of transitional justice by assuming its status as an established democracy. However, such claims ignore the denial of basic political rights and representation during slavery, up through Jim Crow, and into the present day. Writers from W.E.B. Du Bois to Nikole Hannah-Jones have argued that the United States was not a real democracy until Black people forced it to move toward becoming one.

Political scientists Francisco Gonzlez and Desmond King distinguish between restricted and full liberal democracies and characterize the United States as a restricted democracy prior to the implementation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Pointing to the barriers that Black voters faced in Alabama in 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. similarly asked in his letter from Birmingham Jail: Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

In this light, it is possible to characterize periods of major racial change in American history as regime changes. Historian Eric Foner and others have framed the Reconstruction era as Americas second founding. Political scientist Andrew Valls describes the Civil Rights era as a regime transition that was woefully incomplete, and therefore unjust.

As Hannah-Jones writes in her Pulitzer Prize winning 1619 Project: Without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different it might not be a democracy at all. Today, that struggle for democracy continues. These arguments highlight how American democracy has been and still is incomplete, given the nations lack of racial justice. Interrogating fundamental assumptions about the state of democracy reveals a nation in transition.

Comparative Experience

There are also deep similarities between American racial injustice and the kinds and degrees of oppression that have been found to necessitate transitional justice in other contexts. As I show elsewhere, the United States is most clearly comparable with one of the paradigmatic case studies of transitional justice: South Africa. Both the United States and South Africa have deep histories of the state enforcing and enabling racial subordination; the pre-Civil Rights United States was arguably no more an established democracy than apartheid South Africa. The increasing understanding of the history and legacies of Americas racial apartheid only bolsters such comparisons.

More fundamentally, the transitional justice canon demonstrates that historic injustices and their legacies need to be addressed, even within democracies and even without regime change. A transitional justice lens reveals commonalities between the United States and other societies dealing with oppressive pasts and allows the experiences of one to inform the other.

Transition Process

Ultimately, individual laws and policies must be understood in relation with one another and as elements of a broader transition process. The United States struggles with racism in part because government agencies and institutions such as the Supreme Court believe that brief implementation of discrete measures has resolved centuries of racial subordination, when transitional justice is a generational process requiring holistic approaches.

In 1915, W.E.B. Du Bois argued that a longer period of distributive and welfare policies following the Civil War could have created a more equal United States, but the country would not listen to such a comprehensive plan. Todays Movement for Black Lives similarly demands reparations for past and continuing harms to black people; investment in healthcare, housing, and education for Black people; economic justice for Black people; and a political system in which Black people can exercise their political power, among other changes.

These demands are linked as much to the past and future as to the present. From a transitional justice viewpoint, protesters today are not demanding discrete remedies for discrete harms. Instead, they are calling for a comprehensive and coordinated transition process that addresses the United States traumatic history with racism, its enduring legacy, and future threat.

The passage of significant time since slavery and Jim Crow has not rendered this transition process complete. Countries spanning from Canada to the Philippines have taken centuries to grapple with the legacies of their past. Until the United States takes adequate steps to address its racist legacies, its transition will be delayed as harms compound and past progress is erased.

An enduring feature of Black oppression in the United States has been a backsliding away from democracy. Transition can thus be conceptualized not only as the attainment of a truly democratic regime, but also as the sustainment of democratic rule. For example, as I argue in a forthcoming article, the preclearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act, which prevents public officials from using discriminatory voting practices on a continuous basis, supports transition by sustaining democratic rule.

Transition is not only a move toward democracy and the rule of law, but also charts a path toward peace and justice. In his letter from Birmingham Jail, Dr. King expressly called for transition from an obnoxious negative peace to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Recurring protests against police violence and structural racism indict the governments failures to secure such a substantive and positive peace. Civil rights leader Bayard Rustins warning to New York City mayor Robert Wagner rings as true today as it did in 1965: Either you creatively meet the causes of discontent in spring, or negatively face another long, hot summer. This warning reminds us of the need to target our transitional efforts not only at American democracy, but at racial justice.

Conclusion: From There to Here

In 1963, James Baldwin wrote about the collection of myths to which white Americans cling: that their ancestors were all freedom-loving heroes, that they were born in the greatest country the world has ever seen. Today, those same beliefs in American creed and exceptionalism impede recognition of the United States as a nation in transition. However, the enduring and increasingly international criticisms of the United States failures on racism should lead us to consider this country alongside others with conflictual histories.

A key promise that transitional justice holds for the United States is a shifting of the burden of proof. Transitional justice demonstrates that the centuries-long oppression of Black Americans is precisely the kind of massive human rights violation that necessitates systematic and ongoing redress. Moreover, it places the United States alongside other countries that have taken, or are in the process of taking, steps to address historical legacies of oppression. Once we acknowledge that transitional justice applies here, the question becomes how mechanisms of justice and accountability should be implemented rather than whether such mechanisms are needed.

Of course, the United States should not uncritically adopt transitional justice approaches from elsewhere. Transitional justice has limitations and needs to be considered with careful attention to specific contexts and local demands. At the same time, Americans must recognize that their nation is still developing in ways that place it alongside or behind others it considers less developed. If transitional justice belongs there, it belongs here too.

(Editors Note: Readers interested in the potential of pursuing transitional justice in the United States as a means of addressing systemic racial oppression may also be interesting in thisrecent Just Security article by Zinaida Miller and an upcoming article by Colleen Murphy).

The right to be radical: Uplifting the life of Claudia Jones – People’s World

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

Claudia Jones. | CPUSA Archives

WASHINGTONThe Claudia Jones School for Political Education and Black Women Radicals came together virtually on the evening of July 3rd to co-host an event uplifting the life and work of Black Communist Claudia Jones. Over 300 attendees from around the world attended the event, including scholars and activists from Kenya, Toronto, London, Brazil, the Caribbean, and the United States.

The event was centered around Joness life and, in particular, her essay in A Right to be Radical, which was published as in the pamphlet Ben Davis: A Fighter for Freedom, distributed by the National Committee to Defend Negro Leadership in November 1954. The booklet was written by Claudia Jones in defense of Benjamin Davis, Jr., the former Communist Councilman of Harlem. Like Jones herself and many other reds, Davis was persecuted for his Communist ideas. Joness booklet argued for his right to have those ideas and for the groups of Black leaders being tried during the McCarthy Red Scare period.

The event featured Dr. Carole Boyce Davies, author of both Left of Karl Marx: The Political Life of Black Communist Claudia Jones and Claudia Jones: Beyond Containment. Like Jones, Boyce Davies was born in Trinidad and Tobago; she is currently Professor of Africana Studies and English at Cornell University (recently appointed the Frank H.T. Rhodes Professor of Humane Letters at Cornell).

The life of Claudia Jones

Jones was born in Trinidad and Tobago (then, the British West Indies) in 1915 and immigrated to the U.S. with her family when she was just eight years old. Her family moved to Harlem, where her mother worked as a garment worker and died five years later due to poor working conditions.

Jones joined the Young Communist League (YCL) in 1936, when she was 21 years old, after being impressed with the Communist Partys work on behalf of the Scottsboro Nine. The defendants were nine young Black men tried for raping two white women in a box car in Scottsboro, Ala. The Communist Party, through its legal defense front, the International Labor Defense, spearheaded the campaign to have them taken off death row and to have the bogus charges dropped. This was also in the period of Jim Crow apartheid in the U.S. and the onset of the Great Depression, when millions were put out of work.

While in the YCL, she became a journalist for the Weekly Review and the Daily Worker and was eventually elected to the National Committee of the CPUSA in 1945, becoming the only Black woman on the partys leading body. In 1948, Jones became secretary of the Womens Commission of the Communist Party and, along with Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, traveled around the U.S. to organize women into the Party.

Around this time, she wrote An End to the Neglect of the Problems of the Negro Woman, which further developed the ideological foundation of triple oppression and We Seek Full Equality for Women, demanding full emancipation for women. She also wrote a column in the Daily Worker in the early 1950s called Half the World, focusing on how women represent half the world and how they should receive half of the worlds resources.

She was arrested three times, with one of those arrests following a speech she gave called International Womens Day and the Struggle for Peace. Eventually, she was arrested and tried with twelve other Communists under the Smith Act amidst the Red Scare. She served ten months of a sentence but, because of health issues, was released early from the Womens Penitentiary in Alderson, W.V.

After her release, however, she was ordered deported to the United Kingdom at the end of 1955. After arriving in London, she got involved with the local Caribbean community, developed the West Indian Gazette in 1958, and organized the first London Carnival in Notting Hill. Toward the end of her life, she traveled to Japan, China, and the Soviet Union before dying in December 1964. Her ashes were buried to the left of Karl Marxs grave in Londons Highgate Cemetery.

The right to be radical

In the Jones essay, A Right to be Radical, which was the focus of the July 3rd seminar, she wrote: Over 115 Communist and working class leaders, thirteen of whom are Negroes have been arrested under the Smith Act. These Black leaders were: Ben Davis, Henry Winston, Pettis Perry, James Jackson, Jr., Thomas Dennis, Ben Carreathers, Al Murphy, Thomas Nebried, Robert Campbell, Paul Bowen, James Tate, Claude Lightfoot, and Jones herself.

The introduction of the booklet is written by Eslanda Goode Robeson (the wife of Paul Robeson) and says Jones holds a position of leadership in the Communist Party and plays a major role in the work for equality for women and peace. For her beliefs, Claudia Jones was victimized by reaction and prosecuted under the Smith Act. She also faces deportation to her native West Indies under the Walter-McCarran Act.

Joness International Womens Day speech was brought into the context of her ideas on radicalism. She asked, Do not an oppressed people have a right to have radicals? Do not our people have the right to seek some radical solutions to their highly oppressed status? And have a right to be radicals? It would surely seem they have.

Jones six justifications for radicalism were being against slavery, oppression, and capitalism, and being for equal rights, suffrage, and socialism. Boyce Davies explained that Jones always tried centering the following in her radicalism:

Boyce Davies further said on this point that once Black women move, then the rest of society moves, referencing the Black radical feminists who have come before and those who are organizing now, like those in the Movement for Black Lives.

Boyce Davies also centered the interlocking oppressions of class, race, and gender throughout this discussion, further explaining the super-exploitation of Black women workers. Jones was further quoted: The very core of all Negro history is radicalism against conformity to chattel slavery, radicalism against the betrayal of the demands of Reconstruction, radicalism in relation to non-acceptance of the status quo!

Is there a conflict between being radical and being loyal to ones country? History can best answer this question. For the history of our people is rich in examples that, because the oppression of our people comes from the ruling class, the very survival of our people required nonconformity to preserve the dignity of manhood and womanhood. We can conclude as a result of these examples that the entire history of the Negro people has been one of radical solution to the sorely oppressed status. We and Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, and David Walker, Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey, Ben Davis and Henry Winstonthose who have been assailed as radicalsare the staunchest fighters against slavery and Jim Crow, for freedom and equality. Claudia Jones

Jones had said that the very any serious leadership in the fight for Negro rights brings one into opposition with the foreign and domestic polices of government. Seeing all those, like her, whod been charged with trumped-up charges under the Smith Act, Jones said that no matter if it was in writings, speeches, or needed organization endeavors, any Negro leader who pursues any necessary manifestation of leadership is labeled subversive, communistic.

Throughout the conversation on July 3rd, Angela Daviss work on Women and Capitalism in the Black Feminist Reader was connected, since similar ideas were expressed about triple oppression by both her and Jones, each of whom were members and leaders of the CPUSA in different time periods. It was Davis who argued, The objective oppression of Black women in America has a class, and also a national origin. Because of the way the structures of female oppression are tethered to capitalism, she said, female emancipation must be simultaneously and explicitly the pursuit of Black liberation and of freedom of other nationally oppressed groups.

The second half of the event included Jaimee Swift, the founder, creator and executive director of Black Women Radicals, engaging in dialogue with Boyce Davies, as well as a question and answer from the audience. Black Women Radicals is a Black feminist advocacy organization dedicated to uplifting and centering Black womens radical political activism. It is a collective of Black women who represent and uplift Black women of diverse gender identities and gender expressions, educational backgrounds, nationalities, religious and/or non-religious affiliations, languages, ethnicities, and more who have diverse pathways of and to Blackness and to Black womanhood(s) but who are all committed to uplifting, centering, and honoring Black women in their entireties. Swift is a Ph.D. candidate at Howard University, with concentrations in Black Politics, International Relations, and Comparative Politics. Her dissertation focuses on radical, Black feminist politics and resistance against state, structural, and symbolic violence in Brazil.

In their dialogue, Boyce Davies noted that Joness work always centered on womens rights, Black rights, and workers rights. She also spoke on the global foundations of racism and how the current uprisings are not only in solidarity against police violence in the United States, but everywhere in the world. Boyce Davies also mentioned how more Caribbean people died in New York from COVID-19 than in the Caribbean and connected this to Joness migration to the United States when she realized the contradictions of values in the country.

Swift asked about the role of other Black women radicals, such as Maude White and Louise Thompson Patterson of the Communist Party, and also connected the international struggles of the late Marielle Franco and other Black feminist radical leadership. Boyce Davies added that people must also not forget the role of Grace Campbell, who was a Black woman leader in the African Blood Brotherhood (ABB) and became the first Black woman member of the CPUSA once the ABB merged.

They also spoke on their future thoughts on the Black feminist tradition. Some thoughts came to mind such as how the Black Lives Matter movement was birthed by all Black women, who are really concerned about the impoverishment in communities and intersecting racial, class, and gender oppression.

Speaking further, Boyce Davies argued that by deporting Claudia, they [the U.S. government] deported a radical Black female subject, and you can see the same with Assata Shakur.

Later during the conversation, an audience member asked about self-care. Boyce Davies mentioned that radical self-care is a fundamental part of being an activist and protecting oneself from oppressive people. She further said that this new generation is leading the conversation around radical self-care unlike former generations of activists.

Jaimee, who is a journalist herself, also asked about radical Black journalism. Boyce Davies pointed to Ida B. Wells as a model, noting her work in fighting against the lynching of Black people in the South.

To end, Boyce Davies said that Black radical women want to challenge the way that society operates and have the right to challenge the oppressive structures due to their super-exploitation.

Read the rest here:

The right to be radical: Uplifting the life of Claudia Jones - People's World

U.S. Agencies Issue Business Advisory Warning of Xinjiang-Related Supply Chain Exposure and OFAC Imposes Blocking Sanctions on Chinese Persons Related…

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

Key Points

On July 1, 2020, the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, State, and the Treasury issued a joint advisory on the Risks and Considerations for Businesses with Supply Chain Exposure to Entities Engaged in Forced Labor and Other Human Rights Abuses in Xinjiang. The advisory follows months of increased attention by Congress, the Trump administration, and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) on labor conditions in Xinjiang and the treatment of Uyghurs and members of Muslim minority groups in China. Specifically, the advisory describes a range of specific abuses including mass arbitrary detentions, severe physical and psychological abuse, forced labor and other labor abuses, oppressive surveillance used arbitrarily or unlawfully, religious persecution, political indoctrination, forced sterilization, and other infringements of the rights of members of those groups in Xinjiang. The advisory also describes how these concerns are, in the words of Secretary of State Pompeo, no longer confined to the Xinjiang region but spread across China through government-facilitated arrangements with private sector suppliers.

Against this backdrop, the agencies warn businesses of the reputational, economic, and legal risks of involvement with entities that engage in human rights abuses, including but not limited to forced labor in the manufacture of goods intended for domestic and international distribution. The agencies specifically call on [b]usinesses, individuals, and other persons, including but not limited to academic institutions, research service providers, and investors [businesses and individuals] that choose to operate in Xinjiang or engage with entities that use labor from Xinjiang elsewhere in China to heed the warnings in the advisory and implement human rights-related due diligence policies and procedures.

Towards this end, while the advisory itself is explanatory only and does not have the force of law, the agencies outline a range of ongoing U.S. government efforts to curb alleged human rights abuses related to Xinjiang in the areas of import and export controls and financial sanctions. They also provide specific guidance to importers, exporters, and financial institutions on how to identify Xinjiang-related risks. The advisory further urges businesses and individuals to evaluate their exposure to Xinjiang-related risks and to the extent necessary, implement due diligence policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure that their compliance practices are commensurate with identified risks and international best practice across the upstream and downstream supply chain, and in making investment decisions.

In particular, the advisory highlights three types of supply chain exposure that broadly track export, import, and financial activities implicating Xinjiang:

(1) Assisting in developing surveillance tools for the PRC government in Xinjiang.

(2) Relying on labor or goods sourced in Xinjiang, or from factories elsewhere in China implicated in the forced labor of individuals from Xinjiang in their supply chains, given the prevalence of forced labor and other labor abuses in the region.

(3) Aiding in the construction of internment facilities used to detain Uyghurs and members of other Muslim minority groups, and/or in the construction of manufacturing facilities that are in close proximity to camps operated by businesses accepting subsidies from the PRC government to subject minority groups to forced labor.

On the subject of surveillance, the advisory recounts recent efforts by the Department of Commerce to list and leverage Entity List restrictions against a range of Chinese technology companies and public security bureaus allegedly implicated in human rights violations and abuses in Xinjiang. The advisory goes on to describe the Xinjiang surveillance infrastructure as an unprecedented, intrusive, high-technology surveillance system across Xinjiang, as part of a province-wide apparatus of oppression aimed primarily against traditionally Muslim minority groups. According to the advisory, this system is enabled by technologies including artificial intelligence, facial recognition, gait recognition, and infrared technology, as well as mobile apps used by police to track personal data about Xinjiang residents and cloud databases used to centralize collected information. The advisory notes the role of Chinese surveillance and technology companies supported by PRC government contracts, but also points to evidence that these [Chinese] businesses also get support from foreign academics, scientists, businesses, and investors.

With respect to these concerns, the advisory warns that businesses and individuals engaged in certain activities or who are otherwise directly linked to those in Xinjiang engaged in certain listed activities may face reputational risks and/or trigger U.S. law enforcement or other actions.... These activities include:

On the subject of forced labor, the advisory and related comments by Acting DHS Deputy Secretary Ken Cucinelli recount various recent and ongoing efforts by the Trump administration and Congress to increase scrutiny and enforcement related to labor conditions in Xinjiang and for Muslim minorities throughout the PRC.

As we described in our publication on this topic in March of this year, 2019 marked an uptick in DHS attention to and enforcement of forced labor authorities, beginning with a memorandum of understanding between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Liberty Shared in July 2019 and culminating in Customs and Border Protections (CBP) issuance on September 30, 2019, of what would be the first of a string of Xinjiang-related WROs. Following a series of congressional hearings and NGO activity in late 2019 calling for further scrutiny of labor conditions in Xinjiang, DHS released a formal strategy describing its commitment to combatting human trafficking and forced labor on January 15, 2020, which included among five key goals leveraging DHS law enforcement and national security authorities to investigate, take enforcement action, and refer [human trafficking and forced labor] cases for prosecution. Since CBPs September WRO, it went on to issue additional Xinjiang-related WROs on May 1 and June 17, 2020, and announced on July 1 the seizure of nearly 13 tons of hair worth more than $800,000 that it suspects may have been produced using forced child labor and imprisonment. In describing the seizure, Brenda Smith, CBPs Executive Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Trade, said that [i]t is absolutely essential that American importers ensure that the integrity of their supply chain meets the humane and ethical standards expected by the American government and by American consumers (CBP, July 1).

In Congress, Rep. McGovern and Sen. Rubio introduced, with bipartisan support, companion bills entitled the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (Bill Text,Reuters, March 11), which would, if enacted as written, create significant obligations and restrictions for textile and other importers with supply chains connected directly or indirectly to Xinjiang. While the bills remain pending in Congress, they continue to gain co-sponsors and in some respects have had their political paths cleared by the passage and enactment on June 17, 2020, of the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020 (S. 3744), which received overwhelming support in both the House and Senate before being signed by President Trump. As noted in the advisory, the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act directs the President to impose sanctions on each foreign person the President determines is responsible for certain actions with respect to specified ethnic Muslim minority groups in the Xinjiang region in China.

Against this backdrop, the advisory focuses on several areas of PRC government activity contributing to forced labor conditions in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China, including:

(1) The governments mutual pairing assistance program linking companies from eastern China to factories in Xinjiang (described further in Annex 2 of the advisory).

(2) Involuntary transfers of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities from Xinjiang to factories across China (described in Annex 3 of the advisory).

(3) The use of prison labor in the cotton, apparel, and agricultural sectors (described further in Annex 4 of the advisory).

To aid businesses and individuals in identifying and evaluating forced labor risks, the advisory goes on to describe six potential indicators of forced labor or labor abuses, including:

The advisory also includes (Annex 3) a nonexhaustive but illustrative list of industries in Xinjiang reported to be involved in labor abuses, including:

Finally, the advisory discusses certain due diligence strategies and challenges for identifying and evaluating Xinjiang-related supply chain exposure. For example, the advisory describes the role and limits of third-party audits as credible sources of information for indicators of labor abuses in light of repressive conditions on the ground. It further encourages businesses and individuals to collaborate with industry groups to share information, develop Chinese language research capabilities, and build relationships with Chinese suppliers and recipients of U.S. goods and services to understand their possible relationships in Xinjiang under the mutual pairing assistance program. The advisory also points to several forced labor and human trafficking due diligence tools produced by the Departments of Labor, State, and Justice, among others (see our March publication for additional resources, including a summary of CBPsnine-step processfor initiating and adjudicating forced labor allegations).

As described in the advisory, the foundational authority for regulating imports of goods produced from forced labor is found in Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307) (see our earlier Client Alert on Section 307here). This law prohibits the importation of [a]ll goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country by convict labor[,] forced labor[, or] indentured labor, which includes forced or indentured child labor. Such merchandise is not only subject to exclusion and seizure; its importation may lead to criminal investigation of the importer and other parties involved in the import transactionand the imposition of civil or criminal penalties (e.g., 19 U.S.C. 1592 (penalties for fraud, gross negligence, or negligence) and 18 U.S.C. 545 (smuggling goods in the United States)).

In addition to the advisorys guidance for the import and export communities, it also urges entities with banking ties to the U.S. financial system to be aware of requirements for financial institutions to adopt risk-based antimoney laundering, counter terrorist financing, and countering proliferation financing (AML/CFT/CPF) programs to identify, assess, and mitigate risks related to those regulatory regimes. The advisory specifically urges financial institutions to assess their potential exposure to the risk of handling the proceeds of forced labor on behalf of their clients and, as appropriate, implement a mitigation process in line with the risk. As noted in the advisory, money laundering crimes generally require the involvement of proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, which may include sex trafficking, forced labor, and other crimes related to trafficking in persons.

To address these risks, the advisory recommends that financial institutions:

In addition, all U.S. persons and financial institutions with ties to the U.S. financial system must comply with U.S. economic sanctions administered by the Treasury Departments Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

On July 9, OFAC and the State Department took the first concrete Xinjiang-related actions following the July 1 joint advisory. OFAC sanctioned four PRC officials and one Public Security Bureau pursuant to Executive Order 13818, which implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (OFAC Press Release). These individuals and entities include:

As a result of the designations, U.S. persons are broadly prohibited from dealing with these persons and entities that are 50 percent or more owned, directly or indirectly, by one or more Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) (collectively, blocked persons), absent a license from OFAC. U.S. persons must also block and report to OFAC any such property that is in, or comes into, their possession or control.

Also on July 9, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo designated Quanguo, Hailun, and Mingshan under Section 7031(c) of the FY 2020 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act; as a result, they and their immediate family members are ineligible for entry into the United States (State Department Press Release). Secretary Pompeo indicated that he is also placing additional visa restrictions on other CCP officials believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, the unjust detention or abuse of Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and members of other minority groups in Xinjiang pursuant to the State Departments October 2019 visa restriction policy under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Original post:

U.S. Agencies Issue Business Advisory Warning of Xinjiang-Related Supply Chain Exposure and OFAC Imposes Blocking Sanctions on Chinese Persons Related...

From National Interests to the Diplomatic Elite, the Foreign-Policy Blob Is Structurally Racist – Foreign Policy

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

The ongoing awakening to the long-standing realities of discrimination against African Americans is marked by a scope and intensity that were unimaginable even one month ago. Polling shows a significant increase from 2015 among Americans who believe racial and ethnic discrimination in the United States are big problems, and widespread protestsincluding in rural and suburban communities where such activism is unprecedentedagainst systemic racism and police misconduct have erupted. The United States has thus entered a window of opportunity where real social change is more likely than at any time in recent history.

But are there foreign-policy implications for this moment? Could this enhanced recognition of racial discrimination at home result in meaningful differences in how the United States engages with the world? Its tempting to think sobut the answer to both questions is almost certainly no. The structural impediments to more seriously accounting for social justice and human rights in foreign policy are simply too great.

There are at least four such structural factors. First, the composition of foreign-policy shapers (think tank experts, columnists) and implementers (government officials) remains disproportionately white (and male). This is visibly evident from any photograph of senior military officials. But it also pronounced in Americas diplomatic corps. In 2002, 70 percent of all State Department employees were white; by September 2018, it remained nearly unchanged at 68 percent. Moreover, in 2018, the more senior the role, the greater the proportion of employees who were whitegoing from 35 percent for midlevel GS-10 rank up to 87 percent for the most senior civil service executives.

This relatively homogenous composition of the foreign-policy eliteincluding yours trulymatters because the recognition of racial oppression at home and abroad is a glaring blind spot. In 20-plus years of working at academic institutions and think tanks, I can recall very few mentions of race. And even these observations were made not out of inherent concern for racial underrepresentation or discrimination within the United States but because the lack of progress toward combating those twin evils could lessen Americas relative power on the international stage.

Second, the predominant frame through which foreign-policy debates are conveyed is as national security interests. These seemingly neutral concepts are conveyed through principles or objectives, ranked by their purported interest-ness: vital, extremely important, important, or secondary. Those categories come from a landmark 2000 report by the Commission on Americas National Interests, which was representative of many comparable bipartisan initiatives. The 23-member commission included just three women, one of whom was the only person of color (Condoleezza Rice). The sole mention of individual rightsone of 10 important national interestswas in promoting pluralism, freedom, and democracy in strategically important states as much as is feasible without destabilization. The caveats that this august group of geostrategic thinkers added on demonstrate that rights are not universal and should never hinder stabilitymeaning a government that endorses U.S. interests retains power.

Though the facts shift, and allies and adversaries come and go, the narrative of Americas global role is always conveyed via static interests, which remain wholly uninformed by human rights concernsunless it can be weaponized selectively to highlight an adversarys human rights abuses. Foreign policy cannot be reconfigured in enduring and impactful ways without updating the thinking and language that could enable such change.

Third, and relatedly, a consistently missing element in elite foreign-policy debates is the livelihoods of actual humans. The central unit of analysis is countries, which are overwhelmingly evaluated through the words and actions of their leaders. When people are considered at all, it is as demographic clusters that might influence the countries or regions where they residethe Arab youth bulge, Russias population decline, and Chinas graying citizenry are popular examples. So-called voices from the regions are those few media-tested, English-speaking people who reside in the rolodexes of TV producers, serve as visiting think tank fellows, or are escorted through Capitol Hill offices by K Street lobbyists.

Without a reimagining of Americas global influence from the perspective of the individuals who experience hatred, bigotry, and oppression, it is impossible to conceive of a foreign policy that ever truly confronts racism.

Finally, the defining manifestation of U.S. foreign policy for 75 years has been the threat or use of military force. The global architecture required to use force anywhere at any time requires host nation basing and overflight permissions. These, in turn, require permanently stationing U.S. troops abroad, which increases civil wars and enables human rights violations by host nation governments. These governments enjoy military assistance in the form of arms sales. According to the State Departments latest World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers report, the United States is the top arms exporter to the least democratic countries (meaning those in the lowest quintile as determined by Polity Project rankings)accounting for 66 percent of all such sales. In short, to project military power, the United States tolerates or abets subjugation.

Moreover, military spending ($712 billion) absorbs more than half of all federal discretionary spending, towering over the diplomacy and development budget ($48 billion), which could be far better suited to promoting individual rights and freedoms globally. Unfortunately, when you review what country receives the most foreign assistance from the United States, it is a conspicuous list of occupiers, autocrats, and illiberal regimes. The top six proposed recipients for 2020, in order, are: Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Uganda. These are so-called strategic partners showered with aid because of their geographic location, security partnerships, or a consequence of great-power competition (Uganda). Congress could vastly increase funding for international and nongovernmental organizations that work to protect groups experiencing prejudice and seriously hold recipients of foreign aid to account for their human rights violations. But there is nothing in recent history to suggest that legislators will fulfill this needed role or even its most basic oversight functions.

For these four reasons, and many others, an overdue turn toward an individual, rights-centric foreign policy is unimaginable, at least for now. The current defensiveness among elite foreign-policy institutions toward considering the role that race plays in U.S. foreign policy is simply too overwhelming. A more diverse group of future foreign-policy thinkers and leaders could one day lead the waybut that group wont arrive in time to keep pace with the current push for racial justice across the rest of U.S. society.

See original here:

From National Interests to the Diplomatic Elite, the Foreign-Policy Blob Is Structurally Racist - Foreign Policy

Universities are the key to pandemic recovery – University World News

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

AFGHANISTAN

If I had dreamed of such a situation, I would have died, says Aziza. But now I have to tolerate it and wait hopelessly for what might happen. (Her name has been changed to protect her livelihood.)

The COVID-19 pandemic officially reached Herat on 23 March via an individual from Qom province in neighbouring Iran. There may have been earlier cases, but little is known given frequent border crossings.

The pandemic has had a severe impact on the livelihood and subsistence of individuals, especially students and teachers in the countrys fragile education sector. And like in other developing countries, Afghanistan has limited resources to counter the public health threat and socio-economic disruption.

Access to quality education in Herat is now acute. With 19 districts, the province includes more than 1,000 villages and 1.8 million residents, with an additional 700,000 to one million internally displaced persons. The education sector in Herat is nearly paralysed given weak IT infrastructure, high cost and low speed internet services and modest e-learning systems.

Students and lecturers suffer from these conditions, which continue to worsen as the city is in quarantine.

Without effective systems in place, school and university closures are increasing learning inequalities and hurting vulnerable children and youth disproportionately, especially girls and women. To respond, inclusive quality education and the role of universities are critical to protect the socio-economic stability of Herat and throughout Afghanistan.

Social impact

In a country where some 3.7 million children are already out of school and do not have regular access to primary education, COVID-19 increases the probability of permanent dropouts and affects childrens general well-being. The closure of schools exacerbates the burden of unpaid homecare responsibilities for young girls, who usually absorb the additional load of supervising other children in Afghanistan.

COVID-19 is quickly changing the context in which children live. Quarantine measures, school closures and restrictions on movement disrupt childrens routines and social support structures, while placing new stressors on parents and caregivers who may have to find new childcare options or forego work.

Stigma and discrimination related to COVID-19 make children more vulnerable to violence and psychosocial distress. Disease control measures that do not adequately consider the gender-specific needs and vulnerabilities of girls and women can increase risks and lead to negative coping mechanisms. UNESCO reports that violence, harassment and oppression against women and girls during every type of emergency tend to increase.

Women who are displaced, refugees and those living in conflict-affected areas are particularly vulnerable. Children and families who are already vulnerable due to socio-economic exclusion or those who live in overcrowded settings remain at risk. Supporting the role of teachers and university lecturers is critical as part of Herats social response network.

Online education

Internet, radio, TV and e-learning programmes are available as distance learning opportunities but remain expensive and are not considered equivalent to the growing quality of Herats public and private universities.

The government of Afghanistan launched online education for students, but they continue to struggle given slow internet speeds and electricity outages. These realities impact students who are already under pressure and now face exhaustion as well as growing mental health concerns.

Students throughout the city have a similar challenge ahead. The specific risks facing children and students include physical and emotional maltreatment, gender-based violence, mental health and psychosocial distress as well as specific child protection-related risks such as child labour, separation and social exclusion.

Herat province has a fragile economy and it depends on aid and tailored technical assistance from donors, much like Afghanistan as a whole. To overcome the impact of COVID-19, research on the extent of the local crisis and the response of NGOs and donors is critical without meaningful action informed by valid research, such as needs assessments, emergency donations and coordinated cooperation, it will be difficult to cope with a worsening situation and recover.

In response and in coordination with the national and provincial government, the government has put together a plan to promote self-learning, small-group learning and distance learning, which draws not only on IT-enabled teaching and learning via television and mobile apps, but also on strong communities.

Literate parents, religious leaders and upper secondary school students are part of a growing network, including in hard-to-reach areas, who meet in open-air settings while observing physical distancing. Nevertheless, significant gaps remain.

Partnerships

For a peaceful and resilient community, ongoing research and development towards equitable access to quality education is key. Herat needs coordinated engagement to meet urgent needs for infrastructure, for low-tech solutions around e-learning, faculty professional development and local economic development with government, donor, private sector, higher education institution and community engagement.

Herat needs locally available solutions and committed international partners. The world has much to gain from seeing the cultural province of Herat thrive by combatting the pandemic and making a better future for all. Aziza need not wait when there is hope.

Dr Abdullah Faiz is chancellor of Herat University, Afghanistan, Ali Mohammad Karimi is education and research consultant with Rayan Asr R&D Company and Dr Wesley Teter is senior consultant with UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education.

More here:

Universities are the key to pandemic recovery - University World News

Allowing the privileged few to flee Hong Kong isn’t liberation – The Guardian

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

The national security law imposed by Beijing over Hong Kong went into effect on 30 June. By writing this piece, I may be in violation of it.

On the evening the law came into effect, I lay wide awake at my apartment in Chicago, my eyes glued to the screen for the latest developments. The bill had been swiftly drafted, passed and signed by the central government before its content was revealed, the process foreshadowing its draconian measures. The legislation marks an end to Hong Kongs judicial independence and the beginning of a new police state. It also assumes extraterritorial powers for the Chinese government that may subject a person from anywhere in the world to punishment for breaches of speech against its national security.

I stayed up as late as I could, hoping to bear secondhand witness to a fleeting freedom the city and its people had fought so hard to preserve. I fell asleep with my phone in hand, my heart racing, pumping blood and oxygen to a fervent dream, where millions of Hong Kong residents would once again flood the streets, as they did a summer ago, nullifying the law with united disobedience.

I woke up to a shattering reality. Hundreds of protesters had been arrested, some under the new legislation. Prominent activists stepped down from leadership positions. Pro-democracy posters disappeared from public spaces. Once-active social media accounts went silent. I felt ashamed for the fantasy I had clung to the night before. In my relative security from an ocean away, I had selfishly projected an impossible burden on a people.

Eleven years ago when I left mainland China for graduate school in the US, I proudly declared that I was going to live in a free country. Freedom cannot be eaten like rice, my mother said, quick to puncture my naivety. I argued that liberty and prosperity are not mutually exclusive. I was not wrong. Neither was my mother. But only one of us had endured starvation as a child. Only one of us had to feed a family under authoritarian rule.

Do you think the Chinese people will one day rise up? I have often encountered this question from well-meaning Americans, who read my writings critical of the Chinese government and loudly wonder if my country has more people who are courageous like me. To them, political oppression exists only in the abstract, afflicting an alien people on a distant land. Similarly vague is their notion of rising up, as if martyrdom is the only valid response, and whoever fails to do so must deserve servitude. They regard themselves as freedom-loving without contemplating its meaning. They cheer rebels from faraway places without shouldering the cost. An honest reflection would complicate this worldview.

I am not free, despite living in an ostensible liberal democracy. A free person must be able to return to her birthplace at any time without risking persecution; I cannot. A free person must be able to exist with nothing to prove and live without fear; I cannot. I am neither brave nor exceptional. I am fortunate to have options afforded by the luxury of my degrees. I made a calculation and traded one set of freedoms for another, knowing that both are incomplete and I will forever be grieving for what I have lost.

It is from this personal experience that I am troubled by much of the language from politicians and governments around the world promoting resettlement policies for Hong Kong residents. Boris Johnson announced that Hong Kongers with a British national overseas passport would be able to live and work in the UK. The Australian government is extending skilled visas to attract the best and the brightest from the city as well as its businesses. The US Congress introduced a bipartisan bill to grant refugee status to Hong Kong protesters.

Migration is a human right. Every state has an ethical and moral obligation to open its doors to people in search of safety or better opportunities. However, the dominant rhetoric from western countries goes beyond the humanitarian principle to emphasise economic self-interest. Relocating the concept of Asias World City to its isles has occupied a corner of the British imagination for decades, the idea revitalised in light of the new national security law. Hong Kong citizens are described as enterprising and highly educated, who would enrich their new host nation and boost its competitiveness.

The glistening phrases are not compliments. They are dehumanising. They paint a caricature of a population where Hong Kongs poor and disenfranchised are never part of the picture, where a lifes worth is defined by its productivity. For those of us who have faced the menace of a border, the price of crossing means turning a part of ourselves into currency: our savings, our diplomas, our labour, our despair as well as our pain. Unconditional gratitude is demanded of us in exchange for a probationary dwelling. Our resilience becomes justification for continued exploitation.

A person may go through multiple countries of residence, but can only have one true homeland, where no matter how much time has passed, the itinerant may touch the ground with her feet and in that instance become whole. Those who do not know the open wound of exile can callously suggest uprooting a people and congratulate themselves for being generous and clever. The thoughtless self-righteousness stems from an age-old superiority complex, a colonial mindset that insists people from lesser parts of the world must prefer life in the civilised west, if given the chance.

In a recent survey of Hong Kong citizens, Taiwan topped the chart as their first choice for relocation, while Britain and the US ranked below mainland China. The result is not surprising, as most people favour geographical, cultural and linguistic proximity to their place of origin. What the residents of Hong Kong want is of little concern to the politicians and pundits who appropriate their plight. By portraying Hong Kongers as the right kind of immigrant, distinct from migrants at the US-Mexico border or refugees across the Mediterranean, western lawmakers see the Asian city as their own political theatre. They claim the mantle of human rights defenders by feigning solidarity, while espousing racist and xenophobic policies at home.

The heartbreaking reality of Hong Kong is a continuation of its fate as a chess piece in great power politics. Sandwiched between empires, the financial hub derives its status from its usefulness to global capital; the interest of its people has always been secondary. With the new law, Beijing has called the worlds bluff, exposing both the Communist partys ruthlessness and the wests hypocrisy.

I do not know what shape or how long the path to liberation might take for Hong Kong and the rest of China. What I do know is that it must start by focusing on the most marginalised, the people whose work is considered low-skill, whose bodies are deemed sacrificial. The edge of our struggle is not its limit but a new beginning. The road that will lead me home can only be forged through radical imagination and collective effort. The kind of freedom that is upheld by national borders is always fragmented and fragile. Emancipation cannot be achieved through flight for the privileged few. No one is free until everyone is free.

Yangyang Cheng is a particle physicist and a postdoctoral research associate at Cornell University

See original here:

Allowing the privileged few to flee Hong Kong isn't liberation - The Guardian

Thats What He Was Getting At: White House Tries To Explain Why Donald Trump Retweeted Chuck Woolerys Claim That Everyone Is Lying About Coronavirus -…

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany was asked Monday to explain why President Donald Trump retweeted former game show host Chuck Woolerys claim that everyone is lying about the coronavirus, including the Centers for Disease Control, as a way to keep the economy coming back before the election.

A reporter asked McEnany, The president retweeted something this morning saying that the CDC is lying about the coronavirus in order to hurt his chances of getting re-elected. Does the president believe that the CDC is lying about COVID-19?

McEnany tried to explain what the intent of Trumps retweet was blaming his displeasure on CDC leaks and some rogue individuals.

The president, with his intent in that retweet, expresses displeasure with the CDC, some rogue individuals leaking guidelines prematurely, she said. You had a 63-page plan that was leaked prematurely. He believes that that misleads the American public when there are planning materials released that are not in their fullest form and their best form. So thats what he was getting at.

Related StoryMary Trump Book Review: In The Chaos Of Donald Trump's Presidency, Will His Niece's Tell-All Matter?

Woolerys tweet, though, was a sweeping statement that doesnt mention anything about leaks. It suggested that the CDC, media, Democrats and our doctors are lying about the coronavirus.

In his tweet, Woolery wrote: The most outrageous lies are the ones about Covid 19. Everyone is lying. The CDC, Media, Democrats, our Doctors, not all but most, that we are told to trust. I think its all about the election and keeping the economy from coming back, which is about the election. Im sick of it.

The tweet didnt specify what the lies are, but in a later tweet, Woolery wrote: There is so much evidence, yes scientific evidence, that schools should open this fall. Its worldwide and its overwhelming. BUT NO.

L.A. Schools Rule Out In-Person Instruction To Begin 2020-21 Academic Year

Woolery, the original host of Wheel of Fortune who went on to host the dating show Love Connection and other game shows, is one of Trumps ardent celebrity defenders on Twitter.

The presidents retweet came after reports that the White House was sending out a memo to reporters pointing out times when they claim that Dr. Anthony Fauci, a member of the coronavirus task force and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has been wrong about COVID-19.

News outlets described the memo as something akin to political opposition research, and led to speculation that Fauci could be on the outs. He has been largely absent from TV appearances but has given print and other interviews, including one last week in which he disputed the notion that the U.S. is doing great in fighting the coronavirus.

But McEnany said that the memo was sent out because we were asked a very specific question by the Washington Post, and that question was President Trump noted that Dr. Fauci had made some mistakes, and we provided a direct answer to what was a direct question.

Later, Trump said he has a very good relationship with Fauci, adding: I find him to be a very nice person. I dont always agree with him.

Andrew Bates, director of rapid response for Joe Bidens presidential campaign said, Infections in the United States have skyrocketed, surpassing every other country in the world by far, specifically because of Trumps refusal to listen to science. The presidents disgusting attempt to pass the buck by blaming the top infectious disease expert in the country whose advice he repeatedly ignored and Joe Biden consistently implored him to take is yet another horrible and revealing failure of leadership as the tragic death toll continues to needlessly grow.

Read the original:

Thats What He Was Getting At: White House Tries To Explain Why Donald Trump Retweeted Chuck Woolerys Claim That Everyone Is Lying About Coronavirus -...

Jeff Sessions says he’s fine with Donald Trump. Is that enough for Alabamians? – NBC News

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

WASHINGTON Jeff Sessions wants you to know that President Donald Trump might hate him, but he doesn't hate Donald Trump.

"When I left President Trump's Cabinet, did I write a tell-all book? No. Did I go on CNN and attack the president? Nope. Have I said a cross word about our president? Not one time," Sessions said in a video announcing his candidacy for the Senate.

Since Sessions announced he was running for his old Senate seat, he has spent much of his time trying to convince his former constituents that despite Trump's repeated attacks against him from calling him "slime" to "not mentally qualified" to "the biggest mistake" of his presidency his feelings aren't hurt. He's still on Trump's side.`

Alabamians might not be convinced.

Sessions was forced out as attorney general after months of public anger from Trump over his decision to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 campaign. This year, Sessions has found himself the underdog in the Republican nomination battle for the Senate seat he previously held for over 20 years, now occupied by Democrat Doug Jones.

Polls have consistently shown Sessions trailing former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville, a political newcomer, in the GOP runoff Tuesday.

Sessions and Tuberville were forced into the runoff after neither won a majority in the March 3 primary, with Tuberville leading with 33.4 percent of the vote and Sessions coming in second at 31.6 percent. The runoff, initially scheduled for March 31, was pushed back more than three months because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump stayed on the sidelines during the crowded primary, in which many candidates vied to demonstrate who was most loyal to him. (Trump was also encouraged to stay out of the race early on after an embarrassing blow in 2017 when he endorsed a losing candidate in the Republican primary.)

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

But once Sessions and Tuberville were locked into the runoff, things changed. Trump offered his full support to Tuberville, ramped up his Twitter attacks against Sessions, invited Tuberville on Air Force One and even discussed holding a campaign rally in Alabama for Tuberville ahead of the runoff, although those plans were scrapped because of the coronavirus.

Alabama political strategists say it has been "bizarre" to see Sessions, who has a long history in Alabama politics (he was state attorney general before winning four Senate elections) struggle so much to clinch the nomination.

"There's a large chunk of this voting public that voted for Sessions at least three or four times, and now they're just throwing that all away, dumping him over the side, for the guy with no record that left the state," said David Mowery, a political strategist based in Montgomery who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats. Tuberville moved on to coach college teams in Texas and Ohio after he resigned from Auburn after the 2008 season.

But as Tuberville adviser Perry Hooper Jr., Trump's 2016 Alabama campaign co-chairman, put it: "The two most popular things in our state are Donald J. Trump and football and not necessarily in that order."

"The fact that the president has endorsed him [Tuberville] really makes him strong," Hooper said. "People just did not appreciate that Jeff Sessions stepped aside and recused himself. There's a lot of people here that just did not like that, and they're upset about that, and they've dug in, and they're for Tommy for that reason."

David Hughes, a political science professor at Auburn University at Montgomery who is director of the UAM Poll initiative, said his research suggests that Sessions' decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, a move Trump never forgave him for, "left a sour taste with Republican voters that they aren't quite ready to get over."

"Sessions knows that that's his biggest vulnerability, and he's tried consistently in his advertisements and out on the campaign trail to redefine the narrative that he was just doing his duty," Hughes said, adding that that is hard to do when the president is constantly "fanning the flames."

But Trump's endorsement of Tuberville and his constant ridiculing of Sessions aren't the whole picture. Alabamians have a history of bucking party leaders, most recently in 2017, when Republicans chose Roy Moore over Luther Strange, whom Trump had endorsed, to replace Sessions in the Senate. Moore ultimately lost to Jones in an upset win for Democrats.

Political strategists and party leaders say the power of Southeastern Conference football and the appeal of a political outsider can't be overstated in Alabama.

Tuberville, 65, an Arkansas native who has never held elected office, was head coach at Auburn for more than 10 seasons, leading it to six straight victories over the University of Alabama's Crimson Tide (the fiercest rivalry in the SEC, if not all of college football) and overseeing an undefeated season in 2004.

"He has got great name recognition across the state," Hughes said. "People remember him fondly from a time when Auburn football was successful, and people in the South really do take SEC football seriously."

Sessions has tried to criticize Tuberville as being ill-prepared for Washington, saying at a recent campaign event that Tuberville "is not ready to take on the powerful forces in Washington that I have had to battle for many, many years."

But many say Sessions' criticism has fallen flat.

"The outsider is now who has the upper hand in every race these days," Mowery said. "It's hard to turn that into a negative in 2020 Republican primaries."

Tuberville himself doesn't come without baggage.

He has been criticized for his involvement in a fraud scandal a little more than a decade ago. His business partner was sentenced to 10 years in prison, while Tuberville entered a private settlement.

Some have also raised issues with reports that Tuberville suspended an Auburn football player initially charged with statutory rape for only one game, drawing unflattering parallels to Moore, who became the first Alabama Republican to lose to a Democrat in decades following reports that he had a long history of sexual misconduct toward teenage girls.

Either Republican candidate, however, will be a significant favorite in November. "Either way you slice it," Hughes said, "it's looking like it's going to be an uphill slog for Jones."

Excerpt from:

Jeff Sessions says he's fine with Donald Trump. Is that enough for Alabamians? - NBC News

Supreme Court says eastern half of Oklahoma is Native American land – CNBC

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a huge swath of Oklahoma is Native American land for certain purposes, siding with a Native American man who had challenged his rape conviction by state authorities in the territory.

The 5-4 decision, with an opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, endorsed the claim of theMuscogee (Creek) Nation to the land, which encompasses 3 million acres in eastern Oklahoma, including most of the city of Tulsa.

The decision means that only federal authorities, no longer state prosecutors, can lodge charges against Native Americans who commit serious alleged crimes on that land, which is home to1.8 million people. Of those people, 15% or fewer are Native Americans.

"Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law," Gorsuch wrote.

"Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word," he wrote.

The ruling in the case of convicted child rapistJimcy McGirt, and in a related one Thursday by the Supreme Court involving another Muscogee Nation member, convicted murderer Patrick Murphy, overturns their convictions on state charges. Murphy was sentenced to death.

However, both men can now be prosecuted for the crimes by federal authorities, according to a lawyer for the tribe.

The cases hinged on application of the Major Crimes Act, which gives federal authorities, rather than state prosecutors, jurisdiction over serious crimes committed by or against Native Americans in Native American territory.

"For MCA purposes, land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains 'Indian country,'" Gorsuch wrote in the opinion in McGirt's case.

Gorsuch, a conservative justice, was joined in the majority by the court's four liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented from the ruling, as did his fellow conservatives, Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh.

In his dissent, Roberts warned that "across this vast area" now deemed to be Native American land, "the State's ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out."

"On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma," Roberts wrote. "The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State's continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation to family andenvironmental law."

"None of this is warranted," Roberts added. "What has gone unquestioned for a century remains true today: A huge portion of Oklahoma is not a Creek Indian reservation. Congress disestablished any reservation in a series of statutes leading up to Oklahoma statehood at the turn of the 19th century. The Court reaches the opposite conclusion only by disregarding the 'well settled' approach required by our precedents."

Republican Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt said,"I am aware the ruling inMcGirtv. Oklahomawas handed down this morning by the U.S. Supreme Court."

"My legal team has been following the case closely and is reviewing the decision carefully.They will advise our team on the case's impact and what action, if any, is needed from our office," Stitt said.

McGirt is serving a life sentence after being convicted in Oklahoma state court of raping a 4-year-old child in 1997.

McGirt had argued in state courts that Oklahoma lacked the jurisdiction to review his case because the crime took place within the boundaries of the Creek Nation's historic territory. He had appealed to the Supreme Court after state courts rejected his appeals.

The state of Oklahoma in turn argued to the Supreme Court that the Creek Nation's claimed territory was not a reservation at all.

The state said that if the Supreme Court accepted McGirt's reasoning it would "cause the largest judicial abrogation of state sovereignty in American history, cleaving Oklahoma in half."

In court filings to support McGirt's claim, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation noted that although the tribe had "no role in the genesis of this litigation" it "now finds its Reservation under direct attack."

Riyaz Kanji, an attorney for the tribe, wrote in a filing that Oklahoma was "exaggerating" the jurisdictional problems that would ensue if the state lost its case.

"To the extent they hold any water, the State's posited consequences stem from the fact that both executive branch and state officials actively sought to undermine Congress's determination that the Nation's government and territory would endure," Kanji wrote.

Gorsuch endorsed that argument in Thursday's decision.

He noted in the majority opinion that, "No one disputes that Mr. McGirt's crimes were committed on lands described as the Creek Reservation in an 1866 treaty and federal statute."

"But, in seeking to defend the state court judgment below, Oklahoma has put aside whatever procedural defenses it might have and asked us to confirm that the land once given to the Creeks is no longer a reservation today."

Gorsuch flatly rejected that request by the state.

"Under our Constitution, States have no authority to reduce federal reservations lying within their borders. Just imagine if they did," he wrote.

"A State could encroach on the tribal boundaries or legal rights Congress provided, and, with enough time and patience, nullify the promises made in the name of the United States. That would be at odds with the Constitution, which entrusts Congress with the authority to regulate commerce with Native Americans, and directs that federal treaties and statutes are the 'supreme Law of the Land,'" he wrote.

Gorsuch added that if that happened, "It would also leave tribal rights in the hands of the very neighbors who might be least inclined to respect them."

Kanji, in an interview after the decision, said that despite the arguments by the state and in Roberts' dissent, "I don't think this case is going to have earth-shattering consequences" on the residents of the land, be they Native American or not.

"It just doesn't change anything with respect to non-Indians" in terms of criminal cases, Kanji said.

He said the tribe will be able to exercise civil and regulatory authority over the affected land, but noted that in areas that were already acknowledged by the state to be tribal land there already is "a tremendous amount of cooperation" between the state and the tribe on laws and regulation.

"We would fully expect that cooperation to continue," Kanji said.

He also noted that "the court itself has placed a lot of limitations on Indian tribes with respect to non-Indians" who live on tribal land.

McGirt's lawyer, Ian Heath Gershengorn, in an emailed statement said, "The Supreme Court reaffirmed today that when the United States makes promises, the courts will keep those promises."

"Congress persuaded the Creek Nation to walk the Trail of Tears with promises of a reservation and the Court today correctly recognized that this reservation endures," saidGershengorn, a partner at the firm Jenner & Block.

"We along with our co-counsel Patti Palmer Ghezzi and the Federal Public Defender of the Western District of Oklahoma are immensely pleased for Jimcy McGirt and Patrick Murphy, whom Oklahoma unlawfully prosecuted for alleged crimes within the Creek reservation."

In the related case decided Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that tossed out the murder conviction of the other Muscogee Nation member, Murphy, who was charged with killing a man on the tribal land in question.

In Murphy's case, Gorsuch did not participate in the vote, because he had heard the case while serving on the lower appeals court.

The Supreme Court had heard arguments in Murphy's case during its prior term, but declined to issue a ruling at the time. In the interim, it heard McGirt's case, which made the same claims.

The cases decided Thursday are formally known as McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526, and Sharp v. Murphy, No. 171107.

Read the rest here:

Supreme Court says eastern half of Oklahoma is Native American land - CNBC

Controversial decision to sell off land for 110 homes at Lakeside to be reconsidered by committee – Burnham and Highbridge Weekly News

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

THE controversial decision to sell off a publicly owned field in Highbridge to make way for 110 homes will be reconsidered by the district council.

In February developer Coln Residential won outline planning permission to build 110 homes, a play area and a fitness trail on land between Lakeside and Isleport despite more than 140 objections from residents.

Last month Sedgemoor District Council's Executive met and approved the plans to sell the land but a few weeks later Liberal Democrat councillors from Sedgemoor District Council (SDC) 'called in' the Executive's decision to sell the land and a meeting was held to discuss the plans again.

At a meeting on Monday (July 13) SDC's Scrutiny Committee heard presentations from Cllr Phil Harvey, Cllr Janet Keen and Cllr Mike Murphy as well as evidence from Highbridge resident, Joy Russell who urged the committee to refer the decision back to the Executive.

The committee unanimously voted to send the plans back to the Executive and they are due to be considered again later this month.

Cllr Phil Harvey said he is pleased the decision will be considered again by the Executive.

He said: The committee considered what we had to say, and the passionate representations from the local people. Officers of the Council made their responses to the points raised and this helped to clarify some issues.

"At the end of the meeting, the committee unanimously voted to refer the matter back to the Executive for re-consideration.

The retention of this land, and its use as a natural greenspace, are supported by many people in Highbridge who feel that it is a vital resource for future generations.

"The strength of feeling was very evident at the meeting. Whether this will be sufficient to sway the Executive remains to be seen.

"I would urge people to lobby Executive members between now and Wednesday, July 22 which is the date when I believe the Executive will consider the matter again.

Excerpt from:

Controversial decision to sell off land for 110 homes at Lakeside to be reconsidered by committee - Burnham and Highbridge Weekly News

The fact that Peter Beinart ‘no longer believes in a Jewish State’ tells us a lot – Middle East Monitor

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

The irreconcilable tension within Zionism has been laid bare once again by prominent columnist and commentator Peter Beinart. For a number of years, the 49-year-old has had the status of Americas pre-eminent liberal Zionist intellectual. His trenchant essays and books buttressed the hope of liberal Jews in the possibility of rescuing the Zionist State of Israel from its very illiberal instincts.

Though Israels decades-long takeover of Palestine has been a constant source of shame and a test of faith, liberal Zionists, exhibiting clear signs of cognitive dissonance, still back the ethnic state. They hold to the possibility of, at the very least, an eventual two-state solution. Israels continued and proposed land theft makes such a prospect unlikely ever to materialise, however.

I no longer believe in a Jewish State, declared Beinart in a New York Times article. For decades I argued for separation between Israelis and Palestinians. Now, I can imagine a Jewish home in an equal state.

Renouncing his previous convictions, his conversion was no doubt caused by the overwhelming burden of holding on desperately to a liberal vision of Israel while watching simultaneously as it speeds down a path towards Judeo-fascism, with its elected leaders displaying the kinds of racism that any white-supremacist would be proud of.

Lets embrace Israeli annexation and work towards a single democratic state

Like so many liberal Jews, it seems that Beinart was willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt; understandable, some would say, given the tragic history of Jews in Europe. I believed in Israel as a Jewish state because I grew up in a family that had hopscotched from continent to continent as diaspora Jewish communities crumbled, he explained. Hence, Israel was always a source of comfort to his family and millions of other Jews.

Beinart has written extensively about the crises of Zionism and described the tension between his support for Israel and seeing the tragic impact its foundation had on the Palestinians. I knew Israel was wrong to deny Palestinians in the West Bank citizenship, due process, free movement and the right to vote in the country in which they lived, but the dream of a two-state solution that would give Palestinians a country of their own let me hope that I could remain a liberal and a supporter of Jewish statehood at the same time.

He insists now that events have extinguished that hope. This was an allusion to Benjamin Netanyahus planned annexation of the occupied West Bank. Challenging liberal Zionists to be honest about the direction in which Israel is headed, he added that, Israel has all but made its decision: one country that includes millions of Palestinians who lack basic rights. Now liberal Zionists must make our decision, too.

In the same week, the author also published a major essay in Jewish Currents, declaring the two-state solution to be dead. The harsh truth is that the project to which liberal Zionists like myself have devoted ourselves for decades a state for Palestinians separated from a state for Jews has failed, he wrote. He pointed out that, In most Jewish communities on earth, rejecting Israel is a greater heresy than rejecting God.

Laying out his new vision to reconcile Zionism with safeguarding the rights of Palestinians, Beinart suggested that, Equality could come in the form of one state that includes Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. He named several Palestinians writers, such as the late Edward Said, who proposed something similar. Or, he added, it could be a confederation that allows free movement between two deeply integrated countries.

Responding to Beinart, another self-declared liberal Zionist, Jonathan Freedland, asked, What next, if the two state dream is dead? Echoing Beinart, the Guardian columnist concluded that the hope of a two-state solution allowed many Jews to hide from the reality that Israeli Jews and Palestinians now inhabit a single political space. Now that this hope is vanishing, Freedland urged, we can hide no longer.

It should be said that critics of the two-state model have never harboured any illusions that a state founded on an ideology of ethnic supremacy Zionism would be willing or able to abandon its colonial ideology and subject itself to liberal principals of equality and the rule of law. Such critics opposition to Israels colonialism, decried by the likes of Freedland, is not rooted in antipathy towards the idea of a Jewish state per se. Rather, it stems from the belief that displacing hundreds of thousands of people and gerrymandering a Jewish majority to accommodate the fantasies of European Zionists was from the outset morally and legally indefensible.

Beinart suggested that Zionism itself isnt the problem, but Israel is due to its appropriation of a type of Zionism that seeks ethnic domination. A Jewish state has become the dominant form of Zionism, whereas the essence of Zionism is a Jewish home in the land of Israel, a thriving Jewish society that can provide refuge and rejuvenation for Jews across the world.

Optimism of the Will: Palestinian Freedom is Possible Now

Though Beinarts political conversion should be applauded, his suggestions are not very original. Palestine was earmarked for a national home for the Jewish people by Arthur Balfour himself in his eponymous 1917 declaration, not a Jewish state. Though many insist that the Balfour Declaration was indeed support for the creation of an ethnic state for Jews alone, they misread history; the Jews made up just 5 per cent of the population of Palestine at the time, and Balfour went on to say, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine Not even the most liberal of Zionists can say with any degree of honesty that that aspect of the Balfour Declaration has been followed in any way, shape or form.

I dont think its a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the aspiration of Palestinian nationalists at the turn of the 20th century was not far from what Beinart envisages now: an equality-driven nationalism, embracing all faiths and communities, to achieve self-determination for all who live within the territory. The source of civil unrest during the British Mandate for Palestine (1923-48) was unregulated immigration of European and American Jews who sought to undermine the political aspirations of the indigenous community by using violence to secede from the majority population that was simultaneously campaigning for an independent State of Palestine as a homeland for Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.

This vision of territorial nationalism was obstructed violently to accommodate the ethnic domination of European Zionists. However, a century of politically and socially engineered segregation has been nothing but a miserable failure.

From Balfour to US President Donald Trumps so called deal of the century over a hundred years later, the enforced fragmentation of Palestine has been the main source of conflict. A return to equality-driven nationalism, one that embraces every religious and ethnic group within historic Palestine, as Beinart notes, has a far greater chance of securing peace than one based on the domination of one racial group over another. The fact that someone like Peter Beinart no longer believes in a Jewish state tells us a lot about what that state has become.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

See more here:

The fact that Peter Beinart 'no longer believes in a Jewish State' tells us a lot - Middle East Monitor

Convoys mark 30th anniversary of Oka crisis as land dispute… – Todayville.com

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

KANESATAKE, Que. Slow-moving vehicles waving flags and sounding their hornsmarked the 30th anniversary of the Oka crisis on Saturday, with community activists urging real reconciliation and a settlement to the long-standing land claim that remains unresolved three decades later.

Land back, we want our land back, thats part of reconciliation, said Ellen Gabriel, a Mohawk activist and spokesperson for the People of the Longhouse in Kanesatake.

Giving our land back and having us partof the decision making process on what happens on our land, thats reconciliation, and it has to be done in a decolonized framework, in a way that respects Indigenous laws, that respects the rights of the women who are the title holders of the land youre standing on.

The commemoration was to honour those community members who played a critical role during in the summer of 1990, when the countrys attention was on Oka, a small town about 50 kilometres northwest of Montreal.

The stand taken that summer became an important symbol for peoples across North America, inspiring them to take similar stands against the emancipation of their ancestral lands, Gabriel said.

Thirty years ago Saturday, on July 11, 1990, Quebec provincial police moved in on a barricade erected by Mohawksthat March to protest the planned expansion of a golf course and development on what is ancestral land.

A provincial police officer was killed and the situation escalated into a tense, 78-day standoff between Mohawks and Canadian soldiers.

Our basic human rights were violated by the Surete du Quebec (provincial police), the Canadian army, condoned by the governments of Quebec and Canada, pushed forward by private enterprises including those within the municipality of Oka, Gabriel said.

The 1990 siege ended when the expansion was cancelled and the barricades came down.

Three decades later, however,the underlying land dispute remains unresolved.

The trio of federal ministers that oversee Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada said in a statement the pain and trauma inflicted continues to this day.

Today, we must acknowledge that progress in our relationship has been unequal, halting, and often, far too slow, thegovernment said, addingmistakes must be learned from.

We must resolve to never order the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces against Indigenous Peoples, as we remain deeply committed to dialogue and peaceful resolution of conflict.

Likethe conversation around residential schools and murdered and missing Indigenous women, Gabriel said the issue in Kanesatake wont be an easy one.

Its going to be an uncomfortable discussion, Gabriel said. But when are we actually going to see actions and have a voice in what reconciliation is going to be.

Under a light rain, a rolling convoy made its way through the community to a nearby provincial park, passing by a real-estate development in Oka that has been a flash point in recent years, before returning home.

A similar event took placeSaturday in Kahnawake Mohawk Reserve, southwest of Montreal, where a rolling convoy of vehicles from that community stopped briefly on the Mercier Bridge, which was barricaded in 1990 in solidarity for those manning posts in Oka.

A lot of people joined in and it lasted a good two hours, driving on the highway at about 10 kilometres an hour, said Joe Deom, a sub-chief in the Bear clan.

I felt it good about the attention our own people had to this anniversary a lot of our own people werent even born at that time, so its good that theyre enthusiastic about it.

Among those present in Kanesatake on Saturday was NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Manitoba NDP MP Leah Gazan, invited by the Longhouse.

Singh said thirty years removed, lessons clearly havent been learned.

The problem was created by Canada, Singh said. Its 2020, with the resources this country has, theres no excuse why this cannot be resolved.

In many ways, Gabriel said, the situation remains unchanged land rights arent respected and systemic racism remains at the core of Indigenous peoples relationship with governments.

Ghislain Picard, the grand chief of the Quebec Assembly of First Nations, marked the 30th anniversary with an open letter calling on Quebec Premier Francois Legault to change his tune on systemic racism, which the premier has said repeatedly doesnt exist.

Systemic racism and discrimination are not just concepts or theoretical notions, Picard wrote. Rather, they are a set of facts and behaviours and we should not be afraid to name and denounce them if we are genuinely willing to correct them.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 11, 2020.

Sidhartha Banerjee, The Canadian Press

TALKING POINT TUESDAY: Party representatives give their views on homelessness in the city – In Your Area

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

By InYourArea Community

PHOTO CREDIT: Steve Bould/Stoke Sentinel

Every Tuesday the Cambridge News asks local party representatives their views on local matters.

This week they tackled the following question:

What more can be done to support the homeless in Cambridge?

When the lockdown started City Council workers sprang into action to find places for 104 people who were homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

That shows what can be done when there is a will and a clear vision.

As in so many other areas the pandemic has broadened our horizons of what is possible and taught us to think radically.

Sadly over recent decades we have become all too used to seeing homeless people on the streets of our towns and cities.

We come to think of homelessness as an inevitable fact of life, when it is a product of the unjust and unequal economic system we have fashioned for ourselves. With will and determination we can end homelessness. We know that now.

Back in 2012, a government study estimated that each homeless person costs the public purse 30,000 per year in the costs of healthcare, benefits, police time and local authority resources and that is before the personal costs to the people who are homeless are factored in. That indicates how much is theoretically available to address the need.

Green Party policy is to jettison a treatment first policy in favour of a housing first policy i.e. to spend money on finding places for homeless people to live and then addressing their other needs. Now that the Council has experience of imaginative initiatives to find space for homeless people, Greens would urge them to make greater use of the powers they already have to take over unused property, such as Empty Dwelling Management Orders.

A root cause of the problem is the runaway cost of housing in Cambridge. Greens advocate a land value tax to take the heat out of the property market and to discourage speculation.

Rising levels of homelessness in Cambridge represent a failure of national and local policy on housing, health and social care.

The Covid-19 pandemic has acted as a rallying call, providing us with a unique opportunity to make a real difference to this issue: as a result of the pandemic, around 15,000 rough sleepers have been provided with emergency accommodation nationally, of which 140 are in Cambridge.

This represents only a small proportion of the true homeless population, many of whom are living with friends or in other temporary or insecure accommodation.

The Council should make a commitment that no one accommodated as part of this emergency response should have to return to sleeping rough and guarantee that nobody will be evicted from emergency housing without an alternative.

We need to provide sufficient accommodation for a range of housing options, so that they can be tailored to individual needs.

This will include social housing for those on the housing needs register who are at risk of becoming homeless, as well as safe accommodation for women, supported housing for those moving on from hostels and a dedicated Housing First scheme to help the most entrenched rough sleepers.

Beyond bricks and mortar, our approach must be holistic and integrated with healthcare services many people struggling with homelessness have complex issues related to addiction and mental health which make holding down tenancies difficult, even when available.

We need to improve on the current fragmented approach and provide co-ordinated support that accompanies individuals on their journey from the streets to accommodation until it is sustainable.

Finally, we need the whole community to play its role in helping to end homelessness Oxford has a well-established rough sleeping charter which aims to bring citizens, businesses and charities together with the shared goal of ending rough sleeping: it is high time Cambridge had one too.

I am proud of the role played by Cambridge City Council during the coronavirus health emergency, together with the wonderful community sector, to shield rough sleepers in our city.

We found safe accommodation for more than 140 people who were sleeping rough or at risk of homelessness.

One silver lining of this is that we now have an opportunity to turn around as many lives as we can for the better.

Many who sought shelter were previously resistant to existing support on offer by the council and street outreach agencies.

We have conducted interviews with those in temporary accommodation to discuss what support they need to sustain a longer-term housing placement.

Without support to overcome mental health and addiction issues, there is a risk they will end up back on the street.

We have already found 35 rough sleepers longer-term housing placements, and currently in the process of sourcing more homes for those remaining. We hope to complete this work by October.

When considering the future, we need to see a more determined approach by central government in tackling homelessness.

Conservative and Liberal Democrat governments since 2010 have allowed rough sleeping to rise in the UK by 140 per cent, a sad outcome of a decade of austerity.

Austerity must end, with urgent investment required to underpin a strategy that fully grapples with the causes and effects of homelessness.

That means more affordable homes with greater freedoms and incentives for councils to build their own council housing. Rent controls must be enacted in the private rental sector, together with more rights for tenants.

We also need better and sustainable long-term funding for councils so our existing homelessness work can be improved and enhanced, linked to a stronger commitment to support vital street outreach, mental health and rehabilitation services.

In 2005 a local author, Alexander Masters, working at the time in a Cambridge hostel for the homeless, wrote a prize-winning account, told backwards, of his remarkable friendship with Stuart Shorter, a longtime homeless person.

Stuarts life story, told backwards, started with his death on the July 6, 2002 when he was hit by a train on the London to Kings Lynn railway line, back to his childhood, which had begun happily enough but due to a series of misfortunes in later life led him into petty crime and homelessness.

Alexander had intended that readers of his book should empathise with Stuart and how his life had unravelled, but my focus was always on the extraordinary friendship between them.

The basis of that friendship was a non-judgmental mutual acceptance but Alexander was also able to offer practical support during bad times and to help Stuart negotiate a pretty merciless society.

I had a similar experience when I served as a board member of Wintercomfort many years ago. A small group of clients and I would make regular visits to local bird sanctuaries, take woodland walks or play soccer on Midsummer Common and as a result we became pretty close friends, though nowhere near to the same degree as that between Alexander and Stuart.

What these anecdotes lead up to is that in answer to what more could be done to support the homeless I suggest that the council and local charities might consider setting up a scheme of volunteer buddies so that homeless individuals always have a friend to whom they can turn to for advice and support

Buddies would, of course, need to be trained and their suitability assessed but essentially they would become heirs of that special friendship between Alexander and Stuart which may have ended with Stuarts tragic death but which for much of his adult life was his mainstay.

Do you have a question you would like to see answered in the Cambridge News?

Post a general message in your InYourArea live feed here using the hashtag #TalkingPointTuesday and we will pass it on to the local community news team.

See the original post:

TALKING POINT TUESDAY: Party representatives give their views on homelessness in the city - In Your Area

An international student’s perspective on race relations on campus – University of Dallas University News

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

In the wake of the George Floyd protests and the subsequent social unrest that has arisen in response to the tragedy, it has been immensely saddening to witness the recent events that have cast a shadow over race relations and policing in the United States. My heart and prayers go out to my friends and for the future of their great nation.

I myself am not an American but have deep connections to the U.S. through my education at the University of Dallas. I am an international student of Chinese descent hailing from Singapore. I transferred to UD in the summer of 2016, joining my sister in pursuit of a liberal arts education.

We both graduated in 2020 and are immensely grateful for the liberal arts education we received, and for the bonds we have forged with our classmates and professors in Texas. It was a shame we had to leave so soon.

As a citizen of a young but vibrant multiracial country, Singapore is no stranger to racism and social tensions, though our issues with discrimination are different than those in the United States.

However, as many in UD have noted that the voices of our international community are often left unheard, I aim to provide an outsider/insider perspective about concerns around racial discussions, offer examples of racism on campus and perhaps even give a possible long term solution to help bridge differences within our small but tight-knit community.

Through a difficult topic to broach, the UD community overall is not racist at heart.

A vast majority of my peers, professors, and staff have always been immensely respectful and even inquisitive about my life in Singapore. As an alumnus from our university rooted in the Western tradition, I am grateful for UDs thought-provoking education that has led me to gain a better understanding of my own culture and identity as a Singaporean. Though not always the case, I am also appreciative of the willingness of our student body and teaching staff at times to tackle difficult topics such as race and culture, even if we have not always agreed.

However, many including myself feel that our community-at-large has struggled with discussions on race. Particular experiences in my time at UD have highlighted such negative tensions.

These examples are by no means blatant acts of racism but do indicate a level of abrasiveness within the UD community when engaging in such racial discussions. Though these incidents are disheartening, President Thomas Hibbs, the recent results of our diversity poll, and numerous members of our community have rightly indicated that silence and ignorance will never be the solution to racism.

Aside from racially charged epithets from intoxicated students (a common occurrence), the encounter I remember most vividly occurred during my freshman year. I was having dinner with a bunch of newly acquainted friends, and I shared my difficulties in my Spanish core class. They questioned me about my second language, Mandarin, as they knew from a previous conversation that most Singaporeans are bilingual.

I shared that I had attempted to substitute my language requirement with Mandarin, but could not due to complications that would arise from finding a Mandarin speaker that was able to certify my proficiency in the language. I nevertheless made it clear that I accepted the outcome, as I was more than happy to pick up Spanish as a third language. However, one of my friends seemed insulted by my attempt to use Mandarin as a language substitute.

When I probed further, he bluntly stated that he believed that I should not have even asked to use Chinese as a language requirement substitute. He argued that as I was entering a Western liberal arts university, I should have known that such an institution could not accept non- Western influences. In particular, he believed that Asian culture contradicted core Western principles such as the dignity of the individual and freedom of expression. He recommended that I leave UD if I maintained this attitude. We quickly dropped the controversial discussion and shifted to other topics.

Another similar instance occurred during a conversation in my sophomore year. A UD student brought up a social media controversy where a high school student of Caucasian descent had worn a Qipao (also known as a Cheongsam), a traditional Chinese dress, to her prom.

Unfortunately, photos of her outfit circulated on social media, where some Asian-Americans accused her of appropriating a culture that was not hers. While I made it clear that I was not insulted by her choice of dress, this UD student argued that these criticisms were racist towards whites, as the same could be said of Asians appropriating Caucasian culture by wearing denim and suits, among other articles of clothing.

Personal experience has also revealed that students find it difficult to engage in discussions on race-related issues. For instance, a classroom discussion on how Hegels philosophy helped spur Eurocentric and dehumanizing views towards the non-Western world was met with complete silence from most of my peers.

While concerning, I would wager that a vast majority of the UD community is aware of the inherent immorality of racism. Catholic social teachings have always vehemently rejected any form of discrimination as dehumanizing and immoral.

In recent years, both Pope Francis I and Pope emeritus Benedict XVI have decried all forms of racist sentiments. Our current Holy Father has responded to the George Floyd protests, condemning racism and violence. Cardinal Ratzinger shared similar views in a 2008 speech in the Vatican. He noted the continued prevalence of racist sentiments in modern societies, and that no conditions exist for such views to be justified. Not limited to the highest order of the Catholic Church, the condemnation of racism from countless lay people throughout the United States is indicative of Catholicisms desire to see a world free from all prejudice.

Furthermore, while not a well-known document by most Catholics, the Nostra Aetate declaration from the Second Vatican Council indicates the Churchs immense respect for other faiths across the globe. While it does not directly address the issue of racism per se, Nostra Aetate reiterates the Churchs position against discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion, and recognizes our shared humanity through mans search for a higher purpose as seen throughout all civilizations. Our Catholic identity clearly condemns any and all forms of prejudice.

However, personal experience has indicated that as UD is a liberal arts university rooted in the Western tradition, one could argue that any recognition of the negative aspects of Western civilization (in this case: racism and the legacy of colonialism) could be interpreted as critical of the West, and hence antithetical to UDs mission.

While not the only obstacle in engaging in discussions on race at UD, I would argue that this conundrum has led to a no mans land in racial dialogue on campus. Even though the brutal legacy of colonialism justifiably remains an unavoidable stain on Western civilization, any critique of the West and/or the introduction of non-Western influences could be interpreted as an attempt to undermine the very principles that UD is based upon. The occasional racist epithets I have heard on the Mall in response to the playing of Korean pop music is an example of such sentiments.

Compounding this issue is an emerging hostility towards any form of racial dialogue in the United States. The real-world consequences, like losing your job from espousing views that could be deemed as racist, have led many to dismiss the expression of anti-racist declarations as merely pandering to US mainstream society. As UD is an institution that often prides itself on its counter-cultural principles, some members of our community share similar sentiments with regard to racial issues.

In keeping with that spirit of counter-culturalism in contrast to the fatalistic perceptions of race relations in the U.S., evident in the rise of cancel culture, I believe that UD is in a unique position to potentially be a standard-bearer for race relations on American campuses. As a small liberal arts university, we have a level of social and administrative flexibility that other colleges do not have, and as such can experiment with introducing changes. While I recognize that change can be a taboo subject in our community, I believe that small incremental steps to improving racial dialogue need not distort UDs identity.

I humbly suggest we consider the introduction of a class on racial dialogue. Given the potential controversy that such a class might generate within the UD community, it need not be a compulsory addition to the Core, but rather an optional one-credit class to engage with cultures within and beyond the United States. The aim of this class would be to foster mutual respect between the various beliefs and identities within UD, without compromising our Catholic and Western foundations. Mutual understanding of other cultures need not translate to a complete dismissal of our own.

Strongly rooted in the Western tradition as we are, I believe that UD should place equal emphasis on the positive and negative aspects of Western civilization. Though I acknowledge the unwillingness to engage in a critical analysis of ones own history, the importance of self-reflection has always remained a crucial exercise per our Catholic tradition.

As Americans celebrate their independence, they can be proud of their great nation. Though issues like slavery, internment camps and mass incarceration (among others) indicate that the United States has not always recognized the dignity of all peoples as inherently equal, most Americans have always valued their nations declaration of the equality of all human life through its founding documents and ideals, an aspect of the American identity that its people do and should continue to hold dear.

As an institution and community that embraces the pursuit of truth and justice, UD should always strive to combat racism. In doing so, we acknowledge an unalienable truth: our shared commonality through the struggle of the human condition, indicative of our equality as Gods people.

The rest is here:

An international student's perspective on race relations on campus - University of Dallas University News

America may vote Trump out, but will it ever lose his legacy? – Shout Out UK

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

In November, Covid-19 permitting, there will be an election in America. Many are now convinced that Biden will break the tradition of a president getting two terms and win the election. However, this does not mean that the legacy of Trump will be easy to erase.

Well in the short term, it will be a badly handled crisis that caused thousands of deaths. An administration that advocated violence against those protesting Institutional racism. And a country with a faltering economy. However, long after the protests die down and the American economy recovers, his longer-term legacy will be one of discord, resentment, and polarisation. People will look back on this time, as one where the press was no longer trusted by anyone and where politics came before anything else, even the truth.

There are many ways in which this will manifest itself in the American political system, and there is a danger to the legislative and political process within America itself. The clearest and most obvious way is through the judiciary. Trump has appointed two justices, one of which replaced a more liberal-leaning judge. This means that all decisions relating to constitutional issues must be put before a far more conservative Supreme Court. This would mean even a democratic president with all the backing of the house and the senate would struggle to get any gun control law passed, and we can say goodbye to Medicare or changes to abortion laws. Moreover, if he does win four more years, he will likely get another pick at a justice which could mean a conservative-leaning judiciary for 20 more years to come. However, outside of the external threat to liberal values, he has also made a tear in the fabric of American politics. One that may be impossible to repair.

Trust in the media has hit an all-time low and Trump has both driven and profited off of this. In discrediting any news source that comes out about him, he now has a band of loyal followers who refuse to believe anything other than what Trump and Fox News says. This has also had the opposite effect as well; those who dislike Trump are tending to not believe anything other than CNN and agreeable politicians. This has, by many, been classed as a culture war.

People live in an echo chamber of their own ideas, Trump has pushed this and legitimised the dangerous idea that you do not have to discuss things with people you disagree with. This has also led to one of the most significant things that can happen in a political system: polarisation. One side cannot talk to the other and when they do, they become irritated and entrench themselves further. This trickles down into legislation that does not listen to other points of view and culminates in government shutdowns and worse legislation for it.

Now, no-one is claiming that America was the land of the respectful political debate before Trump. Polarisation in America has been around since the start of democracy in America the system has a lot to answer for. Despite this, it seems obvious to spectators that he has turned up the volume on polarisation to the max, in an attempt to gain more political power. People that vote for Trump are angry. Polarisation gives that anger a political avenue and pushes polarisation further. But then again, this might just be fake news!

When voters come to the polls in November, I believe that they will elect Trump once again. But even if the Democrats manage to make Joe Biden an attractive option for president (no small feat in itself), the trace of Trump and so-called Trumpism will live on in American politics for years to come. Bitterness and divisiveness, where the economy takes a backseat and cultural issues are thrust forward will be the new normal. To misquote Bill Clinton: its not the economy stupid. Because cultural issues are far less likely to be won by facts and debate but by shouting the loudest.

Polarisation is okay and populism is good, but only when you win of course. When the left win again in America, they will be harder left and more aggressive than ever before because of Trump. As many Trump supporters will soon find out, popularism swings both ways. Trump may have just about found a way of removing the centre-ground and bipartisanship from American politics forever.

Trump has ultimately pulled the right away from the centre and pushed the left away at every opportunity. His weapons of choice are anger and divisiveness. The result means less compromise, less pragmatism and fundamentally meaner politics. Every president has a legacy and changes America forever. However, Trump will have changed America more than most, and this new style of politics is bad for it, bad for legislation and ultimately bad for the people. This will not change come Novemeber.

Read this article:

America may vote Trump out, but will it ever lose his legacy? - Shout Out UK

Deep Space Exploration and Technology Market Incredible Possibilities, Growth with Industry Study, Detailed Analysis and Forecast to 2025 -…

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

Deep Space Exploration and Technology Market Incredible Possibilities, Growth with Industry Study, Detailed Analysis and Forecast to 2025Date: 2020-07-10 Author: Sachin PashteCategory: #news

Market Study Report LLC has announced the launch of Deep Space Exploration and Technology market report, a comprehensive study enumerating the latest price trends and pivotal drivers rendering a positive impact on the industry landscape. Further, the report is inclusive of the competitive terrain of this vertical in addition to the market share analysis and the contribution of the prominent contenders toward the overall industry.

The Deep Space Exploration and Technology market report presents a detailed analysis of this industry with respect to pivotal parameters. In essence, the research study elaborates on providing an intensive outline of the business space, focusing on the market share, growth opportunities, and product and application segmentation. Also, the report delivers a detailed gist of the prime vendors as well as revenue-generating geographies. In essence, the objective of the Deep Space Exploration and Technology market report is to deliver a concise summary of the industry in terms of the current and future scenarios.

Request a sample Report of Deep Space Exploration and Technology Market at:https://www.marketstudyreport.com/request-a-sample/2765088?utm_source=algosonline.com&utm_medium=Ram

How the report provides an insight for new entrants & stakeholders wishing to invest in the industry:

Drivers & Challenges of the Deep Space Exploration and Technology market: How does the report elaborate on the same?

The geographical spectrum of the industry and its impact on the Deep Space Exploration and Technology market landscape:

Ask for Discount on Deep Space Exploration and Technology Market Report at:https://www.marketstudyreport.com/check-for-discount/2765088?utm_source=algosonline.com&utm_medium=Ram

Deep Space Exploration and Technology market Segmentation: An overview:

For More Details On this Report: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-deep-space-exploration-and-technology-market-growth-status-and-outlook-2020-2025

Related Reports:

2. Global Cloud Computing Chips Market Growth (Status and Outlook) 2020-2025Read More: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/global-cloud-computing-chips-market-growth-status-and-outlook-2020-2025

Link:

Deep Space Exploration and Technology Market Incredible Possibilities, Growth with Industry Study, Detailed Analysis and Forecast to 2025 -...

Jamia Hamdard organised an International Webinar on STATUS OF SMART CITIES IN THE GLOBAL SCENARIO amidst the Coronavirus outbreak – India Education…

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

New Delhi: Jamia Hamdard organised an International Webinar on STATUS OF SMART CITIES IN THE GLOBAL SCENARIO amidst the Coronavirus outbreak following the norms of social-distancing. The webinar provide a platform for interactions among the extremely renowned & esteemed Doctors, Directors, Professors, AI experts from the worlds reputed Universities & research institutions towards the break through scientific discoveries & solutions for the need of the hour.The event was held under the patronage of Honble Vice Chancellor Professor Dr. Seyed Ehtesham Hasnain, Honble Pro-Vice Chancellor Dr. Ahmed Kamal. Our eminent Chairman of the event was none other than Honble Dean, Professor M. Afshar Alam.

Esteemed personalities mainly Dr. Parvez Hayat, IPS, Ex-DGP, Jharkhand Police, Mr. Tarun Singhal, VP-Engineering, Hughes Systique , Mr. Saba Akhtar, Senior Technical Director, NIC , , Prof. (Dr.) Gulsun Kurubacak, Anadolu University, Turkey, Dr. Supavadee Aramwith, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand Dr. Charru Malhotra, E-government & ICT, IIPA, New Delhi, India participated as invited speakers and gave an insightful lecture on the current prevailing situation.

The coordinators of the event were Dr. Parul Agarwal, Dr. Tabrez Nafees, Mr. Tabish Mufti, Ms. Richa Gupta and Ms. Pooja Gupta.

There were around 400 participants from all over India & abroad which includes participants from Morocco, Kuwait, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Pakistan, and Philippines. A few alumnus and participations from IIM, IIT, BHU, AMU, JNU, were also witnessed.The webinar was commenced by Dr. Parul Agarwal (event coordinator) by providing an extended warm welcome where she gave an introduction of Smart Cities and how it can be of great help in the current scenario.Dean, SEST, Jamia Hamdard Professor, M. Afshar Alam discussed about Smart city by highlighting urban area which uses different means of electronic Internet of things sensors to collect data and then use insights gained from that data to manage assets, resources and services efficiently, in return using data to better improve the operations across the city.(Dr.) Parvez Hayat, (IPS, Ex-DGP, Jharkhand Police)Dr. Parvez Hayat talked about the design and infrastructural requirements of smart cities. He referred to the first model smart city, the Barcelona model from 90s and also stressed on the use of Machine learning and Artificial intelligence which is being used in modern smart cities to solve problems like water leakage, food management and e-waste management. The uses of ICT, IoT, 5G network etc., are some common features of smart cities. Disaster detection, monitoring and threat detectors are integrated inbuilt technologies of the citizen centric approach of smart city cultures.

Mr. Tarun Singhal, VP-Engineering, Hughes SystiqueMr. Tarun Singhal, discussed the exponential growth in IoT devices within the last 20 years to a whopping 30 million due to the smart cities development. IoT is used in solutions catering to waste management, water management, energy management and mobility tracking systems. He talked about some major components of smart cities as the use of digital platforms like multi-cloud system, Traffic congestion management and smart lighting solutions and smart parking solutions. He highlighted the fact that application of IoT in traffic management can reduce approx. 26% of travel time. Mr. Singhal also discussed times series modelling based on ARIMA model, a model which helps in finding the shortest path.Mr. Saba Akhtar, Senior Technical Director, NIC.Mr.Saba Akhtars address dealt with smart education environments and eco-systems which constitutes online trainings and learning. These smart educational eco-systems function around central portal management and personalization, smart business process management and research and innovation. He also threw some light on smart educational solutions which features enhanced and interactive learning experience, access to online resources etc. These smart solutions have resulted in a generation of smart learners who have comprehensive abilities and seek the available technological support from personalized expertise and knowledge.

(Dr.) Prof. (Dr.) Gulsun Kurubacak, Anadolu University, TurkeyProf. Dr. Gulsun Kurubacak, is an Associate Professor at Anadolu University, Turkey. She deals with communication problems with critical pedagogy and helps in improving learner critical thinking skills through project based online learning. In todays webinar she presented her ideas on becoming smart citizens before having smart cities. She emphasized on importance on online education and certification, collaborating on research network and partnerships in this era of COVID-19. To have a concrete foundation for smart cities, it is important to have a change in technological infrastructure, have dynamic and interactive government structure and a lifelong learning attitude. To have smart cities, it is important to implement sustainable goals as suggested by her.

(Dr.) Prof. (Dr.) Supavadee Aramwith, Chulalongkorn University, ThailandShe talked about Sustainable Development Scenario for Smart Cities in the Transhumanist Era. Goals and Various stages of smart city development and numerous examples were cited of smart cities where she gave a well-illustrated presentation.

(Dr.) Charru Malhotra, E-government & ICT, IIPA, New Delhi ,IndiaDr. Charru Malhotra, Associate Professor, E-gov & ICT, at Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, India talked about Governments smart city program, Using ICTs for delivery of smart services like smart governance, smart security system etc, and also shared views on why it is vital to adopt a citizen-centric approach. Talked about the ways and methodology to be adopted for smart city development talked about the affordable aspect of smart city.

See the original post here:

Jamia Hamdard organised an International Webinar on STATUS OF SMART CITIES IN THE GLOBAL SCENARIO amidst the Coronavirus outbreak - India Education...

Mary L. Trump’s new book almost turns The Donald into a sympathetic figure – USA TODAY

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

Melinda Henneberger, Opinion columnist Published 3:15 a.m. ET July 14, 2020 | Updated 6:51 a.m. ET July 14, 2020

President Trump's niece, Mary Trump, will release her tell-all-book on July 14. Here are some of the most notable excerpts. Wochit

Mary L. Trump's new book gives the history of the Trump family and insight into why her uncle, Donald Trump, is the way he is.

Mary L. Trump, the presidents only niece, has almost pulled off the impossible in her new tell-all bookabout her terrible family: She has almost turned Donald J. Trump into a sympathetic figure.

In Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the Worlds Most Dangerous Man, he is among the many victims of his abusive father, Fred Trump, who ran the family like it was a reality TV show on which only the most gratuitously cruel contestant gets to eat.

As for maternal affection, that didnt happen, either; at one point, Donalds mother Mary admits to the author that she was relieved when she could finally ship his bratty self off to military school.

Since nearly every character in this extensive catalog of bad behavior is a miserable and hobbled human, daddys thoroughly dishonest favorite, whose only real skill was getting his made up self-praise printed as fact in the New York tabloids, does not even rate as the worst of his clan.

There are a few exceptions: The authors sad, gentle, alcoholic father, who is treated like Harry Potter in his own home, the authors brother and mother, who are likewise routinely victimized, and Marla Maples, Trumps second wife, who only has a cameo in the book, but stands out as the only person outside the authors immediate family who is not completely bloodless: She was just two years older than I was and about as different from Ivana as a human being could be. Marla was down to earth and soft spoken where Ivana was all flash, arrogance and spite.

New book by Mary Trump.(Photo: Simon & Schuster, left, and Peter Serling/Simon & Schuster via AP)

Essentially, the Trumps were the Borgia familywithout the art, constantly plotting, cheating and, in Donalds case, getting bailed out and bankrolled by Fred, who wasdelighted byhis second sons flashy, phony narrative that he was willing to prop him up indefinitely.

Trump: I'm the president, I can't be subpoenaed or investigated. Supreme Court: Uh, no.

If youve ever wondered, as most of us have, how our 45th president became someone who seems to enjoy caging children and mocking disabilities, who doesnt understand sacrifice or any noble impulse, who doesnt know what you say to someone whos grieving and who envies dictators their reeducation camps, its all here, as told by a witness with an eye for detail and a PhD in psychology.

But the result isnt, as the author imagines, to take down Dangerous Donald. Instead, her account humanizes him: He doesnt know what love is because his parents didnt, either. He has to hear constant praise because he knows hes spent his whole life faking it.

There are no true surprises in this depressing book.

(What, Donald Trump really paid someone to take his SAT test? No way.He and his dad really enjoyed a running commentary on ugly women? Youre kidding.Ivana was so cheap that she re-gifted goody baskets on Christmas, but even then plucked out the good stuff first? Shocker)

Maybe the best single paragraph about what being Trump has meant to the author is this one, about the night she spent in Donald Trump's D.C. hotel before an awkward family dinner at the White House in 2017: My room was also tasteful. But my name was plastered everywhere, on everything: TRUMP shampoo, TRUMP conditioner, TRUMP slippers, TRUMP shower cap, TRUMP shoe polish, TRUMP sewing kit, and TRUMP bathrobe. I opened the refrigerator, grabbed a split of TRUMP white wine, andpoured it down my Trump throat so it could course through my Trump bloodstreamand hit the pleasure center of my Trump brain."

Resolve after appalling Roger Stone commutation: Don't let Donald Trump break us, America.

In the end, her narrative is almost unbelievably all-one-way; even Donald's mother, her Gam, is fine with seeing the author, her namesake, cheated of her inheritance, though Mary was the only one who'd bothered to sit with her after her husband Fred died. So you do have to wonder how much of this tidiness has been colored by her justifiable bitterness.

But if you somehow still think of Donald J. Trump as a whiz in business, or even a decent deal-maker, this book could be instructive.

And if you think your relatives are toxic, well, step aside for the Trumps.

Melinda Henneberger is an editorial writer and columnist for The Kansas City Star and a member of the USA TODAY Board of Contributors. Follow her onTwitter:@MelindaKCMO

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/14/mary-trump-book-donald-trump-sympathy-column/5428032002/

Continued here:

Mary L. Trump's new book almost turns The Donald into a sympathetic figure - USA TODAY

President Donald Trump shares former game show host Chuck Woolery tweet that CDC is lying about Coronavirus – MassLive.com

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

President Donald Trump retweeted a post on Monday from former game show host Chuck Woolery claiming everyone is lying about COVID-19 including the administrations own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The most outrageous lies are the ones about Covid 19. Everyone is lying. The CDC, Media, Democrats, our Doctors, not all but most that we are told to trust. I think its all about the election and keeping the economy from coming back, which is about the election. Im sick of it, tweeted the one-time host of Love Connection and Wheel of Fortune. It was then retweeted by Trump.

The president also retweeted another Woolery claim: There is so much evidence, yes scientific evidence, that schools should open this fall. Its worldwide and its overwhelming. BUT NO.

So far, there have been more than 3.3 million cases of coronavirus in the U.S., resulting in more than 135,000 deaths.

New York reported no new deaths from the disease Monday, the first time since the pandemic hit that state.

On the flip side, Florida reported more than 12,343 new cases Monday, one day after its 15,283 new cases broke the daily record for any state since the pandemic began. Florida has tallied 282,435 cases.

Tesla stock surges more than 200% in 2020 three experts on what comes next – CNBC

Posted on July 14, 2020 by Danzig

Tesla shares have jumped nearly 230% so far this year.

Three experts break down what's next.

Dan Ives, managing director of equity research at Wedbush, says one thing matters above the rest.

"What's the fundamental value? If you have a million-mile battery, what does that add to the stock? ... It comes down to scarcity. How do you play the EV market? ... It all comes down to the P word: profitability."

Brian Johnson, senior autos analyst at Barclays, says Tesla could face a make-or-break moment later this year.

"We think the reckoning that there is going to be could be more when we get to the second half and the fourth quarter ... If this were a real growth stock, we'd actually be talking about things like same-country, same-model sales, and so if you back out China from this quarter, back it out from a year-ago quarter, the rest of the world shrunk 28%. Now of course there's Covid, of course there's challenges, but that isn't that different from many of the legacy automakers."

Colin Rusch, managing director and senior research analyst at Oppenheimer, sees major upside ahead.

"We're really going back to our numbers. It's run aggressively past our price target that was $968. We put that in place over a quarter ago, and as we look at what the company has planned out for 2024 and 2025, you know, we see the potential for 50% to 70% upside."

Disclaimer

More here:

Tesla stock surges more than 200% in 2020 three experts on what comes next - CNBC

Select Page ::