truthout--2020-06-22--Senators Find Unspent $14 Billion After Trump Admits to Slowing COVID Testing

Following President Donald Trump ’ s admission during a campaign rally in Oklahoma over the weekend that he ordered administration officials to “ slow the testing down ” in response to the recent surge in Covid-19 cases , two leading Democratic senators on Sunday slammed the Health and Human Services Department for failing to spend $ 14 billion in funds Congress approved in April to expand coronavirus testing and tracing .
“ While it has been months since these funds were first appropriated , the administration has failed to disburse significant amounts of this funding , leaving communities without the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenges presented by the virus , ” Sen. Patty Murray ( D-Wash. ) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) wrote in a letter ( pdf ) to HHS Secretary Alex Azar on Sunday .
“ The United States is at a critical juncture in its fight against Covid-19 , and now is the time for an aggressive and fast response , ” wrote Murray and Schumer .
“ This administration will put our country at grave risk if it tries to declare an early victory , leave lifesaving work undone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need sitting untouched.
” The senators ’ letter notes that the Trump administration has yet to spend more than $ 8 billion of the $ 25 billion Congress appropriated for coronavirus testing in April .
The administration has also failed to spend $ 4 billion in funds for Covid-19 contact tracing and nearly $ 2 billion to provide free testing for the uninsured , according to Murray and Schumer .
“ We call on you to immediately disburse the remainder of the $ 25 billion in funds to ramp up testing and contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ as well as to make sure providers are aware of and able to easily access the $ 2 billion that Congress appropriated to provide testing for the uninsured.
” The letter was sent a day after Trump , during his first campaign rally since the Covid-19 pandemic shuttered much of the U.S. in March , declared that he ordered a slowdown in coronavirus testing in the face of rising cases across the U.S. More than two dozen states on Sunday reported that their seven-day average of new coronavirus cases increased last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a double-edged sword , ” Trump said at the event in Tulsa , claiming the U.S. has tested 25 million people .
“ When you do testing to that extent , you ’ re going to find more people .
You ’ re going to find more cases .
So I said to my people , ‘ Slow the testing down , please . '
” The comment , which two White House officials insisted was a joke , was met with swift backlash from lawmakers and public health experts who have repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system is necessary to stem the spread of Covid-19 and reopen the economy safely .
“ Looking at it as a scoreboard is the wrong way to think about it , ” Amesh Adalja , an infectious-disease expert at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security , told the Washington Post .
“ To think of it as something you can manipulate or slow down based on what the numbers look like speaks to a complete misunderstanding of what an infectious-disease response should be.
” Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus , condemned Trump ’ s remarks in a tweet on Sunday .
“ This man is reprehensible , my father and so many Americans lost their lives and this is what he has to say , ” said Omar .
“ I pray for our country to find a way to recover from the destruction of his presidency and heal all wounds .
This presidency is without a shred of humanity and dignity .
”

More than two dozen states on Sunday reported that their seven-day average of new coronavirus cases increased last week.
Following President Donald Trump’s admission during a campaign rally in Oklahoma over the weekend that he ordered administration officials to “slow the testing down” in response to the recent surge in Covid-19 cases, two leading Democratic senators on Sunday slammed the Health and Human Services Department for failing to spend $14 billion in funds Congress approved in April to expand coronavirus testing and tracing.
“While it has been months since these funds were first appropriated, the administration has failed to disburse significant amounts of this funding, leaving communities without the resources they need to address the significant challenges presented by the virus,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote in a letter (pdf) to HHS Secretary Alex Azar on Sunday.
“The United States is at a critical juncture in its fight against Covid-19, and now is the time for an aggressive and fast response,” wrote Murray and Schumer. “This administration will put our country at grave risk if it tries to declare an early victory, leave lifesaving work undone, and leave resources our communities desperately need sitting untouched.”
The senators’ letter notes that the Trump administration has yet to spend more than $8 billion of the $25 billion Congress appropriated for coronavirus testing in April. The administration has also failed to spend $4 billion in funds for Covid-19 contact tracing and nearly $2 billion to provide free testing for the uninsured, according to Murray and Schumer.
“We call on you to immediately disburse the remainder of the $25 billion in funds to ramp up testing and contact tracing capacity,” the senators wrote, “as well as to make sure providers are aware of and able to easily access the $2 billion that Congress appropriated to provide testing for the uninsured.”
The letter was sent a day after Trump, during his first campaign rally since the Covid-19 pandemic shuttered much of the U.S. in March, declared that he ordered a slowdown in coronavirus testing in the face of rising cases across the U.S. More than two dozen states on Sunday reported that their seven-day average of new coronavirus cases increased last week.
“You know testing is a double-edged sword,” Trump said at the event in Tulsa, claiming the U.S. has tested 25 million people. “When you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more people. You’re going to find more cases. So I said to my people, ‘Slow the testing down, please.'”
The comment, which two White House officials insisted was a joke, was met with swift backlash from lawmakers and public health experts who have repeatedly emphasized that a robust, nationwide testing system is necessary to stem the spread of Covid-19 and reopen the economy safely.
Since the start of the coronavirus crisis in our country the President has ignored experts, denied facts, and put his self-interest ahead of Americans’ lives—and here he is saying so. https://t.co/QqTTxrvQV1 — Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) June 21, 2020
“Looking at it as a scoreboard is the wrong way to think about it,” Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease expert at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told the Washington Post. “To think of it as something you can manipulate or slow down based on what the numbers look like speaks to a complete misunderstanding of what an infectious-disease response should be.”
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), whose father died last week of complications from the coronavirus, condemned Trump’s remarks in a tweet on Sunday.
“This man is reprehensible, my father and so many Americans lost their lives and this is what he has to say,” said Omar. “I pray for our country to find a way to recover from the destruction of his presidency and heal all wounds. This presidency is without a shred of humanity and dignity.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-06-22--Trump Spreads Baseless Claims About Foreign Powers Counterfeiting Ballots

President Donald Trump is continuing to push back against the idea of expanding mail-in voting for the upcoming 2020 elections , baselessly arguing that the practice is rife with fraud .
Many voting experts and lawmakers are hoping to expand mail-in ( or absentee ) voting due to concerns some voters have of voting in-person due to the coronavirus , or the possibility that infection rates could rise again by November and thus deter voter participation .
Trump , however , tweeted on Monday morning that foreign nations could interfere with U.S. elections by producing counterfeit ballots .
“ RIGGED @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES , AND OTHERS , ” the president wrote in all capital letters .
“ IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES !
” Trump added onto his baseless allegations later in the morning in a separate tweet .
“ Because of MAIL-IN BALLOTS , 2020 will be the most RIGGED Election in our nations [ sic ] history — unless this stupidity is ended , ” Trump wrote .
“ We voted during World War One & World War Two with no problem , but now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheat by using Mail-Ins !
” What Trump failed to acknowledge in his second tweet is that voting by mail , particularly by the military , was in use during both of the wars he cited .
Indeed , mail-in voting has been a practice that ’ s been in existence in the United States since at least the Civil War .
Trump ’ s first tweet , alleging that mail-in ballots could be copied by other nations , was likely inspired after an interview this weekend on Fox Business featuring Attorney General @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without providing proof that such fears are warranted in any way .
“ Right now , a foreign country could print up tens of thousands of counterfeit ballots , and be very hard for us to detect which was the right and which was the wrong ballot , ” Barr said in the interview on Sunday .
The attorney general also made similar comments earlier in June .
Several election experts had disputed them at that time , explaining that it would be next to impossible to replicate ballots from thousands of different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ built unique for each election .
Each jurisdiction will normally have dozens to hundreds of unique ballot styles , ” Jennifer Morrell , an elections consultant and former elections official in Utah and Colorado , said in an interview with NPR .
“ Proofs for each ballot style are reviewed and tested to ensure the ballot scanners will read those ballots and only those ballots .
Even ballots created on that system from a previous election can not be read.
” Colorado elections director Judd Choate also said earlier this month that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power could interfere in such ways .
“ It ’ s preposterous to the point of humor , ” he said to The Washington Post .
Besides replicating exact ballot measurements , paper weight and other standards , those interfering in elections would have to know which jurisdiction each voter they were attempting to impersonate would be voting from .
That ’ s before they even consider ways to forge identity within the mail-in ballot .
Trump has frequently derided absentee voting as a means to address voting concerns amid the coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed “ a lot of people cheat with mail-in voting , ” though he didn ’ t offer any examples of systemic fraud to back up his words .
The chances of voter fraud through mail-in ballots are incredibly small .
A study in Oregon , which votes primarily through the mail , found that since 2000 a total of 0.0000001 percent of mail-in votes were fraudulent .
And from 2000 to 2012 , according to a separate study , only 491 ballots out of billions cast across the country were cast illegally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person ’ s chance of being struck by lightning .

It’s nearly impossible for foreign nations to counterfeit ballots for a number of reasons, experts say.
President Donald Trump is continuing to push back against the idea of expanding mail-in voting for the upcoming 2020 elections, baselessly arguing that the practice is rife with fraud.
Many voting experts and lawmakers are hoping to expand mail-in (or absentee) voting due to concerns some voters have of voting in-person due to the coronavirus, or the possibility that infection rates could rise again by November and thus deter voter participation.
Trump, however, tweeted on Monday morning that foreign nations could interfere with U.S. elections by producing counterfeit ballots.
“RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS,” the president wrote in all capital letters. “IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!”
Trump added onto his baseless allegations later in the morning in a separate tweet.
“Because of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, 2020 will be the most RIGGED Election in our nations [sic] history — unless this stupidity is ended,” Trump wrote. “We voted during World War One & World War Two with no problem, but now they are using Covid in order to cheat by using Mail-Ins!”
What Trump failed to acknowledge in his second tweet is that voting by mail, particularly by the military, was in use during both of the wars he cited. Indeed, mail-in voting has been a practice that’s been in existence in the United States since at least the Civil War.
Trump’s first tweet, alleging that mail-in ballots could be copied by other nations, was likely inspired after an interview this weekend on Fox Business featuring Attorney General William Barr, who made similar claims without providing proof that such fears are warranted in any way.
“Right now, a foreign country could print up tens of thousands of counterfeit ballots, and be very hard for us to detect which was the right and which was the wrong ballot,” Barr said in the interview on Sunday.
The attorney general also made similar comments earlier in June. Several election experts had disputed them at that time, explaining that it would be next to impossible to replicate ballots from thousands of different jurisdictions across the U.S.
“Ballots are built unique for each election. Each jurisdiction will normally have dozens to hundreds of unique ballot styles,” Jennifer Morrell, an elections consultant and former elections official in Utah and Colorado, said in an interview with NPR. “Proofs for each ballot style are reviewed and tested to ensure the ballot scanners will read those ballots and only those ballots. Even ballots created on that system from a previous election cannot be read.”
Colorado elections director Judd Choate also said earlier this month that “there is zero chance” a foreign power could interfere in such ways.
“It’s preposterous to the point of humor,” he said to The Washington Post.
Besides replicating exact ballot measurements, paper weight and other standards, those interfering in elections would have to know which jurisdiction each voter they were attempting to impersonate would be voting from. That’s before they even consider ways to forge identity within the mail-in ballot.
Trump has frequently derided absentee voting as a means to address voting concerns amid the coronavirus pandemic. In early April, the president claimed “a lot of people cheat with mail-in voting,” though he didn’t offer any examples of systemic fraud to back up his words.
The chances of voter fraud through mail-in ballots are incredibly small. A study in Oregon, which votes primarily through the mail, found that since 2000 a total of 0.0000001 percent of mail-in votes were fraudulent. And from 2000 to 2012, according to a separate study, only 491 ballots out of billions cast across the country were cast illegally.
Those rates are smaller than a person’s chance of being struck by lightning.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-22--“Soul Searching” Will Not Stop the Police Murders of Black People

As police relentlessly murder Black people across the United States — and a multiracial movement led by young Black people surges in the streets to stop them — many elected officials strike a somber and philosophical tone .
Reflecting on the killing of George Floyd , Joe Biden remarked on May 29 that , “ The pain is too immense for one community to bear alone .
I believe it ’ s the duty of every American to grapple with it and grapple with it now.… The very soul of America is at stake.
” Two days later on “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the mayor of St. Paul , Minnesota , echoed these sentiments , saying that “ we have deep soul-searching work to do as a nation to stop this pattern from happening over and over and over again.
” The invocation of “ soul searching , ” weighty with religious connotations , has permeated our political discourse .
But as a way to resolve our political problems , it is completely unserious .
What are we searching for ?
How will we know when we find it ?
The word “ soul ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secular usage is profound : Music without soul is void of intensity , honesty , energy or feeling .
It is cold and lifeless .
Our soul is generally understood to represent the core of who we are as human beings , our inner consciousness , heart and mind .
It is intensely personal , something we only fully reveal in the most trusted of places : with an intimate partner or close friend , to a therapist , in a diary or a prayer .
In church , those who confess their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deed — are promised absolution ; their souls can be saved .
But our politics is about the here and now — not the afterlife .
Despite the depth implied by the phrase , “ soul searching ” is an evasive rhetorical maneuver that supplants the transformation of structural power relationships with the concept of individual moral transformation .
That is not to say that there are not both moral and individual questions relevant to fighting racism .
But the retreat to framing issues of racial oppression and police violence as something to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a permission slip that lets the existing power structures of our world remain intact and unchallenged .
When a politician suggests we look inward , they sidestep the conflict that is happening in the actual world .
By prescribing “ soul searching , ” they are not required to exercise courage and act decisively — for example , by taking steps to defund the police , end the war on drugs or abolish prisons .
The mayor of Cleveland , Ohio , for example , said the city had engaged in “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice in November 2014 .
Not enough , apparently : In 2016 , the City of Cleveland sent the child ’ s family an itemized collection notice : $ 450 for ambulance life support services and $ 50 for mileage .
Unsaid — but understood — is that the advice to engage in “ soul searching ” is intended for white people : We must reflect on ourselves , our complicity , our privilege .
Political solutions are forestalled while awaiting the outcome of white spiritual journeys .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or comes up empty ?
A debilitating white guilt pervades the concept of “ soul searching ” that , even if well-intentioned , finds its ultimate expression in white spiritual atonement seeking Black forgiveness .
Progress can be measured by symbolism — white police washing the feet of Black clergy — rather than concrete changes that dismantle current power structures .
Redemption substitutes for reparations .
By centering the white soul as the terrain for political change , the shift to “ soul searching ” also negates the value of Black interiority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scholars and organizers have conceptualized , researched , and proposed ideas to eliminate the racist carceral state and transform society — and continue to advance that conversation .
Black aspiration to universality is an ultimate transgression : Right-wing politicians and liberal pundits alike react by arguing that their ideas are not very well thought-out .
They imply that Black people are incapable of reason , that their arguments lack evidence or that they are overreacting out of emotion — as if outrage were not a reasonable response .
“ What started as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touched seemingly every aspect of American life , ” The New York Times reports in a story about corporate brands , though “ some wonder how lasting the soul searching will be.
” The omnipresence of “ soul searching ” today makes sense : Its longest-tenured salesperson and truest adherent is Democratic nominee Joe Biden .
In his book , Biden recalled a conversation with Mississippi ’ s segregationist U.S. Sen. John Stennis in 1989 : It ’ s clear Biden sees parts of himself in such stories .
As the sponsor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a key role in propelling the U.S. to the highest incarceration rates in the world , disproportionately harming Black people .
Healing phraseologies like “ soul searching ” allow Biden to performatively repent and seek forgiveness as a product of his time , while doing little to reverse the damage done .
In February , Biden expressed his admiration for the “ the ultimate act of Christian charity ” performed by the Black parishioners in South Carolina who he said forgave the white supremacist who murdered them .
If Black people are expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything can still be done to them .
The racist logic stretches back across our history ; Black people have “ no rights which the white man is bound to respect.
” Asking questions or making demands of Biden as he seeks the presidency — rather than offering him forgiveness — might mean that “ you ain ’ t Black.
” Massive street demonstrations have made such questions and demands inescapable for Biden .
Yet after being baited by a tweet , he refuted demonstrators and reiterated his plans to increase police funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and training .
Implicit bias training for police is in some ways a bureaucratic manifestation of “ soul searching.
” It certainly did not stop San Jose police from shooting the very person who trains them in the groin — narrowly missing Biden ’ s target of choice .
From the beginning , Biden has framed his campaign as “ battle for the soul of a nation.
” Yet if he manages to win an election that will be rife with racist voter suppression , he is already counting on “ soul searching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has repeatedly claimed that in a post-Trump era , the GOP will re-examine itself , have an epiphany , and a bipartisan equilibrium will be magically restored .
Such wishful thinking ignores that the Republican Party is moving further to the right and will continue to do so as various successors to Trump emerge .
It also ignores that the bipartisan collaboration was only achieved by a rightward shift by Democrats , advancing the very policies that Biden seeks forgiveness for today .
Finally , the repeated turn to “ soul searching ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into many centrist Democrats ’ approach to the question of power — and into why they keep losing .
When facing the right wing and the billionaire class , they are unwilling to wield power ; instead , they attempt persuasion which typically ends in compromise with their reactionary agenda ( so who is winning whom over ? )
.
But when facing the left and an increasingly militant multiracial working class , these same politicians are perfectly willing to deploy power — be it in a primary election , or in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Political conversions are not impossible , of course .
But too many Black people have already been killed along this winding and seemingly endless road to Damascus .
In a polarized world , persuasion efforts should be focused on those who are genuinely undecided — but not by appeasing our opponents and abandoning the pole around which a spirited and soul-full popular movement is rallying to build a different world .
Those who embrace a worldview that denies Black humanity must be isolated , resoundingly defeated , stripped of power and rendered irrelevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to search their souls .

As police relentlessly murder Black people across the United States — and a multiracial movement led by young Black people surges in the streets to stop them — many elected officials strike a somber and philosophical tone. Reflecting on the killing of George Floyd, Joe Biden remarked on May 29 that, “The pain is too immense for one community to bear alone. I believe it’s the duty of every American to grapple with it and grapple with it now.… The very soul of America is at stake.”
Two days later on “Face the Nation,” Melvin Carter, the mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota, echoed these sentiments, saying that “we have deep soul-searching work to do as a nation to stop this pattern from happening over and over and over again.”
The invocation of “soul searching,” weighty with religious connotations, has permeated our political discourse. But as a way to resolve our political problems, it is completely unserious. What are we searching for? How will we know when we find it?
The word “soul” is worth lingering over. Even its secular usage is profound: Music without soul is void of intensity, honesty, energy or feeling. It is cold and lifeless. Our soul is generally understood to represent the core of who we are as human beings, our inner consciousness, heart and mind. It is intensely personal, something we only fully reveal in the most trusted of places: with an intimate partner or close friend, to a therapist, in a diary or a prayer. In church, those who confess their sins — in thought, word and deed — are promised absolution; their souls can be saved.
But our politics is about the here and now — not the afterlife. Despite the depth implied by the phrase, “soul searching” is an evasive rhetorical maneuver that supplants the transformation of structural power relationships with the concept of individual moral transformation. That is not to say that there are not both moral and individual questions relevant to fighting racism. But the retreat to framing issues of racial oppression and police violence as something to be fixed by examining our inner lives is a permission slip that lets the existing power structures of our world remain intact and unchallenged.
When a politician suggests we look inward, they sidestep the conflict that is happening in the actual world. By prescribing “soul searching,” they are not required to exercise courage and act decisively — for example, by taking steps to defund the police, end the war on drugs or abolish prisons. The mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, for example, said the city had engaged in “a lot of soul searching” after police killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice in November 2014. Not enough, apparently: In 2016, the City of Cleveland sent the child’s family an itemized collection notice: $450 for ambulance life support services and $50 for mileage.
“Soul searching” is an evasive rhetorical maneuver that supplants the transformation of structural power relationships with the concept of individual moral transformation.
Unsaid — but understood — is that the advice to engage in “soul searching” is intended for white people: We must reflect on ourselves, our complicity, our privilege. Political solutions are forestalled while awaiting the outcome of white spiritual journeys. But what if the search takes too long, or comes up empty? A debilitating white guilt pervades the concept of “soul searching” that, even if well-intentioned, finds its ultimate expression in white spiritual atonement seeking Black forgiveness. Progress can be measured by symbolism — white police washing the feet of Black clergy — rather than concrete changes that dismantle current power structures. Redemption substitutes for reparations.
By centering the white soul as the terrain for political change, the shift to “soul searching” also negates the value of Black interiority, intelligence and agency. Numerous Black scholars and organizers have conceptualized, researched, and proposed ideas to eliminate the racist carceral state and transform society — and continue to advance that conversation. Black aspiration to universality is an ultimate transgression: Right-wing politicians and liberal pundits alike react by arguing that their ideas are not very well thought-out. They imply that Black people are incapable of reason, that their arguments lack evidence or that they are overreacting out of emotion — as if outrage were not a reasonable response.
“What started as a renewed push for police reform has now touched seemingly every aspect of American life,” The New York Times reports in a story about corporate brands, though “some wonder how lasting the soul searching will be.” The omnipresence of “soul searching” today makes sense: Its longest-tenured salesperson and truest adherent is Democratic nominee Joe Biden. In his book, Biden recalled a conversation with Mississippi’s segregationist U.S. Sen. John Stennis in 1989:
“‘The civil rights movement did more to free the white man than the black man,’” Stennis said, according to Biden. “He could see me looking at him, confused, and he pounded on his chest. ‘It freed my soul,’ he said. ‘It freed my soul.'”
It’s clear Biden sees parts of himself in such stories. As the sponsor of the 1994 Crime Bill, Biden played a key role in propelling the U.S. to the highest incarceration rates in the world, disproportionately harming Black people. Healing phraseologies like “soul searching” allow Biden to performatively repent and seek forgiveness as a product of his time, while doing little to reverse the damage done.
In February, Biden expressed his admiration for the “the ultimate act of Christian charity” performed by the Black parishioners in South Carolina who he said forgave the white supremacist who murdered them. If Black people are expected to forgive everything, however, then anything can still be done to them. The racist logic stretches back across our history; Black people have “no rights which the white man is bound to respect.” Asking questions or making demands of Biden as he seeks the presidency — rather than offering him forgiveness — might mean that “you ain’t Black.”
Healing phraseologies like “soul searching” allow Biden to performatively repent and seek forgiveness as a product of his time, while doing little to reverse the damage done.
Massive street demonstrations have made such questions and demands inescapable for Biden. Yet after being baited by a tweet, he refuted demonstrators and reiterated his plans to increase police funding by $300 million for community policing and training. Implicit bias training for police is in some ways a bureaucratic manifestation of “soul searching.” It certainly did not stop San Jose police from shooting the very person who trains them in the groin — narrowly missing Biden’s target of choice.
From the beginning, Biden has framed his campaign as “battle for the soul of a nation.” Yet if he manages to win an election that will be rife with racist voter suppression, he is already counting on “soul searching” in order to govern. He has repeatedly claimed that in a post-Trump era, the GOP will re-examine itself, have an epiphany, and a bipartisan equilibrium will be magically restored. Such wishful thinking ignores that the Republican Party is moving further to the right and will continue to do so as various successors to Trump emerge. It also ignores that the bipartisan collaboration was only achieved by a rightward shift by Democrats, advancing the very policies that Biden seeks forgiveness for today.
Finally, the repeated turn to “soul searching” in this political crisis provides a glimpse into many centrist Democrats’ approach to the question of power — and into why they keep losing. When facing the right wing and the billionaire class, they are unwilling to wield power; instead, they attempt persuasion which typically ends in compromise with their reactionary agenda (so who is winning whom over?). But when facing the left and an increasingly militant multiracial working class, these same politicians are perfectly willing to deploy power — be it in a primary election, or in the streets of the cities they govern.
If Black people are expected to forgive everything, however, then anything can still be done to them.
Political conversions are not impossible, of course. But too many Black people have already been killed along this winding and seemingly endless road to Damascus. In a polarized world, persuasion efforts should be focused on those who are genuinely undecided — but not by appeasing our opponents and abandoning the pole around which a spirited and soul-full popular movement is rallying to build a different world.
Those who embrace a worldview that denies Black humanity must be isolated, resoundingly defeated, stripped of power and rendered irrelevant. That should give them plenty of time to search their souls.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-22--Austerity Measures Have No Place in Next Coronavirus Relief Bill

As Congress considers another much-needed coronavirus relief bill , a group of lawmakers is attempting to inject proposals that could permanently tear our social safety net .
Sixty members of the U.S. House — almost evenly split between the two parties — sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanding that two austerity mechanisms be wedged into any new relief legislation .
They are the TRUST Act and Debt-to-Gross Domestic Product ( GDP ) ratio budget targets .
Both would likely result in deep cuts to social insurance programs under the guise of “ fiscal responsibility.
” The TRUST Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would create “ Rescue Committees ” to draft legislation addressing the solvency of federal trust funds , including Social Security and Medicare .
Once these committees approved a trust fund bill , the legislation would be fast-tracked in the House and Senate , bypassing regular order .
This would open up Social Security and Medicare to potentially devastating across-the-board cuts .
Significantly , the bill does not ask these committees to consider whether benefits meet Americans ’ financial and health security needs .
The second measure that the 60 House members are pursuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lower-income Americans .
It is based on a Senate bill ( S. 2765 ) that would trigger an automatic process if the debt-to-GDP ratio increased from levels approved in the previous year ’ s budget .
This process would require Congress to consider filibuster-proof legislation that would likely cut mandatory programs — including Medicare , Medicaid , the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( SNAP ) and insurance subsidies provided through the Affordable Care Act — to ensure that the budget meets debt-to-GDP ratio targets .
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enacted in 2017 , the debt-to-GDP mechanism would have resulted in $ 3 trillion in cuts over 10 years to programs that help provide nutrition and medical care to the elderly and poor .
These painful cuts could be executed by a simple majority vote in each house of Congress through the budget reconciliation process , exempt from filibuster in the Senate .
Republicans used that same process in their failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act — and in ramming through the Trump/GOP tax cuts in 2017 .
Make no mistake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party lines ) do not support cuts to Social Security , Medicare or Medicaid .
But these two proposals would allow members of Congress to hide behind special committees and automatic procedures , yoking them to an austere fiscal policy without regard for their constituents ’ needs or mitigating economic circumstances ( including future recessions ) .
There was a paucity of GOP concern for austerity during the passage of the Trump tax cuts in 2017 , which will swell the debt by $ 1.5 trillion over the next decade while showering benefits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Afterward , though , conservatives declared that “ entitlements ” would have to be cut to pay for the tax scheme .
The TRUST Act and debt-to-GDP measures reflect the same philosophy : The poorest and most vulnerable Americans must bear the burden of debt reduction .
Seniors ’ advocates , including my organization , the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare , sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter urging that the two austerity measures be excluded from a new coronavirus relief bill .
We are also reaching out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures .
Our message : Swelling debt and deficits are legitimate concerns , but lawmakers should not enact legislation that compels future Congresses to cut Americans ’ benefits while lavishing tax cuts on those who need it least .
Now is the time to provide additional relief to workers , small businesses , the unemployed and their families struggling through this pandemic — not to punish them with future benefit cuts .

Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
As Congress considers another much-needed coronavirus relief bill, a group of lawmakers is attempting to inject proposals that could permanently tear our social safety net. Sixty members of the U.S. House — almost evenly split between the two parties — sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanding that two austerity mechanisms be wedged into any new relief legislation. They are the TRUST Act and Debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio budget targets. Both would likely result in deep cuts to social insurance programs under the guise of “fiscal responsibility.”
The TRUST Act (introduced by Sen. Mitt Romney) would create “Rescue Committees” to draft legislation addressing the solvency of federal trust funds, including Social Security and Medicare. Once these committees approved a trust fund bill, the legislation would be fast-tracked in the House and Senate, bypassing regular order. This would open up Social Security and Medicare to potentially devastating across-the-board cuts. Significantly, the bill does not ask these committees to consider whether benefits meet Americans’ financial and health security needs.
The second measure that the 60 House members are pursuing poses an even bigger threat to older and lower-income Americans. It is based on a Senate bill (S. 2765) that would trigger an automatic process if the debt-to-GDP ratio increased from levels approved in the previous year’s budget. This process would require Congress to consider filibuster-proof legislation that would likely cut mandatory programs — including Medicare, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and insurance subsidies provided through the Affordable Care Act — to ensure that the budget meets debt-to-GDP ratio targets.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that if S. 2765 had been enacted in 2017, the debt-to-GDP mechanism would have resulted in $3 trillion in cuts over 10 years to programs that help provide nutrition and medical care to the elderly and poor. These painful cuts could be executed by a simple majority vote in each house of Congress through the budget reconciliation process, exempt from filibuster in the Senate. Republicans used that same process in their failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act — and in ramming through the Trump/GOP tax cuts in 2017.
Make no mistake, the majority of Americans (across party lines) do not support cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. But these two proposals would allow members of Congress to hide behind special committees and automatic procedures, yoking them to an austere fiscal policy without regard for their constituents’ needs or mitigating economic circumstances (including future recessions).
There was a paucity of GOP concern for austerity during the passage of the Trump tax cuts in 2017, which will swell the debt by $1.5 trillion over the next decade while showering benefits on the wealthy and large corporations. Afterward, though, conservatives declared that “entitlements” would have to be cut to pay for the tax scheme. The TRUST Act and debt-to-GDP measures reflect the same philosophy: The poorest and most vulnerable Americans must bear the burden of debt reduction.
Seniors’ advocates, including my organization, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter urging that the two austerity measures be excluded from a new coronavirus relief bill. We are also reaching out to members of Congress who endorsed the austerity measures. Our message: Swelling debt and deficits are legitimate concerns, but lawmakers should not enact legislation that compels future Congresses to cut Americans’ benefits while lavishing tax cuts on those who need it least.
Now is the time to provide additional relief to workers, small businesses, the unemployed and their families struggling through this pandemic — not to punish them with future benefit cuts.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-22--Big Tech Is Using the Pandemic to Push Dangerous New Forms of Surveillance

For more than two decades , the ankle shackle has remained the standard electronic monitoring ( EM ) device .
While cellphones , tablets , smartwatches and laptop computers evolved , the black plastic band remained — bulging out under socks and scraping the skin off criminalized legs .
Even at this stage of the Fourth Industrial Revolution , many of these devices require a landline phone to function .
They retain ancestral ties to the analog age .
COVID-19 and decarceration are bringing rapid change to this monitoring landscape .
As Sam Biddle of The Intercept has argued , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paved the way for broader acceptance of carceral technologies.
” In the world of electronic monitoring , this may ultimately spell the end of ankle-based shackles and the ushering in of a range of smaller , more powerful devices that grab far more than location data .
Furthermore , as local authorities look for ways to defund policing , new technologies may be one of the carceral “ solutions ” they employ to dilute the demands for transformation .
The catalyst for change has been the rampant presence of COVID-19 in U.S. jails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and isolate behind the walls prompted authorities to find a way to release people while promising “ public safety.
” In many jurisdictions , the electronic monitor , despite having no proven track record of success , has become the policy tool of choice .
In Pittsburgh , Chicago and Milwaukee , decarceration with EM grew so quickly that authorities ran out of monitoring devices .
Decision-makers in Pittsburgh reacted by placing people on home detention without an electronic tether .
Their Chicago counterparts took the draconian course , making people wait in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people had already died from COVID-19 ) until monitor inventories could be replenished .
Cities like Indianapolis and Cleveland also turned to EM to reduce their jail populations .
Yet , release on EM presents serious dangers under COVID-19 .
To even leave the house , most monitoring regimes require advance permission from law enforcement .
This poses a huge dilemma for a person who suddenly shows symptoms of COVID-19 .
Delaying a visit to the doctor while waiting for permission could have dire health consequences .
On the other hand , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in reincarceration .
Moreover , many EM programs charge daily fees that can reach as high as $ 35 a day .
In this time of massive unemployment , extra carceral fees add to the burdens in households already stretched to the limit .
In addition to expansion in the use of EM , COVID-19 has also prompted changes in the actual technology .
Smartphone-based apps are replacing the ankle shackle .
BI , the nation ’ s largest electronic monitoring company , is the market leader in this arena .
While BI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SmartLINK app is their front-runner into the future .
SmartLINK has already become the go-to device for Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) .
As of May 16 , 2020 , BI had over 20,000 people under ICE supervision on SmartLINK , nearly double the figure for June 2019 .
Although BI is guarded about the functionalities of SmartLINK , reports reveal that users may be required to enter the contact details of five friends or family members in the United States when they log on , setting those individuals up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressively marketing SmartLINK as an add-on to other supervision regimes .
For example , since the start of shelter-in-place , Illinois parole agents have been ordering clients not under EM to download SmartLINK to their personal phone .
The app allows agents to practice safe distancing through video check-ins rather than in-person meetings .
Users can log onto the app through facial and voice recognition .
SmartLINK also claims to offer services like court date reminders and lists of local resources .
Probation authorities in Akron , Ohio , adopted a similar course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on probation to download a rival app , Outreach Smartphone Monitoring .
Another major player in this cellphone-based sphere is Guardian , made by prison phone profiteer GTL .
Guardian is promoted as an “ ultra-modern ” smartphone app with the slogan , “ Don ’ t give them an ankle bracelet , give them a hand.
” Those under supervision can be prompted any time of day to read a series of numbers into the screen .
Once downloaded , Guardian has the capacity to pick up ambient sound , adding another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article in Gizmodo estimated that users had downloaded Guardian up to 50,000 times but noted that the app has such a history of technical failures like inaccurate location reporting that the authors categorized it as “ faulty to the point of being unusable.
” Unlike producing ankle monitors , developing an app does not require a factory and a workforce .
Hence , a number of start-ups are pouring into this space .
Acivilate ’ s Pokket and Promise embody the spirit of new market players fully in line with the notion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggle to distance themselves from their parent company ’ s historical ties to incarceration , Pokket and Promise don ’ t carry that baggage .
They emerged in the Obama years when providing “ alternatives ” to incarceration began to mainstream .
Acivilate ’ s Pokket cloud service focuses on “ safely sharing information ” by providing the parole officer with the “ full context of the client ’ s progress and challenges ” in order to “ break the cycle of recidivism.
” Acivilate has secured contracts with Maryland and Utah .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from seven investors , including Jay-Z ’ s Roc Nation , boasts that it is not a “ clunky tool ” like an ankle shackle but a “ smart dashboard ” — a “ caring ” app for “ clients who need attention each day ” for “ ongoing and timely support ” including court date reminders and lists of service providers .
Libre by Nexus took this carceral humanism to a new level .
For years , Libre has been lending immigrants bail money , then charging them $ 14 a day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt service fee on the loan .
When one of the company ’ s clients died of COVID-19 this year with the shackle still on their ankle , company President Mike Donovan pivoted away from EM .
Referring to his deceased client as “ family , ” he decided to totally reject the technology of electronic monitoring , arguing that “ placing a tracking device on someone simply isn ’ t effective in actually solving problems associated with immigrants in detention or pretrial criminal defendants in U.S. jails.
” Labeling ankle monitors as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Donovan asserted that “ ending the use of body affixed GPS technology is a goal all governments should be committed to achieving.
” He capped his critique by announcing that the 7,000 individuals on Libre by Nexus ankle monitors would move to cellphone apps which would not only track location , but offer access to telemedicine opportunities and appointment reminders .
Despite the claims of cellphone-based apps to provide services , many researchers and policy-makers are skeptical .
Mark Latonero , a researcher at the technology nonprofit research organization Data and Society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just about support , they can just as easily be used to “ track , surveil , discriminate and stigmatize.
” University of Illinois researcher Daniel Gonzalez told Truthout that while some smartphone-based technology may be useful for short-term public health purposes during the COVID-19 crisis , in the long run , it poses two distinct dangers .
First , developers can create new apps and mandate download of updates with such speed that keeping up with the changes or enacting regimes of regulation becomes virtually impossible .
Second , these cellphone-based electronic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a monitor from the individual to the household , even the community .
An enormous data matrix can emerge by combining audio/video connections and location tracking with databases that contain information on individuals living in the house or nearby .
While cellphone apps are a major shift in EM , more is on the boil : the blending of carceral electronic monitoring with coronavirus quarantine management .
This involves both the re-framing of tracking technology in the discourse of public health and a deeper infusion of carceral logic into the public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Israel-based SuperCom , an established EM provider in the U.S .
According to the head of SuperCom ’ s Americas division , Ordan Trabelsi , SuperCom is marketing this quarantine management software in a number of countries .
A second set of coronavirus-dedicated devices involves contact tracing via the use of Bluetooth .
These necessitate a critical mass of users downloading a Bluetooth-based app which alerts the user when they come in contact with another user who has tested positive .
A surprise partnership between competitors Google and Apple leads the field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Singapore , Taiwan , Australia and several other countries have followed suit .
In the U.S. , Utah along with North and South Dakota have been front-runners in this market , followed by Rhode Island with its Crush COVID RI application .
More advanced data grabbers combine field work techniques of social science with the exclusion zones programmed into certain GPS devices .
Exclusion zones categorize specific parts of a city as forbidden areas .
An ankle monitor sounds an alarm if a user crosses the techno-border .
Such zones most frequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or alleged gang members .
The contact tracing platforms implemented in China and India demonstrate more advanced modes of exclusion zones , more widely known as geofencing .
In these geofencing operations , authorities use technology to create boundaries and borders within entire urban spaces .
The Chinese government , in partnership with mega corporations Alipay and Alibaba , have compelled virtually their entire online population to download an app that yields an Alipay health code — a sort of risk assessment that represents the user ’ s health status in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ color QR code housed in a person ’ s phone that determines an individual ’ s freedom of movement .
Public banners in the city of Hangzhou highlight the rules : “ Green code , travel freely .
Red or yellow , report immediately.
” Those with red or yellow may be quarantined at home or taken to a medical isolation unit for up to 14 days .
The New York Times report also alleges that such personal data are added to the individual ’ s police record .
While China ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government-established Aarogya Setu ( “ bridge to health ” ) app to color code entire neighborhoods .
Through grabbing health data from the more than 100 million people who have downloaded the app , the government is able to geofence parts of cities .
People who live in a green zone have pretty much unrestricted movement , while those residing in a red zone will be spending the bulk of their days sheltering in place .
Other countries and even some states in the U.S. are using technology to construct simpler forms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The best example is the notion of COVID passes or immunity passports , documents which provide proof that the bearer has tested negative for COVID-19 .
The passport idea is currently under consideration in Italy , the U.K. , Germany and Chile .
A variation on this theme is linking entrance through a national border with technologies of movement control .
South Korea requires international visitors to download an app and remain in quarantine for 14 days upon arrival .
Hawaii has examined the possibility of placing all visitors on a GPS monitor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aloha State .
This array of geofences demonstrates how ultimately the exclusion zones of EM could morph into a far more systematic segregation , based not only on a person ’ s criminal background but a range of data that might go into their profile , including the health data collected for COVID-19 detection .
Just as Indian urban authorities can color code neighborhoods and grant differentiated freedoms to residents of different parts of the city based on health criteria , a U.S. version , drawing data gathered from sources tainted by structural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( I have referred to this process previously as e-gentrification . )
How Should We Respond ?
In a recent report on COVID-19 data gathering , the ACLU urged people to “ skeptically scrutinize ” new products and proposals “ especially when they have implications for our privacy or other civil liberties.
” Human Rights Watch expressed similar concerns directed at the use of mobile location data in the COVID-19 response , noting that such data “ usually contains sensitive and revealing insights about people ’ s identity , location , behavior , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these critiques could be the creation of legislation akin to the European Union ’ s , a regulation that places serious restrictions on corporate behavior and guarantees some individual rights to privacy .
However , any oversight of data gathering must assess the racial impact of new technologies .
Think tanks like Ibram X. Kendi ’ s Antiracist Research Center along with independent journalists like Zoë Carpenter have systematically gathered data on racial inequalities and disparities in cases and deaths , and have incontrovertibly connected these to structural racism .
Kendi argues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide policymakers with the ability to make evidence-based policy decisions to curtail health disparities during the pandemic.
” Such critiques are crucial in determining which aspects of data gathering pertain to public health and which are merely the surveillance state and Big Data widening their nets .
Yet gathering data and mounting critique is not enough .
We need a bigger picture .
While the onset of the pandemic and the resulting technological changes seem sudden , this is a moment for which people like former Google CEO Eric Schmidt , Bill Gates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a talk to the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence in 2019 , Schmidt outlined his vision of the techno-future .
For Schmidt , the lethal coronavirus has come along just in time to become the great enabler .
Schmidt envisages a world in which big tech increasingly takes over the functions of government .
In this model , more and more profits go to a small circle of tech firms , while disposable and semi-disposable workers of color deliver Amazon packages , health care and other services to those who can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , these workers will be tracked by apps akin to Pokket for location , for productivity , and to check if they show any biochemical imbalances that might precede violent episodes , waves of lethargy or moments of rebellion .
Daniel Gonzalez notes that while mainstream critics stress the use of data to market consumer goods , for Black , Latinx , Indigenous folks and other marginalized sectors , data are weaponized to exclude , ban and block access to employment , health care , education , mobility and other public benefits .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and beyond is about much more than contesting the use of electronic monitors for pretrial release or even contact tracing .
As author Simone Browne has reminded us , the state has a long history of surveilling Black bodies and those of other marginalized groups .
She calls for people to claim ownership of their data by organizing and developing a critical biometric consciousness , an awareness of how companies and the racial capitalist state appropriate the data of criminalized bodies for profit and political gain .
In particular , she argues developing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more crucial now .
A primary obstacle to the emergence of that consciousness is the power of the Apples and the Samsungs to produce enchanting technologies which we often can ’ t imagine living without , even when we know the dangers they pose .
Can we develop such a consciousness without soberly examining and reshaping how these “ conveniences ” literally become shackles ?
As Big Data continues to grow , as electronic monitors morph from bands on legs to mini think tanks inside our phones or smart watches and as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prisons grows , another issue inevitably emerges : the question of ownership .
As long as we reside in a world where a handful of big tech companies control the production of devices , social media platforms and the clouds where our data live , they will use that data to enforce racialized systems of control and oppression , the very systems activists are calling out for defunding and abolishing .
These companies and elected politicians may sugarcoat surveillance as either fun , necessary or in the interest of public health .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — they extend the power of those who have already made billions during the COVID crisis .
Shoshana Zuboff , author of Surveillance Capitalism , contends that while “ those in power have long understood that times of crisis are opportunities for states of exception that allow all manner of ills to be rushed into normalization before anybody has even pulled up their socks , there is nothing here that is inevitable .
I don ’ t agree that we are doomed to a future of biosurveillance and dystopia … we have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the way out of this.
” This is why we need a movement that fights for abolition but also imagines a world where media and data are under grassroots control .
Such a notion seems beyond the realm of remote possibility right now , but so did defunding police just a month ago .
In a crisis , the dream that seemed impossible for decades , even centuries , can become possible overnight .

Part of the Series Despair and Disparity: The Uneven Burdens of COVID-19
For more than two decades, the ankle shackle has remained the standard electronic monitoring (EM) device. While cellphones, tablets, smartwatches and laptop computers evolved, the black plastic band remained — bulging out under socks and scraping the skin off criminalized legs. Even at this stage of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, many of these devices require a landline phone to function. They retain ancestral ties to the analog age.
COVID-19 and decarceration are bringing rapid change to this monitoring landscape. As Sam Biddle of The Intercept has argued, “a climate of perpetual bio-anxiety has paved the way for broader acceptance of carceral technologies.” In the world of electronic monitoring, this may ultimately spell the end of ankle-based shackles and the ushering in of a range of smaller, more powerful devices that grab far more than location data. Furthermore, as local authorities look for ways to defund policing, new technologies may be one of the carceral “solutions” they employ to dilute the demands for transformation.
The catalyst for change has been the rampant presence of COVID-19 in U.S. jails and prisons. Pressures to social distance and isolate behind the walls prompted authorities to find a way to release people while promising “public safety.” In many jurisdictions, the electronic monitor, despite having no proven track record of success, has become the policy tool of choice. In Pittsburgh, Chicago and Milwaukee, decarceration with EM grew so quickly that authorities ran out of monitoring devices. Decision-makers in Pittsburgh reacted by placing people on home detention without an electronic tether. Their Chicago counterparts took the draconian course, making people wait in Cook County Jail (where seven incarcerated people had already died from COVID-19) until monitor inventories could be replenished. Cities like Indianapolis and Cleveland also turned to EM to reduce their jail populations.
Yet, release on EM presents serious dangers under COVID-19. To even leave the house, most monitoring regimes require advance permission from law enforcement. This poses a huge dilemma for a person who suddenly shows symptoms of COVID-19. Delaying a visit to the doctor while waiting for permission could have dire health consequences. On the other hand, an unauthorized visit to the doctor could result in reincarceration. Moreover, many EM programs charge daily fees that can reach as high as $35 a day. In this time of massive unemployment, extra carceral fees add to the burdens in households already stretched to the limit.
From Shackle to Cellphone
In addition to expansion in the use of EM, COVID-19 has also prompted changes in the actual technology. Smartphone-based apps are replacing the ankle shackle. BI, the nation’s largest electronic monitoring company, is the market leader in this arena. While BI still produces traditional ankle monitors, the SmartLINK app is their front-runner into the future. SmartLINK has already become the go-to device for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As of May 16, 2020, BI had over 20,000 people under ICE supervision on SmartLINK, nearly double the figure for June 2019. Although BI is guarded about the functionalities of SmartLINK, reports reveal that users may be required to enter the contact details of five friends or family members in the United States when they log on, setting those individuals up for ICE surveillance.
BI has also been aggressively marketing SmartLINK as an add-on to other supervision regimes. For example, since the start of shelter-in-place, Illinois parole agents have been ordering clients not under EM to download SmartLINK to their personal phone. The app allows agents to practice safe distancing through video check-ins rather than in-person meetings. Users can log onto the app through facial and voice recognition. SmartLINK also claims to offer services like court date reminders and lists of local resources. Probation authorities in Akron, Ohio, adopted a similar course, ordering 1,000 of their 4,000 people on probation to download a rival app, Outreach Smartphone Monitoring.
Cellphone-based electronic monitors move the scope of the surveillance of a monitor from the individual to the household, even the community.
Another major player in this cellphone-based sphere is Guardian, made by prison phone profiteer GTL. Guardian is promoted as an “ultra-modern” smartphone app with the slogan, “Don’t give them an ankle bracelet, give them a hand.” Those under supervision can be prompted any time of day to read a series of numbers into the screen. Once downloaded, Guardian has the capacity to pick up ambient sound, adding another dimension of techno-invasion of privacy. An article in Gizmodo estimated that users had downloaded Guardian up to 50,000 times but noted that the app has such a history of technical failures like inaccurate location reporting that the authors categorized it as “faulty to the point of being unusable.”
Unlike producing ankle monitors, developing an app does not require a factory and a workforce. Hence, a number of start-ups are pouring into this space. Acivilate’s Pokket and Promise embody the spirit of new market players fully in line with the notion of carceral humanism. While SmartLINK and Guardian struggle to distance themselves from their parent company’s historical ties to incarceration, Pokket and Promise don’t carry that baggage. They emerged in the Obama years when providing “alternatives” to incarceration began to mainstream. Acivilate’s Pokket cloud service focuses on “safely sharing information” by providing the parole officer with the “full context of the client’s progress and challenges” in order to “break the cycle of recidivism.” Acivilate has secured contracts with Maryland and Utah. Promise, launched via a capital injection from seven investors, including Jay-Z’s Roc Nation, boasts that it is not a “clunky tool” like an ankle shackle but a “smart dashboard” — a “caring” app for “clients who need attention each day” for “ongoing and timely support” including court date reminders and lists of service providers.
Libre by Nexus took this carceral humanism to a new level. For years, Libre has been lending immigrants bail money, then charging them $14 a day to be on EM, plus a debt service fee on the loan. When one of the company’s clients died of COVID-19 this year with the shackle still on their ankle, company President Mike Donovan pivoted away from EM. Referring to his deceased client as “family,” he decided to totally reject the technology of electronic monitoring, arguing that “placing a tracking device on someone simply isn’t effective in actually solving problems associated with immigrants in detention or pretrial criminal defendants in U.S. jails.” Labeling ankle monitors as “unreliable” and “unhelpful,” Donovan asserted that “ending the use of body affixed GPS technology is a goal all governments should be committed to achieving.” He capped his critique by announcing that the 7,000 individuals on Libre by Nexus ankle monitors would move to cellphone apps which would not only track location, but offer access to telemedicine opportunities and appointment reminders.
The lethal coronavirus has come along just in time to become the great enabler [of] a world in which big tech increasingly takes over the functions of government.
Despite the claims of cellphone-based apps to provide services, many researchers and policy-makers are skeptical. Mark Latonero, a researcher at the technology nonprofit research organization Data and Society, notes that these devices are not just about support, they can just as easily be used to “track, surveil, discriminate and stigmatize.” University of Illinois researcher Daniel Gonzalez told Truthout that while some smartphone-based technology may be useful for short-term public health purposes during the COVID-19 crisis, in the long run, it poses two distinct dangers. First, developers can create new apps and mandate download of updates with such speed that keeping up with the changes or enacting regimes of regulation becomes virtually impossible. Second, these cellphone-based electronic monitors move the scope of the surveillance of a monitor from the individual to the household, even the community. An enormous data matrix can emerge by combining audio/video connections and location tracking with databases that contain information on individuals living in the house or nearby.
Electronic Monitors and Quarantine Management
While cellphone apps are a major shift in EM, more is on the boil: the blending of carceral electronic monitoring with coronavirus quarantine management. This involves both the re-framing of tracking technology in the discourse of public health and a deeper infusion of carceral logic into the public health sphere. The prototype of this move is Israel-based SuperCom, an established EM provider in the U.S. According to the head of SuperCom’s Americas division, Ordan Trabelsi,
Many customers and potential customers around the world asked us if we could use that same platform to do COVID-19 home quarantine tracking and compliance. And we thought, of course we can because it’s exactly what we do in the offender tracking space. But now we’ll just be tracking people that are not essentially offenders but unluckily were exposed to the virus.
SuperCom is marketing this quarantine management software in a number of countries.
A second set of coronavirus-dedicated devices involves contact tracing via the use of Bluetooth. These necessitate a critical mass of users downloading a Bluetooth-based app which alerts the user when they come in contact with another user who has tested positive. A surprise partnership between competitors Google and Apple leads the field in these applications, but national governments in Singapore, Taiwan, Australia and several other countries have followed suit. In the U.S., Utah along with North and South Dakota have been front-runners in this market, followed by Rhode Island with its Crush COVID RI application.
More advanced data grabbers combine field work techniques of social science with the exclusion zones programmed into certain GPS devices. Exclusion zones categorize specific parts of a city as forbidden areas. An ankle monitor sounds an alarm if a user crosses the techno-border. Such zones most frequently apply to individuals with sex offense convictions or alleged gang members.
For Black, Latinx, Indigenous folks and other marginalized sectors, data are weaponized to exclude, ban and block access.
The contact tracing platforms implemented in China and India demonstrate more advanced modes of exclusion zones, more widely known as geofencing. In these geofencing operations, authorities use technology to create boundaries and borders within entire urban spaces. The Chinese government, in partnership with mega corporations Alipay and Alibaba, have compelled virtually their entire online population to download an app that yields an Alipay health code — a sort of risk assessment that represents the user’s health status in terms of coronavirus. The assessment converts to a color QR code housed in a person’s phone that determines an individual’s freedom of movement. Public banners in the city of Hangzhou highlight the rules: “Green code, travel freely. Red or yellow, report immediately.” Those with red or yellow may be quarantined at home or taken to a medical isolation unit for up to 14 days. The New York Times report also alleges that such personal data are added to the individual’s police record.
While China’s assessments are individualized, India deploys the government-established Aarogya Setu (“bridge to health”) app to color code entire neighborhoods. Through grabbing health data from the more than 100 million people who have downloaded the app, the government is able to geofence parts of cities. People who live in a green zone have pretty much unrestricted movement, while those residing in a red zone will be spending the bulk of their days sheltering in place.
Other countries and even some states in the U.S. are using technology to construct simpler forms of geofences, much like traditional borders. The best example is the notion of COVID passes or immunity passports, documents which provide proof that the bearer has tested negative for COVID-19. The passport idea is currently under consideration in Italy, the U.K., Germany and Chile.
A variation on this theme is linking entrance through a national border with technologies of movement control. South Korea requires international visitors to download an app and remain in quarantine for 14 days upon arrival. Hawaii has examined the possibility of placing all visitors on a GPS monitor for their first 14 days in the Aloha State.
This array of geofences demonstrates how ultimately the exclusion zones of EM could morph into a far more systematic segregation, based not only on a person’s criminal background but a range of data that might go into their profile, including the health data collected for COVID-19 detection. Just as Indian urban authorities can color code neighborhoods and grant differentiated freedoms to residents of different parts of the city based on health criteria, a U.S. version, drawing data gathered from sources tainted by structural racism is not difficult to imagine. (I have referred to this process previously as e-gentrification.)
How Should We Respond?
In a recent report on COVID-19 data gathering, the ACLU urged people to “skeptically scrutinize” new products and proposals “especially when they have implications for our privacy or other civil liberties.” Human Rights Watch expressed similar concerns directed at the use of mobile location data in the COVID-19 response, noting that such data “usually contains sensitive and revealing insights about people’s identity, location, behavior, associations and activities.” One logical extrapolation of these critiques could be the creation of legislation akin to the European Union’s, a regulation that places serious restrictions on corporate behavior and guarantees some individual rights to privacy.
However, any oversight of data gathering must assess the racial impact of new technologies. Think tanks like Ibram X. Kendi’s Antiracist Research Center along with independent journalists like Zoë Carpenter have systematically gathered data on racial inequalities and disparities in cases and deaths, and have incontrovertibly connected these to structural racism. Kendi argues that these data allow us “to provide policymakers with the ability to make evidence-based policy decisions to curtail health disparities during the pandemic.” Such critiques are crucial in determining which aspects of data gathering pertain to public health and which are merely the surveillance state and Big Data widening their nets.
Yet gathering data and mounting critique is not enough. We need a bigger picture. While the onset of the pandemic and the resulting technological changes seem sudden, this is a moment for which people like former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos have been preparing. In a talk to the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence in 2019, Schmidt outlined his vision of the techno-future. For Schmidt, the lethal coronavirus has come along just in time to become the great enabler. Schmidt envisages a world in which big tech increasingly takes over the functions of government. In this model, more and more profits go to a small circle of tech firms, while disposable and semi-disposable workers of color deliver Amazon packages, health care and other services to those who can afford them. To ensure efficient delivery, these workers will be tracked by apps akin to Pokket for location, for productivity, and to check if they show any biochemical imbalances that might precede violent episodes, waves of lethargy or moments of rebellion.
Daniel Gonzalez notes that while mainstream critics stress the use of data to market consumer goods, for Black, Latinx, Indigenous folks and other marginalized sectors, data are weaponized to exclude, ban and block access to employment, health care, education, mobility and other public benefits.
This means challenging e-carceration during the pandemic and beyond is about much more than contesting the use of electronic monitors for pretrial release or even contact tracing. As author Simone Browne has reminded us, the state has a long history of surveilling Black bodies and those of other marginalized groups. She calls for people to claim ownership of their data by organizing and developing a critical biometric consciousness, an awareness of how companies and the racial capitalist state appropriate the data of criminalized bodies for profit and political gain. In particular, she argues developing that consciousness and building on it is even more crucial now.
A primary obstacle to the emergence of that consciousness is the power of the Apples and the Samsungs to produce enchanting technologies which we often can’t imagine living without, even when we know the dangers they pose. Can we develop such a consciousness without soberly examining and reshaping how these “conveniences” literally become shackles?
As Big Data continues to grow, as electronic monitors morph from bands on legs to mini think tanks inside our phones or smart watches and as grassroots pressures to defund policing and abolishing prisons grows, another issue inevitably emerges: the question of ownership. As long as we reside in a world where a handful of big tech companies control the production of devices, social media platforms and the clouds where our data live, they will use that data to enforce racialized systems of control and oppression, the very systems activists are calling out for defunding and abolishing. These companies and elected politicians may sugarcoat surveillance as either fun, necessary or in the interest of public health. But digital policing and e-carceration are not solutions — they extend the power of those who have already made billions during the COVID crisis.
Shoshana Zuboff, author of Surveillance Capitalism, contends that while “those in power have long understood that times of crisis are opportunities for states of exception that allow all manner of ills to be rushed into normalization before anybody has even pulled up their socks, there is nothing here that is inevitable. I don’t agree that we are doomed to a future of biosurveillance and dystopia … we have to move forward, doubling down on democracy as the way out of this.”
This is why we need a movement that fights for abolition but also imagines a world where media and data are under grassroots control. Such a notion seems beyond the realm of remote possibility right now, but so did defunding police just a month ago. In a crisis, the dream that seemed impossible for decades, even centuries, can become possible overnight.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-06-23--Trump Threatens Prison for Those Trying to Remove Slaveholder Monuments

President Donald Trump threatened this week to imprison any protesters who dared to deface or tear down the statue of former President Andrew Jackson , which sits just outside the White House in nearby Lafayette Park .
Demonstrators had made attempts to remove the statue of Jackson , who was a slaveholder and led a genocidal campaign against Indigenous peoples in the South , from its pedestal on Monday evening .
Efforts to do so failed , however , and according to the National Parks Service , protesters were removed from the area after being pepper sprayed .
“ Numerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vandalism , in Lafayette Park , of the magnificent Statue of Andrew Jackson , ” Trump noted in a tweet on Monday night .
The president alluded to a punishment of “ 10 years in prison under the Veteran ’ s Memorial Preservation Act ” in his post as well .
That law , passed in 2003 , makes it a crime to attempt to remove or destroy any monument , plaque , or statue that commemorates the “ service of any person or persons in the armed forces.
” Ten years in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the law ’ s text .
Trump on Tuesday reiterated his plans to prosecute individuals defacing statues to the fullest extent that the law allows .
“ I have authorized the Federal Government to arrest anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument , statue or other such Federal property in the U.S. with up to 10 years in prison , per the Veteran ’ s Memorial Preservation Act , or such other laws that may be pertinent , ” he said in a series of tweets .
“ This action is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be used retroactively for destruction or vandalism already caused .
There will be no exceptions !
” It is perhaps interesting to note that Trump ’ s threat to use the law against protesters came about after the defacement and attempts to tear down Jackson ’ s memorial occured .
It ’ s a well-known fact that Trump views Jackson as his favorite historical presidential figure , as he ’ s frequently noted similarities between himself and the former president known as “ Old Hickory.
” Indeed , Trump once gave a speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plantation estate , saying that the former president “ confronted and defied an arrogant elite.
” “ Does that sound familiar to you ?
” Trump said at the time , alluding to himself .
But Trump ’ s self-declared reverence for Jackson likely has ulterior motives .
Jackson was a slaveholder who had more than 150 enslaved Black Americans on his estate at the time of his death .
He was also adamantly anti-Native American , working to remove thousands of Indigineous peoples east of the Mississippi River by signing the Indian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in what later became known as “ The Trail of Tears.
” As an army general , too , prior to becoming president , Jackson led a number of military campaigns against Creeks and Seminoles in the south , taking a more direct role in their removal from their lands .
Trump ’ s idolizing of Jackson , even with this history being well-known , may not be accidental , as historian Matthew Clavin has pointed out .
It may , in fact , be a signal to Trump ’ s base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any 21st-century politician to so explicitly align themselves intellectually with Andrew Jackson , it is , I think , another example of Trump using not-so-veiled attempts to stir racial division in the 21st century , ” Clavin said in an interview with Salon .
“ It ’ s kind of hard to deny .
”

Trump’s reverence for Jackson may be a nod of support toward his white supremacist base, one historian warns.
President Donald Trump threatened this week to imprison any protesters who dared to deface or tear down the statue of former President Andrew Jackson, which sits just outside the White House in nearby Lafayette Park.
Demonstrators had made attempts to remove the statue of Jackson, who was a slaveholder and led a genocidal campaign against Indigenous peoples in the South, from its pedestal on Monday evening. Efforts to do so failed, however, and according to the National Parks Service, protesters were removed from the area after being pepper sprayed.
“Numerous people arrested in D.C. for the disgraceful vandalism, in Lafayette Park, of the magnificent Statue of Andrew Jackson,” Trump noted in a tweet on Monday night. The president alluded to a punishment of “10 years in prison under the Veteran’s Memorial Preservation Act” in his post as well.
That law, passed in 2003, makes it a crime to attempt to remove or destroy any monument, plaque, or statue that commemorates the “service of any person or persons in the armed forces.” Ten years in prison is the maximum sentencing allowed, according to the law’s text.
Trump on Tuesday reiterated his plans to prosecute individuals defacing statues to the fullest extent that the law allows.
“I have authorized the Federal Government to arrest anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument, statue or other such Federal property in the U.S. with up to 10 years in prison, per the Veteran’s Memorial Preservation Act, or such other laws that may be pertinent,” he said in a series of tweets. “This action is taken effective immediately, but may also be used retroactively for destruction or vandalism already caused. There will be no exceptions!”
It is perhaps interesting to note that Trump’s threat to use the law against protesters came about after the defacement and attempts to tear down Jackson’s memorial occured. It’s a well-known fact that Trump views Jackson as his favorite historical presidential figure, as he’s frequently noted similarities between himself and the former president known as “Old Hickory.” Indeed, Trump once gave a speech in 2017 at Jackson’s Hermitage plantation estate, saying that the former president “confronted and defied an arrogant elite.”
“Does that sound familiar to you?” Trump said at the time, alluding to himself.
But Trump’s self-declared reverence for Jackson likely has ulterior motives.
Jackson was a slaveholder who had more than 150 enslaved Black Americans on his estate at the time of his death. He was also adamantly anti-Native American, working to remove thousands of Indigineous peoples east of the Mississippi River by signing the Indian Removal Act, and playing a pivotal role in what later became known as “The Trail of Tears.”
As an army general, too, prior to becoming president, Jackson led a number of military campaigns against Creeks and Seminoles in the south, taking a more direct role in their removal from their lands.
Trump’s idolizing of Jackson, even with this history being well-known, may not be accidental, as historian Matthew Clavin has pointed out. It may, in fact, be a signal to Trump’s base of white supremacist supporters.
“For any 21st-century politician to so explicitly align themselves intellectually with Andrew Jackson, it is, I think, another example of Trump using not-so-veiled attempts to stir racial division in the 21st century,” Clavin said in an interview with Salon. “It’s kind of hard to deny.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.