truthout--2020-11-29--Precarious Working Conditions of Nursing Home Employees Foster Spread of COVID

The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated America ’ s nursing homes , but the reasons aren ’ t as simple as people might think .
To understand how nursing homes became the source of over one-third of U.S. COVID-19 deaths , you have to look beyond just the vulnerability of the residents and examine how nursing homes pay and manage their employees .
The average nursing aide earns just $ 14.25 an hour , less than $ 30,000 a year .
Many are women who work at multiple nursing homes to make ends meet .
Partly as a result of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connections to 15 other facilities — each an opportunity for the coronavirus to spread .
That risk is magnified by a reluctance among many nursing aides to take sick days when they are ill , even though federal law currently requires employers to provide paid sick leave for coronavirus-related reasons .
An alarming number of infections in long-term care facilities — nearly half — have been traced to staff who work in multiple health care facilities and who engage in “ presenteeism , ” meaning they continue to work even after being exposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As law professors who specialize in employment , immigration and health law , we have spoken with many nursing home aides to try to understand why this is happening and find ways to avoid it .
The story of one of them represents what many others have experienced .
We ’ ll call her Salma rather than use her real name to protect her from retaliation .
Like about a third of nursing aides , Salma is an immigrant .
She often spends 12 hours a day cooking , cleaning and caring for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as bathing , dressing , feeding and providing medication .
When Salma fell ill earlier this year , she requested paid sick leave , but her employer refused to provide it .
She tried to assert her rights under her state ’ s paid sick time law , but she said her employer responded by threatening to report her to immigration authorities .
When she explained that she had legal status , Salma said , her employer changed tactics and threatened to report her to the Internal Revenue Service because no payroll taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as she was paid off the books .
Salma was afraid she would lose her job , so she continued to go to work .
Our research , drawing on interviews with nursing aides like Salma and emerging studies of other essential workers during COVID-19 , shows how employee policies , particularly for low-paid aides , have sharply raised the risks , and how access to paid sick leave could lower them .
Historical records from previous outbreaks in the U.S. , including the 1918 influenza pandemic and the 2009 H1N1 epidemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more likely to contract and die of infectious diseases .
While preexisting conditions account for the severity of illness , they do not explain why these segments of the population are more likely to become sick in the first place .
Data show this is due to large percentages of immigrants and people of color performing essential labor , such as nursing aide roles , that requires close contact with many other people .
Our research asks why nursing aides are more likely to spread the virus .
To answer this question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect them , including paid sick time .
San Francisco became the first U.S. jurisdiction to require paid sick leave in 2006 .
Other cities , counties and states followed , and now there are approximately 40 of these laws nationwide .
Paid sick leave laws require employers to pay workers who take time off when they or any family members are sick , injured or seeking medical treatment .
Some laws explicitly allow for paid sick leave during a public health emergency , such as COVID-19 .
Most are based on an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earn paid sick time hours ; typically one hour of paid sick leave is earned for every 30 hours worked .
Local paid sick time laws apply to private-sector employees and , in some cases , state and local government employees .
In March 2020 , Congress passed the nation ’ s first universal paid sick leave law .
This emergency law , which expires at the end of the year , provides most employees in the country with up to 80 hours of paid leave if the worker has been exposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caring for someone infected with COVID-19 .
However , a large survey earlier this year showed that many essential , low-wage employees still could not access paid sick leave after the law went into effect .
That survey and our research show that these employees tend to either believe they have no right to paid leave or that their employer will retaliate if they try to use it .
Many fear they could lose their jobs .
Even a short period of lost income can be financially devastating for these individuals .
Among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that even while employed they didn ’ t earn enough to adequately provide food for their families .
How to Make Sick Leave Work as Intended So , can paid sick leave laws be made more accessible for essential workers like Salma ?
Our research highlights both the inadequacies of existing laws and policies and what might be done to strengthen them .
First , nearly all paid sick leave law violations require federal or state labor agency intervention or the employee loses out .
These agencies , however , often lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hold employers accountable if they retaliate against workers .
Second , most of these agencies are highly centralized and do not conduct effective outreach to immigrant communities , so both employers and employees are often unaware of paid sick leave laws .
A handful of states and local governments offer pioneering examples .
Massachusetts , for example , posted guidance online in multiple languages about sick leave and other workers ’ issues .
Washington , D.C. , conducted tele-town halls with strategies to help workers and employers understand their respective paid sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
An approach that both empowers employees while informing employers about the benefits of paying employees to stay at home when sick can help save lives .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Paid sick leave and a living wage are often out of reach for the average nursing home aide.
The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated America’s nursing homes, but the reasons aren’t as simple as people might think.
To understand how nursing homes became the source of over one-third of U.S. COVID-19 deaths, you have to look beyond just the vulnerability of the residents and examine how nursing homes pay and manage their employees.
The average nursing aide earns just $14.25 an hour, less than $30,000 a year. Many are women who work at multiple nursing homes to make ends meet. Partly as a result of that, the typical nursing home has staff connections to 15 other facilities — each an opportunity for the coronavirus to spread. That risk is magnified by a reluctance among many nursing aides to take sick days when they are ill, even though federal law currently requires employers to provide paid sick leave for coronavirus-related reasons.
An alarming number of infections in long-term care facilities — nearly half — have been traced to staff who work in multiple health care facilities and who engage in “presenteeism,” meaning they continue to work even after being exposed to or falling ill from COVID-19.
As law professors who specialize in employment, immigration and health law, we have spoken with many nursing home aides to try to understand why this is happening and find ways to avoid it. The story of one of them represents what many others have experienced. We’ll call her Salma rather than use her real name to protect her from retaliation.
Like about a third of nursing aides, Salma is an immigrant. She often spends 12 hours a day cooking, cleaning and caring for residents’ most intimate needs, such as bathing, dressing, feeding and providing medication.
When Salma fell ill earlier this year, she requested paid sick leave, but her employer refused to provide it. She tried to assert her rights under her state’s paid sick time law, but she said her employer responded by threatening to report her to immigration authorities. When she explained that she had legal status, Salma said, her employer changed tactics and threatened to report her to the Internal Revenue Service because no payroll taxes had been deducted from her wages, as she was paid off the books. Salma was afraid she would lose her job, so she continued to go to work.
Our research, drawing on interviews with nursing aides like Salma and emerging studies of other essential workers during COVID-19, shows how employee policies, particularly for low-paid aides, have sharply raised the risks, and how access to paid sick leave could lower them.
A Long-Running Problem
Historical records from previous outbreaks in the U.S., including the 1918 influenza pandemic and the 2009 H1N1 epidemic, show that immigrants and people of color are more likely to contract and die of infectious diseases. While preexisting conditions account for the severity of illness, they do not explain why these segments of the population are more likely to become sick in the first place.
Data show this is due to large percentages of immigrants and people of color performing essential labor, such as nursing aide roles, that requires close contact with many other people.
Our research asks why nursing aides are more likely to spread the virus. To answer this question, we examined laws and policies that affect them, including paid sick time.
San Francisco became the first U.S. jurisdiction to require paid sick leave in 2006. Other cities, counties and states followed, and now there are approximately 40 of these laws nationwide.
Paid sick leave laws require employers to pay workers who take time off when they or any family members are sick, injured or seeking medical treatment. Some laws explicitly allow for paid sick leave during a public health emergency, such as COVID-19. Most are based on an accrual model. This means employees must earn paid sick time hours; typically one hour of paid sick leave is earned for every 30 hours worked. Local paid sick time laws apply to private-sector employees and, in some cases, state and local government employees.
In March 2020, Congress passed the nation’s first universal paid sick leave law. This emergency law, which expires at the end of the year, provides most employees in the country with up to 80 hours of paid leave if the worker has been exposed to, is ill from, or is caring for someone infected with COVID-19.
However, a large survey earlier this year showed that many essential, low-wage employees still could not access paid sick leave after the law went into effect. That survey and our research show that these employees tend to either believe they have no right to paid leave or that their employer will retaliate if they try to use it. Many fear they could lose their jobs.
Even a short period of lost income can be financially devastating for these individuals. Among Latina essential workers, 43% surveyed said that even while employed they didn’t earn enough to adequately provide food for their families.
How to Make Sick Leave Work as Intended
So, can paid sick leave laws be made more accessible for essential workers like Salma?
Our research highlights both the inadequacies of existing laws and policies and what might be done to strengthen them.
First, nearly all paid sick leave law violations require federal or state labor agency intervention or the employee loses out. These agencies, however, often lack adequate resources to investigate potential employer violations and hold employers accountable if they retaliate against workers.
Second, most of these agencies are highly centralized and do not conduct effective outreach to immigrant communities, so both employers and employees are often unaware of paid sick leave laws. A handful of states and local governments offer pioneering examples. Massachusetts, for example, posted guidance online in multiple languages about sick leave and other workers’ issues. Washington, D.C., conducted tele-town halls with strategies to help workers and employers understand their respective paid sick time rights and obligations during the pandemic.
An approach that both empowers employees while informing employers about the benefits of paying employees to stay at home when sick can help save lives.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
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--2020-11-29--Biden Has New Progressive Education Rhetoric — But Policy Will Be the Test

As the education policy goals of the incoming Biden administration begin to crystallize , some overtures to public school advocates have appeared in Joe Biden ’ s platform and transition team roster .
However , given his history of deference to private interests and the looming possibility of a Republican-controlled Senate , it ’ s far from apparent to what extent he may be willing or able to realize meaningful educational policy interventions .
The prevailing political climate has made it possible for Biden to form an alliance with teachers ’ unions and profess a renewed commitment to public education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a true social-democratic revitalization ( like , say , Bernie Sanders ’ s proposals to make public universities free to all and cancel student debt by taxing Wall Street ) .
Yet they ’ re still a marked improvement over the technocratic free-market tinkering usually on offer from Democrats — most notably that of Obama , who proved to be a literal standard-bearer for punitive testing and accountability measures , and , damningly , a charter school partisan .
That said , any newfound civic-mindedness on Biden ’ s part may very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trail , and progressive educators seeking to reverse neoliberal privatization can not be certain that they ’ ll have this administration ’ s backing .
The Biden campaign put forth a fairly extensive education platform that would triple Title I funding , with new funds specifically earmarked to raise teacher salaries .
Other planks include doubling the number of school mental health professionals ( counselors , psychologists and social workers ) , investing in teacher training , upgrading public school infrastructure and closing funding gaps for low-income districts and districts primarily comprising students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community schools , early childhood development support and vocational education , implement sliding-scale child care and universal pre-kindergarten and dictate full federal funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act , also known as special education .
Biden ’ s plan for post-secondary support includes upping Pell grants for low-income and middle-class students , funding historically Black colleges and other “ minority-serving institutions ” and making two years of community college free — but only for “ hard-working individuals , ” a nebulous definition , implicit in which is some amount of means-testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsets of the population based on often-complex income or other criteria ) .
The Biden platform is studded with liberal bromides like “ innovative solutions , ” “ competitiveness ” and “ increasing affordability ” that usually telegraph an underlying free-market logic .
But if we have to stop short of fully tuition-free universal programs , these policies would at minimum improve many lives .
Chief among them is the call to “ make public colleges and universities tuition-free for all families with incomes below $ 125,000 , ” in a watered-down version @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even in this diluted , means-tested form , free college for some would be a colossal improvement over the current usurious state of higher education .
This and a number of the Biden plan ’ s more robust elements have their roots in the recommendations of the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force .
Pressure from the left has , as is often the case , broadened the ambitions of liberal reformists — or , at least , their stated ambitions .
Pandemic relief is of course at the forefront of educators ’ concerns this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over $ 30 billion for K-12 and higher education assistance .
Far more will be needed , and quickly , to support a safe return to school ( though opinions vary on to what degree such a thing is even possible ; unions and medical experts alike have urged strict caution ) .
Trump , true to form , cruelly insisted on strong-arming schools by making relief funding contingent upon their reopening .
Biden ’ s plan instead leaves reopening up to local districts while calling for clarification of Centers for Disease Control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and grants and passing the HEROES Act , which includes $ 58 billion for schools .
All of this would come in the context of broader , desperately needed pandemic control measures .
Unfortunately , the complexities of any education plan rollout will be compounded by the pressing needs imposed by the COVID-19 crisis .
According to reporting by Politico , the Biden transition team is committed to installing a public school teacher atop the Department of Education .
The secretary of education under the Trump administration , the widely despised Betsy DeVos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sister of Academi ( née Blackwater ) founder Erik Prince .
Virulently opposed to the very concept of public education , DeVos advocated for shunting public funding to charters and private religious schools ; rescinded regulations on debt-trap , for-profit universities ; opposed civil rights gains ; and generally oversaw a shameless march toward austerity , privatization and profiteering .
Egregiously , she tried to defund the Special Olympics , which was a bridge too far even for Trump .
Biden ’ s education transition team will not select the secretary or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members are primarily charged with retooling the Department of Education to mitigate the damage dealt by DeVos ’ s crude ransacking .
Linda Darling-Hammond , a longtime education expert and moderate who has voiced some charter school sympathies , is leading the team — not a surprising choice , given that she played the same role for President Obama in 2008 .
Darling-Hammond has recused herself from consideration for secretary of education in the Biden cabinet ; potential picks include Lily Eskelsen García , a former middle school teacher who was , until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Association ( NEA ) ; and Randi Weingarten , former history teacher and president of the American Federation of Teachers ( AFT ) .
Both the NEA and the AFT are powerful teachers ’ unions and substantial Democratic donors that endorsed Biden ’ s candidacy ; both have opposed aspects of school privatization , if not charter schools categorically .
There are other possibilities , but whoever is appointed will certainly be an improvement over a slash-and-burn reactionary hack like DeVos .
Still , of the transition team of 20 experts , four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remainder played roles in the Department of Education during the Clinton or Obama administrations — both of which threw their weight behind charter schools and testing schemes , as did Bush in the interim .
Obama ’ s $ 4.3 billion Race to the Top competitive grant initiative incentivized states to adopt new Common Core standards and expand charter schools in return for funding .
( The Obama Department had extremely close ties to the pro-charter Gates Foundation , which bankrolled and was instrumental in the creation of the much-criticized Common Core .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Education Reform ( DFER ) , a right-wing political action committee funded by hedge fund managers and finance capitalists — free-market zealots who fetishize privatization and testing and have ties to DeVos .
DFER applauded Obama ’ s appointment of Arne Duncan , former CEO of Chicago Public Schools ( a position that in itself symbolizes the infusion of schools with business ideology ) , as education secretary over more union-friendly candidates .
Duncan was , unsurprisingly , a staunch advocate of charters , as well as Common Core and standardized testing assessment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NEA and AFT during his tenure .
After Duncan stepped down in 2015 , the DFER also endorsed his Obama-appointed replacement , John B .
King Jr. , who had presided over a disastrous standards implementation in New York .
Common Core and accountability measures like “ value-added modeling ” and other “ test-and-punish ” systems were used to withhold funding for schools based on poor test performance and yoke teacher jobs and compensation to student scores , continuing the logic of George W. Bush ’ s No Child Left Behind testing regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why such metrics are deeply flawed — yet the Obama administration insisted on pushing these methodologies far beyond their limits , likely because of their utility in rationalizing cuts and privatization .
Later , the Obama Department of Education ’ s oversight of charter schools was condemned by its own auditors .
The stage was set for DeVos ’ s even more flagrant giveaways .
Biden , as vice president , was not directly responsible for these policies , though he seems to have gone along with them tacitly .
He had also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funded vouchers for private religious schools and to “ increased competition , ” the dubious assertion that struggling public schools can be coerced to perform better by making them square off against private schools for students and funding .
Still , a number of recent statements from Biden and his campaign seem to augur something of a departure from the longstanding bipartisan line .
The Washington Post asked Biden Policy Director Stef Feldman if the president-elect would be “ pivoting away from the Obama administration ’ s approach ” on education .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she responded .
Speaking to the American Federation of Teachers and referring to charter schools , Biden said , “ The bottom line is it siphons off money for our public schools , which are already in enough trouble.
” This language came almost directly from the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force recommendation .
But it ’ s important to note that most charters are not explicitly for-profit , so the first line doesn ’ t mean a whole lot .
Ostensibly nonprofit charters can still easily function as vehicles for diverting public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to pull off that same little dodge .
Maybe Biden will try to hew to his team ’ s assurances , however vague and hedging , that he will begin to leave Obama ’ s methods behind .
The campaign has certainly tried to signal a new tone , repeatedly highlighting Jill Biden ’ s job as a community college professor as a guarantor of public-educational bona fides .
( She ’ s also an NEA member . )
This less adulatory stance on charter schools mirrors broader shifts among Democrats .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence apparatus , public criticism of the model has been mounting , with numerous scandals involving profiteering and graft in the absence of state oversight , charter advocate claims being roundly debunked , and a growing body of research demonstrating the budgetary harm they inflict on public schools .
Trump and DeVos ’ s clumsy zeal for charters has also made it far easier for Democrats to scramble to position themselves opposite .
( Even Cory Booker has wavered a bit on his signature issue . )
As a result , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against them — and with the unions , who within the past two years have asserted their power in a spate of strikes , a key aspect of which was opposition to charters .
Teachers ’ unions may exert some degree of sway in a Biden administration ; he will at least owe them for their endorsements and campaign contributions .
Still , although Biden has gone to great pains to style himself as a blue-collar “ union man , ” his pretense of friendliness to unions in general has been largely aesthetic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His conduct betrays a reflexive acquiescence to money and power .
Teachers ’ unions might wield a little more influence this time around , but a Biden administration ’ s action on education will be determined by how those forces converge and run up against the circumscribed horizons established by capital .
Joe Biden ’ s contradictions make perfect sense .
His campaign promises may have taken on a progressive bent , placing him , putatively , to the left of most recent Democratic candidates ( in no small part due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But these are rhetorical , not structural , obligations .
Biden has compromised with Republicans at every turn .
His contributions from Wall Street far exceeded Trump ’ s .
In a show of fealty to credit companies that gave him hundreds of thousands , he played an enthusiastic role in creating the student loan crisis that he now purports to want to solve .
On that front , he ’ s made a piddling offer of $ 10,000 in relief , only for private loans held by “ economically distressed ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beloved by liberals .
Coming from a man who promises to “ listen to scientists ” and then refuses to ban fracking — from a man who has already tapped an oil industry shill as a climate liaison , a DuPont consultant for the Environmental Protection Agency , a defender of deportations and family separation for immigration and Big Tech executives for agency review teams — any kind of leftish pronouncements are highly suspect at best .
A massive uptick in social expenditures like Biden ’ s education platform will be anathema to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ austerity cuts and corporate bailouts , Biden ’ s record indicates that he ’ s likely to oblige .
All his promises must be considered in light of his indebtedness to power .
So , the tonal shifts this year are wholly explicable : Biden is adept at unfurling policies and statements to harness political winds that have , so far , repeatedly swept him to power .
While he may have been blown gently to the left in the recent campaign , his most consistent defining principle is an anchorage to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his rhetoric and his record is easily reconcilable when factoring in that constraint .
As a result , there aren ’ t too many conclusions that can be drawn from his current slate of promises .
If enacted , the platform would be a genuine boon to American schooling , and the transition team ’ s composition does seem to signify at least an entertainment of the union perspective .
But the fact that the team contains so many Clinton and Obama officials might also portend a continuation of the neoliberal education disruption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successive administrations .
If Biden does , somehow , stand up to capital and push for real reform , reversing DeVos ’ s trampling of the educational commons will not be enough .
He would have to undo the damage wrought by the administration in which he so proudly served as vice president .
Given the coronavirus pandemic , an economic recession , a slim House majority and the chance of a Republican Senate , these policies , even if pursued to the fullest , will face towering obstacles .
Some on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden might crumple very easily indeed .
An article from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute , a pro-charter conservative think tank , speculates with some relish on how Biden could be swayed ; the author suspects that he is not a “ hardened ideological foe ” of charter schools but rather a politician adept at assuaging various stakeholders .
Keri Rodrigues , president of the National Parents Union — a Walton-funded anti-union front group — was quoted in The Washington Post : “ I ’ m grateful it ’ s just a platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work that I think Joe Biden will do if he ’ s elected president , ” she said .
“ Pandering to the teachers ’ unions and giving them what they want and making sure they feel like they are running things is what you need to do to win it , and so that ’ s what he ’ s doing to win it.
” We ’ ll see if she ’ s right .

As the education policy goals of the incoming Biden administration begin to crystallize, some overtures to public school advocates have appeared in Joe Biden’s platform and transition team roster. However, given his history of deference to private interests and the looming possibility of a Republican-controlled Senate, it’s far from apparent to what extent he may be willing or able to realize meaningful educational policy interventions.
The prevailing political climate has made it possible for Biden to form an alliance with teachers’ unions and profess a renewed commitment to public education. The reforms he proposes are far from a true social-democratic revitalization (like, say, Bernie Sanders’s proposals to make public universities free to all and cancel student debt by taxing Wall Street). Yet they’re still a marked improvement over the technocratic free-market tinkering usually on offer from Democrats — most notably that of Obama, who proved to be a literal standard-bearer for punitive testing and accountability measures, and, damningly, a charter school partisan. That said, any newfound civic-mindedness on Biden’s part may very well have been limited to the campaign trail, and progressive educators seeking to reverse neoliberal privatization cannot be certain that they’ll have this administration’s backing.
Lofty Ambitions — on Paper
The Biden campaign put forth a fairly extensive education platform that would triple Title I funding, with new funds specifically earmarked to raise teacher salaries. Other planks include doubling the number of school mental health professionals (counselors, psychologists and social workers), investing in teacher training, upgrading public school infrastructure and closing funding gaps for low-income districts and districts primarily comprising students of color. The program would expand community schools, early childhood development support and vocational education, implement sliding-scale child care and universal pre-kindergarten and dictate full federal funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, also known as special education.
Biden’s plan for post-secondary support includes upping Pell grants for low-income and middle-class students, funding historically Black colleges and other “minority-serving institutions” and making two years of community college free — but only for “hard-working individuals,” a nebulous definition, implicit in which is some amount of means-testing (i.e., limiting program access to subsets of the population based on often-complex income or other criteria). The Biden platform is studded with liberal bromides like “innovative solutions,” “competitiveness” and “increasing affordability” that usually telegraph an underlying free-market logic. But if we have to stop short of fully tuition-free universal programs, these policies would at minimum improve many lives.
Chief among them is the call to “make public colleges and universities tuition-free for all families with incomes below $125,000,” in a watered-down version of the universal Bernie Sanders platform. Even in this diluted, means-tested form, free college for some would be a colossal improvement over the current usurious state of higher education. This and a number of the Biden plan’s more robust elements have their roots in the recommendations of the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force. Pressure from the left has, as is often the case, broadened the ambitions of liberal reformists — or, at least, their stated ambitions.
Pandemic relief is of course at the forefront of educators’ concerns this year. The CARES Act already disbursed over $30 billion for K-12 and higher education assistance. Far more will be needed, and quickly, to support a safe return to school (though opinions vary on to what degree such a thing is even possible; unions and medical experts alike have urged strict caution). Trump, true to form, cruelly insisted on strong-arming schools by making relief funding contingent upon their reopening. Biden’s plan instead leaves reopening up to local districts while calling for clarification of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria, emergency relief packages and grants and passing the HEROES Act, which includes $58 billion for schools. All of this would come in the context of broader, desperately needed pandemic control measures. Unfortunately, the complexities of any education plan rollout will be compounded by the pressing needs imposed by the COVID-19 crisis.
Privateers
According to reporting by Politico, the Biden transition team is committed to installing a public school teacher atop the Department of Education. The secretary of education under the Trump administration, the widely despised Betsy DeVos, is a billionaire evangelical crusader and the sister of Academi (née Blackwater) founder Erik Prince. Virulently opposed to the very concept of public education, DeVos advocated for shunting public funding to charters and private religious schools; rescinded regulations on debt-trap, for-profit universities; opposed civil rights gains; and generally oversaw a shameless march toward austerity, privatization and profiteering. Egregiously, she tried to defund the Special Olympics, which was a bridge too far even for Trump.
Whoever is appointed will certainly be an improvement over a slash-and-burn reactionary hack like DeVos.
Biden’s education transition team will not select the secretary or set major policies. Instead, team members are primarily charged with retooling the Department of Education to mitigate the damage dealt by DeVos’s crude ransacking. Linda Darling-Hammond, a longtime education expert and moderate who has voiced some charter school sympathies, is leading the team — not a surprising choice, given that she played the same role for President Obama in 2008. Darling-Hammond has recused herself from consideration for secretary of education in the Biden cabinet; potential picks include Lily Eskelsen García, a former middle school teacher who was, until recently, president of the National Education Association (NEA); and Randi Weingarten, former history teacher and president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Both the NEA and the AFT are powerful teachers’ unions and substantial Democratic donors that endorsed Biden’s candidacy; both have opposed aspects of school privatization, if not charter schools categorically. There are other possibilities, but whoever is appointed will certainly be an improvement over a slash-and-burn reactionary hack like DeVos.
Still, of the transition team of 20 experts, four are from unions. Most of the remainder played roles in the Department of Education during the Clinton or Obama administrations — both of which threw their weight behind charter schools and testing schemes, as did Bush in the interim. Obama’s $4.3 billion Race to the Top competitive grant initiative incentivized states to adopt new Common Core standards and expand charter schools in return for funding. (The Obama Department had extremely close ties to the pro-charter Gates Foundation, which bankrolled and was instrumental in the creation of the much-criticized Common Core.)
Obama also aligned with Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a right-wing political action committee funded by hedge fund managers and finance capitalists — free-market zealots who fetishize privatization and testing and have ties to DeVos. DFER applauded Obama’s appointment of Arne Duncan, former CEO of Chicago Public Schools (a position that in itself symbolizes the infusion of schools with business ideology), as education secretary over more union-friendly candidates. Duncan was, unsurprisingly, a staunch advocate of charters, as well as Common Core and standardized testing assessment systems. He was opposed by the NEA and AFT during his tenure. After Duncan stepped down in 2015, the DFER also endorsed his Obama-appointed replacement, John B. King Jr., who had presided over a disastrous standards implementation in New York.
Common Core and accountability measures like “value-added modeling” and other “test-and-punish” systems were used to withhold funding for schools based on poor test performance and yoke teacher jobs and compensation to student scores, continuing the logic of George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind testing regime. The American Statistical Association has explained why such metrics are deeply flawed — yet the Obama administration insisted on pushing these methodologies far beyond their limits, likely because of their utility in rationalizing cuts and privatization. Later, the Obama Department of Education’s oversight of charter schools was condemned by its own auditors. The stage was set for DeVos’s even more flagrant giveaways.
Biden, as vice president, was not directly responsible for these policies, though he seems to have gone along with them tacitly. He had also in 1997 expressed an openness to publicly funded vouchers for private religious schools and to “increased competition,” the dubious assertion that struggling public schools can be coerced to perform better by making them square off against private schools for students and funding.
Still, a number of recent statements from Biden and his campaign seem to augur something of a departure from the longstanding bipartisan line. The Washington Post asked Biden Policy Director Stef Feldman if the president-elect would be “pivoting away from the Obama administration’s approach” on education. “It is certainly the Biden plan,” she responded. Speaking to the American Federation of Teachers and referring to charter schools, Biden said, “The bottom line is it siphons off money for our public schools, which are already in enough trouble.”
Biden spokesperson Matt Hill declared in a statement:
As president, Biden will ban for-profit charter schools from receiving federal funds. He will also make sure that we stop funding charter schools that don’t provide results. In addition, he will ensure that charter schools are held to the same levels of accountability and transparency as traditional public schools.
This language came almost directly from the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force recommendation. But it’s important to note that most charters are not explicitly for-profit, so the first line doesn’t mean a whole lot. Ostensibly nonprofit charters can still easily function as vehicles for diverting public money to private coffers. Hillary Clinton tried to pull off that same little dodge.
Maybe Biden will try to hew to his team’s assurances, however vague and hedging, that he will begin to leave Obama’s methods behind. The campaign has certainly tried to signal a new tone, repeatedly highlighting Jill Biden’s job as a community college professor as a guarantor of public-educational bona fides. (She’s also an NEA member.) This less adulatory stance on charter schools mirrors broader shifts among Democrats. Despite charter backers’ powerful lobbying and influence apparatus, public criticism of the model has been mounting, with numerous scandals involving profiteering and graft in the absence of state oversight, charter advocate claims being roundly debunked, and a growing body of research demonstrating the budgetary harm they inflict on public schools. Trump and DeVos’s clumsy zeal for charters has also made it far easier for Democrats to scramble to position themselves opposite. (Even Cory Booker has wavered a bit on his signature issue.) As a result, it’s a politically convenient time to align against them — and with the unions, who within the past two years have asserted their power in a spate of strikes, a key aspect of which was opposition to charters.
Teachers’ unions may exert some degree of sway in a Biden administration; he will at least owe them for their endorsements and campaign contributions. Still, although Biden has gone to great pains to style himself as a blue-collar “union man,” his pretense of friendliness to unions in general has been largely aesthetic and is contravened by his voting record. His conduct betrays a reflexive acquiescence to money and power. Teachers’ unions might wield a little more influence this time around, but a Biden administration’s action on education will be determined by how those forces converge and run up against the circumscribed horizons established by capital.
Beholden to Power
Joe Biden’s contradictions make perfect sense. His campaign promises may have taken on a progressive bent, placing him, putatively, to the left of most recent Democratic candidates (in no small part due to the influence of the Sanders movement). But these are rhetorical, not structural, obligations. Biden has compromised with Republicans at every turn. His contributions from Wall Street far exceeded Trump’s. In a show of fealty to credit companies that gave him hundreds of thousands, he played an enthusiastic role in creating the student loan crisis that he now purports to want to solve. On that front, he’s made a piddling offer of $10,000 in relief, only for private loans held by “economically distressed” borrowers — more of that means-testing so beloved by liberals.
When capital demands austerity cuts and corporate bailouts, Biden’s record indicates that he’s likely to oblige.
Coming from a man who promises to “listen to scientists” and then refuses to ban fracking — from a man who has already tapped an oil industry shill as a climate liaison, a DuPont consultant for the Environmental Protection Agency, a defender of deportations and family separation for immigration and Big Tech executives for agency review teams — any kind of leftish pronouncements are highly suspect at best. A massive uptick in social expenditures like Biden’s education platform will be anathema to the ownership class. When capital demands austerity cuts and corporate bailouts, Biden’s record indicates that he’s likely to oblige. All his promises must be considered in light of his indebtedness to power.
So, the tonal shifts this year are wholly explicable: Biden is adept at unfurling policies and statements to harness political winds that have, so far, repeatedly swept him to power. While he may have been blown gently to the left in the recent campaign, his most consistent defining principle is an anchorage to the bedrock of capital. The divide between his rhetoric and his record is easily reconcilable when factoring in that constraint.
As a result, there aren’t too many conclusions that can be drawn from his current slate of promises. If enacted, the platform would be a genuine boon to American schooling, and the transition team’s composition does seem to signify at least an entertainment of the union perspective. But the fact that the team contains so many Clinton and Obama officials might also portend a continuation of the neoliberal education disruption that’s been underway for several successive administrations. If Biden does, somehow, stand up to capital and push for real reform, reversing DeVos’s trampling of the educational commons will not be enough. He would have to undo the damage wrought by the administration in which he so proudly served as vice president.
Given the coronavirus pandemic, an economic recession, a slim House majority and the chance of a Republican Senate, these policies, even if pursued to the fullest, will face towering obstacles. Some on the right are salivating over the possibility that Biden might crumple very easily indeed. An article from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a pro-charter conservative think tank, speculates with some relish on how Biden could be swayed; the author suspects that he is not a “hardened ideological foe” of charter schools but rather a politician adept at assuaging various stakeholders. Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union — a Walton-funded anti-union front group — was quoted in The Washington Post: “I’m grateful it’s just a platform and it’s not the actual work that I think Joe Biden will do if he’s elected president,” she said. “Pandering to the teachers’ unions and giving them what they want and making sure they feel like they are running things is what you need to do to win it, and so that’s what he’s doing to win it.”
We’ll see if she’s right.
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--2020-11-29--Facebook Is Still Facilitating the Dissemination of Deadly Disinformation

Facebook customizes each user ’ s online experience .
Each of us has different friends , different likes , different group affiliations and different interests .
As a result , Facebook ’ s algorithms perpetuate a different experience for each user , specifically designed to keep us hooked on the platform .
That ’ s one key to the platform ’ s success — but it ’ s also what makes Facebook so dangerous .
This hyper-customization means each of us lives in a different reality , with a unique set of beliefs and facts that are reinforced by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the groups that we join .
In one Facebook reality , people believe that Joe Biden was legitimately elected president .
In an alternate reality , people believe the election was stolen from Donald Trump due to widespread voting irregularities .
In other words , Facebook ’ s tools have allowed Trump ’ s bogus and dangerous claims of election impropriety and voter fraud to go viral .
Journalists , scholars and civil-society groups continue to identify and debunk election-fraud claims that appear on Facebook .
But it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The New York Times has a page , “ Daily Distortions , ” that ’ s devoted to tracking viral disinformation .
Researchers at Avaaz identified a network of Steve Bannon-driven voter-fraud disinformation spreaders , and flagged the exponential growth of “ Stop the Steal ” groups , which are mobilizing to stop a Biden presidency .
Facebook removed the networks Avaaz flagged , but speed , scope and continued vigilance are necessary for the enforcement actions to have a lasting impact .
Removing the ubiquitous “ Stop the Steal ” groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on gremlins — they split and multiply , resulting in havoc and chaos across the platform .
Five days after the Associated Press declared Biden the winner of the election , Trump posted “ WE WILL WIN !
” along with a video that urged his followers to prove that the results were wrong .
Facebook tacked a removable label to the post , which stated that Biden was the “ projected ” winner .
The label itself is misleading — Biden ’ s victory is far more certain than that — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of Trump ’ s deceitful message : The post has been liked , shared and commented on by hundreds of thousands of people .
In the ensuing days , Trump has had multiple posts proclaiming that he “ won ” the election — and Facebook has had the same inadequate response to each of them .
And there ’ s every reason to believe that Facebook will do even less to combat disinformation the further we get away from Election Day .
In October , Mark Zuckerberg told his employees to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the election .
Facebook knows that divisive and conspiratorial content drives engagement : A 2018 study by its own researchers found as much .
But the platform ’ s executives buried the report , aware that doing anything to curtail engagement would threaten its massive growth rate and billion-dollar revenue streams .
Another internal study found that 64 percent of those who joined an extremist group on the platform did so because Facebook ’ s algorithms recommended it to them .
Protecting the company ’ s users from disinformation should remain a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ongoing enforcement , bad actors will weaponize Facebook at ever greater rates to sow division and hate , destabilize our democracy , disenfranchise voters and poison our information ecosystem .
The fight against disinformation is as important during this post-election period as it was in the run-up to the vote .
And given that Facebook has a metric to track “ violence and incitement trends , ” it seems that the company is at least aware enough to understand that threats to our democracy don ’ t just follow election cycles .
Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread of militarized and dangerous social movements like QAnon indicates that it understands at some level that it must remain vigilant against disinformation from people hellbent on destabilizing our democracy .
But is it vigilant enough ?
In short , no : Facebook could do much more to prevent bad-faith actors from gaming its systems .
Instead the company accommodates these users and allows them to inundate the network with dangerous disinformation .
Disinformation is also being used as a tool to recruit and organize .
Contrary to what Facebook wants us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to appear in our personalized newsfeeds for it to destabilize the democratic process .
On Nov. 10 , Facebook ’ s vice president of analytics and chief marketing officer , Alex Schultz , wrote a post that attempts to downplay the kind of content that often appears in the network ’ s top 10 list of most engaging posts .
He claimed that engagement is not the same as “ reach , ” a term used to track how many people actually see a piece of content .
In essence , Schultz was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you don ’ t see something in your feed it allegedly has no effect on you .
But disinformation on Facebook too frequently jumps from the virtual to the real world .
Joan Donovan , the research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media , Politics and Public Policy , has tracked the true costs of disinformation , as when right-wing militia groups set up “ identity ” checkpoints after believing that antifa activists had set the California and Oregon wildfires .
While antitrust action against the Silicon Valley giant is reportedly on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ad-driven business model — which algorithmically amplifies hateful content and disinformation — requires different measures .
We need to update privacy laws to protect the civil rights of platform users and prevent platforms ’ misuse of their data .
We need to tax platforms ’ online-advertising revenues to support independent , conspiracy-busting journalism .
And we need tech companies to strengthen their community standards and terms of service — and enforce those rules — to prevent the spread of hate and disinformation across their networks .
The Change the Terms coalition , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed to disrupt hate and disinformation on social media .
These policies call on internet companies to moderate content in a transparent manner and open themselves up for regular audits .
The policies also urge companies to create better tools for identifying and removing hateful activities — and to deplatform groups that recruit and organize violence online .
Transparency would also help us better understand the grave impacts of disinformation by providing researchers , scholars , and others with the data they need to deconstruct the company ’ s divisive algorithms .
Shining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook would go far toward fixing many of the platform ’ s problems .
It ’ s time for Facebook to finally put the health of people and our democracy over profits .

Facebook customizes each user’s online experience. Each of us has different friends, different likes, different group affiliations and different interests. As a result, Facebook’s algorithms perpetuate a different experience for each user, specifically designed to keep us hooked on the platform. That’s one key to the platform’s success — but it’s also what makes Facebook so dangerous. This hyper-customization means each of us lives in a different reality, with a unique set of beliefs and facts that are reinforced by the people and news sources that we follow, and the groups that we join.
In one Facebook reality, people believe that Joe Biden was legitimately elected president. In an alternate reality, people believe the election was stolen from Donald Trump due to widespread voting irregularities.
In other words, Facebook’s tools have allowed Trump’s bogus and dangerous claims of election impropriety and voter fraud to go viral.
Journalists, scholars and civil-society groups continue to identify and debunk election-fraud claims that appear on Facebook. But it’s a difficult task as disinformation mushrooms and morphs. The New York Times has a page, “Daily Distortions,” that’s devoted to tracking viral disinformation. Researchers at Avaaz identified a network of Steve Bannon-driven voter-fraud disinformation spreaders, and flagged the exponential growth of “Stop the Steal” groups, which are mobilizing to stop a Biden presidency.
Facebook removed the networks Avaaz flagged, but speed, scope and continued vigilance are necessary for the enforcement actions to have a lasting impact. Removing the ubiquitous “Stop the Steal” groups has been the equivalent of pouring water on gremlins — they split and multiply, resulting in havoc and chaos across the platform.
Five days after the Associated Press declared Biden the winner of the election, Trump posted “WE WILL WIN!” along with a video that urged his followers to prove that the results were wrong. Facebook tacked a removable label to the post, which stated that Biden was the “projected” winner. The label itself is misleading — Biden’s victory is far more certain than that — and it’s done nothing to stop the spread of Trump’s deceitful message: The post has been liked, shared and commented on by hundreds of thousands of people.
Facebook’s tools have allowed Trump’s bogus and dangerous claims of election impropriety and voter fraud to go viral.
In the ensuing days, Trump has had multiple posts proclaiming that he “won” the election — and Facebook has had the same inadequate response to each of them.
And there’s every reason to believe that Facebook will do even less to combat disinformation the further we get away from Election Day. In October, Mark Zuckerberg told his employees to expect fewer policy changes and content removals after the election.
Facebook knows that divisive and conspiratorial content drives engagement: A 2018 study by its own researchers found as much. But the platform’s executives buried the report, aware that doing anything to curtail engagement would threaten its massive growth rate and billion-dollar revenue streams. Another internal study found that 64 percent of those who joined an extremist group on the platform did so because Facebook’s algorithms recommended it to them.
Protecting the company’s users from disinformation should remain a top priority. In the absence of ongoing enforcement, bad actors will weaponize Facebook at ever greater rates to sow division and hate, destabilize our democracy, disenfranchise voters and poison our information ecosystem.
The fight against disinformation is as important during this post-election period as it was in the run-up to the vote. And given that Facebook has a metric to track “violence and incitement trends,” it seems that the company is at least aware enough to understand that threats to our democracy don’t just follow election cycles. Facebook’s ongoing efforts to tackle the spread of militarized and dangerous social movements like QAnon indicates that it understands at some level that it must remain vigilant against disinformation from people hellbent on destabilizing our democracy.
64 percent of those who joined an extremist group on the platform did so because Facebook’s algorithms recommended it to them.
But is it vigilant enough? In short, no: Facebook could do much more to prevent bad-faith actors from gaming its systems. Instead the company accommodates these users and allows them to inundate the network with dangerous disinformation.
Disinformation is also being used as a tool to recruit and organize. Contrary to what Facebook wants us to believe, the disinformation does not have to appear in our personalized newsfeeds for it to destabilize the democratic process.
On Nov. 10, Facebook’s vice president of analytics and chief marketing officer, Alex Schultz, wrote a post that attempts to downplay the kind of content that often appears in the network’s top 10 list of most engaging posts. He claimed that engagement is not the same as “reach,” a term used to track how many people actually see a piece of content. In essence, Schultz was arguing that ignorance is bliss — if you don’t see something in your feed it allegedly has no effect on you.
But disinformation on Facebook too frequently jumps from the virtual to the real world. Joan Donovan, the research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, has tracked the true costs of disinformation, as when right-wing militia groups set up “identity” checkpoints after believing that antifa activists had set the California and Oregon wildfires.
While antitrust action against the Silicon Valley giant is reportedly on the horizon, fixing Facebook’s ad-driven business model — which algorithmically amplifies hateful content and disinformation — requires different measures. We need to update privacy laws to protect the civil rights of platform users and prevent platforms’ misuse of their data. We need to tax platforms’ online-advertising revenues to support independent, conspiracy-busting journalism. And we need tech companies to strengthen their community standards and terms of service — and enforce those rules — to prevent the spread of hate and disinformation across their networks.
The Change the Terms coalition, for example, has developed model corporate policies designed to disrupt hate and disinformation on social media. These policies call on internet companies to moderate content in a transparent manner and open themselves up for regular audits. The policies also urge companies to create better tools for identifying and removing hateful activities — and to deplatform groups that recruit and organize violence online.
Transparency would also help us better understand the grave impacts of disinformation by providing researchers, scholars, and others with the data they need to deconstruct the company’s divisive algorithms. Shining a light on the inner workings of Facebook would go far toward fixing many of the platform’s problems. It’s time for Facebook to finally put the health of people and our democracy over profits.
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--2020-11-30--Trump Paid Millions for Wisconsin Recounts That Yielded More Net Votes for Biden

Recounts in two of Wisconsin ’ s most populous counties have reaffirmed President-elect Joe Biden ’ s win in the state against incumbent President Donald Trump in this year ’ s presidential election .
Yet even as vote totals show a small widening in the lead for Biden , there ’ s a high likelihood that Trump ’ s legal team will attempt to discount millions of voters ’ preferences through lawsuits set to appear as early as this week .
Milwaukee County wrapped up its recount on Friday , finding a net gain of 132 votes for Biden after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t been previously counted .
In Dane County , the recount ended on Sunday , with both candidates actually losing votes ( 91 for Biden , 46 for Trump ) , resulting in a net gain within the county of 45 votes for Trump .
Neither changes in either county disrupted the vote totals throughout the rest of the state , as Biden won Wisconsin by a margin of more than 20,000 votes .
As a result of the recount , Biden ’ s lead actually grew by a net total of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent $ 3 million in order to initiate the recount .
State law requires that any party seeking a recount pay for it up front before it can begin , a change that came about after the 2016 presidential recount in the state .
Wisconsin Elections Commission Chairwoman Ann Jacobs will likely certify the results of the statewide vote on Monday afternoon .
According to state law , the Trump campaign will have five days in which it can challenge the outcome , a move that many anticipate the president will probably pursue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country and recent comments he has made about the state over the weekend .
Trump , for example , said on Saturday , after the Milwaukee County recount had ended , that the recount wasn ’ t meant to find more votes for him at all .
“ The Wisconsin recount is not about finding mistakes in the count , it is about finding people who have voted illegally , ” Trump said in a tweet , “ and that case will be brought after the recount is over , on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many illegal votes , ” Trump added , providing no evidence for his assertion .
“ Stay tuned !
” In an interview on Sunday on Fox News , the president also reiterated his dishonest claims that fraud had occurred , describing Milwaukee and other major cities in the state “ among the most dishonest political places.
” He also stated that there was a “ well-coordinated attack ” on his campaign , again without providing proof of his allegation .
No major issues were reported in any parts of the state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that would back the president ’ s claims .
Trump and his legal team may face a significant hurdle in its attempt to win a court challenge in the state , however .
While the president ’ s lawyers have been able to “ shop ” for sympathetic judges elsewhere to hear their dubious challenges , that isn ’ t allowed under Wisconsin law when it comes to contesting the certification of the election .
Instead , the State Supreme Court Chief Justice Patience Roggensack will decide which judge in the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Roggensack will also get to decide which courts will hear subsequent appeals for the case , if Trump loses and decides to appeal further .
That said , there is a small possibility that partisan shenanigans could pave the way for a Trump-friendly legal outcome in Wisconsin , despite the total absence of evidence backing his allegations of fraud .
Roggensack is a conservative , and the Supreme Court in the state is itself led by a 4-3 conservative majority .
And while the court has not indicated it intends to discount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the president ’ s flimsy arguments , Wisconsin is possibly the state with the best chance for Trump when it comes to his attempts at doing so .

The recount in two Wisconsin counties cost Trump $3 million, and reaffirmed Biden beat him by more than 20,000 votes.
Recounts in two of Wisconsin’s most populous counties have reaffirmed President-elect Joe Biden’s win in the state against incumbent President Donald Trump in this year’s presidential election. Yet even as vote totals show a small widening in the lead for Biden, there’s a high likelihood that Trump’s legal team will attempt to discount millions of voters’ preferences through lawsuits set to appear as early as this week.
Milwaukee County wrapped up its recount on Friday, finding a net gain of 132 votes for Biden after discovering around 400 votes total that hadn’t been previously counted. In Dane County, the recount ended on Sunday, with both candidates actually losing votes (91 for Biden, 46 for Trump), resulting in a net gain within the county of 45 votes for Trump.
Neither changes in either county disrupted the vote totals throughout the rest of the state, as Biden won Wisconsin by a margin of more than 20,000 votes. As a result of the recount, Biden’s lead actually grew by a net total of 87 votes overall.
The Trump campaign spent $3 million in order to initiate the recount. State law requires that any party seeking a recount pay for it up front before it can begin, a change that came about after the 2016 presidential recount in the state.
Wisconsin Elections Commission Chairwoman Ann Jacobs will likely certify the results of the statewide vote on Monday afternoon. According to state law, the Trump campaign will have five days in which it can challenge the outcome, a move that many anticipate the president will probably pursue, given his legal challenges elsewhere across the country and recent comments he has made about the state over the weekend.
Trump, for example, said on Saturday, after the Milwaukee County recount had ended, that the recount wasn’t meant to find more votes for him at all.
“The Wisconsin recount is not about finding mistakes in the count, it is about finding people who have voted illegally,” Trump said in a tweet, “and that case will be brought after the recount is over, on Monday or Tuesday.”
“We have found many illegal votes,” Trump added, providing no evidence for his assertion. “Stay tuned!”
In an interview on Sunday on Fox News, the president also reiterated his dishonest claims that fraud had occurred, describing Milwaukee and other major cities in the state “among the most dishonest political places.” He also stated that there was a “well-coordinated attack” on his campaign, again without providing proof of his allegation.
No major issues were reported in any parts of the state, let alone in Dane or Milwaukee Counties, that would back the president’s claims.
Trump and his legal team may face a significant hurdle in its attempt to win a court challenge in the state, however. While the president’s lawyers have been able to “shop” for sympathetic judges elsewhere to hear their dubious challenges, that isn’t allowed under Wisconsin law when it comes to contesting the certification of the election.
Instead, the State Supreme Court Chief Justice Patience Roggensack will decide which judge in the state appellate court system will hear the case. Roggensack will also get to decide which courts will hear subsequent appeals for the case, if Trump loses and decides to appeal further.
That said, there is a small possibility that partisan shenanigans could pave the way for a Trump-friendly legal outcome in Wisconsin, despite the total absence of evidence backing his allegations of fraud. Roggensack is a conservative, and the Supreme Court in the state is itself led by a 4-3 conservative majority. And while the court has not indicated it intends to discount millions of voters in the state based on the president’s flimsy arguments, Wisconsin is possibly the state with the best chance for Trump when it comes to his attempts at doing so.
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--2020-11-30--As COVID Spikes, It’s Normal to Feel Helpless. Let’s Turn Fear to Activism.

I sat by my office window this morning and looked without seeing at the robin ’ s-egg blue house across the street , framed by a distant pine-green hill and the last gray sky of November 2020 .
Beside me at a tandem desk sat my daughter , headphones on for the Monday morning Zoom meeting with her class .
They talked about what their favorite Thanksgiving food was , and she said “ cranberry sauce !
” with entirely appropriate gusto ; she ate half a bog ’ s worth on Thursday and sighed heavily when we ran out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how afraid I was , because I didn ’ t let her .
I looked without seeing at that blue house , and across the screen of my eyes ran scenario after scenario that could lead to someone in my family on a ventilator in the COVID wing of an overflowing hospital .
If we could even get a bed .
How might it happen ?
In a country where the virus has spread from coast to coast like butter on warm bread , let me count the ways .
I also fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith in people ’ s ability to stem this spread , which was already a desperate faith in the face of a health system that values profits over people , an economy that routinely forces the most vulnerable into harm ’ s way in the name of rapacious almighty capitalism , and let ’ s not forget the reams of bad advice from the highest echelons of state and federal government .
The numbers : 13.3 million infections to date , 200,000 new daily infections , almost 270,000 deaths , and roughly 2,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thanksgiving travelers have motivated medical experts to tell any who will listen : If you traveled and gathered with others for the holiday , assume you are infected and get tested .
“ There ’ s no way that the hospitals can be fully prepared for what we ’ re currently facing , ” emergency medicine physician Dr. Megan Ranney told CNN .
“ This is like a natural disaster occurring in all 50 states at the same time .
There are not adequate beds .
There are not adequate staff .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are still not adequate supplies.
” According to NBC News , the Thanksgiving holiday weekend alone — Thursday through Sunday — saw more than 600,000 new infections and nearly 5,000 COVID deaths .
All of that in four days , and before the impact of mass travel rolls across the land like a line of thunderstorms .
Yet here is Republican Gov .
Kristi Noem of South Dakota , who has regularly scorned and rejected levying a mask mandate in her state , tweeting a plea for residents to go shopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dakota endured its largest daily death toll since the pandemic began nearly a year ago .
And meanwhile , this news report comes in from New York City : “ Sheriff ’ s deputies arrived at a building in Midtown Manhattan just before 3 a.m. on Saturday and found almost 400 people drinking and partying inside , ” reported The New York Times on Sunday morning .
“ Few were wearing face masks .
Deputies shut the party down and arrested four people .
The episode reflected the way that , despite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , people are continuing to gather at large events in New York City in violation of public health safeguards.
” Hence my fraying faith .
I can halfway understand people in rural portions of the country , which until recently were largely unaffected by the pandemic , being slow to embrace the suck .
Compound that with President Donald Trump ’ s influence in those regions , and the surprise factor plummets even further .
But New York City ?
Epicenter for springtime COVID horrors so bleak as to be nearly unspeakable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t catch them if the cops don ’ t ?
Magical thinking is clearly not a regional affliction .
I feel utterly helpless before this bilge tide of astonishing official malfeasance and self-destructive ground-level stubbornness , and this sense of helplessness is the fuel that feeds my fear .
I wake each day awaiting some guiding voice with enough authority to slap this runaway train back on the tracks .
Instead , I get Trump ’ s new ultra-conservative Supreme Court .
On Friday , a majority of that court ruled that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expense of life and without consideration of public health , a muscle-flex aimed at the religious right who labored long to see a court like this come together .
Despair is not an option , not with that little student diligently working one desk over from me , and I know there are many who feel the same for their own myriad reasons .
We can ’ t fix COVID , we can ’ t drag masses of people back from the abyss of their own poor decisions , so we must do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arm and with all necessary precautions intact .
“ It ’ s in the face of this systemic failure that communities all across the country are rising up and stepping in to fill in some of the gaps , ” wrote Robert R. Raymond for Truthout all the way back in April .
“ Many of these responses take the form of mutual aid — community-led , horizontal efforts that have arisen spontaneously with the aim of aiding those impacted by the pandemic.
” Like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , we can devote time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hunger .
“ Food insecurity ” is the numb euphemism of the day that neatly obscures the growling in a child ’ s stomach or the image of cars parked for miles and waiting for hours at food banks all across the country .
Assisting established food banks and supporting or creating neighborhood-based grassroots efforts to deliver food is just the start of what the situation calls for .
We can lend the reach of our arm to yet another deeply damaging crisis — housing — as the expiring eviction moratorium threatens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the loss of their homes in winter and amid the raging pandemic .
For this , we must be a strident emergency siren in the ear of an utterly failed Republican Senate until they deliver the stimulus — including eviction protections — this country desperately needs .
This may feel futile , given the grim reality that is Senate Majority Mitch McConnell , but a loud enough siren amid this deepening calamity may just turn all sorts of heads .
Meanwhile , we can also lend our labor and resources to the grassroots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Finally , we can devote ourselves to keeping soon-to-be President Joe Biden from wobbling off into the mire of center-right “ moderate ” capitulation to the Republican right .
Biden ’ s dowser-like instinct is to take 10 steps toward the GOP in the hope that they might take one step toward him .
They won ’ t , not ever , not under McConnell and with the long shadow of Trump still hanging low over the Capitol dome .
The fable of the scorpion and the frog is instructive here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential frog not to forget , or deliberately ignore , the nature of the creature he ’ s inviting onto his back .
This , again , promises to be a frustrating slog , but it is one that must begin on day one , lest this incoming Democratic administration get itself lost in the same fog as the previous one .
“ In this context of social isolation and forced dependency on hostile systems , ” writes author and activist Dean Spade , “ mutual aid — where we choose to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and put time and resources into caring for the most vulnerable — is a radical act.
” We are afraid , and we are isolated , but we are not alone , and we are hardly powerless .
This will be a long , hard winter .
Let ’ s also make it a busy one .
Stay safe , and stout hearts .

I sat by my office window this morning and looked without seeing at the robin’s-egg blue house across the street, framed by a distant pine-green hill and the last gray sky of November 2020. Beside me at a tandem desk sat my daughter, headphones on for the Monday morning Zoom meeting with her class. They talked about what their favorite Thanksgiving food was, and she said “cranberry sauce!” with entirely appropriate gusto; she ate half a bog’s worth on Thursday and sighed heavily when we ran out.
My daughter couldn’t see how afraid I was, because I didn’t let her. I looked without seeing at that blue house, and across the screen of my eyes ran scenario after scenario that could lead to someone in my family on a ventilator in the COVID wing of an overflowing hospital. If we could even get a bed. How might it happen? In a country where the virus has spread from coast to coast like butter on warm bread, let me count the ways.
I also fear I may be beginning to lose my faith in people’s ability to stem this spread, which was already a desperate faith in the face of a health system that values profits over people, an economy that routinely forces the most vulnerable into harm’s way in the name of rapacious almighty capitalism, and let’s not forget the reams of bad advice from the highest echelons of state and federal government.
The numbers: 13.3 million infections to date, 200,000 new daily infections, almost 270,000 deaths, and roughly 2,000 new deaths per day. Millions of Thanksgiving travelers have motivated medical experts to tell any who will listen: If you traveled and gathered with others for the holiday, assume you are infected and get tested.
“There’s no way that the hospitals can be fully prepared for what we’re currently facing,” emergency medicine physician Dr. Megan Ranney told CNN. “This is like a natural disaster occurring in all 50 states at the same time. There are not adequate beds. There are not adequate staff. And because of the lack of national preparation, there are still not adequate supplies.”
According to NBC News, the Thanksgiving holiday weekend alone — Thursday through Sunday — saw more than 600,000 new infections and nearly 5,000 COVID deaths. All of that in four days, and before the impact of mass travel rolls across the land like a line of thunderstorms.
Yet here is Republican Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, who has regularly scorned and rejected levying a mask mandate in her state, tweeting a plea for residents to go shopping. On that same day, South Dakota endured its largest daily death toll since the pandemic began nearly a year ago.
And meanwhile, this news report comes in from New York City: “Sheriff’s deputies arrived at a building in Midtown Manhattan just before 3 a.m. on Saturday and found almost 400 people drinking and partying inside,” reported The New York Times on Sunday morning. “Few were wearing face masks. Deputies shut the party down and arrested four people. The episode reflected the way that, despite the onset of a second wave of the coronavirus, people are continuing to gather at large events in New York City in violation of public health safeguards.”
Hence my fraying faith. I can halfway understand people in rural portions of the country, which until recently were largely unaffected by the pandemic, being slow to embrace the suck. Compound that with President Donald Trump’s influence in those regions, and the surprise factor plummets even further. But New York City? Epicenter for springtime COVID horrors so bleak as to be nearly unspeakable? Do these people think COVID won’t catch them if the cops don’t? Magical thinking is clearly not a regional affliction.
I feel utterly helpless before this bilge tide of astonishing official malfeasance and self-destructive ground-level stubbornness, and this sense of helplessness is the fuel that feeds my fear.
I feel utterly helpless before this bilge tide of astonishing official malfeasance and self-destructive ground-level stubbornness, and this sense of helplessness is the fuel that feeds my fear. I wake each day awaiting some guiding voice with enough authority to slap this runaway train back on the tracks. Instead, I get Trump’s new ultra-conservative Supreme Court. On Friday, a majority of that court ruled that religious services can be performed at the expense of life and without consideration of public health, a muscle-flex aimed at the religious right who labored long to see a court like this come together.
Despair is not an option, not with that little student diligently working one desk over from me, and I know there are many who feel the same for their own myriad reasons. We can’t fix COVID, we can’t drag masses of people back from the abyss of their own poor decisions, so we must do what we can within reach of our arm and with all necessary precautions intact.
“It’s in the face of this systemic failure that communities all across the country are rising up and stepping in to fill in some of the gaps,” wrote Robert R. Raymond for Truthout all the way back in April. “Many of these responses take the form of mutual aid — community-led, horizontal efforts that have arisen spontaneously with the aim of aiding those impacted by the pandemic.”
Like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, we can devote time and creativity to ameliorating the exploding crisis of hunger. “Food insecurity” is the numb euphemism of the day that neatly obscures the growling in a child’s stomach or the image of cars parked for miles and waiting for hours at food banks all across the country. Assisting established food banks and supporting or creating neighborhood-based grassroots efforts to deliver food is just the start of what the situation calls for.
We can lend the reach of our arm to yet another deeply damaging crisis — housing — as the expiring eviction moratorium threatens as many as 40 million people with the loss of their homes in winter and amid the raging pandemic. For this, we must be a strident emergency siren in the ear of an utterly failed Republican Senate until they deliver the stimulus — including eviction protections — this country desperately needs. This may feel futile, given the grim reality that is Senate Majority Mitch McConnell, but a loud enough siren amid this deepening calamity may just turn all sorts of heads. Meanwhile, we can also lend our labor and resources to the grassroots housing justice activism occurring across the country.
Finally, we can devote ourselves to keeping soon-to-be President Joe Biden from wobbling off into the mire of center-right “moderate” capitulation to the Republican right. Biden’s dowser-like instinct is to take 10 steps toward the GOP in the hope that they might take one step toward him. They won’t, not ever, not under McConnell and with the long shadow of Trump still hanging low over the Capitol dome.
The fable of the scorpion and the frog is instructive here, and progressives are tasked to remind our presidential frog not to forget, or deliberately ignore, the nature of the creature he’s inviting onto his back. This, again, promises to be a frustrating slog, but it is one that must begin on day one, lest this incoming Democratic administration get itself lost in the same fog as the previous one.
“In this context of social isolation and forced dependency on hostile systems,” writes author and activist Dean Spade, “mutual aid — where we choose to help each other out, share things, and put time and resources into caring for the most vulnerable — is a radical act.”
We are afraid, and we are isolated, but we are not alone, and we are hardly powerless. This will be a long, hard winter. Let’s also make it a busy one. Stay safe, and stout hearts.
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--2020-11-30--Trump Moves to Expand Ways to Kill Prisoners — Including Firing Squads

Sister Helen Prejean , one of the world ’ s best known anti-death-penalty activists , says the spate of federal executions carried out by the Trump administration reflect a “ fundamental flaw ” in the law , which does not set limits on use of the death penalty .
“ When you give absolute power over life and death to government officials , they can really do what they want , ” she says .
We also speak with Sandra Babcock , faculty director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide , who says there is “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, the Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Death by firing squad , electrocution or poison gas ?
Under a new rule filed by the Trump administration , these methods can now be used to carry out executions for federal death sentences in addition to lethal injection .
The amendment to the Manner of Federal Executions Rule was entered Friday into the Federal Register @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s December 24th .
This comes as the Trump administration has already executed eight people in the past five months .
Earlier this month , it executed Orlando Hall at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute , Indiana .
Hall was an African American man sentenced to die by an all-white jury .
Prior to this year , the federal government had not executed anyone since 2003 , 17 years ago .
Now , in what critics say is a dramatic deviation from historical practices , five more people are scheduled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final weeks in office , three of them just days before President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated , including the first woman in nearly 70 years .
The Death Penalty Information Center reports it has been more than a century since a federal execution was conducted during a lame-duck presidency , in 1889 during the outgoing administration of Grover Cleveland .
The Justice Department has not yet said whether it will try to use any methods other than lethal injection for the three executions it scheduled after the new rules takes effect .
President-elect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he now supports eliminating the federal death penalty .
Biden co-authored legislation in 1990 that expanded the federal death penalty .
For more , we are joined by Sister Helen Prejean , one of the world ’ s most well-known anti-death penalty activists , the author of the best-selling book , Dead Man Walking : An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty .
Her most recent book , River of Fire : My Spiritual Journey .
Also with us , Sandra Babcock , faculty director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Democracy Now !
Sister Helen Prejean , let ’ s begin with you .
This was filed on Friday , that the Trump administration , that the federal government can kill prisoners , expanding it to poison gas , firing squad or electrocution .
Can you respond ?
SISTER HELEN PREJEAN : I think the reason they are doing that is they want to make sure that they can expedite these executions without any court cases about lethal injection .
There have been questions about lethal injection , the drugs that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court , by the way , which has allowed states to just experiment widely with drugs to kill people , which has resulted in botched executions .
It may also come from the fact that autopsy reports , 200 of them , of those who have been lethally injected showed that there was a massive amount of fluid in their lungs , which meant they were drowning .
I think it ’ s the callous brute force of the mentality of the Trump administration that he just believes that he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can use violence and force to make his point .
There is no need for these executions to happen .
To me , it just reveals a fundamental flaw which has been built into the death penalty from the time that the Supreme Court put death back , in 1976 .
And here is the fundamental flaw , and the federal executions that we see now really exemplifies it : there was a weak criteria that only “ the worst of the worst ” should be killed , and nobody really knows what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been wide latitude in determining “ worst of the worst.
” Or even the assumption that out of all the ordinary murders , whatever that means , there are some who can be targeted as “ but this is the worst of the worst.
” So with a weak criteria , it is coupled with that you give complete discretion to pursue death to the prosecutors .
It is a fact that if prosecutors do not seek death , people don ’ t die from executions .
So here you have now in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General Barr , who has the power to seek death , and pursuing it .
All he had to do was get a signal from Trump ; we gon na start killin ’ people .
And there has been no way to stop him .
So the fundamental flaw is a weak fuzzy criteria that was never clear in the first place , coupled with discretion of prosecutors .
And it exemplifies exactly why we need to shut the death penalty down .
You can ’ t let frail , politically-driven individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going to die ” for whatever political objective they have in mind .

Sister Helen Prejean, one of the world’s best known anti-death-penalty activists, says the spate of federal executions carried out by the Trump administration reflect a “fundamental flaw” in the law, which does not set limits on use of the death penalty. “When you give absolute power over life and death to government officials, they can really do what they want,” she says. We also speak with Sandra Babcock, faculty director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, who says there is “a paroxysm of violence” coming from the Trump administration.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, the Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman. Death by firing squad, electrocution or poison gas? Under a new rule filed by the Trump administration, these methods can now be used to carry out executions for federal death sentences in addition to lethal injection. The amendment to the Manner of Federal Executions Rule was entered Friday into the Federal Register and goes into effect Christmas Eve. That’s December 24th.
This comes as the Trump administration has already executed eight people in the past five months. Earlier this month, it executed Orlando Hall at the federal penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana. Hall was an African American man sentenced to die by an all-white jury. Prior to this year, the federal government had not executed anyone since 2003, 17 years ago. Now, in what critics say is a dramatic deviation from historical practices, five more people are scheduled to be executed during Trump’s final weeks in office, three of them just days before President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated, including the first woman in nearly 70 years.
The Death Penalty Information Center reports it has been more than a century since a federal execution was conducted during a lame-duck presidency, in 1889 during the outgoing administration of Grover Cleveland. The Justice Department has not yet said whether it will try to use any methods other than lethal injection for the three executions it scheduled after the new rules takes effect. President-elect Joe Biden said during the election campaign he now supports eliminating the federal death penalty. Biden co-authored legislation in 1990 that expanded the federal death penalty.
For more, we are joined by Sister Helen Prejean, one of the world’s most well-known anti-death penalty activists, the author of the best-selling book, Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty. Her most recent book, River of Fire: My Spiritual Journey. Also with us, Sandra Babcock, faculty director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide. We Welcome you both back to Democracy Now! Sister Helen Prejean, let’s begin with you. This was filed on Friday, that the Trump administration, that the federal government can kill prisoners, expanding it to poison gas, firing squad or electrocution. Can you respond?
SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: I think the reason they are doing that is they want to make sure that they can expedite these executions without any court cases about lethal injection. There have been questions about lethal injection, the drugs that are used. This is the fault of the Supreme Court, by the way, which has allowed states to just experiment widely with drugs to kill people, which has resulted in botched executions. It may also come from the fact that autopsy reports, 200 of them, of those who have been lethally injected showed that there was a massive amount of fluid in their lungs, which meant they were drowning. I think it’s the callous brute force of the mentality of the Trump administration that he just believes that he can use force and kill people. He can use violence and force to make his point. There is no need for these executions to happen.
To me, it just reveals a fundamental flaw which has been built into the death penalty from the time that the Supreme Court put death back, in 1976. And here is the fundamental flaw, and the federal executions that we see now really exemplifies it: there was a weak criteria that only “the worst of the worst” should be killed, and nobody really knows what that means. And so there has been wide latitude in determining “worst of the worst.” Or even the assumption that out of all the ordinary murders, whatever that means, there are some who can be targeted as “but this is the worst of the worst.”
So with a weak criteria, it is coupled with that you give complete discretion to pursue death to the prosecutors. It is a fact that if prosecutors do not seek death, people don’t die from executions. So here you have now in the jurisdiction of the federal government, Attorney General Barr, who has the power to seek death, and pursuing it. All he had to do was get a signal from Trump; we gonna start killin’ people. And there has been no way to stop him.
So the fundamental flaw is a weak fuzzy criteria that was never clear in the first place, coupled with discretion of prosecutors. And it exemplifies exactly why we need to shut the death penalty down. You can’t let frail, politically-driven individuals decide “you, you and you are going to die” for whatever political objective they have in mind.