UI partners with autism research organization amid community concerns – UI The Daily Iowan

The University of Iowa recently began work with SPARK for Autism, a research organization of which the UI has been an extension site for three years, on a project that aims to map the heterogeneous medical complexities of autism, causing concern for some UI community members and student organizations.

SPARK representative for Iowa Jacob Michaelson said SPARKs endgame is to organize a pool of more than 50,000 individuals with autism, and their families in order to better understand autism across the spectrum and address medical issues that can be developed from having autism, such as eating and sleeping disorders, and not to find a cure.

However, some UI students are skeptical about the partnership between the university and SPARKs intentions, fearing that a wide database could be used for early identification of autism and preventing it.

UI senior Adrian Sandersfeld, a member of the autistic community, said in an email to The Daily Iowanthat their initial reaction to the partnership was one of alienation and anger.

I feel like the University of Iowa does not really care about autistic students at all, Sandersfeld said. This partnership between the UI and SPARK will only make us feel more alienated. Money that could be spent improving the academic environment for neurodiverse students is being wasted on [a] eugenics project. Answering questions for this article is the closest Ive ever come in having my voice heard on this matter by anyone in power at the University of Iowa.

Sandersfeld mentioned that UI students created the ABAL Therapeutics, a designing software to assist parents of children with autism by providing at-home ABA therapy.

Sandersfeld said they believe the partnership threatened not only autistic students, but UI Hospitals and Clinics patients as well. As both, Sandersfeld said, it makes them suspicious of their doctors and angry at university administrators.

Sandersfeld added that autism is a disability, not a disease.

Michaelson said SPARK has been met with some controversy as some believe the organization wishes to find ways to cure autism and develop methods to suppress it, but the research would lead to higher acceptance of those with autism throughout the community, which would in turn be essential to the fulfillment of SPARKs mission.

I think there are some people who are afraid of the unknown, Michaelson said. There are a lot of unknowns with autism. You cant have increased acceptance in the face of a total mystery. We are not looking for a cure for autism. The whole point here is fundamental science understanding at the personal, biological, and community level. Understanding is the best hope we have to improve the lives of those with autism and their families.

Michaelson said the established SPARK team at the university is now focusing on the medical issues that can be developed from having autism, such as eating and sleeping disorders. He said UIHC put out a call for 5,000 individuals or families of someone with autism that also had eating or sleeping disorders to participate in the study. Now, the group is offering saliva kits delivered to home as COVID-19 social-distancing recommendations are in place.

He said the UI autistic community has a seat at the table by having members on the advisory committee, so perspectives from stakeholders in the conducted research can be heard and the right questions can be asked.

RELATED: Iowa City Autism Community distributing Calm Kits to high-need elementary schools

Before the existence of SPARK, many smaller studies were conducted, made up of about 100 participants, to distinguish certain types of autism, he said. Researchers have failed to find a concrete answer.

[SPARK] will hopefully be a resource for researchers and scientists for the next 20 years, Michaelson said. Researchers can reach out to the community and ask for specific volunteers for their studies, since the spectrum for autism is [wide]. It can span inability to communicate to being high-functioning, where they can have a conversation and you would not know right away that they had autism.

UI masters student Andrea Courtney, treasurer for UI Students for Disability Advocacy and Awareness, said she had not heard of the UI partnership with SPARK before being contacted by the DI, but she said she was hesitant to believe the intentions of the autism study at UIHC were pure based on knowledge of other autism research groups.

I know people who have autistic siblings and I have worked with those who will probably receive a diagnosis in the future, Courtney said. There are ways to improve the quality of lives of those with autism without looking for a cure, like improving accessibility to education and the workforce.

She said hearing that the university had decided to collaborate with SPARK made her feel as though officials were making a choice about how autism should define individuals.

[This study] seems like its coming from a perspective that the person is the problem, she said. Not the environment or the barriers that society has created. Have they reached out to those on the opposing side? Its societys ableism that needs to be fixed.

Director of the University of California Davis MIND Institute Len Abbeduto said the neurodiversity movement is a reminder of the value of individuals and no one is more or less valuable to society. He said SPARKs work applies to understanding societal challenges that those with autism may have.

We focus on words such as disease and disorder so much that it can appear to have a negative connotation, Abbeduto said. In the case of autism, it is less about autism itself and more about the challenges that come from autism, such as limits to being independent and medical disorders.

He said the research the UI is conducting with SPARK, and autism research in general, is to understand the basis of medical challenges from autism and treat them, not about finding a cure.

Abbedutos work at the MIND Institute focuses on language and communication challenges for autistic individuals and providing therapy options for parents to use with their children.

[At the MIND Institute], we work to teach parents to create an opportunity to foster their childrens language skills, he said. We want to coach parents in their homes, so therapy is more accessible and more personal. They will be more active agents of change and it will reduce the burden of travel. They enjoy it and feel empowered when their children make progress.

Abbeduto said that while developing ways to defeat challenges created by autism is important, it is essential for the research community to recognize the conversations between those with autism and organizations such as SPARK.

[Researchers] are better off focusing on maximizing opportunities instead of looking too hard at the challenges, he said. Its about removing challenges, so everyone has the best chance of taking advantage of their communities and their choices. The disability community has been great with allowing families and individuals to have choices.

Michaelson said SPARK strives to assure autistic individuals that they are accepted not only in their community but in society as well. He said there are many outreach programs to connect the autistic community with SPARKs research opportunities, from information booths at the Iowa State Fair to hands-on experience.

We have undergraduate researchers in our lab and many of them have a loved one with autism or have autism themselves, Michaelson said. So, come and see. There might be an opportunity to investigate and learn what SPARK is doing to have a human connection with the research and the science.

Original post:

UI partners with autism research organization amid community concerns - UI The Daily Iowan

Future Tense Newsletter: Celebrity Designer Babies, Climate Change in the Pandemic, and More – Slate Magazine

') : ""; }, t.getDefinedParams = function (n, e) { return e.filter(function (e) { return n[e]; }).reduce(function (e, t) { return p(e, function (e, t, n) { t in e ? Object.defineProperty(e, t, { value: n, enumerable: !0, configurable: !0, writable: !0 }) : e[t] = n; return e; }({}, t, n[t])); }, {}); }, t.isValidMediaTypes = function (e) { var t = ["banner", "native", "video"]; if (!Object.keys(e).every(function (e) { return s()(t, e); })) return !1; if (e.video && e.video.context) return s()(["instream", "outstream", "adpod"], e.video.context); return !0; }, t.getBidderRequest = function (e, t, n) { return c()(e, function (e) { return 0 t[n] ? -1 : 0; }; }; var r = n(3), i = n(115), o = n.n(i), a = n(12), c = n.n(a), u = n(10), s = n.n(u), d = n(116); n.d(t, "deepAccess", function () { return d.a; }); var f = n(117); function l(e) { return function (e) { if (Array.isArray(e)) { for (var t = 0, n = new Array(e.length); t n ')) : ""; } function ae(e, t, n) { return null == t ? n : J(t) ? t : Q(t) ? t.toString() : void j.logWarn("Unsuported type for param: " + e + " required type: String"); } function ce(e, t, n) { return n.indexOf(e) === t; } function ue(e, t) { return e.concat(t); } function se(e) { return Object.keys(e); } function de(e, t) { return e[t]; } var fe = ge("timeToRespond", function (e, t) { return t = e.length ? (this._t = void 0, i(1)) : i(0, "keys" == t ? n : "values" == t ? e[n] : [n, e[n]]); }, "values"), o.Arguments = o.Array, r("keys"), r("values"), r("entries"); }, 101: function _(e, t, n) { "use strict"; var r = n(102), i = n(72); e.exports = n(104)("Set", function (t) { return function (e) { return t(this, 0 >> 0, o = 0; if (t) n = t;else { for (; o = b.syncsPerBidder ? a.logWarn('Number of user syncs exceeded for "'.concat(t, '"')) : d.canBidderRegisterSync(e, t) ? (f[e].push([t, n]), (r = p)[i = t] ? r[i] += 1 : r[i] = 1, void (p = r)) : a.logWarn('Bidder "'.concat(t, '" not permitted to register their "').concat(e, '" userSync pixels.')) : a.logWarn("Bidder is required for registering sync") : a.logWarn('User sync type "'.concat(e, '" not supported')); var r, i; }, d.syncUsers = function () { var e = 0 Object(y.timestamp)(); }, s = function s(e) { return e && (e.status && !S()([O.BID_STATUS.RENDERED], e.status) || !e.status); }; function w(e, r, t) { var i = 2 i && (r = !1)), !r; }), r && e.run(), r; } function g(e, t) { void 0 === e[t] ? e[t] = 1 : e[t]++; } }, addWinningBid: function addWinningBid(e) { g = g.concat(e), x.callBidWonBidder(e.bidder, e, o); }, setBidTargeting: function setBidTargeting(e) { x.callSetTargetingBidder(e.bidder, e); }, getWinningBids: function getWinningBids() { return g; }, getTimeout: function getTimeout() { return S; }, getAuctionId: function getAuctionId() { return m; }, getAuctionStatus: function getAuctionStatus() { return b; }, getAdUnits: function getAdUnits() { return y; }, getAdUnitCodes: function getAdUnitCodes() { return d; }, getBidRequests: function getBidRequests() { return h; }, getBidsReceived: function getBidsReceived() { return f; }, getNoBids: function getNoBids() { return l; } }; }, n.d(t, "c", function () { return H; }), t.f = d, t.d = J, n.d(t, "e", function () { return Y; }), n.d(t, "h", function () { return f; }), n.d(t, "g", function () { return l; }), t.i = p; var C = n(0), s = n(9), w = n(42), a = n(26), o = n(78), j = n(11), _ = n(3), r = n(32), i = n(13), c = n(12), B = n.n(c), U = n(33), u = n(2); function R(e) { return (R = "function" == typeof Symbol && "symbol" == _typeof(Symbol.iterator) ? function (e) { return _typeof(e); } : function (e) { return e && "function" == typeof Symbol && e.constructor === Symbol && e !== Symbol.prototype ? "symbol" : _typeof(e); })(e); } function D() { return (D = Object.assign || function (e) { for (var t = 1; t e.getTimeout() + _.b.getConfig("timeoutBuffer") && e.executeCallback(!0); } function J(e, t) { var n = e.getBidRequests(), r = B()(n, function (e) { return e.bidderCode === t.bidderCode; }); !function (t, e) { var n; if (t.bidderCode && (0 t.max ? e : t; }, { max: 0 }), g = 0, b = v()(e.buckets, function (e) { if (n > p.max * r) { var t = e.precision; void 0 === t && (t = y), i = (e.max * r).toFixed(t); } else { if (n = t.length ? { value: void 0, done: !0 } : (e = r(t, n), this._i += e.length, { value: e, done: !1 }); }); }, 62: function _(e, t, r) { function i() {} var o = r(28), a = r(94), c = r(63), u = r(50)("IE_PROTO"), s = "prototype", _d = function d() { var e, t = r(55)("iframe"), n = c.length; for (t.style.display = "none", r(97).appendChild(t), t.src = "javascript:", (e = t.contentWindow.document).open(), e.write("

")); var s = v(b[r.size_id].split("x").map(function (e) { return Number(e); }), 2); a.width = s[0], a.height = s[1]; } a.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce(function (e, r) { return e[r.key] = r.values[0], e; }, { rpfl_elemid: o.adUnitCode }), e.push(a); } else u.logError("Rubicon: bidRequest undefined at index position:".concat(t), d, c); return e; }, []).sort(function (e, r) { return (r.cpm || 0) - (e.cpm || 0); }); }, getUserSyncs: function getUserSyncs(e, r, t, i) { if (!R && e.iframeEnabled) { var n = ""; return t && "string" == typeof t.consentString && ("boolean" == typeof t.gdprApplies ? n += "?gdpr=".concat(Number(t.gdprApplies), "&gdpr_consent=").concat(t.consentString) : n += "?gdpr_consent=".concat(t.consentString)), i && (n += "".concat(n ? "&" : "?", "us_privacy=").concat(encodeURIComponent(i))), R = !0, { type: "iframe", url: o + n }; } }, transformBidParams: function transformBidParams(e) { return u.convertTypes({ accountId: "number", siteId: "number", zoneId: "number" }, e); } }; function y(e, r) { var t, i = 0 969, isMobile = window.innerWidth b ? a : b; } /** * Fast loop through watched elements */ function onScroll() { list.forEach(updateVisibility); } /** * updates seen property * @param {Visble} item * @param {{}} evt * @fires Visible#shown * @fires Visible#hidden */ function updateSeen(item, evt) { var px = evt.visiblePx, percent = evt.visiblePercent; // if some pixels are visible and we're greater/equal to threshold if (px && percent >= item.shownThreshold && !item.seen) { item.seen = true; setTimeout(function () { item.trigger("shown", new VisibleEvent("shown", evt)); }, 15); // if no pixels or percent is less than threshold } else if ((!px || percent = 0 && rect.left >= 0 && rect.bottom 1) { result += getLinearSpacialHash(remainder, Math.floor(stepSize / base), optimalK - 1, base); } return result; } /** * @param {ClientRect} rect * @param {number} innerHeight * @returns {number} */ function getVerticallyVisiblePixels(rect, innerHeight) { return min(innerHeight, max(rect.bottom, 0)) - min(max(rect.top, 0), innerHeight); } /** * Get offset of element relative to entire page * * @param {Element} el * @returns {{left: number, top: number}} * @see http://jsperf.com/offset-vs-getboundingclientrect/7 */ function getPageOffset(el) { var offsetLeft = el.offsetLeft, offsetTop = el.offsetTop; while (el = el.offsetParent) { offsetLeft += el.offsetLeft; offsetTop += el.offsetTop; } return { left: offsetLeft, top: offsetTop }; } /** * Create a new Visible class to observe when elements enter and leave the viewport * * Call destroy function to stop listening (this is until we have better support for watching for Node Removal) * @param {Element} el * @param {{shownThreshold: number, hiddenThreshold: number}} [options] * @class * @example this.visible = new $visibility.Visible(el); */ Visible = function Visible(el, options) { options = options || {}; this.el = el; this.seen = false; this.preload = false; this.preloadThreshhold = options && options.preloadThreshhold || 0; this.shownThreshold = options && options.shownThreshold || 0; this.hiddenThreshold = options && min(options.shownThreshold, options.hiddenThreshold) || 0; list.push(this); updateVisibility(this); // set immediately to visible or not }; Visible.prototype = { /** * Stop triggering. */ destroy: function destroy() { // remove from list list.splice(list.indexOf(this), 1); } /** * @name Visible#on * @function * @param {'shown'|'hidden'} e EventName * @param {function} cb Callback */ /** * @name Visible#trigger * @function * @param {'shown'|'hidden'} e * @param {{}} */ }; Eventify.enable(Visible.prototype); VisibleEvent = function VisibleEvent(type, options) { var _this = this; this.type = type; Object.keys(options).forEach(function (key) { _this[key] = options[key]; }); }; // listen for scroll events (throttled) $document.addEventListener("scroll", _throttle(onScroll, 200)); // public this.getPageOffset = getPageOffset; this.getLinearSpacialHash = getLinearSpacialHash; this.getVerticallyVisiblePixels = getVerticallyVisiblePixels; this.getViewportHeight = getViewportHeight; this.getViewportWidth = getViewportWidth; this.isElementNotHidden = isElementNotHidden; this.isElementInViewport = isElementInViewport; this.Visible = Visible;}]);}, {}];require=(function e(t,n,r){function s(o,u){if(!n[o]){if(!t[o]){var a=typeof require=="function"&&require;if(!u&&a)return a(o,!0);if(i)return i(o,!0);var f=new Error("Cannot find module '"+o+"'");throw f.code="MODULE_NOT_FOUND",f}var l=n[o]={exports:{}};t[o][0].call(l.exports,function(e){var n=t[o][1][e];return s(n?n:e)},l,l.exports,e,t,n,r)}return n[o].exports}var i=typeof require=="function"&&require;for(var o=0;o

See more here:

Future Tense Newsletter: Celebrity Designer Babies, Climate Change in the Pandemic, and More - Slate Magazine

Group Homes, Vulnerable During the Pandemic, Need Help – National Review

Home-care nurse Flora Ajayi is thanked by a clients daughter as she departs from a home during the coronavirus outbreak, New York City, April 22, 2020. (Lucas Jackson/Reuters)Lets consider designating their developmentally disabled residents a legally protected class.

Last week the New York Times reported that 105 persons had died in group homes in the New York City metropolitan area. Now the number is over 200. People living in group homes are five times more likely to die where they reside than are those living in nursing homes. The situation has been addressed also in an opinion piece in the New York Daily News.

The history of how the developmentally disabled have been treated is reprehensible. One hundred years ago psychologist Robert Goddard, affiliated with the eugenics movement, used intelligence tests to determine those who should be sterilized. Many involuntary medical operations robbed people of the gift of bearing children, becoming a father, and creating a home for a family.

Horrible treatment continued into the latter half of the 20th century. Robert Kennedy, visiting a New York institution, called them snake pits. In 1972, Channel 7 in New York City aired Willowbrook: The Last Great Disgrace, hosted by Geraldo Rivera. One ward at Willowbrook housed 80 people, supervised by one nurse. The documentary showed people crouching on floors, naked or half-naked. But it was the smell that truly horrified Rivera, the smell of death and disease. Soon afterward, Governor Nelson Rockefeller implemented the Willowbrook Decree, which brought immediate money to state-run programs, mostly large institutions of up to 6,000 people, and smaller programs administered by charities. The decree gave special legal protection to anyone who continued to live at Willowbrook or was transferred to another placement. From 1972 until the beginning of the 20th century, there was continued improvement and increased financing by federal and state governments, in addition to Medicaid. In the past two decades, budget cuts in all of these sources have crippled the services, whose quality has increasingly diminished.

To reduce the disproportionate fatality rate in group homes, the federal government as well as state and local governments should give them immediate special funding to reduce the number of infections and deaths. At the same time, the homes need ongoing financial help at an increased level, during the pandemic and afterward. Where might that help come from?

The immediate emergency situation can be traced to several factors, and there can be interventions for each. Many of the group homes are small, and so their cubic air capacity is much less than in most nursing homes, making the air itself more virulent. The behavior of the developmentally disabled makes true social distancing nigh impossible. Many have repetitive behaviors such as scratching the face on their skin until it bleeds. They are prone to hug and also to roughhouse, which brings them into close contact with others. And how can they social-distance if they cant understand the reason for it?

Medical problems and the treatment they necessitate add to the spread of infection. Many residents, often owing to obesity or hypotonia (which restricts air intake), need to be on compressed-air machines. Their lungs do not work well, making the virus more deadly for them. The CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machines need to be thoroughly cleaned. It is a herculean task for the workers.

Meals are fertile breeding grounds for the virus. Many need close hand-over-hand physical guidance to bring food from their plate to their lips. This makes the job dangerous for staff. Owing to their muscle and bone structure, some residents have severe problems with eating and need the help of highly trained speech and language pathologists to do the feeding and to instruct others on how to do it. This never was a glamorous or sought-after job, and in the aftermath of the pandemic it will become even less so.

The travel of staff back and forth between the group homes and their own residences may be the worst source of the virus. A single infection brought into a group home can spread fast. The temperature checks and other tests are imperfect, and infected workers may pass them and enter the home. Once that happens, a medical crisis occurs quickly, followed by deaths.

A major question is how to keep the staff free of the virus so that the spread of infection in the homes can be stopped. Police and fire departments, certain businesses, and now meatpacking plants have developed procedures for employees to be transported to a hotel or safe living environment between shifts. At the meatpacking plants, employees can live safely on the premises, run on twelve-hour shifts, and stay quarantined.

A staffer for Senator Charles Schumer (D, N.Y.) is considering add-on legislation to a bill affecting nonprofit social-welfare organizations. The bill, which would supersede the CARES Act and its iterations, would be administered by FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) and provide for federal grants that agencies could apply for. The funds received could be used for any procedures that will help keep the virus out of the group homes. Extra hazard pay for the staff would be included in the bill. Most importantly, the bill would ensure funding for transportation of staff between the group home and an uninfected site, such as a college dorm, that could be donated for use. There just isnt enough money to pay for hotel lodging (which some police and fire departments use), so other nonprofits, large county venues, or other workable places need to be found. Partnerships will emerge.

As someone who has worked as a clinical psychologist in this system for decades, and is father to a young man with Down syndrome, I think that the above federal grant would be lifesaving for many people. It would protect the lives of the staff as well.

What of the day-to-day work of the agencies? There will be much more to do throughout the period of flattening the curve as well as, perhaps, during any period of developing herd immunity and vaccine interventions, neither of which the scientists can guarantee will happen. Medicaid funding of the agencies has been reduced over the past ten years. Ratios of staff to clients are much lower than in earlier eras. In one state with over 150 agencies serving the developmentally disabled, it is well known that an orchestrated pattern of squeezing certain agencies financially is forcing some to close or merge.

A crucial need is for more funding for staff salaries. Whereas Public Law 94-142 and other, subsequent congressional acts have meant rather rich funding for those students with special needs up to age 21, their situation changes dramatically afterward. Neither agencies nor workers receive a level of funding that is anywhere comparable to the funding for services for special-needs students from birth to age 21. Sadly, the pay can be so low that many staff need to work second or even third jobs.

This may be an issue on which both major political parties can join together in bipartisan efforts. There are about 7 million people with developmental disabilities in the United States. When one includes parents and families and those who work with them, at least 25 million Americans, I would estimate, have a stake in these individuals, who are among the most vulnerable in our population, and who have suffered so much blatant abuse and neglect in the past. It might not be asking too much to consider designating group-home residents as a legally protected class of people. That would contribute to the protection of their rights and to their enhanced protection, now and in the future, throughout their lives.

Editors Note:This article has been updated to clarify that legislation to fund social-welfare organizations is being considered only by a staffer for Senator Schumer.

Read more here:

Group Homes, Vulnerable During the Pandemic, Need Help - National Review

Here are the 2020 awards for the very worst people of coronavirus – The Guardian

The coronavirus epoch has offered some heartwarming stories among the viral horror and its shut-in, relentless-grey-regrowth-Zoom-meeting-apocalypse gloom.

The well-compensated stars of American professional basketball are subsidising the lost salaries of casual venue staff. In Scotland, cafes are making deliveries of free food packages to vulnerable and elderly people, while Melbourne restauranteurs are feeding frontline workers. The Italian tenor serenading his locked-down city of Florence singing Nessun Dorma and other opera classics from his balcony is glorious. So is the Spanish taxi driver taking coronavirus patients to the hospital for free.

But amid the kindness pandemic and determined acts of caring, the times have provoked a simultaneous infection of self-absorption, pettiness and dangerous-foolerism. Sure, ordinary folks can make bad decisions in extraordinary times. But there are those who should know better who dont do better, through sheer force of wilful shitheadedry. They should not be spared shaming. They should be given the recognition they richly deserve. So, without further ado:

The 2020 awards for the very worst people of coronavirus so far

WINNER, the Neville Chamberlain Award for Catastrophically Misreading the Situation: prime minister of the UK, Boris Johnson

On 3 March, British PM Boris Johnson bragged at his readiness to shake hands with local coronavirus patients. On 17 March, France locked down and he suggested instead that coronavirus sufferers stay indoors a week and elderly Britons cancel holiday cruises. This strategy was herd immunity ringfencing the most vulnerable of the population and allowing the disease to take its course. Without a vaccine, that means allowing masses of people to die. If you think that sounds like eugenics, your opinion is shared by the worlds leading specialists in infectious diseases.

Its since been revealed Johnson missed five critical meetings in February that may have made him more aware of the strategic risk to his country, and himself because by 27 March, Johnson himself had coronavirus, and British infections were following the tragic trajectory of Italy. As I write this, more than 18,000 people in the UK have died.

Im most relieved that Boris Johnson is not one of them. Had he perished, he would most earnestly deserved our sympathy. Now hes on the mend, he can rightfully be served our scorn.

WINNER, the Roger Stone Award for Thinking the Rules Dont Apply to You: New Zealand health minister, David Clark

Woeful behaviour is not entirely the preserve of one side of politics; health minister of New Zealand, Labours David Clark, broke his own governments strict coronavirus lockdown rules on its first weekend.

New Zealand Labour prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, moved quickly to a national shutdown early in the pandemics progression. Her strategy of virus elimination with rigorous stay-at-home regulation and widespread testing has been feted throughout the world; of today, 16 local coronavirus deaths are recorded.

This has been made possible because the New Zealand citizenry complied with the draconian rules rules Clark blithely ignored when he took his family on a car trip to the beach the first weekend of lockdown. He was separately photographed going for a lovely bike ride.

Ardern swiftly demoted the minister, who made a grovelling public apology. It says much about her leadership that she resisted temptation to make a bicycle seat from his skin.

WINNER, the Tiger Woods Award for Making Us Feel We Hardly Know You: Sweden

Think Sweden, think Scandinavian social democracy; cradle-to-grave welfare and generous social support systems. But Swedens response to the pandemic has not been universal self-sacrifice, New Zealand-style.

On the recommendation of an epidemiologist at the independent Public Health Agency, the Social Democrats/Greens coalition government have instead pursued a herd immunity strategy theyre calling a trust-based approach to the virus. Social distancing is voluntary. Schools for under-16s, gyms, restaurants, bars and Swedens borders remain open.

As a result, it now has one of the highest proportional death rates from the virus in the world nine times higher than next-door neighbour Finland, larger even than the United States.

Since half of the countrys aged care facilities found themselves struck by coronavirus, Sweden has quietly started moving towards greater gathering restrictions. Like any apology, it doesnt count for much when people have been left for dead.

WINNER, the Donald Trump Award for Billionaire Shamelessness: Richard Branson

This was a hotly contested category. As lockdowns, shutdowns and the illness itself have wiped out the economy-as-usual across the globe, individualist profiteers of the good times are suddenly collectivists in the misery.

The old story of those who live to privatise the profits and socialise the losses really deserves a Netflix reboot perhaps centred on a protagonist like Virgin billionaire Richard Branson. Hes holding thousands of ordinary peoples jobs hostage to demands that taxpayers refinance his failing business. In the reboot, lets rewrite this storys traditional ending to make sure taxpayers are repaid for their involuntary generosity with proportional ownership of these companies. Especially since Branson is demanding a bailout in his ostensible home of Britain, where he has avoided paying income tax for 14 years.

WINNER, the Abe Simpson Award for Yelling at Clouds: Sam Newman (and friends)

Whether there could be any social identity more pathetic than that of a D-list Australian conservative is an outright no. Desperation for relevancy inspired a recent Twitter campaign demanding the extermination of bats.

But the clear category winner was the faded sports personality who defied Australias (highly effective) lockdown, taking a one-man protest to the steps of the Victorian parliament, demanding his uninhibited human right to play golf.

A video provides so many things to enjoy. A MAGA-style hat! Eye-blinding trousers! Incomprehensible raving! Most of all, theres rapture in seeing the animation of a cliche about privileged white male narcissism that didnt a) require a cartoonist or b) involve someone getting hurt.

The cumulative effect of the protest was to convince observers like myself that even if golf is at the safer end of activity, the ban should be maintained just to extend this mans personal frustration.

WINNER, the Walking Dead Award for Reminding Human Beings Our Greatest Threat is One Another: anti-lockdown protestors in the US

From California to Michigan and yet, coincidentally always in districts Republicans are heavily campaigning anti-lockdown protests have bloomed across the US, drawing social-distance-defying crowds in the hundreds, sometimes even the tens.

Egged on by the US president in impassioned ALL CAPS tweets, extraordinary photographs have appeared of patriots hanging out of cars screaming at the public-serving healthworkers who counterprotest in full PPE. Joshua Bickels photo of howling Ohio protestors pressed against glass doors deserves its own separate, serious, grown-up award for warning the world that its all getting a bit Shaun of the Dead in the US-of-A; one of the yawping mouths belongs to a Republican state Senate candidate.

It would all be hilarious if states such as Michigan werent burying the coronavirus dead in their thousands. Supply shortages, the disaster of piecemeal, privatised healthcare and structural poverty have intersected with ill-prepared and incompetent presidential leadership, compounding the effects of coronavirus across America.

After the coronavirus protests, Kentucky saw its largest spike in cases.

GRAND WINNER: President of the United States, Donald Trump

Like Boris Johnson, he ignored international warnings about the coronavirus when meaningful action could have slowed its spread. He held public rallies even while experts begged for social distancing. Hes used press conferences to attack reporters, repeat lies and push treatments that some studies now suggest may be unproven cures at the same time hes demanded praise. Hes promoted people who dont know what theyre doing, allowed the demotion of others who desperately do, hes abused leaders whove taken responsibility for their citizens, and adamantly taken none himself. Hes talked about his TV ratings while Americans were buried in mass graves.

The only award in which hes not competitive is one for failing to meet expectations because nobody whos watched Trump for five consistent minutes is surprised by this disaster at all. America outstrips the world for coronavirus infection. There have been more than 842,000 cases there. More than 46,000 Americans are dead.

Donald, you blitzed this competition. Its your crowning achievement! Now, go put a glittering corona on your head!

Van Badham is a Guardian Australia columnist

Link:

Here are the 2020 awards for the very worst people of coronavirus - The Guardian

Planet of the Humans Comes This Close to Actually Getting the Real Problem, Then Goes Full Ecofascism – Gizmodo

Image: Planet of the Humans

Michael Moore is a dude known for provocation. Every documentary he drops is designed to paint a world of sharp contrasts with clear bad guys. Theyre designed to get a reaction and get people talking, so in some ways, him dropping a documentary he executive produced trashing renewable energy on Earth Day makes total sense.

Planet of the Humans is directed and narrated by Jeff Gibbs, a self-proclaimed photographer, campaigner, adventurer, and storyteller who has co-produced some of Moores films. The documentary came out on Earth Day, positioning itself up as some tough, real talk not just about renewable energy but environmental groups. And by real talk, I mean it cast renewables as no better than fossil fuels and environmental groups as sleek corporate outfits in bed with billionaires helping kill the planet. As Emily Atkin put it in her HEATED newsletter on Thursday, [e]ntertaining good-faith arguments about how to stop climate change is my job, and I have no reason at present to believe Moore and director Jeff Gibbs argued in bad faith. Indeed. So I decided to listen to what they had to say.

Ill leave the film criticism to those wiser than me (though I will say I feel like I didnt watch three acts but three separate movies), but I will say this: The moviewhich is available for free on YouTube and is currently on the services trending list with 1 million views in 24 hoursis deeply flawed in both its premise, proposed solutions, and who gets to voice them.

The movies central thesis is that we are on the brink of extinction and have been sold a damaged bill of goods about all forms of renewable energy by environmental groups motivated by profit. Essentially, the argument is were all dirty and the stain will never come out no matter how hard we try.

G/O Media may get a commission

There are a few issues at play. One is that much of the issues the film takes with solar and wind are based on anachronistic viewpoints. PV Magazine, a solar trade publication,notes that its difficult to take the film seriously on any topic when it botches the solar portion so thoroughly. Although the film was released in 2020, the solar industry it examines, whether through incompetence or venality, is from somewhere back in 2009.

The film also goes through great lengths to throw solar and wind in the same boat as burning biomass for power. The latter relies on serious carbon accounting bullshittery to be carbon neutral. A critique of biomass is fair and something I would honestly have watched a whole film about. And ditto for the films critique of large environmental organizations, which rely on large funders that may provide money with strings attached (though Bill McKibben, one of the films targets and founder of 350.org, came out strongly critiquing how he and the organization were portrayed).

The film, for example, highlights the Sierra Clubs Beyond Coal campaign, which has helped shutter more than 300 coal plants around the U.S. The programs biggest donor is Mike Bloomberg, who sees natural gaswhich has replaced much of that coal capacityas a bridge fuel (which it is decidedly not).

And this is where the narrative Gibbs tells and the one we need to be telling diverges. Gibbs is happy to trash the unholy alliance between big green groups and big dollar funders who have, in some cases, made their fortunes on extractive industries and the system that relies on their existence. That can lead to conflictsreal or perceivedabout how green groups spend their time. And frankly, Im there with him.

Gibbs uses this situation to take the leap to population control as the only solution. Yes, renewables are bad and so are billionaires and the corporate-philanthropic industrial complex so, Gibbs concludes, we should probably get rid of some humans ASAP. Over the course of the movie, he interviews a cast of mostly white experts who are mostly men to make that case. Its got a bit more than a whiff of eugenics and ecofascism, which is a completely bonkers takeaway from everything presented. If renewables are so bad, then what does a few million less people on the planet going to do? Oh, and who are we going to knock off or control for? Who decides? How does population control even solve the problem of corporate influence on nonprofits and politics?

Those questions lead to a dark place. Weve already had a glimpse of what that ideology looks like in the hands of individuals. The alleged manifesto penned by last years El Paso shooting suspect sounds an awful lot like Gibbs movie, arguing that extractive companies are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources and that we to get rid of enough people to get things back in balance. Which is a whole lot of nope.

I dont mean to say Gibbs is therefor an ecofascist. But to see an ostensibly serious environmental movie backed by an influential filmmaker peddle these ideas is genuinely disturbing, especially at a time when were seeing it pop up elsewhere in response to the coronavirus. Also side note that its also incredibly myopic that Gibbs goes after environmental nonprofits for taking corporate money while ignoring the Sierra Clubs and other early conservation groups history of support for racist ideas about population control he nods to as a solution (it should be noted some groups are trying to make up for past misdeeds today).

Whats most frustrating about Gibbs film is he walks right up to some serious issues and ignores clear solutions. The critique of the compromised corporate philanthropy model is legit. We should absolutely hold nonprofits to account when they dont live up to their missions. But the solution isnt to take the leap to population control. Its to tax the rich so they cant use philanthropic funding as cover for their misdeeds while simultaneously filling government coffers to implement democratic solutions.

Theres a reason that Breitbart and other conservative voices aligned with climate denial and fossil fuel companies have taken a shine to the film. Its because it ignores the solution of holding power to account and sounds like a racist dog whistle.

We also should absolutely interrogate the systems and supply chains of renewable energy. The lithium industrys violent toll on land and people in Latin American countries with vast reserves is real. Letting corporations run the show promises to lead to future violence, regardless of how many people live on Earth. The film doesnt interview any of the new wave of environmental leaders who see the fight against these injustices and the climate crisis as intrinsically linked. Its too bad since thats a message Gibbsand the rest of the worldneed to hear now more than ever.

Excerpt from:

Planet of the Humans Comes This Close to Actually Getting the Real Problem, Then Goes Full Ecofascism - Gizmodo

Russia will soon sit on the moon – The KXAN 36 News

The first Russian mission lands on the moon in October 2021, RIA Novosti reported, citing Roscosmos.

Time, which will take place from the start of the relevant automatic interplanetary station Luna-25 off the Ground before landing on the surface of the natural satellite will be about ten days. When you fly from one celestial body to another takes less than five days. Space station needs to prionitis in the South pole areas natural satellite.

In April, RIA Novosti, citing the comment of the General Director Scientifically-production Association named Lavochkin, Vladimir Kolmykov, said that Russia, along with the launch of a heavy landing station Luna-27 in August 2025 staked their place on the natural satellite of the Earth.

In the same month, the head of the Department of nuclear safety and planetology space research Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences Igor Mitrofanov said that the launch of a Russian spacecraft to the moon scheduled for October 1, 2021.

Read the original here:

Russia will soon sit on the moon - The KXAN 36 News

NATO Deputy Secretary General conversation with Friends of Europe on NATO’s response to COVID-19 – NATO HQ

In a strategic conversation today (27 April 2020) with Friends of Europe senior fellow Jamie Shea, the NATO Deputy Secretary General, Mircea Geoan, argued that now is not the time to cut investments in defence. This pandemic has not made the security risks to our nearly 1 billion citizens disappear, said Geoan.

He added that we live in a world that is even more unpredictable. He underscored the important role of the military both in helping save lives and in keeping our citizens safe, and stressed the importance that we continue to invest in our armed forces.

The Deputy Secretary General also mentioned that in these very difficult months and weeks of this pandemic, Allies have shown solidarity. NATO has flown more than 100 missions and strategic airlifts providing essential medical and healthcare assistance to Allies and partners. NATO has also helped construct field hospitals and deployed thousands of military medical personnel in support of civilian efforts. The Deputy Secretary General indicated that we are an Alliance which is based on the culture of solidarity, and this is is one of those times when solidarity has been proven and to this day, our solidarity remains intact.

Mircea Geoan spoke about the deliberate and continuous efforts by some actors to use this difficult moment to seed discord and mistrust, to undermine our resilience and to weaken our political democratic system. We are pushing back because this is not OK, said Geoan. Together with the European Union and others, NATO will continue to push back energetically and professionally against those abusing the situation.

See the original post:

NATO Deputy Secretary General conversation with Friends of Europe on NATO's response to COVID-19 - NATO HQ

NATO checks its Cold War playbook in bid to fight pandemic – DefenseNews.com

COLOGNE, Germany As NATO members respond to the coronavirus, individually and collectively, officials in Brussels have begun cataloging lessons learned for the next pandemic.

The goal is to find ways of turning the current crisis into something of a teachable moment, fusing COVID-19 improvisation with Cold War-era plans that have largely laid dormant for decades.

For now, there are still more questions than answers after NATO defense ministers commissioned the review in mid-April, as announced by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Since then, the key term kicked around in alliance circles is resilience a reference to the ability to absorb major shocks while upholding the promise of collective security.

The military has been tasked with quite a lot in the past weeks, Camille Grand, NATOs assistant secretary general for defense investment, told Defense News in an interview. What does that tell us in terms of defense planning, in terms of capabilities? Is it useful to put more focus on capabilities that can be useful in a pandemic? Do we need some sort of planning associated with that, collectively as an alliance?

NATO was built on the premise of being able to outlast the Soviet Union in the aftermath of a catastrophic war, with detailed plans for the military to prop civil societies recovering from the brink of destruction. The novel coronavirus has, in some ways, reinvigorated the alliances interest in such scenarios.

Resilience is an important part of what NATO is doing, Stoltenberg said on the eve of the April 15 defense ministers' online meeting. It's actually enshrined in Article 3 of our treaty, that national resilience is a NATO responsibility. We have baseline requirements, guidelines for national resilience, including health and dealing with mass casualties.

On the table are questions ranging from the ability of decision-makers to work under the types of social distancing restrictions in place now, to incentivizing members nations to stockpile vital equipment, said Grand.

We're in a health crisis, not in a military one. But it gives NATO a chance to check how well it can operate under degraded conditions, for example in Iraq, the Baltic region, Afghanistan or the Middle East, he said.

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

Subscribe

Enter a valid email address (please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Thanks for signing up!

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Early Bird Brief.

While the alliances past may hold ideas for improved contingency planning, the direction of military funding seems to be the greater unknown.

Member states are expected to take economic hits as a lot of business activity has remained frozen for months. The effect of such a downturn on defense spending has been the topic of several studies by European national security-minded think tanks in recent weeks.

While some have speculated that states with gross domestic product in free fall would more easily be able to hit the alliances spending target of 2 percent, for better or for worse, the actual effect may be less severe.

Torben Schtz, an analyst with the Berlin-based German Council on Foreign Relations, argues the projected decrease in economic activity, coupled with the lag time for military spending to adjust, wont be significant enough to make much of a difference in relative spending anytime soon.

Even economically grave decreases in GDPs have only limited impact on defense spending as a share of GDP, he wrote on Twitter, predicting that only a handful of additional member states would reach the 2 percent target in 2020.

At NATO, some might see the much-criticized relative spending objective vindicated in times like this.

The 2 percent target remains, and I dont see any reason for challenging that, Grand told Defense News. We are of course fully aware that nations will face tough fiscal choices. But at the end of the day, moving 0.5 percent of GDP in favor or against defense spending is not going to dramatically change the fiscal situation.

With defense spending cuts expected to vary considerably among nations, NATO officials have argued that threats to the alliance have remained the same, prompted primarily by Russias annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

That is a major factor expected to work against the reflex to cut the military, as compared with the 2008 financial crisis that saw defense spending decimated because it was considered more expendable, said Grand.

I dont want to sound too optimistic, but I neither foresee nor take for granted that we will see a dramatic shift in the priorities against defense spending, he added.

Visit link:

NATO checks its Cold War playbook in bid to fight pandemic - DefenseNews.com

Can the New ‘Magi’ Save NATO? – War on the Rocks

Some are born wise, some achieve wisdom, and some, I fear, have wisdom thrust upon them; we three seem to be in the last and most dangerous category, observed Canadian Foreign Minister Lester Pearson, commenting on the committee of three foreign ministers Pearson, Norways Halvard Lange and Italys Gaetano Martino formed in 1956 to advise the North Atlantic Council on how to develop greater cooperation and unity among the allies.

Three weeks ago, 10 wise women and men set out to resuscitate NATO from what French President Emmanuel Macron called its political and strategic brain death. This is not going to be an easy task, as the 70-year-old alliance has been recently suffering from a double crisis of democracy and leadership not to mention its old burden-sharing problem, the foundation of everything NATO does, which has seriously challenged NATOs cohesion to an unprecedented level. The current narrative that frames burden-sharing as a budgetary issue will eventually become unsustainable, because the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic will certainly not spare NATO burden-sharing. Shrunk national budgets and the new post-crisis social, economic, and political realities will undermine the idea that burden-sharing is about financial sharing. NATO allies need to abandon the obsession with defense accounting the idea that all members should spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense and instead boost the cooperative development of interoperable capabilities and force readiness.

As both the European and North American continents have been hard-hit by COVID-19, the governments will be busy restoring their national economies and improving public health systems, which will negatively affect their ability to increase national defense spending to 2 percent in the next four years as NATO members agreed to do in 2014. This inability to meet the 2014 Wales defense investment pledge may further endanger already shaky trans-Atlantic solidarity. Rethinking NATO burden-sharing along the lines of Article III of the North Atlantic Treaty can emphasize the mutual-aid and sharing dimension of burden-sharing, moving it away from quantitative defense accounting.

Burden-Sharing Is More than Budget Sharing

On March 31, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg appointed the group of 10 experts the new wise men and women to reflect on NATOs political dimension. This group is expected to come up with recommendations to reinforce Alliance unity, increase political consultation and coordination between allies, and strengthen NATOs political role, as agreed at the NATO leaders meeting in London last December. Chaired by an American and a German, the expert group is gender balanced, though from a geographical perspective only Poland represents the former Eastern bloc that joined the alliance after 1989. The secretary-general will present the groups recommendations during the next NATO summit in 2021.

The expert group resembles a 21st-century version of the Three Wise Men, a committee of three biblical Magi from Canada, Italy, and Norway, which was convened in 1956 to improve cooperation among the allies and develop greater internal solidarity within the Atlantic community. Back in the mid-1950s, NATO was primarily a military alliance focused on building its integrated command structure and drafting ambitious defense plans, in reaction to the outbreak of the Korean War. The 1956 report resulted in the adoption of political consultation among the alliance members, which eventually transformed NATO into the political and military collective defense alliance we know today.

Political and Strategic Dissonance in NATO

Setting up a reflection process that seeks expert advice on NATOs future is a welcome development. NATO needs to improve its cohesion, which has been eroded by the dissonance among the allies over both the political and strategic priorities of NATO. The alliance should also resolve the clash between liberal internationalists (represented for instance by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Canada, Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany, or Macron in France) and illiberal nationalists (Prime Minister Viktor Orbns Hungary, President Recep Tayyip Erdogans Turkey, or Prime Minister Jarosaw Kaczyskis populist Law and Justice party in Poland), which poses a challenge to the alliances identity, as democracy is one of NATOs core values, along with individual liberty and the rule of law.

What directly prompted the creation of the expert group was a controversial interview in the Economist last November, in which Macron declared that NATO was brain-dead. Although he received backlash for this blunt comment which arrived after uncoordinated unilateral actions by the United States and Turkey in Syria NATO was already suffering from a strategic schism between Eastern and Southern member countries. This divide concerns the different perceptions of the security environment among the allies, which creates a dilemma over how to allocate resources to address the diverging threat priorities of the alliance: improving the traditional deterrence and defense posture on NATOs Eastern flank on the one hand, and addressing Southern challenges of instability and terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa on the other. The 360-degree approach put in place to address these diverging concerns has not managed to fully mitigate this strategic split.

This lack of coherent geopolitical thinking has been compounded by a major dispute over fair burden-sharing at NATO. Burden-sharing, usually understood as the distribution of costs, risks, and responsibilities among the alliance members, has been NATOs recurrent problem. Yet since the adoption of the defense investment pledge at the NATO summit in Wales in 2014 projecting an increase in national defense spending to 2 percent of GDP by 2024, including 20 percent of annual defense expenditure on equipment the debates have fallen out of balance, focusing almost exclusively on financial sharing.

The Politics of NATO Burden-Sharing

The new Secretary Generals Annual Report shows that in 2019 only nine countries (one-third of NATO members) have reached the 2 percent guideline so far and 16 have invested 20 percent into equipment, procurement, and modernization. While the sharpest percentage increases are observed in Central European countries, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom represent together more than half of the non-U.S. defense spending (which accounts for 30 percent of alliance-wide national defense expenditures).

However, despite the increase in defense spending, this pledge has turned out to be a public relations disaster for NATO. Burden-sharing has become not only a politicized but also a very polarizing issue. Even though the plotline of this old debate has been the same for 70 years European allies free ride on the United States it seriously escalated with the arrival of U.S. President Donald Trump in 2016. Although the president has stopped calling NATO obsolete, he has been regularly and loudly criticizing the low level of defense spending of NATO European allies, up to the point of questioning Washingtons commitment to Article V, the core principle upon which the alliance is founded: that an attack on one is an attack on all. Even though NATO has been through several crises in the past, like the Suez Canal crisis in 1956 or the Iraq War in 2003, the United States was always interested in keeping the alliance united. The current NATO burden-sharing crisis is quite different in this respect, as it is Washington causing internal divisions.

In order to appease the United States, which is by far the greatest military spender in the world, the allies have agreed to adjust their direct contributions to NATO common budgets to reach fairer burden-sharing. NATO common funding has its own contribution mechanism based on the individual countries gross national income. Under the new cost-share formula for 2021-2024, Americas contribution will be reduced from around 22 percent to 16 percent, thus increasing the cost shares of European allies and Canada. However, NATO common funding fell short of 2.5 billion euros ($2.7 billion) last year and thus represents only a minor portion of the expenditures of NATO members, which together spent around $1 trillion on defense.

What Is Wrong with the 2 Percent Target?

Much ink has been spilled about the irrationality and ineffectiveness of the 2 percent defense spending measure. Even though it is a politically salient issue and all the allies have committed to it, the 2 percent pledge made in Wales is but a first step toward an honest discussion about how burden-sharing arrangements should play out in practice.

Imposing a one-dimensional quantitative measure of national defense spending is a rather technical depiction of burden-sharing that does not reflect the background process of political deliberations, nor qualitative differences among countries. National leaders in NATO countries have to navigate between national security interests and needs and their wider commitments to trans-Atlantic security. Rather than applying a one-number-fits-all approach, looking at the question through the prism of a normative dilemma of distributive justice, purchasing power parity estimates, and a progressive proportional scheme would provide a fairer burden-sharing measure (at least in statistical terms). Importantly, although the level of defense spending is a powerful predictor of future military capabilities and capacity, the translation of more resources into better capabilities is not straightforward.

The disconnection between alliance needs and the excessive focus on formal sharing of defense costs has created a strategic vacuum that damages the cohesion and reputation of the alliance. NATO is now caught up in meaningless burden-sharing exercises that do not serve its security interests, and that are mathematically and functionally ridiculous. Burden-sharing processes need to address explicitly the urgent need for substantial collective force planning. And they need to follow the interoperability imperative (do forces, units, and systems speak the common NATO language?) in pursuing the integration and modernization of European military capabilities. Measuring the level of national defense spending is a lazy shortcut for domestic political gains.

The expert group the new wise men and women should therefore reexamine the alliances philosophy of burden-sharing. For instance, they should rethink burden-sharing conceptually along the lines of Article III of the Washington Treaty. This article stipulates that the allies will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid. Yet it does not specify the ratio between self-help and mutual help: that is, how much a member country must spend on its own defense before allies pitch in.

Reintroducing the mutual-aid dimension into the debate can emphasise the cooperative and sharing aspects of burden-sharing. This could point to what member countries have in common and what they can do together, such as stepping up integrated air and missile defense or sharing military expertise, rather than what divides them, and reflect the increasing number of high-visibility multinational capability cooperation projects at NATO. This approach would go beyond quantitative output and defense accounting and instead pay attention to the quality and effectiveness of burden-sharing.

You Cant Buy Interoperability

In contrast to statistical engineering that aims to adjust numbers to fit the desired fair share, true burden-sharing would put emphasis on defense capabilities and operational readiness. Shifting the emphasis away from abstract macroeconomic numbers to practical cooperation based on strategic needs should inform the content (which capabilities to buy), not only the form (defense spending levels), of burden-sharing debates. This highlights the problem that allies cannot just buy interoperability, as it requires enhanced cooperation and coordination. Although interoperability is considered the alliances core business, it has not been systematically treated in the burden-sharing debate. In addition, burden-sharing that includes the mutual-aid dimension would further refine the cash, capabilities, contributions or three Cs framework regularly mentioned by the current NATO secretary-general.

The current defense spending narrative is thus a symptom of empty formalism in NATO that reflects a lack of clarity about the alliances purpose, and favors statistical deceptions over effectively implementing the mutual commitment to defend each other. A February 2020 poll by the Pew Research Center revealed a worrying trend: While NATO is generally seen in a positive light across publics within the alliance (a median of 53 percent view NATO positively, though with double-digit percentage point declines in Germany and France over the past 10 years), many in 16 surveyed NATO countries seem reluctant to fulfill Article V collective defense obligations. A median of 50 percent across 16 NATO member countries is against their country defending an ally, while only 38 percent express willingness to come to help a fellow ally.

Future Defense Spending in Peril

NATO needs to get its burden-sharing right, especially in the context of the short- and long-term consequences of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. While the scope of the economic impact is still unclear, it is likely to reshuffle financial priorities in NATO countries. Defense ministries will find it more difficult to reach the 2 percent spending level by 2024 or even to maintain the current defense expenditures programs. Moreover, with economies put to halt and eventual drops in national GDP, even if countries fulfill the 2 percent pledge, they could end up spending less in real terms. If NATO members continue to frame fairness in terms of the 2 percent defense spending target, it will further aggravate the burden-sharing problem, seriously test NATO solidarity, and ultimately endanger the alliances ability to adapt to the increasingly unpredictable security environment and the changing nature of security threats.

Improving NATOs cohesion and its political role will not happen overnight or through high-level political declarations. If there are any lessons to be learned from the Three Wise Mens effort back in 1956, it is that perseverance, personal relationships and reputation, pragmatism, and humility matter a great deal.

Dr. Dominika Kunertova is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Center for War Studies in Denmark. With a Ph.D. in Political Science from Universit de Montral, she researches trans-Atlantic security and defense cooperation, NATO-EU relations, and military technology. Her previous work experience includes strategic foresight analysis at NATO Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, Virginia, and capability development and armaments cooperation at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. She has published her research in the Journal of Transatlantic Studies, European Security, Military Review, and Ethics Forum.

Image: NATO

The rest is here:

Can the New 'Magi' Save NATO? - War on the Rocks

Coronavirus response: KFOR carries on with its activities and continues to provide assistance to local communities in Kosovo – NATO HQ

The NATO-led KFOR mission continues its daily activities, ensuring a safe and secure environment for all communities in Kosovo, according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 1999.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, KFOR has been fully implementing all preventive measures recommended by the World Health Organization. It has also provided assistance to local institutions in Kosovo. In the past days, it has donated personal protection equipment worth 70,000 Euro to the hospitals of Pristina and Gracanica. This included gloves, masks, goggles, isolation clothing, as well as infrared contactless thermometers and antiseptic hand cleansing. The project was funded by NATO and implemented by the KFOR Civil-Military Cooperation team, and is part of the overall commitment of the Alliance in support of its operations and of its member countries and partners. The donation is an act of solidarity that reflects the close cooperation developed between KFOR and the Ministry of Public Health, Major General Michele Risi, the Commander of KFOR said.

Recently, the Italian-led Multinational Specialized Unit deployed with KFOR has also delivered more than 50 donations of food and clothing worth 70,000 to 14 Kosovo municipalities, in coordination with local charities and the Red Cross of Kosovo. The Multinational Specialized Unit consists of police forces with military status from Allied and partner countries contributing personnel to KFOR. They are tasked to support security operations, including through criminal intelligence control, mass and riot control, and information collection and evaluation. The Unit can advise, train and support local police forces on a wide range of policing issues.

See more here:

Coronavirus response: KFOR carries on with its activities and continues to provide assistance to local communities in Kosovo - NATO HQ

Coronavirus response: Lithuania assists Italy and Spain in response to global pandemic – NATO HQ

On 27 April 2020, a plane from the Spanish Air Force took off from the Lithuanian Air Force Base near iauliai (Lithuania) to deliver critical medical supplies to Spain, as part of ongoing Allied efforts to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

The delivery consisted of Lithuanian-made facial protection shields, medical gloves and disinfectant fluid and was provided through a bilateral arrangements between Lithuania and Spain. To date, Spain has received support from several NATO Allies, including the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Turkey, Lithuania, Luxembourg, and Poland; both though the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Coordination Response Centre (EADRCC) NATOs principal response mechanism - and bilaterally. It has also received assistance from the NATO Support & Procurement Agency, through key relief acquisition and transport.

Last week, Spain notified the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Coordination Centre that thanks to the support received from Allied countries, medical items that were required at the beginning of the pandemic have now been fulfilled and that for this reason it does not require any additional assistance at the moment from the EADRCC. Spain also stated that it will approach the Centre again, should it require further assistance.

Lithuania has also donated 10,000 masks and respiratory equipment to Italy, through a bilateral arrangement. The delivery was made by truck by the Lithuanian logistics company Girteka. Italy has until now received critical support from several NATO Allies, including Albania, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovakia, Poland, Turkey and the United States, through various mechanisms, including bilateral forms of assistance and delivery through the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Coordination Response Centre.

Originally posted here:

Coronavirus response: Lithuania assists Italy and Spain in response to global pandemic - NATO HQ

NATO and outer space: Now what? – Brookings Institution

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO) December 2019 Leaders Summit in London, leaders acknowledged that technology is rapidly changing the international security environment, stating: To stay secure, we must look to the future together. We are addressing the breadth and scale of new technologies to maintain our technological edge. Leaders also identified outer space as a key area of focus. They declared that space [is] an operational domain for NATO, recognizing its importance in keeping us safe and tackling security challenges, while upholding international law. NATO defense ministers had previously approved an initial space policy in June 2019, but the details of that policy have not been publicly released.

Given the increasing role outer space is playing in NATO military operations, and the growing anti-satellite threat from states like Russia and China, NATOs decision to declare outer space an operational domain was the correct one. The key question now is: How can the alliance develop an effective implementation strategy to ensure it can maintain assured access to outer space and space-derived data?

Such a strategy will require several elements. First, NATO will need to improve its understanding of the anti-satellite threat. Second, outer space will need to be mainstreamed within NATO, especially with regard to the defense planning and operations process. Third, NATO will need to improve cooperation and coordination with the United States, the alliances leader on outer space issues. Fourth, NATO should identify areas where it might work with the European Union (EU) on outer space. And finally, the alliance will need to find a way incorporate diplomacy into any eventual strategy.

The threat to U.S. and allied space systems from anti-satellite weapons continues to grow. As former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats noted in testimony before Congress in January 2019: China and Russia are training and equipping their military space forces and fielding new anti-satellite weapons to hold U.S. and allied space systems at risk. Coats testimony is complemented by numerous reports and studies by government and non-governmental organizations like the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Secure World Foundation.

NATO has also been the victim of real-world anti-satellite activities. In March 2019, the Norwegian government accused Russia of harassing communications systems during NATO exercises. Recent press reporting notes that the Norwegian Intelligence Service has documented a number of incidents in which GPS signals and other secured communications between the Norwegian Armed forces, or NAF, units engaged in exercises were subjected to blocking measures from sites located in Russia. And just last week, U.S. Space Command released a statement claiming that on April 15th, Russia had conducted a direct-ascent anti-satellite missile test. Faced with these real threats, how should NATO respond?

Collective action by NATO on outer space security issues will only happen when allies reach a consensus on the anti-satellite threat. As a first step, an appropriate organization at NATO (e.g., the Assistant Secretary General for Intelligence) should be directed to develop a comprehensive assessment of the anti-satellite threat to the alliance.

To be successful, this effort will require the full support of the U.S. intelligence community. Additionally, NATO officials should ensure relevant alliance political and military bodies (e.g., the North Atlantic Council, Military Committee, Senior Political Committee, and Defense Policy and Planning Committee) receive regular updates on the anti-satellite threat.

NATO should ensure that outer space is mainstreamed and fully integrated within alliance political and military institutions, and is not treated as merely a novelty item. For instance, overall responsibility for outer space should be placed in an organization like the Office of the Assistant Secretary General for Defense Policy and Planning, or the Office of the Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment, which are responsible for defense policy, planning, and capability investment at NATO. Furthermore, noting the interrelationship between outer space and other domains like nuclear and cyber, NATO will need to establish mechanisms that encourage effective coordination and cooperation across the entire organization, including the military commands.

At the operational level, the alliance should ensure that outer space is incorporated in its major military exercises and wargames. This is critical because if NATO ever comes into a major conflict with Russia, one of Russias first targets would be the alliances space assets and space-derived information. Therefore, it is important for NATO to conduct its exercises with this in mind. Allied Command Transformation, NATOs warfare development command, should be tasked to make this a reality.

If NATO ever comes into a major conflict with Russia, one of Russias first targets would be the alliances space assets.

At the end of the day, NATOs ultimate effectiveness in outer space will depend on its cooperation with the alliances most important space power: the United States. To date, U.S. leadership has been the key driver of NATO decisionmaking on outer space, and senior U.S. officials have actively engaged the alliance leadership. For example, in October 2019, General John Raymond, commander of U.S. Space Command and chief of space operations, briefed the NATO Military Committee on outer space security issues. These types of senior-level engagements between U.S. political and military leaders should continue and be expanded.

In addition to senior-level engagements, there are a number of other actions NATO and the United States could take to improve cooperation and coordination. Specifically, they should establish clear consultative mechanisms between NATO, U.S. Space Command, and the U.S. Space Force. One relatively easy step that could be taken quickly would be to establish a NATO liaison officer at U.S. Space Command and/or U.S. Space Force headquarters. Indeed, a number of allied officers are currently attached as liaisons at several U.S. combatant commands like U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM).

The United States should also seek to incorporate NATO representatives into its outer space-related wargames where possible, especially the Schriever Wargame, the premier U.S. space wargame. According to a U.S. Air Force press release, several allies including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan, have participated in previous Schriever Wargames. The United States should invite NATO political and military officials to participate in the next Schriever Wargame.

NATO should also explore ways to cooperate with the EU on outer space, primarily because the EU has developed and deployed the Galileo globalnavigationsatellite system, which like the U.S. Global Position System (GPS), provides accurate positioning and timing information. In particular, Galileo includes a capability known as the Public Regulated Service (PRS), an encrypted navigation service for governmental authorized users and sensitive applications that require high continuity. In a crisis situation, PRS could provide NATO important redundancy against an adversarys attempt to jam or destroy GPS. While many members of NATO are also members of the EU and have access to PRS, non-EU NATO members, and NATO as an organization, currently does not. Therefore, NATO should begin consultations with the EU about the possibility of gaining access to PRS for the alliance.

Military solutions alone will not allow the United States and its allies to address the increasing anti-satellite threat. While I have generally supported many of the Trump administrations space security initiatives like the re-establishment of U.S. Space Command, a key element missing from the Trump administrations outer space security strategy has been the complete lack of a diplomatic component. Without a more comprehensive strategy that includes a strong diplomatic element, it will make it difficult for NATO to maintain enough political cohesion to pursue effective military policies. These tensions were highlighted in a recent article that noted: With the exception of France and the United Kingdom, many Europeans countries are deeply uncomfortable with, or down right opposed to, the development and use of weapons in space.

This is not a problem unique to outer space. Throughout its history, there has been constant tension within NATO over the appropriate balance between defense and diplomacy in its strategy. Since the late 1960s, with the approval of the Harmel Report, named after former Belgian foreign minister Pierre Harmel, NATO has sought to more effectively balance some of the inherent tensions between defense and diplomacy. One of the key findings from the Harmel Report was that military security and a policy of dtente are not contradictory but complementary. Arms control was considered an essential element of this strategy. The general Harmel Report approach has shaped the key strategic decisions that the alliance has taken over the past 50 years, most notably the Double-Track decision in 1979 to deploy intermediate-range nuclear forces in Western Europe, while simultaneously engaging the Soviet Union in arms control negotiations.

As part of its overall strategy for outer space, NATO should develop options and recommendations on how it can advance diplomatic solutions to address the emerging threat to outer space systems. In particular, NATO should task the Arms Control and Disarmament Committee to examine what role the alliance could play in developing norms of behavior to encourage responsible use of outer space. And even though the Trump administration has generally been opposed to arms control, it has expressed openness to the development of norms for outer space. In an recent speech, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Ford stated: We clearly need to do more to develop non-legallybinding international normsof responsible behaviorthat are complementary to the existing legal regime.

With the increasing role that outer space is playing in military operations, and the rise of the anti-satellite threat, NATO was correct in its decision to declare space as an operational domain in December 2019. The question now is whether the alliance will be able to translate this broad political guidance into an effective strategy.

An effective NATO strategy for outer space will depend on the ability of the alliance to build consensus on the threat; mainstream outer space into NATOs political and military institutions; find ways to cooperate with the EU; and incorporate diplomacy into that strategy. But at the end of the day, all of this will require clear, sustained, and consistent U.S. leadership.

Here is the original post:

NATO and outer space: Now what? - Brookings Institution

#SpaceWatchGL Opinion: NATO And Outer Space: What Now? – SpaceWatch.Global

NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Photograph courtesy of NATO.

By Frank A. Rose

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO) December 2019 Leaders Summit in London, leaders acknowledged that technology is rapidly changing the international security environment, stating: To stay secure, we must look to the future together. We are addressing the breadth and scale of new technologies to maintain our technological edge. Leaders also identified outer space as a key area of focus. They declared that space [is] an operational domain for NATO, recognizing its importance in keeping us safe and tackling security challenges, while upholding international law. NATO defense ministers had previously approved an initial space policy in June 2019, but the details of that policy have not been publicly released.

Given the increasing role outer space is playing in NATO military operations, and the growing anti-satellite threat from states like Russia and China, NATOs decision to declare outer space an operational domain was the correct one. The key question now is: How can the alliance develop an effective implementation strategy to ensure it can maintain assured access to outer space and space-derived data?

Such a strategy will require several elements. First, NATO will need to improve its understanding of the anti-satellite threat. Second, outer space will need to be mainstreamed within NATO, especially with regard to the defense planning and operations process. Third, NATO will need to improve cooperation and coordination with the United States, the alliances leader on outer space issues. Fourth, NATO should identify areas where it might work with the European Union (EU) on outer space. And finally, the alliance will need to find a way incorporate diplomacy into any eventual strategy.

The Emerging Anti-Satellite Threat

The threat to U.S. and allied space systems from anti-satellite weapons continues to grow. As former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats noted in testimony before Congress in January 2019: China and Russia are training and equipping their military space forces and fielding new anti-satellite weapons to hold U.S. and allied space systems at risk. Coats testimony is complemented by numerous reports and studies by government and non-governmental organizations like the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Secure World Foundation.

NATO has also been the victim of real-world anti-satellite activities. In March 2019, the Norwegian government accused Russia of harassing communications systems during NATO exercises. Recent press reportingnotes that the Norwegian Intelligence Service has documented a number of incidents in which GPS signals and other secured communications between the Norwegian Armed forces, or NAF, units engaged in exercises were subjected to blocking measures from sites located in Russia. And just last week, U.S. Space Command released a statement claiming that on April 15th, Russia had conducted a direct-ascent anti-satellite missile test. Faced with these real threats, how should NATO respond?

Improve Intelligence-Sharing

Collective action by NATO on outer space security issues will only happen when allies reach a consensus on the anti-satellite threat. As a first step, an appropriate organization at NATO (e.g., the Assistant Secretary General for Intelligence) should be directed to develop a comprehensive assessment of the anti-satellite threat to the alliance.

To be successful, this effort will require the full support of the U.S. intelligence community. Additionally, NATO officials should ensure relevant alliance political and military bodies (e.g., the North Atlantic Council, Military Committee, Senior Political Committee, and Defense Policy and Planning Committee) receive regular updates on the anti-satellite threat.

Mainstream Outer Space at NATO

NATO should ensure that outer space is mainstreamed and fully integrated within alliance political and military institutions, and is not treated as merely a novelty item. For instance, overall responsibility for outer space should be placed in an organization like the Office of the Assistant Secretary General for Defense Policy and Planning, or the Office of the Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment, which are responsible for defense policy, planning, and capability investment at NATO. Furthermore, noting the interrelationship between outer space and other domains like nuclear and cyber, NATO will need to establish mechanisms that encourage effective coordination and cooperation across the entire organization, including the military commands.

At the operational level, the alliance should ensure that outer space is incorporated in its major military exercises and wargames. This is critical because if NATO ever comes into a major conflict with Russia, one of Russias first targets would be the alliances space assets and space-derived information. Therefore, it is important for NATO to conduct its exercises with this in mind. Allied Command Transformation, NATOs warfare development command, should be tasked to make this a reality.

Ensure Cooperation and Coordination With the United States

At the end of the day, NATOs ultimate effectiveness in outer space will depend on its cooperation with the alliances most important space power: the United States. To date, U.S. leadership has been the key driver of NATO decisionmaking on outer space, and senior U.S. officials have actively engaged the alliance leadership. For example, in October 2019, General John Raymond, commander of U.S. Space Command and chief of space operations, briefed the NATO Military Committee on outer space security issues. These types of senior-level engagements between U.S. political and military leaders should continue and be expanded.

In addition to senior-level engagements, there are a number of other actions NATO and the United States could take to improve cooperation and coordination. Specifically, they should establish clear consultative mechanisms between NATO, U.S. Space Command, and the U.S. Space Force. One relatively easy step that could be taken quickly would be to establish a NATO liaison officer at U.S. Space Command and/or U.S. Space Force headquarters. Indeed, a number of allied officers are currently attached as liaisons at several U.S. combatant commands like U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM).

The United States should also seek to incorporate NATO representatives into its outer space-related wargames where possible, especially the Schriever Wargame, the premier U.S. space wargame. According to a U.S. Air Force press release, several allies including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan, have participated in previous Schriever Wargames. The United States should invite NATO political and military officials to participate in the next Schriever Wargame.

Cooperate With the EU

NATO should also explore ways to cooperate with the EU on outer space, primarily because the EU has developed and deployed the Galileo globalnavigationsatellite system, which like the U.S. Global Position System (GPS), provides accurate positioning and timing information. In particular, Galileo includes a capability known as the Public Regulated Service (PRS), an encrypted navigation service for governmental authorized users and sensitive applications that require high continuity. In a crisis situation, PRS could provide NATO important redundancy against an adversarys attempt to jam or destroy GPS. While many members of NATO are also members of the EU and have access to PRS, non-EU NATO members, and NATO as an organization, currently does not. Therefore, NATO should begin consultations with the EU about the possibility of gaining access to PRS for the alliance.

Dont Forget Diplomacy

Military solutions alone will not allow the United States and its allies to address the increasing anti-satellite threat. While I have generally supported many of the Trump administrations space security initiatives like the re-establishment of U.S. Space Command, a key element missing from the Trump administrations outer space security strategy has been the complete lack of a diplomatic component. Without a more comprehensive strategy that includes a strong diplomatic element, it will make it difficult for NATO to maintain enough political cohesion to pursue effective military policies. These tensions were highlighted in a recent article that noted: With the exception of France and the United Kingdom, many Europeans countries are deeply uncomfortable with, or down right opposed to, the development and use of weapons in space.

This is not a problem unique to outer space. Throughout its history, there has been constant tension within NATO over the appropriate balance between defense and diplomacy in its strategy. Since the late 1960s, with the approval of the Harmel Report, named after former Belgian foreign minister Pierre Harmel, NATO has sought to more effectively balance some of the inherent tensions between defense and diplomacy. One of the key findings from the Harmel Report was that military security and a policy of dtente are not contradictory but complementary. Arms control was considered an essential element of this strategy. The general Harmel Report approach has shaped the key strategic decisions that the alliance has taken over the past 50 years, most notably the Double-Track decision in 1979 to deploy intermediate-range nuclear forces in Western Europe, while simultaneously engaging the Soviet Union in arms control negotiations.

As part of its overall strategy for outer space, NATO should develop options and recommendations on how it can advance diplomatic solutions to address the emerging threat to outer space systems. In particular, NATO should task the Arms Control and Disarmament Committee to examine what role the alliance could play in developing norms of behavior to encourage responsible use of outer space. And even though the Trump administration has generally been opposed to arms control, it has expressed openness to the development of norms for outer space. In an recent speech, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Ford stated: We clearly need to do more to develop non-legallybinding international normsof responsible behaviorthat are complementary to the existing legal regime.

U.S. Leadership Will Be Key

With the increasing role that outer space is playing in military operations, and the rise of the anti-satellite threat, NATO was correct in its decision to declare space as an operational domain in December 2019. The question now is whether the alliance will be able to translate this broad political guidance into an effective strategy.

An effective NATO strategy for outer space will depend on the ability of the alliance to build consensus on the threat; mainstream outer space into NATOs political and military institutions; find ways to cooperate with the EU; and incorporate diplomacy into that strategy. But at the end of the day, all of this will require clear, sustained, and consistent U.S. leadership.

Frank A. Rose is a senior fellow for security and strategy in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution. He focuses on nuclear strategy and deterrence, arms control, strategic stability, missile defense, outer space, and emerging security challenges. From 2017-18, he served as principal director and chief of government relations at the Aerospace Corporation, a federally-funded research and development center focused on national security space. Before that, Rose served as assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification, and compliance from 2014-17.Prior to joining the State Department in June 2009, Rose held various national security staff positions in the U.S. House of Representatives, including service as a professional staff member on both the House Armed Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Rose has also held numerous positions within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including as special assistant to the assistant secretary of defense for strategy and threat reduction, and policy advisor in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. Before that, he worked as a national security analyst with Science Applications International Corporation and on the staff of U.S. Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA). Rose received his bachelors degree in history from American University in 1994 and a masters degree in war studies from Kings College, University of London in 1999. Outside of Brookings, Rose is providing outside informal counsel exclusively to the Biden campaign for President.

This essay was originally published on the Brookings Institutions Order from Chaos blog on 22 April 2020 and can be found here, and is republished by SpaceWatch.Global with their kind permission.

Read the rest here:

#SpaceWatchGL Opinion: NATO And Outer Space: What Now? - SpaceWatch.Global

Moray Typhoons deployed to Lithuania for NATO mission – Press and Journal

Typhoon jets based at RAF Lossiemouth were deployed to Lithuania today as part of the UKs latest NATO Air Policing mission.

The 6 Squadron aircraft are flying to iauliai Air Base where they will carry out the Baltic Air Policing mission for the summer, along with the Spanish Air Force, who will be deploying F-18 fighters.

The core UK defence task ensures that RAF staff are able to continue supporting the NHS, and other Government departments during the current Covid-19 pandemic.

Wing Commander Matt DAubyn, the Officer Commanding 6 Sqn RAF, said: This deployment is the latest RAF contribution to NATO Air Policing. As one of four front-line Squadrons at RAF Lossiemouth, we routinely conduct UK-based Quick Reaction Alert on standby 24/7 to defend the Nations skies.

The NATO Air Policing mission in the Baltics is very similar to UK QRA, and my pilots and supporting personnel are experienced operators when it comes to completing this sort of task. Despite the difficult circumstances caused by Covid-19 we are well prepared and ready to deliver this mission.

The 6 Squadron detachment will be augmented by other personnel from across the Service to form 135 Expeditionary Air Wing, which consists of around 150 personnel who will be well equipped and trained to deliver this NATO Air Policing role.

The RAF has been a regular guest of our Baltic hosts; this is the sixth time the United Kingdom has deployed on this Air Policing mission, Wing Commander Stu Gwinnutt, Commanding Officer of 135 Expeditionary Air Wing, said.

He added: The RAF was the third NATO member to conduct, what was then, a new Allied Baltic Air Policing mission from iauliai, in 2004, and we look forward to conducting this important NATO mission.

During the operation we will be demonstrating NATOs collective resolve and assurance for our eastern allies, as well as showing that the United Kingdom remains leading NATO member that is committed to NATO operations.

135 EAW are deploying to conduct this important NATO mission despite the Covid-19 pandemic and all necessary measures have therefore been taken to ensure that both UK and Lithuanian mandated Covid-19 precautions and countermeasure have been followed.

Read more here:

Moray Typhoons deployed to Lithuania for NATO mission - Press and Journal

Virtual Coworking Is Giving Our Need For Connection A Workout – Allwork.Space

What happens to coworking communities when they cant be physically close to one another? The theories are being put to the test as people practice physical distancing.

Like many people-focused industries, coworking has been forced to put its regular activities on hold, at least temporarily, while the world adapts to physical distancing measures.

Here at Allwork.Space we choose to refer to these measures as physical distancing rather than social distancing, as we believe that social experiences can (and should) continue even while we keep physically distant from one another. We are human after all, and we thrive on social contact. Its a natural part of our wellbeing, and while many people around the world are living and working in near-isolation, we need each other more than ever.

Amy Banks for Psychology Today explains the thinking behind physical distancing vs. social distancing as acknowledging that the virus has no power over our ability to support and nurture one another in this time of extraordinary threat.

Advocating for re-naming the national strategy as physical distancing, Banks says that this change emphasises the need for human connection so we can remain safe, but also hold onto the heightened need we all have for one another right now.

Giving our need for connection a workout

Banks noted that we all need our connections during this extraordinary time.

Perhaps now more than ever we must be intentional about giving our neural pathways for connection a workout.

And thats exactly what the coworking world is doing.

Coworking was born out of our need for person-to-person contact, connections, and collaboration. Thousands of shared hubs and communities have mushroomed across the world in the past decade or so, driven by our natural desire to be close and interact with other people. Thats why millions of people, even those who can do their work remotely, choose to work from a coworking space every day.

So what happens when that physical place is suddenly removed?

Some coworking owners have always said that the physical space doesnt matter, that communities can move, and will move, with you. That theory is being put to the test during the health crisis as coworking spaces take their communities online.

Virtual coworking

Last week, Cat Johnson hosted a Coworking Convo dedicated to virtual coworking, how it works, whats working, and whats not.

Virtual coworking brings workspace communities together in a digital space. This usually involves a scheduled video call using a platform such as Zoom, to which displaced coworking members can log in and work or socialise (or both) with their coworkers.

Suggested Reading: Virtual Coworking: Keeping Members Connected During Lockdown

The Latest NewsDelivered To Your Inbox

Some sessions are structured, and may involve a work sprint or a workshop with an expert speaker. Other times, the sessions are open and flexible, enabling people to join for a little while and simply enjoy being around other people.

More than 170 participants joined Cats online discussion, which shows just how important this activity is at the present time.

Attendees shared some of the things that are working for their online communities, and the challenges they have faced over the past few weeks.

Here are some of the takeaways from the Convo (find out more about future Coworking Convo events here):

If youre looking for inspiration for virtual coworking events, take a look at Cat Johnsons list of 25 virtual activities for coworking communities.

How is virtual coworking working for you? How are you keeping your community engaged? Get in touch and share your ideas with us.

Facebook Twitter LinkedInMessenger

See the original post here:

Virtual Coworking Is Giving Our Need For Connection A Workout - Allwork.Space

Why are white supremacists protesting to ‘reopen’ the US economy? – Thehour.com

Shannon Reid, University of North Carolina Charlotte

(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)

Shannon Reid, University of North Carolina Charlotte and Matthew Valasik, Louisiana State University

(THE CONVERSATION) A series of protests, primarily in state capitals, are demanding the end of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. Among the protesters are people who express concern about their jobs or the economy as a whole.

But there are also far-right conspiracy theorists, white supremacists like Proud Boys and citizens militia members at these protests. The exact number of each group that attends these protests is unknown, since police have not traditionally monitored these groups, but signs and symbols of far right groups have been seen at many of these protests across the country.

These protests riskspreading the virus and have disrupted traffic, potentially delaying ambulances. But as researchers of street gangs and far-right groups violence and recruitment, we believe these protests may become a way right-wingers expand the spread of anti-Semitic rhetoric and militant racism.

Proud Boys, and many other far-right activists, dont typically focus their concern on whether stores and businesses are open. Theyre usually more concerned about pro-white, pro-male rhetoric. Theyre attending these rallies as part of their longstanding search for any opportunity to make extremist groups look mainstream and because they are always looking for potential recruits to further their cause.

Exploiting an opportunity

While not all far-right groups agree on everything, many of them now subscribe to the idea that Western government is corrupt and its demise needs to be accelerated through a race war.

For far-right groups, almost any interaction is an opportunity to connect with people with social or economic insecurities or their children. Even if some of the protesters have genuine concerns, theyre in protest lines near people looking to offer them targets to blame for societys problems.

Once theyre standing side by side at a protest, members of far-right hate groups begin to share their ideas. That lures some people deeper into online groups and forums where they can be radicalized against immigrants, Jews or other stereotypical scapegoats.

Its true that only a few will go to that extreme but they represent potential sparks for future far-right violence.

Official responses

President Donald Trump, a favorite of far-right activists, has tweeted encouragement to the protesters. Police responses have been uneven. Some protesters have been charged with violating emergency government orders against public gatherings.

Other events, however, have gone undisturbed by officials similar to how far-right free speech rallies in 2018 often were treated gently by police.

Police have tended to be hesitant to deal with far-right groups at these protests. As a result, the risk is growing of right-wing militants spreading the coronavirus, either unintentionally at rallies or in intentional efforts: Federal authorities have warned that some right-wingers are talking about specifically sending infected people to target communities of color.

One thing police could do which they often do when facing criminal groups is to track the level of coordination between different protests. Identifying far-right activists who attend multiple events or travel across state borders to attend a rally may indicate that they are using these events as part of a connected public relations campaign.

[You need to understand the coronavirus pandemic, and we can help. Read The Conversations newsletter.]

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/why-are-white-supremacists-protesting-to-reopen-the-us-economy-137044.

See the rest here:

Why are white supremacists protesting to 'reopen' the US economy? - Thehour.com

Nathan Tanner: Taking responsibility for the inequality facing the Navajo Nation – Salt Lake Tribune

While some news organizations claim that poverty in tribal communities created the conditions for coronavirus to thrive, these analyses fail to account for factors that created and presently maintain social stratification in native communities. The Navajo suffer from the effects of pandemic illness disproportionately to non-native populations presently for the same reasons they did historically: systemic inequality caused by colonialism, capitalism and racism.

In his study of the 1918-1919 influenza epidemic among the Navajo, Utah State historian Robert McPherson asserted that the Navajo experienced such a disproportionate influenza mortality rate in the early 20th century because of their spiritual practices and living conditions e.g., tendency to live close to one another, engage in ceremony that required physical contact and a perceived lack of access to medical attention. However, this historical interpretation neglects the complex system of social stratification the Navajo have persistently encountered since the arrival of the first Euro-American colonists.

In a major way, the Navajo Nation in 2020 is experiencing the prolonged effects of the dispossession of their land, the intentional result of centuries of Euro-American pathogenic genocide, corporate and military expansion and sociopolitical destabilization. It can be assumed that in the absence of the U.S. federal governments land theft, forcing Americas indigenous peoples onto reservations what could easily be construed as a form of sociopolitical apartheid subverting and restructuring indigenous economies, complicating tribal authorization processes, battling tribal nations over sovereignty in court and severely limiting consumer networks (which force people to either live very near one another or travel great distances for essential resources and services), the Navajo would not be troubled by the current coronavirus.

While some may view this as an anachronistic reading of the causes of the current pandemic crisis, youd be hard pressed to convince indigenous folks or any serious student of history or sociology that this is not the case.

In her book, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz cites native historian Jack Forbes as having stressed that, While living persons are not responsible for what their ancestors did, they are responsible for the society they live in, which is a product of the past. That said, descendants of settlers, like me, can assist Navajo Nation and other tribal communities by doing the following:

1. Urge political representatives to carefully reconsider the eligibility rules they create when crafting policy like the CARES stimulus package. Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez has described the complications Navajo Nation has had accessing essential federal funds amidst this COVID-19 crisis.

2. Encourage government agencies to collect tribal affiliation in vital statistics. Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear and others have called for increased visibility for native peoples where they have historically been erased.

Nathan Tanner, Urbana, Ill., is a former Salt Lake City teacher pursuing a Ph.D. in education policy, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

See the article here:

Nathan Tanner: Taking responsibility for the inequality facing the Navajo Nation - Salt Lake Tribune

Hall Presidents Council: Hall of the Year award winners – Observer Online

After last nights announcement of the three 2019-2020 Halls of the Year, the Hall Presidents Council Executive Board would like to provide background about the year-long process of promoting resident life in our halls, up to and including the award determination. The year has shown tremendous community development for each of Notre Dames 31 halls. Especially during this unprecedented year where we are unable to celebrate these halls on campus in person we believe in the integral component dorms play in the life and education of students at Notre Dame. We see this every day still in the Zoom hall councils and online community building that hall executives are doing during our time away from campus.

We, the Hall Presidents Council, are a group of 31 sets of Hall Presidents and Vice Presidents that serve our individual halls and collaborate to bolster the Notre Dame community. Our Executive Board consists of six former Hall Presidents and Vice Presidents: Co-Chairs Tom Walsh and John Desler, Athletics Chair Gracie OConnell, Social Chairs Amanda Bono and Maddie Heyn and Finance Chair Frank Dijak. Our purpose is to foster a community of friendship and learning for all the halls. We coordinate programming among residence halls, provide a forum in which our members can represent their constituents in discussing matters of resident life, and disseminate information to the hall communities. In short, we hope to ensure that students of Notre Dame are developing personally, as members of the hall community, and as members of the community beyond the hall. Hall Presidents Council also allocates funding for Signature Events, an important part of campus culture and hall identity. In the 2019-2020 academic year, there were an intended seventy residence hall Signature Events.

This year, the Hall of the Year calculation included 50% Rockne submissions (taking the average score of seven monthly submissions) 45% Hall of the Year Presentation and a 5% discretionary allotment, which is updated each year to represent matters deemed important to the campus community by our executive board. Constitutionally the 5% that normally is a grade of a hall council was added to the presentation weight as we were not able to complete all of them before the cancellation of in-person classes. This year, the five percentage points were allocated for developing the GreeNDot program in hall communities and growing the participation in hall events open to the campus community. Midway through the first semester we sent benchmarks for both of these that the halls would have to pass to get the allotment. The GreeNDot benchmark was 400 points, following a system based on an allocation for percentage trained and events held by halls that the executive board and director of GreeNDot agreed upon. Participation was a benchmark of 50% of the dorm headcount checking in at a qualifying dorm participation event. Both of these benchmarks were then adjusted down to compensate for the lost time. 338 points for GreeNDot based on the days experienced vs expected and 22.58% because only 14 out of 31 qualifying events were able to occur. Using these measures as a lens, the Hall of the Year Review Board was able to evaluate the degree to which hall communities flourished this year.

The 2019-2020 Mens Hall of the Year was awarded to Dunne Hall. This hall exemplified a lot of characteristics that the hall of the year award works to encourage halls to move towards, but most importantly this year we were continuously impressed with this dorms authenticity and constant endeavor to improve their events and community. It was important to this community that they craft a strong identity to serve as a foundation for the men of Dunne Hall for years to come. Their leadership made hard choices about cutting events that were not reaching their community in the way they were intended and worked with commissioners to make the events they kept around to be the best they could last for the years to come. This year in particular they started a new mens group to share in their faith and made a stronger presence for themselves with other dorms with several joint hall councils and intercommunity building events. Within their own dorm they worked with their commissioners to improve their retreat and dance. Their hall councils reached record attendances and kept them up with new fun traditions. In true spirit of community, in their Rocknes and presentation they gave credit to the hard work of their commissioners and residents.

The leadership of Dunne Hall strived to create a home for their residents, despite the hall not having many traditions of its own. Popular signature events such as the DunneDance Film Festival and the Dunne Funne Runne made a name for this hall on campus, which this year is especially impressive considering they still received submissions and were able to hold their film festival on Zoom during quarantine. However, they did not just focus on improving their established events; the hall held a slew of inaugural events throughout the year. They held new events such as their very first parents weekend and a mentorship meet and greet for their First Years. At the beginning of their term, the leaders of this hall established a traditions committee to plan events that would build a sense of hall identity and last for years to come. Taken from one of their Rocknes about their SYR, This event is one of the longest standing traditions in [this hall] (it has been around about 4 years). Even though seeing 30 guys dressed up as a beloved celebrity during a football game is already a pretty successful tradition, the men of this hall never settled and continued to build up their community throughout the year. Congratulations to president George Lyman and vice presidents Nick Spitzer and Carson Richter on an excellent year.

Womens Hall of the Year for 2019-2020 was awarded to Flaherty Hall. This womens hall started the year strong ready to improve and strengthen their community. They were intentional in their widespread collaborations with other halls, student groups and community partners. They reached the GreeNDot and hall participation allocation threshold with 449 points and 76% participation. They encouraged programming that included all types of residents and brought back old favorite events such as a holiday week, study abroad socials and an annual hype video. They strengthened their tie with Beacon Childrens Hospital throughout the year with fundraising, supply drives and DVD collections. Their focus on sustainability included creating a textbook exchange program, helping clean Saint Marys lake and collecting seven pounds of pop tabs for Ronald McDonald House.

Flahertys hall leadership team developed heart, mind and spirit for their fellow residents. They encouraged self-confidence through Grace & Gratitude, and created a safe space for difficult but much needed conversations surrounding mental health, sexual assault and female empowerment. Their fighting spirit extended beyond successful signature events and they inspired healthy lifestyles with pilates on the patio and a yearly retreat. This hall builds community and skills in many other ways such as balancing two food sales services along with Bear-BQing indoor and outdoor with other dorms. Their support for many causes such as the Boys and Girls Club of South Bend and Center for the Homeless show how eager they are to bear the load for others and support one another with enthusiasm and passion.

Their final presentation was structured like a resume. But like any recruiter at the career fair, we took a quick glance at it and threw it away. Because residential life at Notre Dame is not just about checking things off the list. That spirit that you hear about during Welcome Weekend, that spirit is not something you can point to, but rather something you can feel. This hall was always passionate about fostering community, within and between residence halls, and that is the mission of Hall Presidents Council.

Finally, the 2019-2020 Hall of the Year is Carroll Hall, led by President Aidan Cook and Vice President Jacob Stellon. When we first met these two, they had clear eyes set on one goal: winning Hall of the Year. Now, most of our hall presidents and vice presidents have this nominal goal in mind somewhere in their consideration of how they will approach their time in office, but what made Aidan and Jacob stand out was the way they interpreted this goal. They saw it as the natural culmination over the course of the year, we saw the tremendous growth of community and spirit, characterized by a culture of small acts guided by family and familiarity. Carroll, more than any other hall, represented a place of inclusivity and hall spirit, where all Vermin are welcome and loved. This atmosphere allowed for a fluid development of events that catered to every member of the community.

They had the perfect intersection of small events encompassing every conceivable aspect of life at Notre Dame. This programming included many lake cleanups, third-floor ab workouts with new partner dorms, lots of support for their brother/sister dorms and a new Carroll Cares volunteer program. None of these events seemed forced on their part, as they had terrific participation in most of these events. The frankly absurd Lime Week that has become a smash hit among the residents even with the untimely demise of Lime Bikes speaks to the fun community that is flourishing on the side of the lake. They have become a true family, bonded as they say by their 13-minute walk to Debart. Especially impressive was the large number of events collaborating with other dorms and unwavering participation in events across the campus even with their small numbers. They won the Dorm-Based Athletic Attendance Contest, easily had the most student participants in the Kelly Cares 5k, even though it was during the early morning of a football game day and knocking our own hall event participation out of the park.

We could continue to list the multitude of events Carroll put on a mens group, speaker series, etc. but its almost endless. What we really cared about was their genuineness in their actions, as everything they did helped the residents of their dorm. Aiden and Jacob wanted to put Carroll on the map and change the perception of the dorm. Instead of someone telling a freshman they are sorry they got put in Carroll they wanted that person to congratulate them and say how lucky they were instead. We believe Carroll Hall has done just that.

A huge congratulations to these three halls and the remaining twenty-eight, each of which we are extremely proud of for providing an inclusive, unique, and fun home for Notre Dame students. Our campus community will soon welcome one new residence hall in Baumer Hall as well as see the girls of Pangborn officially become the amazing community of Johnson Family. We cannot wait to begin Fall 2020 as 32 homes under one Dome. Thank you to all who helped make Hall Presidents Council 2019-2020 term a terrific one and helped us leave our mark on Notre Dame.

Hall Presidents Council

Tom Walsh

co-chair

John Desler

co-chair

Maddie Heyn

social chair

Amanda Bono

social chair

Frank Dijak

finance chair

Gracie OConnoll

athletics chair

Apr. 28

The views expressed in this Letter to the Editor are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

Here is the original post:

Hall Presidents Council: Hall of the Year award winners - Observer Online

Republic’s Rich Kang Solves Problems With a Creative Flare and Personal Touch – waste360

Republics Rich Kang has worked many jobs at Republic, including those now held by his current direct reports.Between his previous experiences in those positions and what he learns from his staff who now hold those jobs, he has gone far. Its this union of different perspectives, and bringing people together in general, that he attributes to his success.

Rich has held several different leadership roles with Republic Services throughout his career in finance, business development, and operations and is now leading our South area as an area president.

He has influenced our business during every one of his leadership roles. Rich is a collaborative leader, whose approach is pragmatic and intentional. He enjoys solving business problems through a creative approach, says Genevieve Dombrowski, vice president of Talent, Republic Services.

Rich has a genuine care for all of his employees. He has an authentic leadership style that makes him a leader worth following, she says.

The 2020 Waste360 40 Under 40 awardrecipient sat down with us to discusshis personal philosophy with regard to working with customers, and how he acts on that philosophy; as well as why he loves working with kids.

Waste360: Can you speak a little on each leadership role you have held with Republic Services?

Rich Kang:As Republics area president of the South Area,I am very responsible for the people, and that is a responsibility I take very seriously. I have eight direct reports managing critical functions of the business for our area, including sales, operations and human resources. First and foremost, my job is to ensure I have an engaged team. I truly believe an engaged team will take care of customers. Ultimately, I am responsible for achieving operating and financial results which also comes back to having an engaged, customer-oriented team from the frontline employees to their supervisors and managers.

Going back in time, I joined Republic Services in 2013 as the director of Financial, Planning and Analysis at the corporate office where I was responsible for the companys budgeting process and financial analysis.

I have also served as the market vice president Mid-Atlantic where I was responsible for achieving operating and financial results for the greater Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. markets,andI worked with the general managers within my area who reported to me, and I ultimately reported to the area president.

As director of Operations Support Mid-Atlantic I was charged with maximizing operating performance through each support function including safety, engineering, fleet maintenance, and hauling and post collection operations.

And as director of Business Development I was responsible for acquisitions, market strategy and infrastructure development.

Waste360: What did you take from each leadership job that you still use in your job as south area president?

Rich Kang:My previous exposure and work experience have enabled me to build a strong foundation. This helps me understand what each position entails, but at the same time, my team members bring different perspectives than those I had when I was in those roles. This is important because I believe there is no one right way to accomplish something. This helps us make the best decisions for the company.

Waste360: What do you view as the most critical part of your job, as well as the most rewarding parts?

Rich Kang:At Republic, prioritizing safety above all else is critically important to us. The safety of my employees is my responsibility. If my employees are safe, I know they can reliably serve our customers. But the truly most rewarding part of my job as an area president is investing my time in developing talent and working alongside smartand engaged teammates, including my area leaders and their teams, our drivers and frontline employees.

Waste360:What is your approach to problem-solving?

Rich Kang:I am always looking for creative opportunities to further develop an inclusive and engaged team, especially with a geographic footprint that encompasses nearly 4,000 employees. One approach is inclusion opening my meetings not only to my direct reports but a broader team, including at staff meetings and through area-wide communications.

Another approach I take is making it personal. Im out there meeting with team members, and the next morning I send emails saying I appreciate their time and contributions, and if they need anything, they know they can reach out to me directly. I send handwritten birthday and anniversary cards. All these little moments mean something to our employees.

My intent is to make sure that there is a personal touch to make that larger group feel a little smaller and more connected as we step up to challenges and work to solve problems.

Waste360: You have an expansive financial background and subsequent experience in mergers and acquisitions and strategic corporate development.How has this experience given you a leg up today?

Rich Kang:Prior to Republic, I was the director of Corporate Development and Strategy, and before that I was an investment banker.

Growing our business is a core part of my responsibility now. My previous experience has provided a foundational knowledge of valuation, identifying synergies, and ensuring seamless integration. These learned skills have allowed me to build a pipeline and acquire companies that are accretive to Republic.

Waste360: What is your philosophy with regard to working with customers, and how do you act on this?

Rich Kang:Listening and understanding the needs of our customers is the core of who we are, so I sit down with them and I listen.

We know our customers want to recycle, despite the challenges we face withChinas policieson acceptablerecyclables. We are partnering with our municipal customers to create a more sustainable recycling model.I am working closely with my leadership teams to make sure we identify solutions that will allow customers to achieve their recycling goals as well as create a sustainable model for them and their communities.

Waste360: Tell me about your engagement with students.

Rich Kang:I truly enjoy working with children, especially when it comes to talking about sustainability that impacts their future. I, along with my area and local leaders, work with school administrators and educators to host local school events around America Recycles Day and Earth Day where we talk with students about recycling, safety and other important topics.

We want to educate and empower students so they can be expert recyclers in their homes and at school.

For me, having an interactive lesson is important. I will typically show a short video on what we need to recycle and the recycling processes. And we use examples that make it personal for them. For instance, most kids love pizza. We know that putting a greasy pizza box in the recycling bin is a common mistake and use this as an example of something they can avoid to make a difference for the better.

The key is having something students can relate to, and making it fun and engaging. This will help create a sustainable future for the children and their families while enabling us to recycle more and reduce contamination.

Waste360: What other outreach do you do?

Rich Kang:At Republic Services, we are actively involved in our communities; it is important to give back to the communities where we live and work. For example, under my leadership last year, Republics Charitable Foundation, National Neighborhood Promise, made a $250,000 donation to Avenue, one of our not-for-profit partners. Together with the non-profit, using the donation, our manpower and resources, over 120 volunteers revitalized several homes and a school playground in Houston. We are committed to working with this non-profit again in 2020 in Houston, along with over 20 other charitable giving projects across the country.

Waste360:What is your favorite thing to do when you arent at work?

Rich Kang:Thats easy.When I am not at work, I enjoy spending time with my family. I have three boys so when we are not on a soccer field you can find us fishing. Family is very important to me. I encourage my teams to make sure they get as much time as possible with their families too.

Excerpt from:

Republic's Rich Kang Solves Problems With a Creative Flare and Personal Touch - waste360

Sacred Heart has remote day of service – Amherst Bee

Kaitlyn Jones, left, and sister Lindsey Jones, a freshman at Sacred Heart, pose with their sidewalk art for the virtual Day of Sharing on Wednesday, April 22. Photo courtesy of Buffalo Academy of the Sacred Heart

For students, faculty and staff at the Buffalo Academy of the Sacred Heart, service, which functions as a pillar of the school environment, took on a new form and significance amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

For over a decade, springtime has featured Sacred Hearts annual Day of Sharing, which entails a day of school-wide community service throughout Western New York. Under normal circumstances, students, administrators, teachers, parents and alumnae of Sacred Heart commemorate the Day of Sharing by venturing into the community and volunteering at sites such as nursing homes, hospitals and organizations serving individuals with disabilities throughout the region.

As with so much else, however, the havoc of COVID-19 inevitably disrupted and altered Sacred Hearts traditional Day of Sharing plans for the spring of 2020. With more than a month of successful distance learning under their belts, the leaders of Sacred Heart opted for a virtual Day of Sharing on Wednesday, April 22, rather than canceling the event altogether.

We had a Zoom meeting where we decided that we werent going to cancel, that it was too important to the integrity of the school and what we do, Bridget McGuinness of Sacred Hearts campus ministry department said. So we started thinking about things that we could do within the confines of best public health practice, while still doing something.

To commence their day of service, the Sacred Heart community hosted an assembly and prayer service over Zoom, before students individually embarked on their volunteering adventures. Although scattered throughout Western New York, all those participating in the virtual Day of Sharing wore their Sacred Heart class T-shirts, and documented their projects with photos and videos to share over school social media.

Of course, for this Day of Sharing, the service opportunities differed from those traditionally offered. Perhaps most critically, all options took social distancing and New York PAUSE parameters into consideration. The Sacred Heart community, nevertheless, still found innovative ways to magnify its Franciscan values with service.

I work really hard to keep my finger on the pulse of social service stuff regularly, McGuinness said. I was really trying to pay attention to all the kinds of little random acts of kindness, and we decided not to make them random acts. We wanted to make them intentional acts of kindness.

For artistically inclined students, volunteer activities included performing in a Zoom-based coffeehouse concert, building a bird feeder from recycled materials and knitting or crocheting baby blankets. Student athletes, meanwhile, could employ their talents by recording a childrens sports tutorial video or producing a short home workout video.

To take advantage of the fact that students could serve from home, this Day of Sharing also offered opportunities such as creating artwork for a neighbor, writing uplifting chalk messages on the sidewalk and planting bulbs or vegetables. In addition to the more out-of-the-box options, many students addressed the basic needs of their communities by donating to Little Free Food Pantries throughout the region.

Although the name Day of Sharing implies a 24-hour window of giving, Sacred Heart has extended its initiative to include an online giving campaign to assist students families in continuing to afford their daughters education. Given the financial hardships that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to many, the online giving campaign has prioritized helping students return in the fall of 2020.

[The online giving campaign] was born out of another act of kindness, McGuinness said. Some of our families are confronting financial pictures that they didnt ever expect to confront, like lost jobs and decreased income. We always have such a strong parent presence for Day of Sharing, so this was a way we put out for our parents to still participate and lift up other families.

Donations to Sacred Hearts online giving campaign will benefit an emergency tuition assistance fund through June 30, 2020. With those funds, financially vulnerable families will receive aid to ease the burden of tuition payments. To make a donation to Sacred Hearts online giving campaign, visit http://www.sacredheartacademy.org/apps/pages/make-a-gift.

Here is the original post:

Sacred Heart has remote day of service - Amherst Bee