newrepublic--2020-12-14--The Man Who Wants to Take Down Bashar Al Assad

Wolfgang Kaleck , a 60-year-old human rights lawyer with large blue eyes and a wave of sandy brown hair , smiles a lot for someone who has spent his life litigating some of the world ’ s worst atrocities .
“ The stories you hear you won ’ t forget , ” he says , sitting at a long table in his office in Berlin ’ s Kreuzberg district .
“ But at the same time you learn about these cruel facts of the world , you learn about the light side , which is that there ’ s resistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For the better part of three decades , he has pursued cases across borders on behalf of victims who have been disappeared by the military dictatorship in Argentina and spied upon by the East German Stasi .
He has filed criminal complaints against former U.S. officials , including President George W. Bush , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld , CIA Director George Tenet , and current Director Gina Haspel .
And now he ’ s taking on one of the biggest bad guys of them all : Syrian President Bashar Al Assad .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prosecutor , members of the Assad regime are being tried at a courthouse in Koblenz , a small city on the Rhine between Cologne and Frankfurt , for crimes against humanity .
It is the first trial to target high-ranking officials involved in a war that Assad has been waging against his own people with impunity since an uprising against his regime exploded in 2011 ; his crackdown has claimed an estimated 400,000 Syrian lives .
For victims of the regime and their family members , this courthouse is a world away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s also perhaps the best way to bring justice back to their homeland , which continues to be ground into dust by a conflict that has served as a proxy battle for a slew of outside forces .
The trial , which began in April , has been long in the making .
Far beyond the courthouse , through years ’ worth of gathered documents and victim interviews and cross-cultural legal exchange , Wolfgang Kaleck has worked to make this attempt at justice .
A German human rights lawyer with uncommon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main reason such a trial is even possible .

Anwar Raslan came to Germany in 2014 with his family. He had defected from the Syrian regime in 2012, and was granted asylum. But he was not the average defector. A former colonel of the Syrian General Intelligence Directorate, Raslan was essentially the head of Syria’s secret police. He led Damascus’s notorious Branch 251 site, which included a prison that held and tortured critics of the regime. In cells the size of a parking space, dozens of people were packed in so tightly they could only sleep standing up. The torture was sadistic: beatings, burnings, and sexual mutilation often turned deadly. Now the main defendant in the trial in Koblenz, Raslan is facing life in prison for crimes including direct involvement in the deaths of 58 people, rape, and sexual assault, as well as the torture of at least 4,000 others between 2011 and 2012. Another lower-level official, Eyad Al Gharib, is also being tried for aiding and abetting the torture of at least 30 people at Branch 251.
Back in 2014, Raslan was just another Syrian in Berlin, part of a wave of refugees and asylum-seekers from Syria that would number in the hundreds of thousands across Germany by 2015. Raslan had attended U.N.–sponsored talks in Geneva as an adviser to the opposition, which helped his case for asylum in Germany but also put him at some risk. In Berlin, he began to worry that Syrian intelligence agents were roaming the city looking for traitors. Fearing for his life, he went to the police. Under questioning, he told the police about his concerns and about his position and responsibilities in Syria. Three years later, all this information would be used to help justify Raslan’s arrest.
The case against Raslan has been orchestrated by Kaleck and ECCHR. The organization has been working since 2012 to develop cases against the Assad regime, based on evidence provided by collaborators and testimonies collected from victims. Key evidence against Raslan came from the Caesar Files Group, an organization of activists and lawyers representing a former Syrian military police photographer who defected and smuggled out tens of thousands of photos of tortured and murdered victims. Despite Raslan’s defection, which some see as more opportunistic than authentic, there is strong evidence implicating him in these crimes.


newrepublic--2020-12-14--HUD Deserves Better Than Marcia Fudge

HUD Deserves Better Than Marcia Fudge

Almost exactly one month ago , in an interview with Politico , Ohio Representative Marcia Fudge criticized how former presidents were expected to assemble their Cabinets .
“ As this country becomes more and more diverse , we ’ re going to have to stop looking at only certain agencies as those that people like me fit in .
You know , it ’ s always ‘ we want to put the Black person in Labor or HUD , ’ ” said Fudge , who is Black .
The sentiment underscored a pitch she and her allies in Congress were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the House subcommittee responsible for oversight of the Department of Agriculture , she would be a natural fit for the agency ’ s secretary , and she would have been the first Black woman to hold the position .
But it was evidently not enough to persuade President-elect Joe Biden , who announced on December 8 that he had chosen Tom Vilsack , who helmed the USDA during all eight years of the Obama administration , to reprise his tenure there .
( While away , he served as CEO for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden announced , would lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development .
( “ If there was one [ position ] that would be a very , very close second , it ’ s certainly HUD , ” Fudge told The Cleveland Plain Dealer in one of her first interviews after the announcement . )

HUD is an agency in deep crisis; in need of, at the very least, an enthusiastic secretary. For decades, both Republican and Democratic presidents—including the Obama administration—have underfunded the agency. It has rarely received what it needs to maintain the 1.1 million units of public housing it owns and operates, let alone repair the thousands of homes that the agency shutters every year because they’re too dilapidated for legal habitation. The total estimated cost of repairing the country’s stock of public housing is as high as $70 billion, which dwarfs HUD’s total $45 billion annual budget. As many as 50,000 to 100,000 families seeking public housing assistance in cities like Houston and Philadelphia have joined waiting lists that closed to new applicants years ago; at the behest of federal prosecutors, a monitor was appointed to oversee the New York City Housing Authority, which plays landlord to nearly 400,000 residents. Its squalid, rodent-infested housing has resulted in children with lead poisoning and asthma, and 60 percent of NYCHA tenants say their apartments are covered in mold.
HUD is also responsible for disbursing billions of dollars’ worth of project- and tenant-based housing vouchers and city development subsidies through a byzantine array of programs; managing the redevelopment of land in its possession; overseeing rural and Indian housing programs; and enforcing anti-discriminatory housing policy, among other tasks. And under the Rental Assistance Demonstration program, rolled out during Obama’s first term and expanded in his second, nearly one out of every 11 public housing units is now being managed by the private sector.
Should HUD continue on the path it’s now on, in which it’s colossally burdened and yet savagely neglected at the same time, public housing as we know it may not exist in the U.S. several decades from now.


newrepublic--2020-12-14--Sorry, the Hunter Biden Story Is Still Not a Thing

Last week , America ’ s worst opinion page took a victory lap .
“ So Hunter Biden ’ s business is news after all , ” The Wall Street Journal ’ s editorial board crowed after news broke that the FBI had been investigating Hunter Biden ’ s taxes since 2018 .
“ Who knew ?
Well , the New York Post did , and so did we and a few others.
” On the right , the news that all was not kosher with the finances of the president-elect ’ s son was trotted out as proof of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lack of credibility .
Because of the story ’ s dubious origins—involving Steve Bannon , Rudy Giuliani , and possible foreign intelligence—the media had largely passed on it and thereby gave Joe Biden what amounted to an in-kind contribution .
“ If you ’ re looking for election rigging , look no further , ” said Fox News ’ s Tucker Carlson .
“ That ’ s what this is .
They kept information from the public in order to influence the outcome of the election .
They rigged it.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is hardly a smoking gun .
It certainly doesn ’ t point to a massive conspiracy carried out by the mainstream media to elevate the Democratic presidential candidate .
Rather , it is being used to launder a dubious right-wing smear campaign and hamper the incoming Biden administration .
Far from being an example of the clear-eyed wisdom of conservative outlets , the Hunter Biden story shows how these media organizations use the appearance of journalism to push political attacks .

After touting the Biden nonscandal as an existential threat to both Biden’s candidacy and the country in the weeks leading up to Election Day, right-wing media promptly dropped it following the election. The focus shifted to Trump’s bogus claims of widespread voter fraud, and Hunter Biden receded from view. He faded because he was no longer useful—the purpose of the scandal was to cast doubt about Joe Biden’s trustworthiness, and it had failed to do that.
But with Joe Biden set to become president in six weeks, Hunter Biden has become useful once more. The revelation that he has been under investigation for tax evasion has been used to dust off the story, which is now being utilized as a kind of Benghazi scandal, a way of hamstringing the incoming Biden administration before the new president is even sworn in. Fox News has led with stories about Hunter repeatedly since Thursday, despite the fact that 3,000 people are dying of Covid-19 every day. “We watched every hour [of Fox News] on Thursday and Friday,” CNN’s Brian Stelter said on Sunday. “And more than 50 percent of those hours started with Fox anchors talking about the Hunter Biden story.”
The existence of an FBI investigation is being presented as evidence that the stories about Hunter Biden in October were hard-hitting journalism, rather than nakedly partisan mudslinging. But the narrative circulating in October was that Hunter had introduced his father to a “top executive” at a Ukrainian energy firm and that Joe Biden had used his political influence to fire a Ukrainian prosecutor for that firm’s benefit. Nothing we know about the FBI investigation suggests anything of the sort is being looked into. And the idea that Rudy Giuliani, who has spent the last month making an ass of himself in spectacular fashion, has a shred of credibility left is laughable.


newrepublic--2020-12-14--The Year That Killed the Native Mascot

The Year That Killed the Native Mascot

On Sunday evening , The New York Times reported that Cleveland ’ s Major League Baseball team will soon be dropping its “ Indians ” moniker , which the franchise has clung to for 105 years .
The decision follows several seasons in which the team began to slowly phase out the use of the nickname on its uniforms ; this coincided with the decision in 2018 by the MLB commissioner ’ s office to halt further official use of the longtime team mascot , Chief Wahoo , a red-faced , extraordinarily racist caricature of a Native man .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one to anybody except maybe Jeff Bezos .
The pandemic has exacerbated existing systemic failures , stolen far too many elders , and further exposed the federal government as an existential threat to its citizenry and tribal sovereignty .
The outlook , more often than not , has been bleak .
Yet this has also been the year in which Christopher Columbus statues were ripped down from their pedestals .
The one in which multiple tribal citizens are being openly considered for a crucial Cabinet post and in which the Supreme Court declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Land and water protectors have stood strong against capitalism and greed—and won .
And now , odd and conflicting as it may be , 2020 will forever be remembered as the year that rang in the beginning of the end for the Native mascot .
Cleveland is the year ’ s second major professional sports franchise to abandon its racist branding , joining the Washington NFL Team , which dropped its slur of a team name and similarly offensive mascot in July .
While both decisions were derided by the outgoing president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example of “ cancel culture , ” that framing is a pathetic attempt to paint billion-dollar franchises as victims while erasing the actual harm they ’ ve done : Native team names have been linked to the formation of stereotypes and the historicization of Indigenous Americans among children and adults .
But the names are still changing , mad as some jerks might be about it .
That ’ s an objective win , both for Native people and basic human decency .

It’s easy to be cynical about these things. (Why is it that they’re only now brainstorming new names?) Still, there is a stubborn amount of hope to be found. Dolan can drag his feet all he wants. He is still going where Native activists have pushed him. Whether it’s in 2021 or 2026, Cleveland will relegate its name to the past where it belongs. A victory is a victory, but it’s crucial to remember how long it took to get here. The end of the Native mascot was a battle fought over many decades—and many lifetimes.
Vernon Bellecourt, of the White Earth Nation, and Juanita Helphrey, of the the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation, were the fighters on the frontline of the Cleveland battle. Helphrey was among the local leaders responsible for blocking the franchise from moving a 35-foot Chief Wahoo statue to the team’s new stadium in the late 1990s. Bellecourt—a former leader of the American Indian Movement and the lead negotiator during AIM’s takeover of the Bureau of Indian Affairs office—joined Helphrey in burning an effigy of the derisive Wahoo mascot outside the team stadium ahead of a World Series game in 1997, a move that got the pair and another Native protester arrested. Yet neither Bellecourt or Helphrey lived to see the payoff from their labors. In his 2007 obituary, the Times even noted that Bellecourt’s “big four” targets in his team name and mascot fight (Washington, Cleveland, Kansas City, and Atlanta) all outlived him. The same held true with Helphrey, who passed two years ago, just as Wahoo was finally going out of vogue with the MLB front office.
Even with new names on the horizon, the fight isn’t over. Franchises and school systems alike will need to be held accountable as they waffle or draw out these changes. And as I wrote in July in the wake of the Washington name change, a world without Native mascots isn’t the end of the story. The work of unwinding the violent anti-Indigenous attitudes embedded in America’s education systems will remain, as will the need to correct the erasure and pan-Indianism encouraged by these mascots and other popular culture vehicles. (And don’t forget, the Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks, and Kansas City Chiefs are all still in business and tomahawk-chopping their way through the criticism. None of these franchises responded to The New Republic’s inquiries as to whether Cleveland’s move will spur them to undertake similar plans.)


newrepublic--2020-12-14--It’s Too Easy to Hack the U.S. Government

The U.S. government was lucky this time .
According to reports , this hack had the hallmarks of a long-term espionage mission , designed for infiltrating and monitoring secret communications , not causing mayhem .
While the hackers had potentially huge , world-spanning access , the attack was focused on gaining access to certain entities , such as FireEye and the Treasury Department , at the heart of the intelligence-industrial complex .
The hack highlights the government ’ s and industry ’ s vulnerability to supply-chain attacks , where hackers target some of the many systems and vendors powering government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attackers , by gaining a small foothold in SolarWinds ’ Orion software , could then gain administrative privileges allowing them to impersonate any user .
( Microsoft has updated its Windows anti-virus program to account for the SolarWinds vulnerability . )
This attack is only the latest volley in an ongoing war that has already caused real damage .
The New York Times on a wave of Russian ransomware attacks targeting hospital computer systems that left cancer patients unable to schedule treatments .
Especially during a pandemic , the United States can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infrastructure compromised .
For the last few years , members of the foreign policy establishment the idea of a global cybersecurity treaty , perhaps built on previous arms and cybercrime agreements .
Getting some of the world ’ s most prolific cyber-espionage actors—Russia , Israel , China , Iran , North Korea , even France—to commit to such an agreement would be difficult .
Enforcement would be even harder .
But it ’ s a necessary effort .
The U.S. , which has refused to sign a range of international agreements , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on cluster munitions , may be the toughest of all to bring aboard .
For all the hysteria about Russian cyber intrusions , the truth is that the U.S. , through its own widespread , clandestine hacking operations , has as much or more visibility into the systems of its adversaries .
In recent years , Russia more cooperation on cyber matters with the U.S. , and the U.S. has refused .
In September , echoing the Obama-era “ reset ” in overall relations , President Vladimir Putin in the U.S.-Russia cyber relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control agreements as a model .

The U.S. government was lucky this time. According to reports, this hack had the hallmarks of a long-term espionage mission, designed for infiltrating and monitoring secret communications, not causing mayhem. While the hackers had potentially huge, world-spanning access, the attack was focused on gaining access to certain entities, such as FireEye and the Treasury Department, at the heart of the intelligence-industrial complex. (It was later reported that Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Pentagon were hit, too.) The hack highlights the government’s and industry’s vulnerability to supply-chain attacks, where hackers target some of the many systems and vendors powering government networks. As Microsoft noted in a security advisory , the attackers, by gaining a small foothold in SolarWinds’ Orion software, could then gain administrative privileges allowing them to impersonate any user. (Microsoft has updated its Windows anti-virus program to account for the SolarWinds vulnerability.)
This attack is only the latest volley in an ongoing war that has already caused real damage. The New York Times recently reported on a wave of Russian ransomware attacks targeting hospital computer systems that left cancer patients unable to schedule treatments. Especially during a pandemic, the United States can’t afford to have its essential infrastructure compromised. For the last few years, members of the foreign policy establishment have floated the idea of a global cybersecurity treaty, perhaps built on previous arms and cybercrime agreements. Getting some of the world’s most prolific cyber-espionage actors—Russia, Israel, China, Iran, North Korea, even France—to commit to such an agreement would be difficult. Enforcement would be even harder. But it’s a necessary effort.


newrepublic--2020-12-14--But Really, the White House Should Get Vaccinated

Martin Kenyon , a 91-year-old man who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on the first day it was available in the U.K. , told CNN he was looking forward to hugging his grandchildren at Christmas .
Dr. Jeremy Faust , an emergency physician at Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School , was watching the segment .
“ Immediately , my heart sank , ” he told me .
“ Please , wait until a week after the second vaccine.
” The first error with understanding how these vaccines work , he said , is believing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first injection goes into your arm .
The second error is that “ we don ’ t yet know whether these vaccines halt the spread of the virus rather than just decrease the severity of disease.
” That means the senior officials who receive the shots would eventually be protected against Covid-19 symptoms .
But they could still contract and spread the virus—and , if they have no symptoms or mild symptoms , they might not even know they carry the virus , thus putting other White House officials and staff at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holiday parties the White House has planned for the next few weeks .
It ’ s important for everyone to understand this delay in protection from the vaccine and what it means for social gatherings and continuing to take precautions , Faust said .
While high-profile vaccination campaigns can be very successful at easing public hesitations , Jeffrey Flier , a professor of physiology and medicine and the former dean of the faculty of medicine at Harvard University , told me by email , he worries that “ others may just conclude government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is bad.
” This is particularly true of a White House that has “ publicly downplayed concerns about [ the ] virus and use of masks and social distancing while lining up to receive early vaccinations , ” he said .
From the beginning , the Trump administration has downplayed and mismanaged the coronavirus pandemic .
The president frequently brags that he is now “ immune ” from the virus , and has eschewed measures that would prevent its further spread , like social distancing , mask wearing , and canceling public events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s unofficial policy was to allow the virus to spread unchecked .
At least two gatherings at the White House , as well as Trump ’ s numerous campaign rallies , appear to have been superspreading events that infected officials and staff , many of whom didn ’ t have access to the care available to Trump ’ s inner circle .

Public figures’ vaccinations could also be helpful if they include information about what the vaccine does and does not do. It’s important to counter the idea that the vaccine will immediately protect you and those around you, experts say. It takes at least a month from the first shot for full protection to set in. If White House officials receive the first dose of the vaccine on Monday, followed by the booster three weeks later, they would enjoy full protection a week after that, on January 11. Since the vaccine will be rolled out in the White House over 10 days, allowing for time off due to side effects, the Trump administration wouldn’t be protected until January 21—incidentally, the day after Joe Biden takes office.
Martin Kenyon, a 91-year-old man who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on the first day it was available in the U.K., told CNN he was looking forward to hugging his grandchildren at Christmas. Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, was watching the segment. “Immediately, my heart sank,” he told me. “Please, wait until a week after the second vaccine.” The first error with understanding how these vaccines work, he said, is believing that you’re immediately immune after the first injection goes into your arm.
The second error is that “we don’t yet know whether these vaccines halt the spread of the virus rather than just decrease the severity of disease.” That means the senior officials who receive the shots would eventually be protected against Covid-19 symptoms. But they could still contract and spread the virus—and, if they have no symptoms or mild symptoms, they might not even know they carry the virus, thus putting other White House officials and staff at greater risk, especially at the 25 holiday parties the White House has planned for the next few weeks. It’s important for everyone to understand this delay in protection from the vaccine and what it means for social gatherings and continuing to take precautions, Faust said.


newrepublic--2020-12-14--How Biden Distributes the Vaccine Will Define His Presidency

Equally threatening for Biden is the free-market free-for-all over who will get the early doses of the vaccine that has already developed under Trump ’ s laissez-faire leadership .
White House staffers jumped to the front of the line just hours after the first shipments of the vaccine left the Pfizer plant in Michigan .
In all likelihood , junior press aides , whose only job is to lie about the election , will get inoculated before most frontline doctors .
Membership in Mar-a-Lago may also give Trump ’ s wealthy cronies an early line on the vaccine .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well beyond Trump World .
The National Hockey League has reportedly been trying to line up a private supply of the vaccine for its players , who are considered high risk only for dental work .
The American Bankers Association has been lobbying the CDC to have bank employees defined as “ essential workers , ” presumably because they monitor the health of your finances .
In California , Uber wants Newsom to give priority to its underpaid drivers when it comes to allocating the scarce vials of vaccine .
Influence talks when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccinated in January instead of July or August , when the final dosages are expected to be distributed .
Until now , Trump and his friends have followed the path blazed by Trump ’ s legal mentor , Roy Cohn , who in the mid-1980s wormed his way into an early clinical trial of the AIDS drug AZT , even as he was claiming that he had liver cancer .
The message from the White House on Covid-19 feeds the cynical assumption that the first lifeboats are always reserved for VIPs .
Rudy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cocktail of nearly impossible to obtain drugs when he was hospitalized last week for the virus .
Gushing about how he had received the same treatment Trump had , Giuliani told WABC Radio , “ The minute I took the cocktail … I felt 100 percent better.
” Chris Christie , when he was stricken with Covid , had the same good fortune , immediately gaining access to much better treatments than those available to a typical ICU patient in , say , El Paso , Texas .

Equally threatening for Biden is the free-market free-for-all over who will get the early doses of the vaccine that has already developed under Trump’s laissez-faire leadership. White House staffers jumped to the front of the line just hours after the first shipments of the vaccine left the Pfizer plant in Michigan. In all likelihood, junior press aides, whose only job is to lie about the election, will get inoculated before most frontline doctors. Membership in Mar-a-Lago may also give Trump’s wealthy cronies an early line on the vaccine.
But the race to jump the queue extends well beyond Trump World. The National Hockey League has reportedly been trying to line up a private supply of the vaccine for its players, who are considered high risk only for dental work. The American Bankers Association has been lobbying the CDC to have bank employees defined as “essential workers,” presumably because they monitor the health of your finances. In California, Uber wants Newsom to give priority to its underpaid drivers when it comes to allocating the scarce vials of vaccine. Influence talks when it comes to deciding who will be vaccinated in January instead of July or August, when the final dosages are expected to be distributed.
Until now, Trump and his friends have followed the path blazed by Trump’s legal mentor, Roy Cohn, who in the mid-1980s wormed his way into an early clinical trial of the AIDS drug AZT, even as he was claiming that he had liver cancer. The message from the White House on Covid-19 feeds the cynical assumption that the first lifeboats are always reserved for VIPs. Rudy Giuliani, a private citizen, received a cocktail of nearly impossible to obtain drugs when he was hospitalized last week for the virus. Gushing about how he had received the same treatment Trump had, Giuliani told WABC Radio, “The minute I took the cocktail … I felt 100 percent better.” Chris Christie, when he was stricken with Covid, had the same good fortune, immediately gaining access to much better treatments than those available to a typical ICU patient in, say, El Paso, Texas.


newrepublic--2020-12-15--What Black People Really Think About the Police

LA ( Los Angeles ) : That ’ s what I think when they say criminal justice .
I look at it from the police all the way up to the state penal institutions .
I think they all homeboys and friends .
That ’ s what I ’ m thinkin ’ .
B : And the only role that you and I play in that whole circle is the victim .
B : We the ones they depend on , you know ?
LA : They gon na try and put you and I in one of them holes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when I was arrested , I had tears in my eyes .
I said man , why would you want to plant this and lie on me , you are going to really , you ’ re ruining my life man .
You are affecting the lives of many .
LA : Ain ’ t that somethin ’ ?
What did he say , he say yeah ?
B : It was funny to him , right .
I was in cell over at the precinct one time and a gang of—group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six of them .
All white , one black , right .
They were laughing at an officer sharing his story about how he Tased somebody .
Oh , I hit him with a Taser , oh it was funny [ laughs ] .
LA : But you ’ ve got ta ask yourself , in the trainings of criminal justice , I thought it was the color of law .
I thought the mandate of law was the voice .
I was always under the impression that a person could not act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Los Angeles … well damn , this is totally the whole system is debauched , right , I would think .
Not only did the researchers find that participants viewed the entire system as being “ debauched , ” but they also noted that these individuals consistently revealed themselves to be incredibly sophisticated in their breadth of knowledge of local political figures—for instance , the names of district attorneys—as well as in their frequent connections of historical events , such as Rodney King ’ s beating by police in 1992 and the murder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , survey researchers have tended to lament low levels of political knowledge in the American public .
But the conversations captured by the Portals team challenge such conceptions , which rely on survey researchers asking about forms of political knowledge or sophistication that do not map onto the lived experiences of highly policed communities .
In another study , the Portals team documents how Black citizens experience an unequal responsiveness by police that erodes their basic trust in the institution : I really don ’ t like the police .
Like , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you really need them .
They rude as ever , they stop you for no apparent reason at all .
Like , they just … I feel like they do too much .
Your mission is to serve and protect , but we see you as threats now .
Me and my son , we scared to walk down the street .
We go home , we shut all the doors , let all the blinds down .
We go to bed .
This experience illustrated a broader theme of police engaging in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policing , yet being nowhere to be found when “ you really need them.
” So , if Black communities see themselves as being threatened by a whole system beyond the police that does not protect them , what do they want instead ?

B (Baltimore): Big industry, that’s a big industry. LA (Los Angeles): That’s what I think when they say criminal justice. I look at it from the police all the way up to the state penal institutions. I think they all homeboys and friends. That’s what I’m thinkin’. B: And the only role that you and I play in that whole circle is the victim. LA: Really. B: We really are man. LA: Yes we are. Yes. B: We the ones they depend on, you know? LA: They gonna try and put you and I in one of them holes. B: I asked the officer, when I was arrested, I had tears in my eyes. I said man, why would you want to plant this and lie on me, you are going to really, you’re ruining my life man. You are affecting the lives of many. LA: Ain’t that somethin’? What did he say, he say yeah? B: It was funny to him, right. I was in cell over at the precinct one time and a gang of—group of officers, about five, or six of them. All white, one black, right. They were laughing at an officer sharing his story about how he Tased somebody. Oh, I hit him with a Taser, oh it was funny [laughs]. LA: But you’ve gotta ask yourself, in the trainings of criminal justice, I thought it was the color of law. I thought the mandate of law was the voice. I was always under the impression that a person could not act outside the badge, but here in Los Angeles … well damn, this is totally the whole system is debauched, right, I would think.
Not only did the researchers find that participants viewed the entire system as being “debauched,” but they also noted that these individuals consistently revealed themselves to be incredibly sophisticated in their breadth of knowledge of local political figures—for instance, the names of district attorneys—as well as in their frequent connections of historical events, such as Rodney King’s beating by police in 1992 and the murder of Trayvon Martin in 2012. Historically, survey researchers have tended to lament low levels of political knowledge in the American public. But the conversations captured by the Portals team challenge such conceptions, which rely on survey researchers asking about forms of political knowledge or sophistication that do not map onto the lived experiences of highly policed communities.
In another study, the Portals team documents how Black citizens experience an unequal responsiveness by police that erodes their basic trust in the institution:
I really don’t like the police. Like, they don’t respond fast enough when you really need them. They rude as ever, they stop you for no apparent reason at all. Like, they just … I feel like they do too much. Your mission is to serve and protect, but we see you as threats now. Me and my son, we scared to walk down the street. We go home, we shut all the doors, let all the blinds down. We go to bed.
This experience illustrated a broader theme of police engaging in the “broken windows” style of policing, yet being nowhere to be found when “you really need them.”


newrepublic--2020-12-15--Bill Barr Will Go Down in History as Trump’s Worst Enabler

But the strategem worked , giving Trump a political boost as Barr turned his efforts toward counterattacks .
He launched multiple investigations into the Russia investigation ’ s origins and tactics , including one by U.S. attorney John Durham that failed to produce any results before the November election .
On December 1 , Barr revealed that he appointed Durham as a special counsel in the investigation , effectively giving him the same protections against interference that Mueller enjoyed and ensuring his work will continue well into the Biden era .
The president-elect won ’ t spend his free time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation or the one into his son .
But the inquiries will give plenty of grist to Fox News and other conservative news outlets to saturate their audiences with along the way .
Beyond those inquiries , Barr also set out to dismantle Mueller ’ s work .
Earlier this year , the Justice Department ’ s upper ranks overrode a sentencing recommendation by career prosecutors for Roger Stone , a close Trump ally who was convicted of lying to Congress about the Russia investigation .
The second version of the recommendation all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quality that Barr does not extend to people who aren ’ t friends with Donald Trump .
Under Barr ’ s watch , Justice Department prosecutors also tried to withdraw their case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn , who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI to avoid prosecution on other charges .
Trump eventually intervened in both cases with the use of his pardon power , and may ultimately use it to wipe away legal consequences for other allies over the past four years .
Like the president and many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe too much of what he sees on Fox News .
He shares Trump ’ s unfounded belief that widespread voter fraud exists , and followed the president ’ s lead in sapping public confidence in the American electoral system throughout the year .
Barr claimed from time to time that a foreign power could inundate states with fraudulent mail-in ballots , a scenario that election officials and experts said would be easy to detect and logistically impossible to carry out .
In an interview with a Chicago Tribune columnist this fall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no secret vote ” with mail-in balloting , and that elections could be decided by corrupt big-city machines and bought-off mailmen .
“ You know liberals project , ” Barr said in the interview .
“ All this bullshit about how the president is going to stay in office and seize power ?
I ’ ve never heard of any of that crap .
I mean , I ’ m the attorney general .
I would think I would have heard about it .
They are projecting .
They are creating an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of confidence in the vote .
Someone will say the president just won Nevada .
‘ Oh , wait a minute !
We just discovered 100,000 ballots !
Every vote will be counted !
’ Yeah , but we don ’ t know where these freaking votes came from.
” Complaining that Democrats were undermining confidence in the election , and then immediately pivoting to a purely speculative claim of election fraud , is a perfect summation of his Trump-era tenure .

Barr’s worldview also led him to conclude that the Trump administration needed to be protected from existential threats. He wrote a memo in 2017 for the White House and Justice Department that criticized a legal theory purportedly behind Mueller’s investigation at the time. During his confirmation hearing, Barr went out of his way to highlight his personal friendship with Mueller, which helped assuage concerns on Capitol Hill that he would improperly meddle in his inquiry. When Mueller submitted his report to Barr last year, however, the attorney general went to extraordinary—and deceptive—lengths to paint its damaging findings about Trump in the best possible light. Mueller himself privately protested Barr’s whitewashing. A federal judge publicly castigated Barr for misleading the American public, concluding that the attorney general lacked credibility in his court.
But the strategem worked, giving Trump a political boost as Barr turned his efforts toward counterattacks. He launched multiple investigations into the Russia investigation’s origins and tactics, including one by U.S. attorney John Durham that failed to produce any results before the November election. On December 1, Barr revealed that he appointed Durham as a special counsel in the investigation, effectively giving him the same protections against interference that Mueller enjoyed and ensuring his work will continue well into the Biden era. The president-elect won’t spend his free time going on destructive Twitter rants about that investigation or the one into his son. But the inquiries will give plenty of grist to Fox News and other conservative news outlets to saturate their audiences with along the way.
Beyond those inquiries, Barr also set out to dismantle Mueller’s work. Earlier this year, the Justice Department’s upper ranks overrode a sentencing recommendation by career prosecutors for Roger Stone, a close Trump ally who was convicted of lying to Congress about the Russia investigation. The second version of the recommendation all but pleaded with the judge for leniency—a quality that Barr does not extend to people who aren’t friends with Donald Trump. Under Barr’s watch, Justice Department prosecutors also tried to withdraw their case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI to avoid prosecution on other charges. Trump eventually intervened in both cases with the use of his pardon power, and may ultimately use it to wipe away legal consequences for other allies over the past four years.


How Pandemics End

On December 11 , the Food and Drug Administration authorized Pfizer to begin distributing its vaccine for Covid-19 .
The triumphant moment comes on the brink of a grim winter , amid record case levels across the United States , and it is accompanied by countless unknowns .
For Episode 22 of The Politics of Everything , hosts Laura Marsh and Alex Pareene talk to Nicholas Christakis , a physician and sociologist at Yale University and the author of Apollo ’ s Arrow : The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live , about what to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will take to recover from the pandemic ’ s devastation , and how our lives may be permanently changed .
Later in the show , Melody Schreiber , a frequent contributor to The New Republic , and Rebecca Coyle , the executive director of the American Immunization Registry Association , join to discuss the challenges of the vaccine rollout .
When will vaccines be available to ordinary people ?
What kinds of problems may arise as they ’ re distributed and tracked ?
How long , in other words , will all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that we should expect to see people ’ s behaviors of change in a lasting way .
Are there examples that you can think of from previous pandemics or plagues where the way people act has actually changed significantly ?
Nicholas Christakis : One of the toy examples I like to give is spittoons .
At the turn of the prior century , around 1900 , there were tuberculosis outbreaks in this country , and public spitting was rightly seen as very unsanitary .
And then the so-called Spanish Flu struck in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only was public spitting not uncommon , but every restaurant had a little brass bucket in it called a spittoon that you could spit in—just really gross , accumulating big buckets of spit over the course of a day .
People got rid of these because we don ’ t want people spitting in our restaurants .
After the epidemic was over , the spittoons didn ’ t come back .
None of us have ever been to a restaurant where we ’ re like , “ Where is the spittoon ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is there something in the 21st century that resembles a spittoon , but we ’ re so used to it that we don ’ t see it as disgustingly unhygienic ?
Nicholas : Well , I don ’ t think handshaking is as disgusting as public spitting , but I do think there ’ s a possibility that that handshaking may go the way of spittoons .
You know , there are different ways of greeting each other in different cultures .
In Europe and the United States , we shake hands , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meet them .
But in many other parts of the world , people bow , they clasp their hands together , and they don ’ t have physical contact .
Laura : Right .
As a socially awkward English person , I ’ d prefer to stand about six feet away from the person and just wave to greet them .
No warmth , no physical contact .
Nicholas : Exactly .
The future is going to favor you hugely , Laura .

On December 11, the Food and Drug Administration authorized Pfizer to begin distributing its vaccine for Covid-19. The triumphant moment comes on the brink of a grim winter, amid record case levels across the United States, and it is accompanied by countless unknowns. For Episode 22 of The Politics of Everything, hosts Laura Marsh and Alex Pareene talk to Nicholas Christakis, a physician and sociologist at Yale University and the author of Apollo’s Arrow: The Profound and Enduring Impact of Coronavirus on the Way We Live, about what to expect in the coming year and beyond—what it will take to recover from the pandemic’s devastation, and how our lives may be permanently changed. Later in the show, Melody Schreiber, a frequent contributor to The New Republic, and Rebecca Coyle, the executive director of the American Immunization Registry Association, join to discuss the challenges of the vaccine rollout. When will vaccines be available to ordinary people? What kinds of problems may arise as they’re distributed and tracked? How long, in other words, will all this last?
Laura Marsh: You say that we should expect to see people’s behaviors change in a lasting way. Are there examples that you can think of from previous pandemics or plagues where the way people act has actually changed significantly?
Nicholas Christakis: One of the key examples I like to give is spittoons. At the turn of the prior century, around 1900, there were tuberculosis outbreaks in this country, and public spitting was rightly seen as very unsanitary. And then the so-called Spanish Flu struck in 1918. At the time, not only was public spitting not uncommon, but every restaurant had a little brass bucket in it called a spittoon that you could spit in—just really gross, accumulating big buckets of spit over the course of a day. People got rid of these because we don’t want people spitting in our restaurants. After the epidemic was over, the spittoons didn’t come back. None of us have ever been to a restaurant where we’re like, “Where is the spittoon? I want my spittoon back.”
Laura: Is there something in the twenty-first century that resembles a spittoon, but we’re so used to it that we don’t see it as disgustingly unhygienic?
Nicholas: Well, I don’t think hand-shaking is as disgusting as public spitting, but I do think there’s a possibility that handshaking may go the way of spittoons. You know, there are different ways of greeting each other in different cultures. In Europe and the United States, we shake hands, sometimes we hug strangers when we first meet them. But in many other parts of the world, people bow, they clasp their hands together, and they don’t have physical contact.
Laura: Right. As a socially awkward English person, I’d prefer to stand about six feet away from the person and just wave to greet them. No warmth, no physical contact.
Nicholas: Exactly. The future is going to favor you hugely, Laura.


newrepublic--2020-12-16--Transcript: The Vaccine Pipeline

Transcript: The Vaccine Pipeline

Rebecca : If you think back in time , most often as a child , you were given a yellow card , a piece of paper .
It was noted on that piece of paper what vaccine you received , the date you received it , and then when you probably need to come back for your next dose .
There ’ s a way for immunization registries to capture all of that and provide a consolidated record—so it ’ s sort of taking that yellow card and digitizing it in a way that ’ s meaningful and can follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re accessing .
Laura : For the average person out there who ’ s thinking about when they might get the vaccine or wondering and worrying about what the challenges might be , if you just had to tell them very simply what your organization hopes to do to make that easier , what would you say ?
Rebecca : My organization is working with all the states that operate a system .
So right now we are working with them to develop the data specifications or the data file that needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent up to the federal government so that they can look broadly across the U.S. to see how many vaccines are out there , how many doses of Vaccine A , how many doses of Vaccine B have been administered for planning purposes .
And then also verification that doses that have been shipped are actually being administered .
Alex : I actually want to back up a little bit here because I think this is sort of interesting .
You ’ re talking about how your organization works with all of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own immunization information systems or registries of people who have been vaccinated .
Is the American system of a sort of patchwork of vaccine registries unique ?
Do other countries track this more universally ?
Rebecca : That ’ s a great question .
And I think this is one of those where , you know , we have a federated approach to everything in this country .
That ’ s sort of how we were built .
And that ’ s why we have this patchwork approach .
There are other countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country—recognizing that oftentimes some of these countries are the size of one of our states .
There are also other countries—Canada is a great example—where they also have a more federated approach .
So there ’ s a combination of things out there .
At the core , it ’ s important to recognize that all states but one ( which is New Hampshire ) operate a system .
And then in addition to the state , there are also large cities like New York City and Philadelphia that operate a system .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are all these different systems , some of them sound like they probably work really well , but it ’ s unclear how they fit together .
What ’ s the danger that people might fall through the cracks , where are the weaknesses there ?
Rebecca : So I think some of the concerns might be for somebody that may have moved , particularly if they ’ ve received the first dose in one state and moved between the first dose and second dose , there ’ s concern that that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known by the new state .
There are some technology solutions that will allow state systems to figure out , you know , what did that person receive for their first vaccine dose .
Laura : So the rollout of the vaccine is interesting because I know that certainly during these last several months , I have been focused on there being a vaccine and thinking that will be kind of the light at the end of the tunnel , but the rollout is uneven .
You know , it depends how people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what states do .
Melody , you ’ ve written about the order in which individuals may actually get this vaccine .
Melody : So the order will , will be determined by the CDC , um , by a committee of , um , experts from across the country and the order ’ s going to be first health workers , um , and including people who work in care facilities .
And then , um , the people who live in the care facilities , that just makes sense .
Um @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of death is highest .
So after that first phase , the committee will meet again to continue making recommendations on the next phase , Laura : So they haven ’ t actually come up with a full order of it ’ s group a and group B , then group C and group D. Melody : What I have in front of me is the National Academies of Science , Engineering , and Medicine , and they have recommendations of where they ’ ll likely go .
Laura : So these are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as if the government has said we ’ ve committed to laying everything out in this exact order .
Is that correct ?
Melody : That ’ s correct .
And part of that is because we ’ re still getting the data on the vaccine .
If we discover that the vaccine just doesn ’ t work as well among the elderly , the recommendations are going to be , put this vaccine toward the elderly and put this vaccine toward people who work in schools .
So as that data comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a better idea of where it ’ s going .
Alex : What the CDC has come up with and is going to send to the States is recommendations , and the states will ultimately determine how they will distribute it and what the order will be .
And so for example , that could mean it could be different in different parts of the country , right ?
Because there was a story that might ’ ve just been a sort of overblown Twitter reaction to a headline , but might ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ m actually not sure , about essential workers in New York that could include employees of financial firms , right ?
Because , I mean , under New York ’ s rules , Laura and I are essential workers because we ’ re in the media .
It ’ s true !
Because we were allowed to go to work , to do reporting during lockdown .
Laura : Such a shame that this is audio , because if you could see my face .
.
.
.
As much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definitely doesn ’ t feel like it should have put us first in line for a vaccine .
Alex : But we don ’ t know yet whether or not New York State will determine that us podcasting journalists will get to be higher up on the list then than preschool teachers or something , right ?
Melody : So the CDC will make the recommendations .
It ’ s always going to be up to the states to follow those recommendations and to interpret them .
So you say health workers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Does it mean health workers who go and visit people ’ s homes ?
Quite a bit of it is going to depend on how many of each category you have in each state and how many doses you get .
The vaccine is being allocated based on population , not on need per se , but on the number of people and how many doses they have .
So in Alaska , for instance , if they have enough to cover all of their healthcare staff and all of the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the states will be determining that—and then , yeah , how you define essential worker is going to be a huge debate .
Laura : If you ’ re an ordinary person , it ’ s natural to sort of wonder , well , when would I get this right ?
You can even go on the New York times website and they ’ ve made a kind of little interactive feature and it will sort of tell you , you know , you ’ re in line behind 90 million people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Melody : Well , from the first shot that goes into the arm of a health worker , I ’ m going to start being protected .
You know , these health workers are keeping hospitals going .
They ’ re caring for people who are getting sick .
They need to absolutely be protected first .
Alex : Right .
It ’ s like I ’ m waiting in line overnight for the “ I want my grandma to stay alive and for me to not get Covid ” store , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a.m. and there ’ s 90 million people in front of me , but each person who gets in there makes the likelihood of me getting what I want from the store more likely .
Melody : They ’ re going to have a circle around me that protects me because they ’ re suddenly a lot more protected .
And so that ’ s going to protect me long before I get a shot .
And honestly , I ’ m not just waiting in line for a vaccination .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , for my parents to be protected , for people I know who have preexisting conditions .
Honestly , Looking at my risk factors , if I were to get sick , it would probably be pretty mild .
So I don ’ t worry about my getting sick .
I worry about other people getting sick and those people who are at high risk , they need to be way ahead of me .
And I ’ m totally fine with that .
Alex : We ’ ve been talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deciding people will receive the vaccine .
We have been also talking about it as if people will then go take it when it ’ s their turn on the list .
Rebecca , you know about the vaccine registries .
Do people have privacy concerns about , effectively , the government making a list of what people have what vaccines ?
Rebecca : That is a great question .
I think it is absolutely one of the concerns that we know people have about their data and , and making sure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
I think that ’ s been one of the fundamental principles across immunization information systems or registries .
We know that there are a couple of states that still have an opt-in requirement , meaning that in order for the information to go into the registry , somebody has to sign explicit consent to go into the system .
Most of our systems operate on an opt-out basis , meaning that if your information is in there and you don ’ t want it there , you can request to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a state and actually switching from an opt-in to an opt-out platform , the reason why we did that is we found that for most parents that had to opt in at birth , we were getting about 90 percent of parents saying , “ Yes , we want our kids included in this registry.
” And over the course of the first year of life , we are actually finding that virtually all children are going in .
At the core , I think , privacy is a huge concern .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure that only the people that are authenticated , that should have access to these systems , do , in fact , have access to these systems .
It ’ s why this data doesn ’ t get broadly shared across the board .
It ’ s very controlled and very regulated .
Alex : I guess maybe even just speaking personally , how worried are you in this information environment that conspiratorial thinking about these lists is going to hamper delivery of the vaccine ?
Rebecca : I would like to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , I do think there are some unique considerations with this particular rollout that haven ’ t existed before .
And to say that I ’ m not concerned about them , I think , is not accurate .
So we know that in this vaccine rollout , as I mentioned , there are some new data exchange components that haven ’ t existed before—that being immunization information systems our states are supposed to send their identifiable information up to CDC .
And I think that is something that we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is there a reason for that ?
How is that data going to be utilized ?
There ’ s nothing that the federal government is going to be able to do that the states can ’ t do themselves .
I think that ’ s the key piece .
States have been doing this for a long time , but we haven ’ t been doing is sending data to the federal government for them to deduplicate consolidate and monitor and maintain—that just hasn ’ t happened .
And I do think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but then also from a data flow perspective .
Laura : I want to go back to something Melody mentioned , which is that there is not just one vaccine , there are a couple of different vaccines .
They all have to be stored at different temperatures .
So they require different supply chains in order to reach people Does that make things more complicated or is that something we ’ re used to seeing with vaccines ?
Rebecca : So the good news is from a vaccine perspective , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the systems in place for a variety of different combinations .
For the most part , as of now , the vaccines are really two-dose vaccines .
That ’ s very comparable to most of the vaccines that we have out there .
In fact , it ’ s more rare to have a vaccine that only requires one dose .
So there some added complications , but I don ’ t think it ’ s going to be as challenging as everyone might think it is .
Laura : Melody , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid , how do you think that will affect the way the public thinks about getting the vaccine ?
For instance , should someone be concerned if they get the Pfizer vaccine instead of the Moderna one ?
Is there any difference between them ?
How much do we know about it ?
Melody : So far , with what we know , I don ’ t think we can really say that what the differences between Pfizer and Moderna are .
As more of the data is released , they ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowing which one you got will be important for knowing when you follow up in the second dose that you get , making sure you go to the right place .
The other issue that I ’ m following quite closely is if there ’ s a vaccine that ’ s not as effective but easier to administer , there are questions about equity .
In rural areas , across the world—if a vaccine is more effective but harder to administer , who gets it , and how do we make those decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of equity questions in general with the vaccine rollouts that really need to take front and center .
Laura : Right .
Because if they ’ re the one that needs to be kept in super cold storage , it seems like you ’ re more likely to get that if you live near a hospital that has really high-tech , expensive facilities , versus if you live further away from that kind of facility and you might end up getting the one that doesn ’ t need such special training .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ talked about in our meeting about this episode , which is that there ’ s a ton of things we can be doing , and I say we meaning both the federal government , meaning state government , meaning city government , and then meaning the individual too .
There ’ s a ton of things that we could be doing that are often not being done that could be making things a lot easier right now .
To what degree is the fact that soon there will be vaccine .
Do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Well , I don ’ t need to do any of that hard stuff like closing things back down , I don ’ t have to do that because the vaccine is right around the corner ” ?
Melody : Yeah .
I do think that ’ s the temptation among politicians , but also among everyday people .
The end is in sight , but we just have to hold on because it ’ s going to get way worse before it gets better .
I mean , the light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ re just still not there yet .
We ’ re still in the middle of the tunnel .
Every day that we have the opportunity to take precautionary measures and curb the spread , we still have in our power the ability to make a difference before a vaccine ever arrives .
Alex : Well , Melody , Rebecca , thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us today .
Melody : Thank you for having me .
Rebecca : This has really been fun and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so I appreciate that .

Laura: So the rollout of the vaccine is interesting because I know that, certainly during these last several months, I have been focused on there being a vaccine and thinking that will be kind of the light at the end of the tunnel, but the rollout is uneven. You know, it depends on how people adopt it, and it depends on what states do. Melody, you’ve written about the order in which individuals may actually get this vaccine.
Melody: So the order will be determined by the CDC, by a committee of experts from across the country, and the order’s going to be: first, health workers, and including people who work in care facilities. And then, the people who live in the care facilities, that just makes sense. It’s where the prevalence of death is highest. So, after that first phase, the committee will meet again to continue making recommendations on the next phase.
Laura: So they haven’t actually come up with a full order of: It’s group A, and group B, then group C and group D.
Melody: What I have in front of me is the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, and they have recommendations of where they’ll likely go.
Laura: So these are recommendations, but it’s not as if the government has said: We’ve committed to laying everything out in this exact order. Is that correct?
Melody: That’s correct. And part of that is because we’re still getting the data on the vaccine. If we discover that the vaccine just doesn’t work as well among the elderly, the recommendations are going to be: Put this vaccine toward the elderly, and put this vaccine toward people who work in schools. So as that data comes out, then they’ll have a better idea of where it’s going.
Alex: What the CDC has come up with and is going to send to the states is recommendations, and the states will ultimately determine how they will distribute it and what the order will be. And so, for example, that could mean it could be different in different parts of the country, right?
Because there was a story that might’ve just been a sort of overblown Twitter reaction to a headline, but might’ve had some more basis to it, I’m actually not sure, about essential workers in New York that could include employees of financial firms, right? Because, I mean, under New York’s rules, Laura and I are essential workers because we’re in the media. It’s true! Because we were allowed to go to work, to do reporting during lockdown.
Laura: Such a shame that this is audio, because if you could see my face.… As much as I love this podcast, it definitely doesn’t feel like it should put us first in line for a vaccine.
Alex: Right.
Melody: In my heart you’re essential.
Alex: But we don’t know yet whether or not New York State will determine that us podcasting journalists will get to be higher up on the list than preschool teachers or something, right?
Melody: So, the CDC will make the recommendations. It’s always going to be up to the states to follow those recommendations and to interpret them. So you say health workers. Does that mean health workers in clinics? Does it mean health workers who go and visit people’s homes? Quite a bit of it is going to depend on how many of each category you have in each state and how many doses you get. The vaccine is being allocated based on population, not on need per se, but on the number of people and how many doses they have. So in Alaska, for instance, if they have enough to cover all of their health care staff and all of the people living in care facilities who go next, the states will be determining that—and then, yeah, how you define essential worker is going to be a huge debate.
Laura: If you’re an ordinary person, it’s natural to sort of wonder, well, when would I get this, right? You can even go on the New York Times website, and they’ve made a kind of little interactive feature, and it will sort of tell you, you know, you’re in line behind 90 million people. So what does that really mean?
Melody: Well, from the first shot that goes into the arm of a health worker, I’m going to start being protected. You know, these health workers are keeping hospitals going. They’re caring for people who are getting sick. They need to absolutely be protected first.
Alex: Right. It’s like I’m waiting in line overnight for the “I want my grandma to stay alive and for me to not get Covid” store, I want it to open at 8 a.m., and there’s 90 million people in front of me, but each person who gets in there makes the likelihood of me getting what I want from the store more likely.
Melody: They’re going to have a circle around me that protects me because they’re suddenly a lot more protected. And so that’s going to protect me long before I get a shot. And honestly, I’m not just waiting in line for a vaccination. I’m waiting in line, like you said, for my parents to be protected, for people I know who have preexisting conditions. Honestly, looking at my risk factors, if I were to get sick, it would probably be pretty mild. So I don’t worry about my getting sick. I worry about other people getting sick and those people who are at high risk, they need to be way ahead of me. And I’m totally fine with that.
Alex: We’ve been talking about the order in which the government is deciding people will receive the vaccine. We have been also talking about it as if people will then go take it when it’s their turn on the list. Rebecca, you know about the vaccine registries. Do people have privacy concerns about, effectively, the government making a list of what people have what vaccines?
Rebecca: That is a great question. I think it is absolutely one of the concerns that we know people have about their data, and making sure that only the right people have access to that. I think that’s been one of the fundamental principles across immunization information systems or registries. We know that there are a couple of states that still have an opt-in requirement, meaning that in order for the information to go into the registry, somebody has to sign explicit consent to go into the system. Most of our systems operate on an opt-out basis, meaning that if your information is in there and you don’t want it there, you can request to have it removed. And having worked in a state and actually switching from an opt-in to an opt-out platform, the reason why we did that is we found that for most parents that had to opt in at birth, we were getting about 90 percent of parents saying, “Yes, we want our kids included in this registry.” And over the course of the first year of life, we are actually finding that virtually all children are going in. At the core, I think, privacy is a huge concern. That’s why we want to make sure that only the people that are authenticated, that should have access to these systems, do, in fact, have access to these systems. It’s why this data doesn’t get broadly shared across the board. It’s very controlled and very regulated.
Alex: I guess maybe even just speaking personally, how worried are you in this information environment that conspiratorial thinking about these lists is going to hamper delivery of the vaccine?
Rebecca: I would like to think that it won’t hamper that. However, I do think there are some unique considerations with this particular rollout that haven’t existed before. And to say that I’m not concerned about them, I think, is not accurate. So we know that in this vaccine rollout, as I mentioned, there are some new data exchange components that haven’t existed before—that being immunization information systems; our states are supposed to send their identifiable information up to CDC. And I think that is something that we have really questioned. At the core, is there a reason for that? How is that data going to be utilized? There’s nothing that the federal government is going to be able to do that the states can’t do themselves. I think that’s the key piece. States have been doing this for a long time, but what we haven’t been doing is sending data to the federal government for them to deduplicate, consolidate, and monitor and maintain—that just hasn’t happened. And I do think that presents some risk from a privacy perspective, but then also from a data-flow perspective.
Laura: I want to go back to something Melody mentioned, which is that there is not just one vaccine, there are a couple of different vaccines. They all have to be stored at different temperatures. So they require different supply chains in order to reach people Does that make things more complicated or is that something we’re used to seeing with vaccines?
Rebecca: So the good news is, from a vaccine perspective, this is just another vaccine. We already have the systems in place for a variety of different combinations. For the most part, as of now, the vaccines are really two-dose vaccines. That’s very comparable to most of the vaccines that we have out there. In fact, it’s more rare to have a vaccine that only requires one dose. So there some added complications, but I don’t think it’s going to be as challenging as everyone might think it is.
Laura: Melody, with there being several different vaccines for Covid, how do you think that will affect the way the public thinks about getting the vaccine? For instance, should someone be concerned if they get the Pfizer vaccine instead of the Moderna one? Is there any difference between them? How much do we know about it?
Melody: So far, with what we know, I don’t think we can really say what the differences between Pfizer and Moderna are. As more of the data is released, they’ll have a better idea. I think knowing which one you got will be important for knowing when you follow up in the second dose that you get, making sure you go to the right place. The other issue that I’m following quite closely is, if there’s a vaccine that’s not as effective but easier to administer, there are questions about equity. In rural areas, across the world—if a vaccine is more effective but harder to administer, who gets it, and how do we make those decisions? I think that there are a lot of equity questions in general with the vaccine rollouts that really need to take front and center.
Laura: Right. Because if they’re the one that needs to be kept in super-cold storage, it seems like you’re more likely to get that if you live near a hospital that has really high-tech, expensive facilities, versus if you live further away from that kind of facility and you might end up getting the one that doesn’t need such special training.
Alex: That gets to something we talked about in our meeting about this episode, which is that there’s a ton of things we can be doing, and I say “we” meaning both the federal government, meaning state government, meaning city government, and then meaning the individual, too. There’s a ton of things that we could be doing that are often not being done that could be making things a lot easier right now. To what degree is the fact that soon there will be vaccine … do you think that is causing politicians to say, “Well, I don’t need to do any of that hard stuff like closing things back down, I don’t have to do that because the vaccine is right around the corner”?
Melody: Yeah. I do think that’s the temptation among politicians, but also among everyday people. The end is in sight, but we just have to hold on because it’s going to get way worse before it gets better. I mean, the light is at the end of the tunnel, we’re just still not there yet. We’re still in the middle of the tunnel. Every day that we have the opportunity to take precautionary measures and curb the spread, we still have in our power the ability to make a difference before a vaccine ever arrives.
Alex: Well, Melody, Rebecca, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us today.
Melody: Thank you for having me.
Rebecca: This has really been fun and very different from my normal day, so I appreciate that.


newrepublic--2020-12-16--Why Can’t the SEC Just Agree That Bribing Foreign Governments Is Bad?

Under the proposed language Clayton has backed , companies would only have to report their collective payments at the national or major subnational level , and payments under $ 150,000 would be exempt entirely .
Furthermore , exemptions would be made in situations where foreign law prohibits disclosure .
Gary Kalman , director of Transparency International ’ s U.S. office , commented to the SEC that , “ Under the rule , public officials who take bribes can block the disclosure of those very bribes by enacting local laws .
How long does anyone think it will take for corrupt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their tracks ?
That ’ s not accountability ; it ’ s an invitation for evasion.
” The two earlier incarnations of the rule required reporting payments at the project level , because the vast majority of corruption occurs around specific contracts .
Once the proceeds of corruption enter complex international networks of banks , law firms , shell companies , and other service providers it becomes extraordinarily difficult for regulators , law enforcement , and financial institutions to mitigate illicit finance .
Reporting only the total sums of payments that extractive companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary to alert citizens to corrupt deals cut at their expense .
While the United States has failed to finalize the regulations mandated by the Cardin-Lugar amendment , the European Union , the UK , Canada , and Norway are enforcing their own laws based on the languishing U.S. law .
The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative ( EITI ) , an organization established in 2003 around a system of voluntary policy commitments , and which has become the leading global standard for the good governance of natural resource exploitation , called on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s definition of project-level reporting , ” and argued that “ inconsistency between the SEC rule and other global reporting standards such as the EITI would likely lead to increased compliance costs for companies.
” The United States withdrew from the EITI in 2017 after just three years as an implementing country .
At the time , Senators Cardin and Lugar issued a joint statement calling the Trump administration move “ a painful abdication of American leadership on transparency and good governance .
”

Under the proposed language Clayton has backed, companies would only have to report their collective payments at the national or major subnational level, and payments under $150,000 would be exempt entirely. Furthermore, exemptions would be made in situations where foreign law prohibits disclosure. Gary Kalman, director of Transparency International’s U.S. office, commented to the SEC, “Under the rule, public officials who take bribes can block the disclosure of those very bribes by enacting local laws. How long does anyone think it will take for corrupt officials to pass local laws that cover their tracks? That’s not accountability; it’s an invitation for evasion.”
The two earlier incarnations of the rule required reporting payments at the project level, because the vast majority of corruption occurs around specific contracts. Once the proceeds of corruption enter complex international networks of banks, law firms, shell companies, and other service providers, it becomes extraordinarily difficult for regulators, law enforcement, and financial institutions to mitigate illicit finance. Reporting only the total sums of payments that extractive companies make to national governments lacks the precision necessary to alert citizens to corrupt deals cut at their expense.
While the U.S. has failed to finalize the regulations mandated by the Cardin-Lugar amendment, the European Union, the U.K., Canada, and Norway are enforcing their own laws based on the languishing U.S. law. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, an organization established in 2003 around a system of voluntary policy commitments, and which has become the leading global standard for the good governance of natural resource exploitation, called on the SEC “to adopt the EITI Standard’s definition of project-level reporting,” and argued that “inconsistency between the SEC rule and other global reporting standards such as the EITI would likely lead to increased compliance costs for companies.” The U.S. withdrew from the EITI in 2017, after just three years as an implementing country. At the time, Senators Cardin and Lugar issued a joint statement calling the Trump administration move “a painful abdication of American leadership on transparency and good governance.”


newrepublic--2020-12-16--Steve McQueen and the Art of Gathering

Steve McQueen and the Art of Gathering

Mangrove , the first film in Steve McQueen ’ s five-part anthology series , “ Small Axe , ” begins with Frank Crichlow ( Shaun Parkes ) , the proprietor of a local West Indian restaurant , walking through the Notting Hill section of London while “ Try Me ” by Bob Marley and the Wailers plays in the background .
He crosses a construction site where Black children are happily running around a makeshift playground comprised of overturned trash bins , construction beams , an old mattress , and a baby carriage .
In the background , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ WOGS Out ” ( derogatory slang for dark-skinned foreigners ) .
This opening sequence sets the scene not only for Mangrove , a film based on the real-life story of a Caribbean restaurant that became a focal point for Black organizers in London in the 1960s , but the entirety of McQueen ’ s new project .
Although the five films , which explore various moments in Black British history from the 1960s to the 1980s , look at vastly different subjects using a range of styles ( from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer , Red , White , and Blue , to the standout Lovers Rock , which could almost be classified as experimental cinema ) , there is a devotion throughout to documenting the improvised scenes of Black social life .
The subjects of “ Small Axe ” fight back against racism through the simple act of assembly .
They gather in Caribbean restaurants , house parties , Brixton record stories , and special Saturday schools set up for Black children to learn the histories left out of British primary education .
They create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ borrowing this or that from a friend , turning making do into an art form .
In Stolen Life , his 2018 collection of essays about the politics and aesthetics of Black life , the philosopher Fred Moten writes that “ the first and most serious black crime is black sociality.
” He also describes the natural tendency to gather as a form of fugitivity when undertaken by Black people in a racist society .
McQueen would seem to understand this acutely , lacing his scenes of Black sociality with both the high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the consequences will be .
McQueen , though best known to American audiences for his Oscar-winning Twelve Years a Slave ( 2013 ) , actually made his directorial debut with Hunger ( 2008 ) , a film about the 1981 IRA hunger strike , starring the Irish actor Michael Fassbender .
Which is to say , McQueen has from the very beginning of his career been interested in what it means to stake out a piece of British territory for your own .
In “ Small Axe , ” we watch as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources nor validation from white society , attract violent intrusions from police and other racist elements .
That friction between Black social autonomy and those who resent it is the essence of the dramatic tension we see unfold in “ Small Axe .
”

The second film in the series, Lovers Rock, is named after a style of music that emerged in Great Britain in the late 1970s, a fusion of reggae and soul with lyrics that explored romantic subject matter. The music was played at house parties called “blues dances,” where Black Londoners, excluded from the city’s main dance halls, set up their own clubs. McQueen begins with the setting up, the cooks in the kitchen making curry and saltfish, the D.J. rehearsing his “toasts,” a Dancehall practice of speaking over the riddim to hype up the audience, a tradition considered a precursor to rap. “Shouts out to all the ladies worldwide,” the D.J. says to himself in the empty room, “all the girls lookin’ for a man tonight.”
To be Black and desire any kind of existence, even the quiet one of serving goat curry to customers, is to be seen as an agitator.
The film follows a young couple, Franklyn (Micheal Ward) and Martha (Amarah-Jae St. Aubyn) who meet and fall in love over the course of the evening. It contains little action other than the pair’s intense stares, the swaying of unnamed bodies to music, and the intimacy of a crowded house party. It is hard to have a conversation in such a place, and so the dialogue is fittingly sparse, allowing us to focus on what really matters—the music and the fashion. In a much-discussed scene, the D.J. plays “Silly Games” by Jamaican-British singer Janet Kay. Kay’s hit was the first lovers rock song ever to appear on the BBC’s flagship music program, Top of the Pops. When the track ends, the crowd continues to sing, squealing to hit the high notes, moving rhythmically with their eyes closed in a trancelike sequence that goes on for over four minutes. In an interview with Slate, McQueen seemed to reference the moment, telling writer Dan Kois “it’s almost like an expelling. One expels the weight of the nonsense that one is dealing with. It’s church. It’s church in a way. It is church.” That nonsense, it turns out, is just outside. When Martha briefly runs out of the house to chase after a friend who has left without saying goodbye, she is accosted by a group of young white men who begin taunting her with ape sounds.
The precarity of secret, sacred spaces like the lovers rock house parties comes into sharp relief here and yet again in a later film in the series, Alex Wheatle. A tender mini-biopic of the Jamaican-British novelist, the film touches on the infamous New Cross house fire in 1981, when a dance party meant to celebrate the birthday of a young West Indian girl became the site of a fire that left 13 dead. Though the case remains unsolved, many in the community suspected it was an act of arson committed by far-right groups who had been antagonizing the neighborhood. The moment was a catalyst in setting off the 1981 Brixton Riots, which Wheatle was arrested for participating in. “We’re in the middle of a friggin’ war,” Wheatle says when he hears the news in the film.


newrepublic--2020-12-16--Death to the Negative Restaurant
Review

Death to the Negative Restaurant
Review

Last February , I had the honor of being publicly snubbed by Jay Rayner , the fiery restaurant critic for The Guardian , who dismissed my essay about the “ crisis ” of the American restaurant review as “ staggeringly parochial.
” Apparently , my essay did not say enough about the British restaurant review .
Rayner sketched a broad distinction between the somber American critic driven by “ civic duty ” with a “ respectful and solicitous ” tone ( not adjectives commonly associated with the Stars and Stripes ) and the Brits , who are the “ writerly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans write descriptions such as “ creamy slips of uni ” or “ a fragrant lake of oil , ” the English understand the simple joy of comparing a rude waitstaff to an “ unlubricated colonoscopy.
” Rayner ended his column with an appeal to un-seriousness : “ Learn to relax a little .
After all , we ’ re not war reporters .
We ’ re only writing about lunch.
” Then the pandemic hit .
As restaurants across the world were forced to close , the value of Rayner ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question .
While American reviewers reacted to the shutdown with broader assessments of the state of the restaurant industry and its future , the major British critics spent the lockdown taking “ trips down Memory Lane ” and “ becoming emotionally attached to frying pans.
” Then in June , Rayner declared an indefinite hiatus from negative reviews , announcing , “ If I can ’ t be broadly positive I simply won ’ t be writing anything , ” even though the shift “ risks making me less readable.
” Here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticism that bad food makes for better copy than good .
As Eater expounds , “ It ’ s those baffling , disappointing , and downright bad meals that often make for the most entertaining reads.
” “ I never send stuff back , ” confesses Sam Sifton of The New York Times , “ because there could be the delicious possibility of awfulness at the end of the dish that could make for great prose.
” In fact , it is fair to say that the smackdown review may be the single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food journalism .
Every December , Eater gleefully catalogs the year ’ s “ most scathing restaurant reviews , ” enshrining the savage one-liners that show critics going “ for the kill.
” Roast chicken lived in a greasy no-man ’ s land—and no man I know would love it .
Overwhelming notes of Robitussin and rubbing alcohol .
Risotto with scallops is where hope goes to die .
But there are no articles commemorating the year ’ s most scintillating culinary compliments .
Why ?
Because entertainment comes from cruelty .

This pledge of blanket positivity comes at a moment of unprecedented hardship and uncertainty for the restaurant industry. Now is not the time for phony optimism or mandatory applause but righteous rage and indignation—yet redirected from problems in table décor toward problems in kitchen culture. Contemporary dining teems with contentious issues crying out for serious discussion: widespread unemployment among food workers, sexual misconduct allegations in top kitchens, hazardous labor laws, a lack of diversity in food media, record food insecurity in the U.K. and the U.S., to name a few. Any of these questions would benefit from a critic’s incisive intellect and informed reporting. Yet traditional reviewers remain trapped in the simplistic binary of barbaric putdowns or mindless praise.
This paralysis is a symptom of a larger generational debate over the proper role of the food critic. In the classical view, the reviewer is a gastronomic evaluator whose judgments exist outside any social context. For younger generations, the food critic is closer to a gastronomic ecologist responsible for exploring patterns of meaning in eating culture at large. The classical tradition draws a hard red line between plate and politics that prohibits the critic’s mind from leaving the dining room, but the pandemic is just one reason among many that the old divide between the food critic and the food journalist has started to blur.
In the middle of a historic crisis, it is time to reassess food criticism’s dominant, machismo style that teaches reviewers to write sharply on minor culinary mistakes but blunt their pen when confronted with sweeping problems. Moreover, by studying how the pugilist style works, I believe we can diagnose what ails the larger tradition of food writing in the Anglosphere. To make this diagnosis, I read hundreds of negative restaurant reviews across two decades, including every piece mentioned in an Eater annual list since 2011. Overall, I compiled a 6,000-word compendium of critical insults from dozens of reviewers. Every quote cited below comes from a real review and critic. What I found is a prose pathology whose manic habits infiltrate and sabotage the public perception and social analysis of food in many subversive ways.


newrepublic--2020-12-16--The Climate Fight Needs Both Technocrats and Firebrands

The fracas around carbon dioxide removal and nuclear power , though , has tended to mask the deeper disagreements over how change happens .
There ’ s a well-worn tradition among Beltway environmentalists of trying to sneak climate policy in around the edges , pushing for an earmark here and a tax credit there to gradually nibble away at emissions .
Just about anything called climate policy is good , the thinking goes , particularly when it ’ s brokered under the less than ideal circumstance of Mitch McConnell controlling the Senate .
There ’ s a variant of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussions about the executive branch : With the adults back in charge , the thinking goes , competent administrators will be free to push through decidedly unsexy but important climate measures that roll back the Trump administration ’ s anti-regulatory agenda and funnel more support to clean energy .
It ’ s a rosy realpolitik vision of how to get things done : that enough smart people , using their mastery of the levers of power , can solve just about any problem the world throws at them .
And barring control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option ?
The problem , though , is that while any nibbling away at emissions is certainly appreciated—as is making use of every executive branch power under the sun—the scale of climate action needed can ’ t reasonably be snuck in behind Republican backs , without taking the case to the public .
Similar approaches have been tried before .
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act devoted around 10 percent of its entirely too small $ 730 billion stimulus to a range of clean energy projects , largely through incentives for private sector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of good and has been instrumental in dropping the price of wind and solar power .
But you ’ d be hard-pressed to find anyone besides a solar entrepreneur who could explain how the Renewable Energy and Electric Transmission Loan Guarantee Program has made their life better , much less what it is .

An expansive new study from Princeton University researchers—that, to note, was partially paid for by ExxonMobil and BP—offers perspective on the scale of change needed. Reaching the arguably still-too-modest goal of net-zero U.S. emissions by 2050 means that, by the end of this decade, just about every coal plant will need to shut down; half of new cars sold will need to be electric, compared to 2 percent now; and the country’s electrical grid will need to expand by 60 percent. You’d have to be not just a free-market believer but a free-market fanatic to think that can be done without large-scale government intervention and buckets of public money. Legislative action on this, in turn, almost certainly requires Democrats winning durable majorities in Congress. And that means Democrats need to think bigger than technocratic tinkering.
Wonky details and changes around the margins are important, but they’re not a political strategy for winning the kind of democratic majorities needed to tackle the climate crisis. High-level administrators and academics with doctoral degrees probably aren’t going to be much help in building the groundswell of support for the vast changes their PDFs suggest are necessary. The huge number of jobs to be created as the United States transitions to an electric fleet and rapidly expands its grid, however, might.
Thanks in large part to Green New Deal advocates, there’s been modest progress on this front. Biden ran on a platform that tried to fuse climate and jobs through a “Build Back Better” agenda (although arguably didn’t do much to make that feel concrete to folks currently struggling through a painful recession). Just months ago, Gina McCarthy signed on to a detailed proposal for a jobs-focused green stimulus, with hearty investments in environmental justice. And, hailing from Michigan, Granholm is no stranger to a good old-fashioned jobs pitch, nor will she be unaware of the dynamics involved in shifting the auto industry toward electric batteries. To make the case for climate action down the line, climate-minded administrators should embrace their most populist impulses in public and put the technocrats to work behind the scenes.