Bruce Power Unit 1 hits milestone of 600 days of reliable operation delivering clean power to Ontario – Kincardine News

Posted on by

Bruce Powers Unit 1 marked 600 consecutive days of steady operation April 6, a record run of providing clean, reliable, cost-effective energy to the people of Ontario. Submitted

Bruce Powers Unit 1 marked 600 consecutive days of steady operation April 6, a record run of providing clean, reliable, cost-effective energy to the people of Ontario.

Unit 1s run of uninterrupted production is the longest since it was returned to service in 2012 and is an excellent example of the benefits to Ontario families and businesses from extending the life of its nuclear fleet.

Units 1 and 2 were returned to service in 2012 after the Bruce A station was shut down by the former Ontario Hydro in the 1990s. Units 3 and 4 were restarted in 2003 and 04 and have performed at the highest levels since. Units 3 and 4 are part of Bruce Powers Life-Extension Program and will undergo their own Major Component Replacement Projects from 2023-28, adding about 30 years of life to the reactors. The refurbishment, or Major Component Replacement, of Bruce Powers Unit 6 has begun and will be followed by Unit 3, scheduled to begin in 2023.

Unit 1s exemplary performance over the past two years highlights the fact that refurbished reactor units perform very well and provide benefits to Ontarios families, hospitals and businesses by generating low-cost, reliable electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week, said Len Clewett, Bruce Powers Chief Nuclear Officer.

In addition to this strong record of reliability, Bruce Power has made investments in all eight units on site to offer additional flexibility to Ontarios electricity market. Of the 6,400 megawatts (MW) of capacity from its site, there are 2,400 MW of flexible capability which has been utilized many times. The company achieved this flexibility through enhancements on the non-nuclear side of the plant. Nuclear power accounts for more than 60 per cent of Ontarios supply, with Bruce Power providing more than 30 per cent of the provinces electricity at 30 per cent less than the average cost to generate residential power.

See more here:

Bruce Power Unit 1 hits milestone of 600 days of reliable operation delivering clean power to Ontario - Kincardine News

Draken Works the Red Team: Mirage F-1s as Part of the Arsenal – Second Line of Defense

Posted on by

By Guy Martin

Draken International has begun flying supersonic, radar equipped Mirage F1M fighters to support US Air Force (USAF) combat training at Nellis Air Force Base after the aircraft were returned to service by Paramount Aerospace Systems.

The fully modernized Mirage F1Ms, predominately flown by the Spanish Air Force in the past, now challenge US and coalition 4th and 5th generation fighters over the skies of the Nevada Test and Training Range in the development of warfighters tactics, techniques, and procedures, Draken International said on 26 March.

Over the past two years, the collaborative efforts between Draken International and Paramount Aerospace Systems has resulted in the reassembly, restoration, and certification of the fleet of Mirage F1s. This extensive project was accomplished at Drakens maintenance facility in Lakeland, Florida. Draken has also begun the acceptance of the fleet of Denel Cheetahs from the South African Air Force, a 4th Generation supersonic radar-equipped fighter that joins Drakens operational fleet, the company said.

Sean Gustafson, VP of Business Development at Draken stated, Draken is fully committed to enhancing adversary support for the USAF. These fleets of supersonic assets highlight the dedication to fulfilling combat readiness training objectives at Nellis and Air Force bases across the US. Our ever-growing fleet of advanced fighters enrich our capabilities and challenge Airmen, Sailors, and Marines alike.

Draken flew its first refurbish F1M on 12 November 2019 from Lakeland Linder International Airport. Paramount Aerospace Systems and Draken signed a contract in 2018 for the overhaul and ongoing engineering support of its fleet of 22 ex-Spanish Mirage F1s.

Paramount Aerospace says it specializes in the modernization of fixed wing platforms including leading the previous modernization of the Mirage F1M while still in Spanish Air Force service. Through predecessor company Advanced Technologies and Engineering (ATE), Paramount was involved in modernising Spains F1CE/EE/EDA fleet to F1M standard.

The modernisation of the Spanish F1s covered a service life extension programme (SLEP) and avionics upgrade for 48 F1CE/EE (C.14A/B) single-seaters and four F1EDA (C.14C) two-seat trainers. Thomson-CSF RCM was awarded the FFr700 million contract in 1996. Spanish companies Amper Programas, Indra and CASA acted as sub-contractors while ATE was responsible for the design and integration of the navigation, display and weapons systems. The last upgraded fighter was handed over to the Spanish air Force in 2001.

Apart from the SLEP, the upgrade package includes a revised cockpit with colour liquid crystal displays and a Smart HUD; a Sextant inertial navigation system with GPS interface; air-to-ground radar rangefinding capability; NATO-compatible Have Quick 2 secure communications; Mode 4 digital IFF; a defensive aids suite; and flight recorders.

Draken also acquired nine ex-South African Air Force Cheetah C and three Cheetah D fighters from Denel in 2018. These will join its more than 100 tactical fighter aircraft, including the A-4 Skyhawk and L-159 Honey Badger.

This article was published on March 31, 2020 by defenceWeb.

Post Views: 149

Excerpt from:

Draken Works the Red Team: Mirage F-1s as Part of the Arsenal - Second Line of Defense

Sharecare, Blue Zones renew and extend partnership to drive community well-being transformation – Yahoo Finance

Posted on by

Long-term extension of Blue Zones Project collaborative confirms continued demand for community well-being improvement solutions

ATLANTA and MINNEAPOLIS, April 8, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- With a decade of collaborative experience in positively impacting the well-being of communities through the Blue Zones Project initiative, Sharecare, the digital health company that helps people manage all their health in one place, and Blue Zones, global experts in helping people live longer, better lives, today announced they have extended their strategic partnership. Blue Zones was recently acquired by Adventist Health, a faith-based, nonprofit integrated health system serving more than 80 communities on the West Coast and Hawaii.

Blue Zones Project by Sharecare has a proven track record of community transformation in 51 communities across North America making the healthy choice the easy choice by optimizing the environments where we spend our time. Inspired by Dan Buettner's research of the longest-lived cultures across the world, the Blue Zones Project uses the Life Radius model to address people, places, and policy and is now impacting 3.4 million people across North America. Participating communities have experienced double-digit drops in obesity and tobacco use and have saved millions of dollars in healthcare costs.

"We look forward to continuing our relationship with Blue Zones and expanding our relationship with Adventist Health who has an exceptional reputation for providing health services of the highest quality. The decision to extend the Blue Zones Project partnership confirms the long-term commitment shared by Adventist Health, Blue Zones and Sharecare to empower people to live longer, healthier, happier lives with less incidences of preventable chronic conditions and stronger connections with the community," said Jeff Arnold, founder, chairman and CEO of Sharecare. "While this partnership extension has been in the works for months, the timing of finalizing this extension will allow us to work even better together to help our communities and our country best navigate their health and well-being throughout the novel coronavirus pandemic and the related recovery process."

"Adventist Health believes that the future of healthcare goes beyond the role of traditional hospitals. Sustained well-being improvement across an entire community requires having an environment and social policies that encourage healthy behaviors. We have seen the impact of Blue Zones Project and are excited to continue transforming communities in partnership with Sharecare for many years to come," said Scott Reiner, Adventist Health CEO.

Sharecare aims to create and sustain positive health outcomes by empowering the individual to take control of their health, and to support the individual by creating a well-being culture where they live, work and play.In partnership with the Boston University School of Public Health, Sharecare fields the Community Well-Being Index (CWI), the most comprehensive and dynamic measure of well-being across the U.S. The CWI is administered in all Blue Zones Project by Sharecare communities to measure impact and calculate real medical and productivity cost savings. With more than 3 million surveys completed to date in the United States, the Community Well-Being Index provides current and future Blue Zones Project by Sharecare sites with a robust benchmarking tool, allowing them to target resources and interventions where they are needed most.

With this extension, Sharecare is committed to integrating the Blue Zones Project partnership model into its core strategy of community-driven care and to leveraging its comprehensive digital platform to make healthy choices easier for all one person, and one community at a time.

To learn more about the Blue Zones Project by Sharecare, visit http://www.sharecare.com/blue-zones.

About SharecareSharecare is the digital health company that helps people manage all their health in one place. The Sharecare platform provides each person no matter where they are in their health journey with a comprehensive and personalized health profile where they can dynamically and easily connect to the information, evidence-based programs and health professionals they need to live their healthiest, happiest and most productive lives. In addition to providing individual consumers with direct access to award-winning and innovative frictionless technologies, scientifically validated clinical protocols and best-in-class coaching tools, Sharecare also helps providers, employers and health plans effectively scale outcomes-based health and wellness solutions across their entire populations. To learn more, visit http://www.sharecare.com.

Story continues

About Blue Zones Blue Zones employs evidence-based ways to help people live longer, better. The company's work is rooted in explorations and research done by National Geographic Fellow Dan Buettner, who identified the blue zones regions around the world where people live extraordinarily long and/or happy lives. The original research and findings were released in Buettner's bestselling books The Blue Zones Solution, The Blue Zones of Happiness, The Blue Zones, Thrive, and Blue Zones Kitchenall published by National Geographic books.

Using original Blue Zones research, Blue Zones Project works with cities to make healthy choices easier through permanent and semi-permanent changes to a city's man-made surroundings. Participating communities have experienced double digit drops in obesity and tobacco use and have saved millions of dollars in healthcare costs. Currently, 51 communities across North America have joined Blue Zones Project, impacting more than 3.4 million Americans nationwide For more information, visit bluezones.com.

Media Contacts:Sharecare PR TeamPR@sharecare.com404.665.4305

Naomi Imatome-Yunnaomi@bluezones.com917.952.8534

View original content:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sharecare-blue-zones-renew-and-extend-partnership-to-drive-community-well-being-transformation-301037760.html

SOURCE Sharecare

Original post:

Sharecare, Blue Zones renew and extend partnership to drive community well-being transformation - Yahoo Finance

Hundreds of additional tax deadlines reset to July 15 – POLITICO

Posted on by

The IRS is also working with a depleted workforce as a result of service center closures and social distancing procedures.

The new extension applies to tax returns and payments for tax-exempt organizations and fiscal-year businesses, including partnerships, that are normally due between April and June.

In addition, tax return and payment deadlines for estate taxes and associated gift taxes, typically due within nine months from the date of death, qualify for the same relief.

For all taxpayers, Treasury and IRS also extended 270 administrative deadlines to July 15.

They also made that the deadline for tax preparers who lack professional credentials to apply for a voluntary education program.

One of the groups that pushed hardest for the wide-ranging extensions, the American Institute of CPAs, welcomed the moves but said the IRS should be prepared to provide more relief.

Barry Melancon, the group's president and CEO, said "we continue to urge Treasury and IRS to develop a contingency plan for the next phase of relief should that be needed. As a country, we should not risk anyones life to meet tax filing obligations.

Continue reading here:

Hundreds of additional tax deadlines reset to July 15 - POLITICO

Reporter Points out Trump Voted by Mail After He Trashes It – Free Speech TV

Posted on by

Donald Trump claims that voting by mail is dangerous and corrupt, and is instantly confronted by the reality that he personally just voted by mail. "I think mail-in voting is horrible. It's corrupt," Trump said before the reporter asked why it's okay for him to vote by mail himself. "Sure I could vote by mail because I'm allowed to," he responded.

So, as David Pakman says, "Trump says the quiet part out loud," and admits it's okay for him, but not others. Pakman discusses Trump's incoherent explanation. Perhaps the most surprising part of it all? Fox News didn't cut away from it.

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out TDPS on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change. .

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump Fox News Press Briefing Reporter Vote-by-mail

Here is the original post:

Reporter Points out Trump Voted by Mail After He Trashes It - Free Speech TV

A Zionist attack on free speech – Redress Information & Analysis

Posted on by

By Lawrence DavidsonBackground: Weaponising anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism has been weaponised. That is, the Zionists, within and without Israel, are using the charge of anti-Semitism as a weapon to silence those who are critical of the Israeli state. In wielding this weapon, Zionist organisations and the media outlets they control or influence have released a flood of slander and libel. The charge of anti-Semitism is levelled at anyone who opposes Israels inherently racist policies and is supportive of Palestinian human rights. And, where the Zionists have sufficient political influence, as is the case in so much of the United States, they are making every effort to encourage laws that make criticism of Israel illegal because, they claim, it is ipso facto anti-Semitic. In this way, the weaponisation of anti-Semitism maliciously defames individuals, corrupts legal systems and also threatens any reasonable notion of free speech.

In cases where individuals and organisations are labelled anti-Semitic as part of a concerted campaign of defamation, one would hope that the libel laws would offer some protection and / or relief. And, as we will see, in some cases such as the United Kingdom and Australia, this has proven possible. However, in the United States this has not happened. To understand why requires a short history lesson on the evolution of free speech, as against the need to protect individuals, particularly public persons such as those running for office, from defamation.

American attitudes towards free speech, which form the foundation for much of the countrys legal thinking when it comes to libel, slander and defamation, can be traced back to the writing of John Stuart Mill (1806-73). Mill was an influential English utilitarian philosopher and liberal thinker who supported the growth of democracy in the 19th century. He also considered what aspects of democracy would need the strongest defence. For instance, he supported a very broad interpretation of freedom of expression. He laid out his position in an 1859 book entitled On Liberty. Here he argued that allowing a broad interpretation of free speech was the best way of establishing what is true and what is not. Even if an opinion is false, the truth can be better understood by [publicly] refuting the error. Mill had faith in the citizenry (or at least the educated middle class of his day) to recognise, through the process of debate, what is true when it came to public pronouncements. If any argument is really wrong or harmful, the public will judge it as wrong or harmful. Thus, for Mill the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, [in this case by suppressing his or her public speech] is to prevent harm to others. However, considering that defamation was subject to rebuttal, the citizenry would ultimately reject such falsehoods without state intervention.

Even though Mills faith in an educated publics ability to know truth from falsehood has proven, at least as far as this author is concerned, quite naive, Mills notion of erring on the side of government inaction when it comes to slanderous or libelous speech has had much influence in the United States.

In 1919, sitting as an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a series of decisions that laid out the future standard for judging prosecutable speech: The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. The example Holmes used for such an extreme case was that ones First Amendment right to free speech would not permit someone yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The libel laws in the US have followed this same path towards setting a high bar for any demonstration that free speech has been abused. Thus, in terms of defamation one now has to prove that the presentation in question is meant to defame (and is not just an opinion) and is put forth with actual malice [New York Times v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964)]. This is particularly the case for public figures bringing suit for defamation. Public figures in the United States seem to be in a special category of people who are expected to attract a certain amount of, apparently legally acceptable, slanderous and libellous abuse.

The fact is that, in the US, libel is so difficult to demonstrate in both federal and most state courts that such suits are only rarely attempted. It is clear that in this case protecting an idealised principle of free speech has taken precedent over protecting the reputations and public standing of individuals.

As it has turned out, this situation has given American Zionists a wide field to use the weaponised charge of anti-Semitism with near impunity. A good example of this has been the smear campaign waged against the Democratic Partys presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, who is himself Jewish. Called an anti-Semite over and again, Sanders has relied on the American progressive community to defend him. There is no indication that either Sanders or his legal advisors have considered suing his defamers for libel.

The misbalance between freedom of speech on the one hand and recourse to legal protection against slander and libel on the other is greatest in the United States, and in this case, public figures appear most at risk. In England and some of the Commonwealth countries such as Australia, a somewhat greater balance exists, opening up the possibility of legally defending oneself against defamation.

Anecdotally, a key historical root in the evolution of this more balanced standard for Britains defamation law is the 17th century decision to outlaw duelling transforming an often deadly engagement into a supervised courtroom debate. As of today, English law allows actions for libel for any published [untrue] statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual(s) [including businesses] in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. There are exceptions to and defences against this standard, but it certainly opens up a more reasonable opportunity for defending oneself against defamation than exists in the United States.

The same can be said for a Commonwealth country such as Australia. Here, the primary purpose of the law against defamation is to protect citizens from false statements about them that may cause harm to their personal or professional reputation.

Lets take a look at a few recent examples of successful challenges to libellous defamation issuing from Zionist sources.

Members of the United Kingdoms Parliament and those running for Parliament who are critical of Israel or otherwise supportive of Palestinian rights have suffered repeated exaggerated and fabricated allegations of anti-Semitism. Finally, in 2019, one such victim, Mrs Audrey White, former Member of Parliament (MP) for Liverpool Riverside, decided to sue the British paper the Jewish Chronicle for libel. She was able to prove that this Zionist paper had, over a series of four articles, published fake allegations that she was an anti-Semite. These pieces turned out to be part of a campaign of false charges waged against many left wing politicians. Ultimately, in early 2020, the paper was forced to admit, in print, that it had lied about Mrs White, and pay damages and court costs. It was also demonstrated that the paper had engaged in unacceptable obstruction of the investigation that led to the libel ruling.

This is not the first time the Jewish Chronicle has been sued for defamation. In August 2019 the paper was forced to pay a cash settlement to InterPal, a British charity providing aid for Palestinians. The Jewish Chronicle had implied that interPal was a terrorist organisation. The paper now faces a financial crisis and is reportedly operating with a $2 million deficit. It is staying afloat due to financial contributions from community-minded individuals. [Editors note: on 8 April 2020 the Jewish Chronicle announced that it has gone bankrupt and will cease publication.]

A similar series of events have taken place in Australia. Again, political figures are targets if they are critical of Israel or otherwise supportive of Palestinian rights. Take the case of former Labour Party MP Melissa Parke, who had the courage to assert that, To say that Israel has become an apartheid state is not anti-Semitic; it is a simple statement of fact and international law. She went on to suggest that Palestinian resistance, including retaliatory missile launches from Gaza, were a consequence of decades of brutal occupation. Finally, she drew attention to, and criticised, Zionist influence on Australian politics. For this she was described as an anti-Semite in a front-page story in the tabloid Herald Sun and similar piece in the paper West Australian. She was also slandered by Colin Rubenstein, executive director of the Australia / Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. He publicly described Parke as a fanatic and someone trafficking in conspiracy theories. She sued them all for defamation. To date both the Herald Sun and the West Australian have been forced to published retractions and offer apologies.

The weaponisation of anti-Semitism by the State of Israel and its Zionist allies worldwide should serve as a clear warning to American legislatures and courts that it would be both fair and wise to bring the countrys libel laws into closer conformity with those of the UK and Australia. Indeed, it can be argued that to simply ignore the defamation that is now being rolled out by the Zionists actually puts free speech in danger. Here is how this is happening.

The profuse and persistent use of slander and libel is an attempt at censorship. If you will, it is an attempt to silence a certain category of speech under the cover of free speech. The United States has a worse-case scenario of this fraudulent approach because American Zionists seek to use slander and defamation as a basis for novel speech-restricting law. Here they weave a particularly tangled web declaring that it should be illegal to stand in opposition of one form of racism (Israels racist policies towards the Palestinians) because to do so supposedly reflects another form of racism (they can assert this only by equating opposition to Israeli policies with anti-Semitism). It is enough to make your head spin!

John Stuart Mills 19th century assertion that If any argument is really wrong or harmful, the public will judge it as wrong or harmful has proved unreliable. Most people are buried in their local affairs and, in the present case, have no objective information or experience to judge the behaviour of a foreign country in this case, Israel. All they can go on is media and government messages which, in the US, are influenced by pro-Israel lobbies. This means that, with the possible exception of college campuses, there is no public debate as Mill would understand it. So, how is the average member of the public to judge Zionist slander and libel to be wrong and harmful?

The situation really demands legal recourse to seek retraction and compensation for purposeful falsehoods, not only for the sake of peoples reputations and public standing, but also for the sake of maintaining a reasonable doctrine of free speech. Weaponised words and concepts are, most of the time, synonymous with falsehood and propaganda. In that environment, free speech is diminished and corrupted.

Read the rest here:

A Zionist attack on free speech - Redress Information & Analysis

Why is government afraid of free speech? – Bulatlat

Posted on by

Under the enhanced community quarantine, whats being suppressed is not just our right to movement but also our right to free speech.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) recently issued 17 subpoenas to social media users for allegedly peddling fake news. The agency cites Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code (Unlawful Use of Means of Publication) in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

The said provision penalizes any person who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication shall publish or cause to be published as news any false news which may endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State.

The recently passed Republic Act No. 11469 (Bayanihan to Heal as One Act) also contains a provision against the spread of false information even if the latter is not clearly defined.

However, human rights lawyer Jose Manuel Chel Diokno, who has been approached by one of the suspects, said that the agency is going after those who merely voice out their criticisms to the government.

Other recent incidents prove how the exercise of free speech is being criminalized.

Just last week, 21 residents of sitio San Roque in barangay Pag-Asa, Quezon City were arrested and detained for demanding aid from national and local government units. Never mind the string of charges filed against them; their real crime in the eyes of President Rodrigo Duterte and Interior Secretary Eduardo Ano is speaking out. As a result of the widespread support they got in raising the amount needed for posting bail, they were freed five days later.

On April 6, policemen stormed San Roques community kitchens and ordered the placards, which read #TulongHindiKulong, (Aid, not Prison) removed.

National government agencies such as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the National Anti-Poverty Commission issued separate memoranda urging employees to refrain from posting negative comments on governments COVID-19 response.

Even local government units have been emboldened to do the same.

In Nueva Ecija, Joshua B. Molo, editor in chief of UE Dawn, was threatened with cyber libel for being vocal in his criticisms to the governments response to COVID-19 pandemic.

Earlier, Todays Carolinian, student publication of the University of San Carlos, was reprimanded by Cebu Governor Gwendolyn Garcia for publishing an editorial upholding the right to free speech. The editorial points out that Garcias formation of a special unit tasked to trace criticism of the governments initiatives to contain COVID-19 is unconstitutional.

Garcia also forced rapper Brandon Perang to apologize for posting negative comments on social media.

In General Santos City, a teacher and her son were arrested without warrant for a Facebook post decrying the lack of government assistance to the poor.

All these actions aim to create chilling effect, to force us into silence amid the Duterte administrations glaring failure to address the COVID-19 crisis.

President Rodrigo Duterte himself issued a lethal warning against critics. Shoot them dead, he told state security forces, referring to those who cause trouble.

But who is causing us all the trouble? Who has provoked the netizens, and the poor, to air their sentiments? Definitely not the Left but the primary resident in Malacanang whose late-night addresses trigger even the sensibilities of those who used to be apolitical. Dutertes sins of commission and omission have converted some of his former supporters to being his fiercest critics.

Citizens rightfully ask, What is the comprehensive plan? Where is the budget for immediate health measures? Why is mass testing taking so long? Why are our health workers running out of personal protective equipment? Where is the social protection for the most vulnerable?

So why is the administration afraid of #OustDuterte hashtag trending on Twitter? Its because the powers-that-be want to nip in the bud any resistance. They are trying to avoid the peoples anger to spread faster than the COVID-19 virus. They want public anger to be replaced by widespread fear. The powers-that-be forget that what fuels our discontent is our love for country and our passion to help the marginalized and underrepresented that they can never extinguish.

Let us continue to choose righteous anger over fear. Our people deserve better.

The rest is here:

Why is government afraid of free speech? - Bulatlat

China Appointed To UN Human Rights Panel To Help Identify Threats To Free Speech – The Daily Wire

Posted on by

Even as questions persist as to how China handled its own coronavirus pandemic including whether the Chinese government effectively silenced doctors and nurses who spoke out in the early days of the virus spread the United Nations has reportedly appointed China to serve on a UN Human Rights panel designed to help identify threats to the freedom of speech, and governments who are carrying out enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention.

International news reports that Chinas appointment came Wednesday, just as countries like the United States began to probe deeper into how the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, was allowed to spread so quickly inside mainland China, and whether Chinas reported death count just over 2,500 from the virus was, indeed, accurate.

It now seems, according to reports cataloging the return of thousands of cremated remaisn to families in and around Wuhan, China, the coronavirus epicenter, that more than 40,000 likely died from the virus in the Wuhan area alone.

The UN, always on the cutting edge of global matters will allow China to have a say in selecting at least 17 UN human rights mandate-holders over the next year. China will also assist in screening candidates for UN human rights positions.

Its absurd and immoral for the UN to allow Chinas oppressive government a key role in selecting officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations worldwide, the executive director of UN Watch, which first reported Chinas appointment to the panel, told media in a statement. Allowing Chinas oppressive and inhumane regime to choose the world investigators on freedom of speech, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances is like making a pyromaniac into the town fire chief.

The appointment seems particularly egregious in light of Chinas approach to the coronavirus pandemic and reports that the Chinese government, already well known for curbing the freedom of speech of its constituents as well as their access to vital information, silenced doctors who raised the alarm on coronavirus.

The New York Times reported in early February that Chinese officials initial handling of the coronavirus epidemic allowed it to spread.

Back in December, weeks before China admitted the outbreak, Dr. Li Wenliang sent a warning about seven people with a mysterious illness to an online chat group that included medical students, per the NYT. Quarantined in the emergency department, the doctor wrote to the group. Hours later, officials from the health department summoned the doctor and sanctioned him for sharing information. He was then compelled to sign a statement of secrecy and told his warning constituted illegal behavior.'

In those weeks, the authorities silenced doctors and others for raising red flags, the NYT adds. They played down the dangers to the public, leaving the citys 11 million residents unaware they should protect themselves.

As for arbitrary detention, in the weeks and months before China suffered the first coronavirus outbreak, the Chinese government was being investigated for a series of concentration camps, where millions of ethnically-Chinese Muslims, known as Uigurs, were reportedly being kept in cramped, unsafe conditions and forced to work as slaves in Chinese factories.

Go here to see the original:

China Appointed To UN Human Rights Panel To Help Identify Threats To Free Speech - The Daily Wire

The David Pakman Show Trump Asking Thailand for Same Gear He Sent Them Trump Asking Thailand – Free Speech TV

Posted on by

The Trump administration is asking Thailand for the same masks, gloves, and other PPE that they sent them in February to fight the crisis in the United States. "Imagine the embarrassment," says David Pakman. "Our shipment to Thailand is en route while we are asking them to send us the same stuff."

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out TDPS on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change. .

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Coronavirus COVID-19 David Pakman Donald Trump PPE Thailand The David Pakman Show

Continued here:

The David Pakman Show Trump Asking Thailand for Same Gear He Sent Them Trump Asking Thailand - Free Speech TV

U of I protests of the 1960s – Illinois Times

Posted on by

click to enlarge

Radicals in the Heartland: the 1960s Student Protest Movement at the University of Illinois, by Michael V. Metz. University of Illinois Press, 2019.

Radicals in the Heartland: the 1960s Student Protest Movement at the University of Illinois by Michael V. Metz gives an insightful, well-documented analysis of events that shaped each year of the 1960s at the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana campus. The account is juxtaposed against what was occurring nationwide regarding the Vietnam War, civil rights, freedom of speech and students' feelings that they should be treated as adults. The early 1960s had its share of disagreements, but by the end of the decade, full-fledged violence had erupted.

Metz, who took part in the student movement, identifies the many student groups that organized on campus, provides biographical information about the main leaders and includes a section of first-person reflections by the leaders who went on to successful careers after graduation.

The book is divided into six parts and is well-researched, full of documented newspaper reports, archived materials and quotes by students and faculty.

The preface explains the catalyst of later events. George Stoddard, the president of the University of Illinois, was hired in 1946. A huge supporter of free speech, which some viewed as communistic, he argued for the end to a state law that prohibited political candidates from speaking on a college campus. Champaign State Representative Charles Clabaugh, who viewed the U of I as "the hotbed of communist influence," led the passage of a new law in 1947. Called the Clabaugh Act, it prohibited certain organizations from accessing university resources, and university administrators had the authority to decide. For over 20 years this law created controversy and conflict. Who or what was subversive? Who would decide and how?

In 1953, Stoddard met his end. The newly appointed U of I board trustee former Illini football hero Red Grange made a motion of no confidence in Stoddard. Stoddard resigned on the spot; Grange never attended another board meeting.

David Dodds Henry was named interim president and then hired in 1956. He would face the impact of the Clabaugh Act when controversies arose over such issues as the academic freedom of faculty, the university's role in recognizing campus student groups, even the strict curfews and dorm rules.

In 1960 two major issues created deeply divided opinions over academic freedom. Student Edward Yellin's pending fellowship that included a teaching assistant position was in jeopardy when it was revealed he had been subpoenaed years earlier by the House Un-American Activities Committee and refused to answer questions. Then Leo Koch, an assistant professor, published a letter in the Daily Illini advocating for premarital sex for "mature" students. In both cases, opinions were hotly debated. Yellin kept his fellowship; Koch was fired.

Metz explores the Free Speech Era, 1965-1967, in Part II. The impact of a 1964 large student protest against the prohibition of political activity at the University of California, Berkeley, spilled over onto other campuses. Some tried to hold a protest at the U of I campus, but few showed up. The Daily Illini editor, later famed movie critic Roger Ebert, wrote that 801 students at Berkeley had been arrested, but "we don't have 801 students who would understand why 801 students would want to be arrested for denial of free speech."

Vietnam hadn't yet become the overarching issue; a 1965 protest drew only 12 students. There was more interest in ending strict dorm rules. Students Against the Clabaugh Act (SACA) pushed for an end to the law but without success.

Students wanted to form a W.E.B. Dubois Club, which was considered, incorrectly, to be a communist organization. Trustees, who had first approved the group, reversed their decision. SACA changed its name to Students for Free Speech and invited a professed communist to speak on campus, raising concerns by many, including parents. Although the speaker drew 2,000 on the porch of the Union Hall, not much came of the event.

Women joined student groups that were mainly led by men; the women were often harassed, treated as secretaries and ignored. Women spoke up against strict rules: a 10 p.m. dorm curfew on weeknights, midnight on weekends, required skirt attire for Sunday dinner and in bowling classes. There was a policy that couples could only meet in lounges in the dorms and must have three feet on the floor. The first female student president, Patsy Parker, pushed for changes. A midnight rally against curfew failed as 9 fraternity men showed up and heckled the women.

Communism and curfews had been the focus, until the next stage, Part III: The Antiwar Movement, 1967-1969. Anger against the Vietnam War increased: male students openly burned their draft cards, students held sit-ins. At the University of Wisconsin in Madison, students led a sit-in against the Dow Chemical Company, a producer of chemicals used in the war. U of I students held their own five-hour sit-in, barring all interviews.

Across the country, Vietnam protests gained momentum. Civil rights gained interest; Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy were assassinated in the spring of 1968. In August that year the Democratic National Convention in Chicago led to riots. "A stark choice faced student activists," Metz writes. "Either let go of hopes for wide-scale political change and thus escape establishment retaliation, or continue the struggle by fighting violence with like violence." Most chose the first and few the latter, according to the author.

In Part IV, The Violent Time, 1969-1970, Metz follows the actions that led to the outbreak of violence. Many students had attempted to hold peaceful protests with speeches on the quad and at the student union. On Oct. 15, 1969, the nationwide Day of Moratorium, 9,000 U of I students participated in all-day events and a march. Peace turned to violence in the spring of 1970 after four students were killed at Kent State University. Illinois State Superintendent of Education Ray Page declared, "Four students that should have known better than to have participated in outright revolt against the forces of law and order lie dead." Students were shocked and angered. May 4-8, 1970, in Champaign has been called the week that was the "most violent period in the 100-year history of the university." There were protests, marchers throwing rocks and bottles through windows, sit-ins in the middle of intersections, marches to the president's home and arrests. Many, though, peacefully went about their lives.

On Saturday of that week, activities, speeches and music were planned on the quad. Students enjoying the spring weather congregated, some sharing a picnic, others throwing a frisbee. Then suddenly the Illinois National Guard came from both sides of the quad, surrounded the throng of people, arrested some and took them to Memorial Stadium to be held.

Thus ends the decade; Metz provides a final analysis. He applauds the students for speaking up, changing the course of the war and being influencers of later movements. He believes they were not extremists, but rather engaged individuals with a deep-seated feeling of moral right. He also claims they failed at political revolution. Mayhem ensued, but the silent majority prevailed and does so today. The students did not stop "the strength of the established order," he claims.

Cinda Ackerman Klickna was a student at the U of I, starting in 1969, but acknowledges she was unaware of all that was happening on campus. Her involvement was as a bystander, which may surprise those who know her now.

Here is the original post:

U of I protests of the 1960s - Illinois Times

Taiwan’s Success Against the Coronavirus Could Spur Greater U.S.-Taiwan Cooperation – Heritage.org

Posted on by

Taipei isnt just the name of Taiwans capital. Its the name of an important piece of legislation thatPresident Trump recently signed: the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act.

The bipartisan statute passed unanimously by Congress, is intended to strengthen Taiwans standing around the globe in response to Chinas efforts to restrict international recognition of Taiwan. It is a timely gesture of support for one of Americas most willing and capable allies. More can be done, however.

In recent decades, Taiwan has transformed itself into a beacon of freedom, not only for the Chinese but for people worldwide. For example, it has shown that respect for human rights can be a powerful force for political stability and that free enterprise, free association, and free speech lead to entrepreneurship, prosperity, and security.

The Heritage Foundations twenty-sixth edition of theIndex of Economic Freedomhighlights Taiwans high degree of openness and competitiveness, ranking the dynamic democracy the eleventh-freest economy in the world. And in its latest edition ofFreedom in the World, an annual report that assesses political rights and civil liberties around the globe, Freedom House classifies Taiwan as a free nation.

The TAIPEI Act, although introduced in Congress last year, is especially relevant in the context of the current global health crisis. Taiwan has had remarkable success in dealing with the coronavirus, with fewer than three-hundred confirmed cases and just two deaths as of March 28.

Taiwans record is even more noteworthy given its proximity to China and its exclusion from the World Health Organization (WHO), which has lately been excluding Taiwan to please the communist government in China. When Taiwan wrote to the WHO in late December asking whether there was human-to-human transmission in the virus outbreak in Wuhan, the WHO did not even reply. As a recent Wall Street Journal editorialnoted:

From 2009 to 2016, the World Health Organization allowed Taiwan to attend its annual policy meetings as a nonvoting observer and sometimes let its representatives participate in technical meetings. But at Beijings behest, the WHO has given Taiwan the pariah treatment since Tsai Ing-wen was elected president in 2016.The WHO has held two emergency meetings since the coronavirus outbreak. Taiwan wasnt permitted to attendChinas bullying ought to be intolerable amid the coronavirus outbreak. As the single largest contributor to the WHO, the United States should make that clear to Beijing.

The TAIPEI Act is one way of conveying that message.

Taiwan has compiled an impressive record as a constructive member of the world community, despite efforts by mainland China to isolate it, and provides a positive example of a pathway to development and prosperity based on high degrees of both political and economic freedom.

In January, Taiwans President Tsai Ing-wen overwhelmingly won re-election with almost of eligible voters casting ballots. In his remarks at a recentHeritage Foundation event on Taiwan, Stanley Kao, Taiwans top representative in the United States, reminded us that the presidential election demonstrated that democracy worksand works wellin Taiwan because [the people of Taiwan] dont take it for granted. In that regard, Taiwan is a model for Asia and beyond.

Taiwans free-market economic development is equally important. Steady economic growth in recent years has made the country one of the richest in Asia, and Taiwan is Americas twelfth largest trade partner, with two-way trade totaling almost $100 billion.

In many profound and enduring ways, Taiwan and the United States have become strong allies sharing powerful commitments to the values of democracy, the rule of law, and free markets. The relationship today is a fruitful partnership that is more constructive and forward-looking than ever.

More can be accomplished, however. The TAIPEI Act shows the goodwill that is present, and the Taiwan Relations Act, which celebrated its fortieth-anniversary last year, provides some strategic focus and clarity. Whats still missing is a bilateral U.S.Taiwan trade and investmentagreement, something long advocated by The Heritage Foundation.

That would be a worthy next step.

This piece originally appeared in The National Interest https://nationalinterest.org/feature/taiwan%E2%80%99s-success-against-coronavirus-could-spur-greater-us-taiwan-cooperation-141667

See more here:

Taiwan's Success Against the Coronavirus Could Spur Greater U.S.-Taiwan Cooperation - Heritage.org

Bahrain: Free Imprisoned Rights Defenders and Opposition Activists – Human Rights Watch

Posted on by

(Beirut) Amid the global threat posed by COVID-19, Bahraini authorities should release human rights defenders, opposition activists, journalists, and all others imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association, a coalition of 19 rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, said today.

On March 17, 2020, Bahrain completed the release of 1,486 prisoners, 901 of whom received royal pardons on humanitarian grounds. The remaining 585 were given non-custodial sentences. While this is a positive step, the releases so far have excluded opposition leaders, activists, journalists, and human rights defenders many of whom are older and/or suffer from underlying medical conditions. Such prisoners are at high risk of serious illness if they contract COVID-19, and thus ought to be prioritized for release.

Bahrains significant release of prisoners is certainly a welcome relief as concerns around the spread of COVID-19 continue to rise. Authorities must now speedily release those who never should have been in jail in the first place, namely all prisoners of conscience who remain detained solely for exercising their right to peaceful expression, said Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty Internationals Middle East director of research. We also urge the authorities to step up measures to ensure full respect for the human rights of all those deprived of their liberty.

Opposition leaders imprisoned for their roles in the 2011 protest movement remain behind bars. These include Hassan Mushaima, the head of the unlicensed opposition group Al-Haq; Abdulwahab Hussain, an opposition leader; Abdulhadi Al Khawaja, a prominent human rights defender; and Dr Abdel-Jalil al-Singace, the spokesman for Al-Haq.

Other prominent opposition figures, including Sheikh Ali Salman, secretary general of the dissolved Al-Wefaq National Islamic Society (Al-Wefaq), also remain imprisoned. Sayed Nizar Alwadaei, who was deemed arbitrarily detained by the United Nations in reprisal for the activism of his brother-in-law, the exiled activist Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, and human rights defenders Nabeel Rajab and Naji Fateel have not been released either. Amnesty International considers them to be prisoners of conscience who should be released immediately and unconditionally.

The Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) has documented that a total of 394 detainees of the 1,486 released were imprisoned on political charges. According to Salam for Democracy and Human Rights, another Bahraini nongovernmental group, 57 of the 901 prisoners who received a royal pardon were imprisoned for their political activities, while the rest were given non-custodial sentences. Since the Bahraini government has not made available any information on the charges for which those ordered released had been convicted, the exact figures cannot be verified. However, it is clear that people imprisoned for nonviolent political activity are in the minority of those released.

Scores of prisoners convicted following unfair trials under Bahrains overly broad counterterrorism law have been overlooked and denied early release or alternative penalties, even though other inmates serving considerably longer sentences were freed. This includes Zakiya Al Barboori and Ali Al Hajee, according to the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD).

Conditions in Bahrains overcrowded prisons compound the risk of COVID-19 spreading. The lack of adequate sanitation led to a scabies outbreak in Jau Prison Bahrains largest prison and the Dry Dock Detention Center in December 2019 and January 2020. Almost half of the Dry Dock Detention Centers prison population was infected. In 2016, a governmental Prisoners and Detainees Rights Commission found buildings at Jau Prison to suffer from bad hygiene, insect infestation, and broken toilets.

Furthermore, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the UN have expressed their concern over the authorities persistent failure to provide adequate medical care in Bahrains prisons. This has endangered the health of some unjustly imprisoned persons with chronic medical conditions, such as Hassan Mushaima and Dr Abdel-Jalil al-Singace, who may now be at heightened risk of contracting COVID-19.

Hassan Mushaima, 72, has diabetes, gout, heart and prostate problems, and is also in remission for cancer. Prison authorities have routinely failed to take him to appointments due to his refusal to submit to wearing humiliating shackles during transfers to his appointments. International human rights mechanisms have said that the use of restraints on elderly or infirm prisoners who do not pose an escape risk can constitute ill-treatment.

Dr Abdel-Jalil al-Singace, 57, has post-polio syndrome and uses a wheelchair. Prison authorities have also refused to transport him to his medical appointments due to his refusal to wear shackles.

As the world faces the unprecedented COVID-19 crisis, it is more important than ever that the international community work together to contain its spread and ensure that the health and rights of the vulnerable are protected, said Husain Abdullah, executive director at Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB). Bahrains allies, in particular the United Kingdom and United States, should explicitly call on Bahrain to secure the release of all those solely imprisoned for their peaceful opposition to the government.

States have an obligation to ensure medical care for all those in their custody at least equivalent to that available to the general population and must not deny or limit detainees equal access to preventive, curative, or palliative health care. Given that conditions in detention centers pose a heightened public health risk to the spread of COVID-19, and the persistent failure to provide an adequate level of care to those in their custody, there are grave concerns about whether prison authorities could effectively control the spread of COVID-19 and care for prisoners if there is an outbreak inside Bahrains prisons.

The Bahraini authorities should seize the opportunity to immediately and unconditionally release everyone imprisoned solely for peacefully exercising their rights to free expression, including Hassan Mushaima, Dr Abdel-Jalil al-Singace, Abdulahdi Al-Khawaja, Abdulwahab Hussain, Nabeel Rajab, Naji Fateel, and Sheikh Ali Salman. The convictions of those imprisoned following unfair trials including Sayed Nizar Alwadaei should be quashed, or at the very least they should be released pending fair retrial.

The risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to those in detention should be a strong factor weighing toward the reduction of the prison population through the release of pretrial detainees, particularly given the poor, unsanitary conditions in Bahrains prisons and the inadequate provision of medical care. In addition, prisoners who are especially vulnerable to COVID-19, such as those with underlying medical conditions and the elderly, should be considered for early release, parole, or alternative non-custodial measures as a means to further reduce the prison population and prevent the spread of COVID-19.

In any event, the authorities should ensure that anyone who remains in custody has access to disease prevention and treatment services, including ensuring physical distancing of prisoners at all times, including in housing, eating, and social areas. Prison authorities should screen all guards to prevent the introduction of COVID-19 into prisons, provide appropriate information on hygiene and supplies, and ensure that all areas accessible to prisoners, prison staff, and visitors are disinfected regularly. They should develop plans for housing people exposed to or infected with the virus in quarantine or isolation and ensure that necessary medical care is available.

Bahrains first wave of prison releases was positive, but insufficient, said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. The authorities should further reduce the prison population by releasing those who are imprisoned solely for their political beliefs or for exercising their right to free speech and peaceful assembly. Meanwhile, the authorities should ramp up efforts to ensure that the remaining prison population has access to the medical care, is protected from transmission, and is provided the information that they need to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

Signed by:

Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)Amnesty InternationalARTICLE 19Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR)Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen ParticipationCommittee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)English PENEuropean Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)Global Legal Action Network (GLAN)Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GC4HR)Human Rights First (HRF)Human Rights Watch (HRW)IFEXIndex on CensorshipInternational Service For Human Rights (ISHR)PEN AmericaPEN InternationalREDRESS

Read more here:

Bahrain: Free Imprisoned Rights Defenders and Opposition Activists - Human Rights Watch

The Trump Administration Escalates the War on White Supremacist Terrorism – National Review

Posted on by

Nathan Sales speaks during a news conference at the State Department in Washington, November 14, 2019. (Yara Nardi/Reuters)

The Trump administration on Monday applied an international terrorist designation to an ethno-nationalist group known as the Russian Imperialist Movement, marking the first time the U.S. has applied such a designation to a white supremacist organization.

The State Department relied on expanded counterterrorism authorities released in September in order to designate R.IM. as a foreign terrorist organization and to bring sanctions against three of its leaders.

During a Wednesday phone interview with National Review, Nathan Sales, the State Department envoy on counterterrorism, described the move as a historic step in administrations efforts to keep up with the dynamic nature of extremist violence in the 21st century.

We think this sends a really strong message to the world, as well as to interested parties here in the United States, that were going to use our counterterrorism authorities to the fullest extent possible to confront terrorists of whatever ideological stripe, Sales said.

President Trumps September executive order empowered the State Department to target groups and individuals that have not necessarily committed any violent acts themselves but instead provided training for those who have. Before the executive order, the governments hands were tied when pursuing known terrorist leaders: only those individuals who were known to have directly participated in the planning of an attack could be sanctioned. But under the leadership prong of the new guidance, an individuals status as a leader in a terrorist group, such as RIM, is itself sufficient to designate the person as a foreign terrorist and to sanction them as such.

Sales explained that RIM fell squarely under the State Departments expanded sanctions authorities because, while the group and its leaders are not known to have personally directed any attacks, they operate two training camps outside of St. Petersburg, Russia, where prospective terrorists travel to learn woodland combat and survival skills.

The groups training camps have already proven to be more than a summer camp for disaffected young men playing soldier. In 2017, two men set off bombs in Gothenburg, Sweden months after leaving one of the groups Partisan training camps. No one was injured in the blasts, but the location of the attacks suggests the men were targeting recent Middle Eastern and North African refugees. The paramilitary camp in St. Petersburg was a key step in [the bombers] radicalization and it may be the place where they learned to manufacture the bombs that they used in Gothenburg, the prosecutor on the case told the Daily Beast during trial.

Sales argued that the expanded sanctions authorities dont imperil anyones right to free speech, since propaganda efforts alone are not sufficient for designation; the individuals in question must cross the line into indirectly furthering terrorist plots by providing training.

While its not what landed them on the sanctions list, R.I.M. does maintain an extensive propaganda network which allows them to form relationships with other Eastern European neo-fascist groups and recruits from among their ranks. Like the Islamic State, the group has found success in wooing alienated young men intent on lashing out against a perceived existential threat; in this case, the influx of Arab refugees who began flooding Scandinavia in 2014 and 2015.

The group has also reportedly tried to make inroads with American neo-Nazi groups, which have been known to coordinate with their European counterparts. In 2015, a group of American white supremacists travelled to Russia to the International Conservative Forum in St. Petersburg, where they rubbed shoulders with white supremacist groups from Italy, Greece, and Germany.

European ethnocentrism reemerged as a significant threat to national security in 2015, primarily in response to the influx of refugees Middle Eastern and North African immigrants fleeing to Europe. White supremacist attacks against immigrants spiked that year across Europe, and the U.S. suffered the worst white supremacist attack in its history at the hands of the Charleston church shooter Dylan Roof.

As this nascent international movement gathered steam, the U.S., which had for years focused its counterterrorism efforts on Islamic extremism, was caught flat-footed and suffered attacks at the hands of white supremacists who were radicalized online, often by foreigners.

We know that the transnational white supremacist movement is very much a transnational phenomenon. The shooter at the El Paso Walmart, we know that he was inspired by the Christchurch shooter in New Zealand, so were always on the lookout for foreign groups that might try to reach into the homeland either to recruit Americans or to inspire Americans to commit acts of violence, Sales told National Review.

R.I.M. has recruited heavily from Poland, Sweden, Germany and other Scandinavian countries by drawing on Norse mythology in their propaganda and casting their efforts as part of a pan-European campaign to rid the region of non-whites.

While the level of coordination between R.I.M. and the Kremlin remains unclear, the proximity of its training camps to a major Russian metropolis and their continued operation despite the media attention they received in the wake of the Gothenberg bombings suggest the group operate with at least the tacit approval of Vladimir Putin. Indeed, RIM members have served as little green men in Putins proxy war against Ukraine, helping pro-Russian separatists seize Crimea in 2014. Ukrainian forces, such as the Azov Battalion, have also allied with white supremacist groups but U.S. intelligence has determined that the extremist groups were more active on the pro-Russian side.

While Putin gestured at a crackdown on the group (their website is now censored in Russia) the group operates freely in the country and continues to be tolerated by the authorities, in the words of former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Carpenter. In addition to serving as soldiers in Putins near-abroad campaign, they also serve the useful function of sowing chaos in western democracies, which, in Putins zero-sum view of the world, is an unalloyed good.

Some observers have cast the move as a thinly veiled attempt to rehabilitate the administrations reputation on the issue of white supremacy, which has persisted since Trumps infamous Charlottesville speech. Indeed, the designation gone largely unremarked upon by the political medias opinion makers, and most news articles reporting the development have included wary statements from extremism researchers casting the move as a public relations stunt. But, coupled with the FBIs recent aggressive pursuit of domestic white supremacists and provided the State Department continues to monitor these foreign groups and designate them accordingly under the new expanded guidance Trumps September executive order may prove to be a substantial blow against a white supremacist threat that began to emerge in earnest in Europe during the refugee crisis of 2014 and 2015, and has since metastasized in the U.S.

The sanctions against R.I.M.s three leaders Stanislav Vorobyev, Denis Gariev, and Nikolay Trushchalov will deprive them of access to the U.S. financial system and will freeze their assets in the international banking system. It will also enable the prosecution of any sympathetic American who attempts to aid them. In the administrations view this move is a long overdue modernization of the way the U.S. deals with an extremist phenomenon that doesnt respect borders and uses the internet to form communities that can have a devastating impact on Americans and free people around the world.

View original post here:

The Trump Administration Escalates the War on White Supremacist Terrorism - National Review

ACLJ to File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pro-Life Speech Case Battling the Abortion Distortion – American Center for Law and Justice

Posted on by

The ability to speak ones one mind in an effort to persuade others of the truth of your position is a critical component in the workings of politics, academia, the courtroom . . . almost any area of public or private concern. Few personal liberties are therefore more cherished in this country than the right to free speech.

George Washington said it powerfully: For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.

Though it may have a checkered past on the issue, the Supreme Court has been an important guardian of the First Amendments guarantee of free speech. Recently, and positively, the Court has held that the state cannot compel pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise government-subsidized abortions. It has held that the government cannot treat Church signs advertising places of worship less than it treats non-religious directional signs.

Unfortunately, as with other rights, the right to free speech often falls prey to abortion distortion, where courts contort the meaning of well-established free speech principles to silence pro-life speakers. While the Supreme Court has made important and encouraging strides in the past decade to safeguard free speecheven in the abortion contextJustice Scalia once spoke of the Courts troubling tendency to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.

Sadly, the abortion distortion doctrine continues to rear its ugly head in the lower courts.

For years, the City of Pittsburgh has tried to keep pro-life speakers away from the very place where their message matters most: close to the entrance of abortion clinics. Similar to the City of Englewood ordinance we are challenging in federal court, Pittsburgh adopted a buffer zone prohibiting persons from congregating, patrolling, picketing, or demonstrating within 15-feet of an abortion clinics entrance.

Despite the Supreme Courts 2014 decision in McCullen v. Coakley, which unanimously struck down a buffer zone abortion law in Massachusetts, both the district court and the Third Court of Appeals upheld Pittsburghs ordinance. Contrary to how the City interpreted its own ordinance, the Court of Appeals narrowed its scope by holding that the ordinance doesnt cover sidewalk counseling.

While laudably permitting the speech of pro-life sidewalk counseling, there are two critical problems with the courts ruling: (1) its not the role of federal courts to construe narrowly state and local laws in order to save them from a constitutional challenge, and (2) even if the ordinance does not apply to some pro-life speakers, it still sweeps within its ambit classic forms of free speech activity (including pro-life speech activity), such as demonstrating and picketing.

The Third Circuits decision shouldnt be allowed to stand. And well soon be filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the pro-life speakers in Pittsburgh. Its time for the Supreme Court to put an end to abortion distortion in the realm of free speech once and for allboth in this case and in another pro-life speech case out of Chicago that the Court is still considering whether to accept and decide (we also filed an amicus brief in this case).

The right to free speech is not a luxury or perk. When the government impermissibly seeks to squelch or limit that right, courts should be vigilant in striking down those restrictions. And when lower courts wrongly uphold those restrictions, as did the Third Circuit here, the Supreme Court needs to step in and reverse them.

You can sign on to our Supreme Court brief below.

View post:

ACLJ to File Amicus Brief with Supreme Court in Pro-Life Speech Case Battling the Abortion Distortion - American Center for Law and Justice

Singapore’s law minister says that to counter fake news, more information must be given – CNBC

Posted on by

Governments can tackle fake news during the coronavirus crisis by communicating regularly and promptly correcting misinformation, Singapore's home affairs minister said.

Security experts have warned that disinformation campaigns about COVID-19 are on the rise over the internet, as people's fears and ignorance are being exploited.

Singapore is not immune. The government has been fighting fake news: from misinformation about its leaders contracting the coronavirus, to false reports of virus-related deaths and scammers trying to impersonate health officialsto extract people's personal and financial details.

"We are not the only place where fake informationis circulating, but I would say there is far less here," K. Shanmugam, who is also Singapore's law minister, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday.

"You know the Singapore approach: We put out the clarification, we require the platform to carry what the true facts are and we saw a substantial reduction in the amount of fake news circulating," Shanmugam said, adding that the presence of fake news is part and parcel of modern life. "You just have to accept it."

Singapore passed theProtection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Billin October last year, which dictates websites have to run government "correction notices" alongside content it deems false. Under the law, the government will also be able to issue so-called "take down" orders that require the removal of content posted by social media companies, news organizations or individuals.

The Singapore skyline.

Everett Rosenfeld | CNBC

"Regularcommunication, I think, is one way of fighting this fake news," Shanmugam said. "Second, when there is fake news that you can identify, point it out and make sure that people get to know that this is fake news. Do your best."

For its part, Singapore's health ministry puts out a daily report on its website detailing newly reported cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus,and the status of existing patients over a 24-hour period. That information from the government is also disseminated via WhatsApp for people who've signed up to receive them.

Shanmugam explained that when the fake news bill was being debated, tackling misinformation during a public health crisis was one of the scenarios being considered. He said in current times, fake news has been "industrialized" to sow confusion among the public and undermine society, through using modern means of communication. But the answer to counteringfake news is not censorship, rather it's to give more information, according to the law minister.

Our point is, for those who believe in free speech, well this is more speech. You read the fake stuff, you read the true stuff, or what we say is the true stuff, and you make up your mind.

K. Shanmugam

Singapore's minister for home affairs

Critics of Singapore's fake news law have said the rule could be used to clamp down on the opposition parties a charge that ministers of the city-state have repeatedly denied. For his part, Shanmugam said critics are not acknowledging the fact that misinformation is not taken down by the original poster.

"It's on that platform, but the person who put it out has got to carry a correction to say that this is being considered to be false, and for the true facts go to such and such a place," he said. "Our point is, for those who believe in free speech, well this is more speech. You read the fake stuff, you read the true stuff, or what we say is the true stuff, and you make up your mind."

In February, the government ordered Facebook to block access in Singapore to a blog page on its social networking platform, Reuters reported. Singapore reasoned that the page, called States Times Review, repeatedly conveyed falsehoods and did not comply with directions it was served under the fake news law, according to Reuters.

Facebook had said back then that orders like those were "disproportionate" and contradicted Singapore's claim that the fake news law wouldn't be used as a censorship tool, Reuters said.

Shanmugam said Facebook had been "behind thecurve on fake news and has had to apologize a number of times."

When contacted by CNBC about the minister's remarks, a representative from the social media company declined to comment.

Go here to read the rest:

Singapore's law minister says that to counter fake news, more information must be given - CNBC

Exclusive Commissioner Brendan Carr Torches Dangerous Petition to Weaponize FCC Against Free Speech – Breitbart

Posted on by

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview on Friday that Free Press has moved to weaponize the FCC against broadcasters and conservatives to stifle political speech.

Progressive media group Free Press has petitioned the FCC to censor broadcasters from showing President Donald Trumps press conferences on the coronavirus pandemic. In its petition to the federal agency, the group called it a life and death issue.

Free Press urged the FCC to prominently disclose when broadcasters allegedly disclose information that is false or scientifically suspect and air disclosures prominently on television when broadcaster air allegedly false information.

When the president tells dangerous lies about a public health emergency, broadcasters have a choice: dont air them, or put those lies in context with disclaimers noting that they may be untrue and are unverified, Free Press wrote. And certainly the FCC has a duty to rein in radio broadcasters that seed confusion with lies and disinformation.

Carr called this petition a dangerous attempt to weaponize the FCC against free speech. He noted that while this proposal may not pass through the Republican-controlled FCC under Trump, it may gain more traction under a future Democrat administration like how Free Press lobbied former President Barack Obama and the then Democrat-controlled FCC to pass net neutrality.

Its a dangerous and sweeping attempt by the left to weaponize the FCC against broadcasters and conservatives and politicians. The real danger here, among other things, is that this particular group is very influential in Democrat media and telecom policy circles. You can look at this petition and say this isnt going to get traction with this FCC, but remember when it comes to greater government control of the Internet, its called net neutrality, Carr said. That group was at the vanguard of pushing utility-style regulations and heavy-handed regulation of the Internet [net neutrality] at a point in time that people on the right and the mainstream left thought it was a third-rail issue and that the FCC would never do. And what did they do? They campaigned to flip then President Obama, who then flipped the FCC, and we ended up for a long time what was unthinkable heavy-handed government control of the Internet.

Free Press cofounder and board member Robert McChesney has advocated for a socialist revolution in the United States.

In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles, McChesney said at one point.

McChesney also said, We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.

Carr also noted that Free Press has called for a fully-funded, government-funded media. And so when I think you put that all together, its part and parcel of an effort to control the political narrative and complete intolerance of any views that dont fit with their orthodoxy.

This is part of the broader left to take advantage of the pandemic to press their extreme agenda. Were seeing it here with this petition and asking the FCC to shut down speech and broadcasters that doesnt fit their orthodoxy, and were seeing it with this push for the Green New Deal through the coronavirus packages, he added.

Free Speechs call for censorship in the name of the public interest has been echoed by FCC Democrat Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. Rosenworcel wanted to censor e-cigarette ads in 2019.

Carr said that Americans should fight against censorship irrespective of its political leanings.

Well, if history wont be kind to silence, lets speak up on both sides of the issue. My position on the First Amendment has been consistent. Ive spoken up against efforts to censor conservatives, and Ive spoken up against efforts to censor Democrats. For instance, people tried to censor a tweet from presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg. And Ive spoken up against attempts to censor nonpolitical speech, like when Commissioner Rosenworcel said that the FCC should play a role in shutting down broadcasters for e-cigarettes based on her view of the public interest, Carr said.

My record is clear that Ive spoken about left, right, and nonpolitical. Its interesting that people find their First Amendment footing when it fits their political views. And when it doesnt, its crickets, he added.

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.

Excerpt from:

Exclusive Commissioner Brendan Carr Torches Dangerous Petition to Weaponize FCC Against Free Speech - Breitbart

Former UAlbany student Asha Burwell sees one conviction overturned – Times Union

Posted on by

ALBANY Citing the First Amendment, the regions appellate court Thursday unanimously reversed one of the convictions of a former University at Albany student found guilty of falsely reporting a hate crime aboard a CDTA bus in 2016.

In a 5-0 ruling, appellate justices overturned Asha Burwells conviction for falsely reporting an incident in the third-degree and causing a public alarm through her tweets, the comments she posted on her Twitter account.

However, Burwells conviction for falsely reporting an incident in the third-degree in a 911 call was upheld, according to the decision Thursday by the Appellate Division of state Supreme Courts Third Department. Both are misdemeanors.

In February, Burwells attorney, Frederick Brewington, argued it was a slippery slope to criminalize Burwells tweets given the wide range of people "from the top to the bottom" who use Twitter. He noted President Donald Trumps fondness for Twitter.

"If, indeed, we put this standard in place, someone would have to arrest our president immediately," Brewington told the Times Union after the Feb.19 arguments.

On Thursday, justices found Burwells tweets to be permitted under free speech regardless of their accuracy.

Neither general concern nor the Twitter storm that ensued following defendant posting the false tweets are the type of public alarm or inconvenience that permits defendant's tweets to escape protection under the First Amendment and, therefore, the speech at issue here may not be criminalized, stated the decision authored by Justice Stanley Pritzker.

Presiding Justice Elizabeth Garry and Justices Christine Clark, Eugene Gus Devine and John Colangelo concurred.

To that end, although it was not unlikely that defendant's false tweets about a racial assault at a state university would cause public alarm, what level of public alarm rises to the level of criminal liability? the decision said. By the very nature of social media, falsehoods can quickly and effectively be countered by truth, making the criminalizing of false speech on social media not actually necessary to prevent alarm and inconvenience. This could not be more apparent here, where defendant's false tweets were largely debunked through counter speech; thus, criminalizing her speech was not actually necessary to prevent public alarm and inconvenience.

In response to the decision, Albany County District Attorney David Soares' office released a statement saying: "We respect the decision of the Court to uphold the falsely reporting an incident charge regarding the claims made during the 911 call. 'A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth puts on its boots,' is the old saw. A tweet can make it 1,000 times around. While the Constitution protects your right to lie on Twitter, it certainly doesnt protect your right to lie to the police. And make no mistake, Asha Burwell lied and remains convicted for her behavior."

Assistant District Attorney Vincent Stark had argued that while opinions are always protected under the First Amendment, Burwell falsified facts.

Brewington had argued that even if what his client tweeted was untrue, it was not criminal. Burwell, now 24, graduated with honors from Howard University in Washington D.C. She is studying to become an attorney, Brewington said.

On Jan. 30, 2016, Burwell, along with fellow former UAlbany students Ariel Agudio and Alexis Briggs, all of whom are black, boarded a CDTA bus at Quail Street and Western Avenue in Albany headed to the university's uptown campus. Agudio and Burwell exited the bus and called police to report they had been jumped by a group of white men and women because of their skin color. They said the bus driver did nothing and that passengers watched the attack or recorded it on their phones.

Reports about the incident led to an on-campus rally and national attention. Footage from the bus, which was later released, showed the students appeared to be the attackers.

Agudio and Burwell were both expelled. Briggs was suspended.

Burwell had tweeted: I just got jumped on a bus while people hit us and called us the n word and NO ONE helped us, as well as I cant believe I just experienced what its like to be beaten because of the color of my skin," court papers show.

In 2017, jurors convicted Burwell and co-defendant Agudio of two counts of the false reporting charges, which are misdemeanor offenses. Acting Supreme Court Justice Roger McDonough sentenced both women to three years' probation, 200 hours of community service and a $1,000 fine.

The defendants were acquitted on four other counts, including allegations of assault and harassment.

Read the original here:

Former UAlbany student Asha Burwell sees one conviction overturned - Times Union

NSA Sheep Event and NSA Scotsheep 2020 postponed – Agriland.co.uk

Posted on by

The National Sheep Association (NSA) has announced plans to proceed with a revised summer schedule, after two of its flagship events were cancelled due to the Covid-19 lockdown.

After taking time to review current Government recommendations, the NSA said it was pleased to be able to announce new plans to proceed with its popular summer events, albeit a little later in the year than previously scheduled.

Many popular summer agricultural events including the Royal Highland Show, Balmoral Show, the Great Yorkshire Show, and the Royal Welsh Show have already been cancelled or postponed.

NSA Sheep Event, the flagship event of the organisation will now take place on Monday, October 19, 2020, once again at the Three Counties Showground, Malvern, Worcestershire.

NSA Sheep Event 2020 organiser, Helen Roberts said: The NSA prides itself on being a member-led organisation and delivering our iconic event is incredibly important to us.

However, with the Government advising against attending mass gatherings and further action relating to social distancing and self-isolation and unnecessary travel, NSA felt there was no other option at this time than to postpone our main event until October and we are very grateful to have this date made available to us.

This will be a difficult year for the nation as a whole. The NSA and many other associations and businesses will all be affected by the financial outcome of this scenario but we do hope both our members as well as all sheep farmers and the wider sheep industry will support as we now recommence plans for what we are confident will again be a fantastic event.

Also taking place this year is NSA Scotsheep, the main event of the industry in Scotland. Differing slightly from the NSA Sheep Event in Worcestershire, NSA Scotsheep is set to take place on-farm, kindly hosted in 2020 by Robert and Hazel McNee at their home at Over Finlarg, Tealing, Angus.

The event had been planned for early June but has now tentatively been moved to Wednesday, July 8 a date that the NSA Scottish Region executive committee is aware is rather hopeful in the current climate but one they still hope can be achievable.

NSA Scotsheep organiser Euan Emslie said: We have very tentatively set a new date which most importantly suits the hosts who need to fit this event around their farming operation.

NSA Scottish Region understands that this date is optimistic and that it may need to be reviewed again in light of the future situation with COVID-19, but in the hope that we can continue, we have lodged our application for the necessary licenses and will keep the situation under close review.

Should NSA Scottish Region not be granted a license for the July date, then NSA Scotsheep 2020 will regrettably have to be rescheduled until next year with a new date at the beginning of June.

NSA Scotsheep 2020 chairman Willy Millar added: We are really disappointed to have to postpone this event although current circumstances give us no choice.

The committee also realises that choosing a date in early July brings risks so we are looking at alternative dates for the first couple of weeks in June next year, should the restrictions on social distancing and gatherings of people not be lifted in the next few months.

Our firm belief is that NSA Scotsheep is a crucial event for the farming community and sheep industry in Scotland and further afield.

There is no doubt that people will be keen to get back to a more normal way of life as soon as possible while following government advice on the situation.

Plans for both NSA events are well underway with organisers promising many new and existing attractions.

Further updates on the future of both events will follow as needed.

RELATED STORIES

Excerpt from:

NSA Sheep Event and NSA Scotsheep 2020 postponed - Agriland.co.uk

Posted in NSA

Madison in the Sixties – the only liberal elected mayor – Wortfm

Posted on by

Madison in the sixties, early April the only liberal elected mayor.

The mayoral election of 1965 is polite but partisan and gives the city a clear choice between continuity and change: Conservative businessman George Hall, who ran the successful mayoral campaigns in 1961 and 63 for conservative businessman Henry Reynolds, and Dane County clerk Otto Festge, a Democrat from Cross Plains.

Hall, sixty-four, is chairman of the Hyland Hall construction company and H & H Electric, and president of the board of directors of Madison General Hospital. Festge, forty-four, is a former part-time farmer who began his career in public service as Cross Plains town assessor in 1946 and has been county clerk since 1953; hes also a talented multi-instrumentalist who played with the Madison Symphony Orchestra when he was at the UW, and was later a public school music teacher in Black Earth.

The nonpartisan election has a strongly partisan tone. Festge, elected county clerk six times as a Democrat, features a photograph of himself with US Senator Gaylord Nelson in his campaign literature. Numerous Republican officials are among the 150 at Halls campaign kickoff at the Loraine Hotel. [i]All of the construction trade unions support Hall; municipal employees go for Festge. The Federation of Labors Committee on Political Education endorses both.[ii]

Halls top priority is an expressway from Blair Street through Law Park to connect to the Monona Causeway, finally nearing completion. So hes very much against building a civic auditorium there, where Frank Lloyd Wright wanted Monona Terrace to be. Hall wants a new site, close to the Capitol, to be designed by the Frank Lloyd Wright foundation. Festge favors the Law Park site, but would support a different site if demanded by the public or recommended by the planners. The strongest support for a Monona Terrace auditorium comes from Republican attorney William Dyke, who finished third in the seven-man primary.[iii]

The candidates differ on open housing. Hall supports the current ordinance, which only covers forty percent of the housing units. Festge wants to eliminate the current exemptions and expand the law to all units.[iv]

Former assessor Festge focuses on financial issues, warning of the citys increasing debt and vowing to restore Madisons AAA bond rating, reduced to AA under Reynolds in 1963.[v]

Hall calls for a joint City-County Health Department and wants to consolidate the villages of Monona and Shorewood Hills into Madison. A member of the board of the Vocational, Technical and Adult schools, Hall wants Central High School closed and its building turned over to his system.[vi]

Both candidates support buying forty-acres at Milwaukee Street and Highway 51 for a full general hospital, and [vii] each supports the police policy of taking photographs at political demonstrations.

Theres little doubt about the outcome. Four years of Republican rule is enough for Madison. Festge carries nineteen of twenty-two wards on his way to a landslide twenty-point victory, about 25,000 to 17,000.[viii] A year into the Great Society, Madison has its first Democratic mayor since the first month of the Kennedy Administration.

Festge lays out an ambitious agenda in his inaugural message: settle the longstanding dispute with the Wright Foundation over fees and start a new auditorium process, buy land for the east side hospital, expand mass transit, improve relations with the university, and more.

But two years later, taxes and crime are both up, college students are starting to cause trouble, and the building trades are on strike. After winning by eight thousand votes in 1965, election night 1967 finds Festge ahead by only about thirty votes with just one precinct left to report.

The 46-yo- Festge almost got to run unopposed, but attorney and former broadcast personality William Dyke, who finished third in the seven-way primary in 1965, enters the race just hours before the filing deadline.[ix] A former aide to Republican lieutenant governor Jack Olson, Dyke enjoys active support of local and state GOP officials, while the Dane County Democratic Party doesnt even endorse Festge, even though he had been elected county clerk six times as a Democrat.

Dyke, thirty-five, campaigns almost exclusively on Festges spending, taxes, and purported failures of leadership, and avoids culture and crime.[x] And he proposes organizing a group of experts to advise UW graduates with advanced high-tech degrees how to create, finance and market new products.[xi]

Festge cites as his primary accomplishment the recent acquisition of a site on Milwaukee Street for the long-sought east side hospital, making progress on the Monona Basin auditorium and civic center and helping form the Alliance of Cities to lobby for more state shared revenue. And he notes that most of the tax hike has been for the schools, not city services.[xii]

Festge runs moderately well throughout the city; Dyke wins fewer wards but by larger margins, especially his Nakoma neighborhood. It all comes down to a final ward in University Heights. About 10 p.m., the last numbers come in, and Festge gets his second term by just sixty-two votes out of 35,000 cast. [xiii]

Chastened by his political near-death experience and sensing the brewing tax revolt, Festge vows to keep the tax rate at forty-seven dollars per thousand dollars of assessment. I believe we can provide for our needs through the normal increase in the citys valuation, he tells the council in his inaugural message. Its a statement he will soon regret.[xiv]

Festge proposes a land bank for industrial uses, and a new transportation commission. And he wants the council to create an advisory committee on housing and social services, to plan community services for the citys growing number of poor and elderly.

Having made more progress on the auditorium/civic center in two years than predecessor Reynolds had made in two terms, Festge also swipes at the small obstructionist minority doing a grave disservice to our city by continuing to fight the project, and says they deserve forthright condemnation.[xv]

Festge closes his inaugural message by calling the narrowness of his victory a challenge to me, my administration, and to this Common Council.[xvi]

He has no idea of the challenges to come.

And thats this weeks Madison in the Sixties. For your award winning, hand-washing, social distancing, WORT News team, Im Stu Levitan.

[i] Dane GOP Chairman Is Helping Campaign of Hall for Mayor, CT, January 14, 1965; Doyle Cites Festges Work as Important Background, CT, March 29, 1965.

[ii] 11 City Labor Leaders Support Hall for Mayor, WSJ, January 17, 1965; Witt, COPE Endorses Hall, Festge, WSJ, February 19, 1965; Coyle, Terrace Dominates COPE Candidate Forum, CT, February 19, 1965; editorial, How Long Will Madison Let Ald. Rohr Dictate Its Politics, CT, February 19, 1965; Brautigam, COPE Continues Dual OK for Festge, Hall, CT, March 23, 1965.

[iii] Coyle, Dyke Indicates Favor for Monona Terrace, CT, January 21, 1965; Hall Ends Silence, Raps Terrace Auditorium Site, CT, February 8, 1965; editorial, Festges Stuck with Terrace, WSJ, February 23, 1965; Coyle, Hall Favors Expressway through Site of Terrace, CT, March 13, 1965; Brautigam, Major Rivals Say That Terrace Site Is Principle[Principal?] yes Issue, CT, March 17, 1965.

[iv] Witt, Mayor Candidates Oppose Skywalks, WSJ, March 26, 1965; Brautigam, Metropolitan Problems Take Spotlight at Forum, CT, March 30; Coyle, Auditorium, Road Plan Pace Candidates Jabs, CT, April 1, 1965.

[v]; Festge Pledges Himself to City Beautification Program, CT, April 1, 1965.

[vi] Hall Says City, County Health Agency Needed, WSJ, March 29, 1965.

[vii] Hall Stresses Planning for New City Hospital, WSJ, March 14, 1965; Festge Presses Action on East Side Hospital, WSJ, March 28, 1965.

[viii] Aehl, Festge Wins Mayor Race by 8,000 Votes, WSJ, April 7, 1965; Coyle, Festge in Landslide Win, CT, April 7, 1965.

[ix] Dyke Beats Deadline, Files To Oppose Festge, WSJ, February 1, 1967.

[x] Fiscal Restraint Proposed by Dyke, WSJ, March 8, 1967; Aehl, Mayoral Race Based on Leadership, Taxed, WSJ, April 2, 1967.

[xi] County GOP Backs Dyke for Mayor, CT, March 31, 1967; Moucha,Dyke Plea Fails, COPE OKs Festge, WSJ, February 17, 1967.

[xii] Coyle, Festge vs. Dyke: Are There Any Issues? CT, February 25, 1967; Aehl, Dyke, Festge Attack, Defend, WSJ, March 11, 1967

[xiii] Aehl, Festge Barely Wins by 75-Vote Margin, WSJ, April 5, 1967; Coyle, Festges Win Is Affirmed, CT, April 15, 1967.

[xiv] Coyle, Mayor Vows Effort To Hold Tax Line, CT, April 18, 1967.

[xv] Coyle, Forster, Smith Off Auditorium Group, CT, April 18, 1967.

[xvi] Otto Festge, Mayors Annual Message, April 18, 1967, WI-M 1 MAY 50.1:1967/4/18, Wisconsin Historical Society Library [Will it be clear to readers where this source can be found?]. Yes

See original here:

Madison in the Sixties - the only liberal elected mayor - Wortfm

Conservative Pundits Werent the Only Ones to Get the Pandemic Wrong – National Review

Posted on by

U.S. Army Specialist Daulton Radler inspects his glove fit and is shown the proper procedures for donning personal protective equipment while awaiting to forward deploy to the coronavirus testing site in Plymouth Meeting, Pa. April 2, 2020. (Master Sergeant George Roach/Pennsylvania National Guard/Handout via Reuters)Media figures on both sides of the aisle failed to appreciate the extent of the threat until it was too late. Liberals shouldnt pretend otherwise.

The coronavirus pandemic has changed virtually everything about American life, with one prominent exception: While business, the arts, and sports are all on hold, the hyper-partisan political warfare that afflicts our public square has continued at the same pace and intensity as before.

As the present crisis has developed over the past few weeks, the chattering classes have kept busy interpreting everything that happens through pro-Trump and anti-Trump prisms. Many in the mainstream liberal media are intent on settling scores with Trumps cheerleaders in the conservative media, whom they have accused of fueling skepticism about the danger posed by the coronavirus. Yet in doing so, they are ignoring the fact that many on the left were just as confused about the pandemic at its start and just as eager to play politics with it as their favorite villains on the right.

A front-page story in the New York Times this week summed up the liberal indictment of the right. Focusing heavily on Fox News personalities such as Sean Hannity and right-wing talkers such as Rush Limbaugh, the piece took as its conceit that they had not merely gotten the story wrong but had badly misled their audience and helped encourage the most prominent consumer of conservative media President Trump to delay implementing measures to stem the pandemics spread.

Theres no denying that many conservatives were slow to realize the danger posed by the coronavirus, and stuck to talking points about its being no worse than the flu right up until the point in mid-March when it became apparent that we were facing a full-blown public-health disaster. Their knee-jerk reaction to the first calls for action on the issue from the White House was to assume Trump was covering his political bases rather than attempting to forestall a real emergency. And many of them saw panic over the virus as a liberal plot to establish a Hurricane Katrina-style narrative in which Trump would be declared to have been derelict in his duty.

As Times reporter Jeremy Peters details, Hannity, Limbaugh, and other conservative-media figures such as Candace Owens and Dennis Prager made statements in February comparing coronavirus to the regular flu and predicting its spread should not be a cause for alarm. Peters is also right to point out that, like Trump, many on the right turned on a dime in mid March, beginning to take the threat of the virus seriously.

But the underlying assumption of Peterss thesis is that conservatives were alone in making these errors, and that assumption doesnt hold up. Liberal media outlets, very much including the Times, were also slow to recognize the impending catastrophe. And at the earliest stage of the story, when the Right and the Left dueled over Chinas responsibility for the pandemic, liberals instinctive desire to disagree with Trump on everything led many of them to downplay the threat in a different but no-less-dangerous way than the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world.

Peters notes that although some at Fox News mocked the idea of being afraid of the virus, others such as Tucker Carlson were touting the coronavirus as a threat in late January, specifically as justification for Trumps order limiting flights from China. While Carlson and a guest, Senator Tom Cotton (R. Ark.), were, according to the Times, merely spouting talking points to justify a prejudiced decision aimed at focusing hate on a foreign enemy, their counterparts on the left were taking the bait and downplaying the threat of the virus.

On February 5, the Times published an op-ed by global-tourism reporter Rosie Spinks under the headline, Who Says Its Not Safe to Travel to China? The article, an argument against Trumps restrictions on flights from China, took the point of view that the real problem with the virus was that it was promoting hate against Chinese people and hurting the travel industry.

The same intellectual reflex motivated politicians such as New York City mayor Bill de Blasio and his health commissioner, Oxiris Barbot, to spend February and part of March dismissing the pandemic. They urged New Yorkers to disregard any fears about the virus and attend the Chinese New Year celebrations and parade in New Yorks Chinatown. House speaker Nancy Pelosi did the same thing while promoting the Chinese New Year festivities held in her native San Franciscos Chinatown. In retrospect, such advocacy is hard to defend given the likelihood that the virus was already starting to spread. But at the time, the looming danger wasnt yet clear, so the political needs of the moment took precedence.

Meanwhile, on January 31, the Washington Post published an op-ed by former Harvard professor David Ropeik that sought to dismiss fears about the impending pandemic as a figment of our collective imagination, mocking the notion of a global health emergency. A few days, later the Post ran another opinion piece by a pair of academics under the headline Why we should be wary of an aggressive government response to coronavirus, which claimed fears about the pandemic were merely an invitation to harsh measures that would scapegoat marginalized populations.

Peters can point to instances throughout the following weeks in which Fox News personalities, Limbaugh, and others on the right pooh-poohed the coronavirus as no more dangerous than the seasonal flu, highlighted those who survived the disease, and accused the media of trying to perpetuate a hoax against Trump. But a detailed look at what the Times published in its opinion pages during the same period shows that neither its editorial board nor its roster of 16 regular columnists were sounding the alarm while some conservatives encouraged Americans to ignore the danger.

The first mention of the virus in the Times opinion section came commendably early, on January 29, and seemed to warn of what was to come. But even then, the papers editorial board praised the Trump administrations foresight and offered reason for cautious optimism:

To its credit, the administration has managed to keep some of the worlds leading infectious disease experts in key roles at top agencies, including the C.D.C., the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. If those professionals are given the resources and authority to respond to the crisis as their experience and the science dictate . . . the worst-case scenarios may yet be averted.

Though Peterss article complains that right-wing pundits remained insufficiently alarmed about the virus throughout February, the Times didnt seem too concerned about it either: After January 29, its editorial board didnt mention it again for a full month. When it picked up the issue again on February 29, in an editorial entitled, Here Comes the Coronavirus Pandemic, it expressed mild concern about Trumps belief that the situation was well under control, but, like many conservative-media outlets, hedged bets about what would happen next. There is still a chance that COVID-19 will be more fire drill than actual fire, the Timess editors wrote. The vortex of fear and market-tumbling anxiety may yet pass.

The Timess op-ed columnists did no better than its editorial board. The first Times op-ed column on the issue was even more dismissive of the pandemic than anything being said on Fox News. On January 29, Farhood Manjoos Beware the Pandemic Panic argued that alarm about the virus was unwarranted. Citing false assurances from the World Health Organization, Manjoo said the real concern was not the illness itself but the amped-up, ill-considered way our frightened world might respond to it.

Like many on the right whom Peters singles out, Manjoo compared the virus to the flu and other diseases that didnt pose such a catastrophic danger to American society. He claimed that, fear of a vague and terrifying new illness might spiral into panic, and that it might be used to justify unnecessarily severe limits on movement and on civil liberties, especially of racial and religious minorities around the world. . . . We should keep this sense of caution in mind in case American politicians begin pushing for travel bans, overbroad quarantines or other measures that might not be supported by the science.

To his credit, Manjoo eventually walked this back in a column published on Feb. 26. But the qualifying excuses he offered with mea culpa could just as easily be used to justify similar mistakes made by right-wingers:

To be totally fair to myself, my reasoningin that columnwas mostly on point: At the time, the new coronavirus appeared to be a far less worrisome danger than the flu, which killshundreds of thousandsof people around the world annually. The illness, since named Covid-19, had then killed fewer than 200 people, and the Chinese governments late but immense efforts to contain it looked as if they might work.

Manjoo at least had something to say about the virus early on, however wrong it turned out to be. The other 15 op-ed columnists employed by the paper that would subsequently excoriate conservatives for their lack of early alarm remained completely silent until almost the end of February. After January 29, the virus wasnt mentioned in the Timess opinion pages until February 26, when Gail Collins chose to attack the Trump administration for its lack of urgency in dealing with the problem.

And even at that late date some of the Timess influencers were still considering the possibility that the pandemic would blow over soon. On February 29, Nicholas Kristof wrote that, Nobody knows if the coronavirus will be a big one, for it may still fizzle. As of this writing, onlyone personis known to have died from it in the United States, while thousands routinely die annually from the seasonal flu. But increasingly, experts are saying that we should get ready just in case. In the following weeks, Kristof, too, would excoriate conservatives such as Limbaugh for expressing similar skepticism.

The bottom line is that the Times didnt get consistently interested in the coronavirus until the full extent of the crisis became apparent in March, at which point its writers believed theyd found a stick with which to beat the president and his supporters. While this does not excuse the mistakes made by conservatives and the administration in the critical months before the crisis hit, it does validate right-wingers beliefs that Trumps opponents were, like the president, reacting to the pandemic primarily as a political controversy rather than a public-health threat in those months.

Predictions are a perilous business for any pundit, and much of what both liberals and conservatives published and broadcast about the coronavirus in the weeks leading up to the middle of March turned out to be wrong. Both sides made these mistakes not out of a willful desire to mislead but because they knew little about the subject, much of what they did know was wrong, and they were, as is their deeply ingrained habit, apt to interpret the latest developments as confirmation of their preexisting political biases. Neither side should now attempt to rewrite history so it casts all the blame for those early failures on the other.

Read this article:

Conservative Pundits Werent the Only Ones to Get the Pandemic Wrong - National Review