#But instead of being executive-mandated it's because one of the two members of a two-man show is lazy fuck

[megafighter343]

So, as it turns out...

I had not just fallen behind one or two episodes in posting These Hot Idiots to Tumblr, but in fact FIVE IN A ROW! Holy shit, allow me to rectify this now! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AENE61TkFY

Really sorry if you guys get our episodes through your Tumblr feeds because good lord, I dropped the ball on this one. Enjoy what will hopefully be the first, last and only Idiotbomb.

[usieldaca]

DACA: Here To Stay?

It was a warm and cloudy morning on September 5, 2017. As I woke up, all the news outlets were flooded with breaking news. DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was rescinded by President Donald Trump. Hundreds of thousands of DACA Recipients also known as “Dreamers,” were left with confusion, uncertainty and their legal status left in limbo. As a DACA recipient myself, little did I know that this decision would be met with pushback and legal challenges would proceed. A roller coaster of emotions were set in motion for dreamers. 

DACA is a program that protects undocumented youth from deportation. This program was created by an executive order mandated by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. DACA recipients were brought to America at a young age and this country is the only place they know as their home. DACA enables immigrant youth to come out of the shadows, go to college and work legally. Recipients undergo background checks and other procedures by the USCIS to ensure eligibility. In order to maintain DACA status renewals are required every two years.

In January 2018 an order by U.S. District Judge William Alsup gave hope to DACA recipients as he ordered for DACA renewals to be put back in place. Nearly 690,000 dreamers, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, were safeguarded from deportation. However, The Trump Administration didn’t concede defeat. The battle to terminate DACA ensued. 

On June 18, The Supreme Court ruled to reinstate DACA as it was a violation of law to end it. According to an article titled “News Tip: Scotus’ DACA Decision Major Win For Young Immigrants, Experts Say” in the Duke Today, “efforts to end it had been arbitrary and capricious. The Trump administration’s error, the court ruled, was procedurally unsound, a kind of power grab that violated institutional norms and administrative culture by not addressing the policy consequences of changing DACA.” It was a huge victory for DACA recipients, immigrant families and everyone that supports the program. 

According to an article titled “Are DACA Students Still Safe to Stay?” dated April 25, 2017 in the New England Journal of Higher Education, from 2012 to 2016 the DACA program received approximately a million initial applications nationwide. Only 752,154 were successfully approved. 

In Nevada, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, there are 12,100 recipients as of March 31, 2020. Of those, there are 9,700 in the Las Vegas Valley. 

Some of those recipients go to school at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

UNLV Student Juan Pablo Plascencia,  recalled that day, “Well when President Trump rescinded DACA, I didn’t get scared because I knew there was a long, legal battle going on. There are amazing people in our community who fight for us specifically Senator Dick Durbin who I think is a great man. There are a lot of amazing lawyers that see us for who we are. We’re human beings and not just a pawn to be played with when politics come around.” 

Plascencia doesn’t shy away from reality, “My mentality is pretty simple on this. I know my parents broke the law to bring me here. I was a child when I was brought here. I have no idea what happened. One day I was in Mexico. The next day I’m here in Las Vegas. It’s like time travel. That’s the way I explain it to people when they ask me but the thing is that my parents had to do something that even though it wasn’t legal, morally it makes sense.” 

Many DACA recipients grew up unaware that they were undocumented. The harsh reality of who they are came at a young age. Many wanted to start employment or travel outside of the country. 

Leslie Vazquez, University of Washington Tacoma student with DACA status recalled, “I first realized I was undocumented when I was in middle school. I actually wanted to travel to Mexico and my mom had to have a conversation with me about me not being able to leave the country.” 

Growing up unsure of what the future has in store is terrifying. President Trump’s antics fueled fear and unpredictability. 

“I felt like I couldn’t breathe and enjoy living in America. I could empathize with jewish people. I understood how they felt, be extra careful. Don’t say anything, don’t post anything. That might be used against you.” Plascencia said. “It was hard. As a history teacher, one of the things I always tell my students is to love your country. Love your country enough for when you see an issue, you want to go and fix it. I think President Trump is a hypocrite. He tells us that he’s going to treat DACA with kindness and a lot of heart. It’s a good thing for the DACA kids. He then puts his foot in our butt and files to remove DACA. Loses the court case and then he states he will file the proper paperwork to get this over. I’m sorry sir, am I just a pawn to you? Is my humanity not real? Are my efforts not good enough for you?”

Joe Biden became the U.S. President-elect earlier in November. Biden has been vocal about his support on DACA. On November 2, 2020, Biden tweeted, “Dreamers are Americans -- And it’s time we make it official.” 

Vazquez said, “I am excited to know that Biden has won the presidency and I remain hopeful that he will be able to help us ‘Dreamers.’ It's easier to believe Biden when he says he will help us gain citizenship because we’ve had four years of someone who has consistently put us down. However, I am not going to get my hopes up until action is done.”  

Although hope is not lost, it has dissipated for many DACA recipients.

“I saw who he appointed for his cabinet. He appointed the same woman that approved for family separation at the border under the Obama Administration. I just hope it’s not the same thing. Which it’s looking like it might be.” Plascencia said. “Personally, I have hope but at the same time I’m not holding my breath anymore. I’m not going to wait to live my life. I’ll do the best that I can under the system that I’m in. At the end of the day, I’m not going to beg for scraps. I’m a productive member of this society. I don’t see immigration being on top of Biden’s list. Right now we are in a pandemic and after the pandemic it’ll be the economy and after the economy we have another two year election.” 

Furthermore, Plascencia explains his thoughts on DACA, “I did what I was asked to do, I signed up for DACA. I have done everything right, I’ve never broken the law but what I want is for politicians to make this right. We passed the test. DACA is a smashing success. There are 95 percent of us that are excelling in the program. Five percent have been sent back. That’s good, this is an audition. We have to prove to the American people but at the same time I’m not begging for scraps. I don’t beg for scraps but at the same time it has to be done in a way that makes sense. DACA to me makes perfect sense. You put us young people to audition. What was the audition? Exactly what it says on the applications. I think instead of democrats and republicans promising the world to us, I’d rather see some action. I need to see some movement.”  

However, those that oppose the DACA program state that illegal immigration is being encouraged through its’ policies. According to an article titled, “Are DACA and The Dream Act Good For America?” in the Britannica ProCon, Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said that DACA “encouraged more illegal immigration and contributed to the surge of unaccompanied minors and families seeking to enter the U.S. illegally.” In the same article, according to Karl Eschbach, PhD, “DACA will increase the undocumented population because those who don’t qualify for DACA will stay in the hopes of qualifying eventually, and more people will immigrate assuming coverage by DACA or a similar program.”

In addition, according to an article titled, “It’s Time to End DACA -- It’s Unconstitutional Unless Approved by Congress” in the Heritage, “Providing amnesty and potential citizenship to DACA recipients and other illegal immigrants before we have a secure border will only encourage even more illegal immigration, just as the 1986 amnesty in the Immigration Reform and Control Act did. That law provided citizenship to almost 3 million illegal immigrants and was supposed to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Yet within 10 years, there were another almost 6 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

The federal government should be concentrating on enhancing immigration enforcement and border security to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the country and reduce the number of them already in the interior of the U.S.”

As DACA continues to hang in the balance politically, recipients continue setting goals for their futures optimistically. 

“I would love to graduate with a PHd in Neurological Psychology,” Plascencia said. “I would love to go to Medical School to practice Psychology. That’s something I believe I would be really good at. Again I’m not hoping for it, I’m just waiting to make my moves. When my parents came to America they had ten dollars in their pockets. Now, I’m about to purchase my own house, I have my own car.”

Additionally Plascencia added that he is working on his third degree at UNLV. He will be graduating with his Masters in Curriculum/Instruction in Secondary Social Studies. He is a social studies and history teacher at the Las Vegas Academy Performing Arts. 

Plascencia reflects, “Education is the most powerful and important thing. I think that as a person I want to be more educated. I would love to become a citizen because I do want to vote. As a teacher it’s ironic I can’t vote but I teach my students how to.”

Vazquez is currently in the last quarter of obtaining her Bachelor’s degree in accounting at the Milgard School of Business. Vazquez and her parents own their own Mexican restaurant which has been open to the public for three years. “I hope that I will remain in the country for years to come. My ultimate dream is to get my CPA degree to help our community.”

As the uncertainty is still not over, recipients contemplate their decisions with valor. 

“As a person who has DACA, I’m pretty much at the end of my road. I could go teach at the University in Canada, I could teach in a University in England, I could go live in Spain, Germany. But instead I’m choosing to stay because this is the only country that I know about,” Plascencia said. 

[thenerdparty]

Spider-Man: Far From Home - Film Review

Written by Shawn Eastridge

I never thought I’d ever say this, but I’m starting to think Spider-Man might be too good for Marvel’s Cinematic Universe. No. Scratch that. I know he is. And Far From Home, the latest entry in this franchise, proves it once and for all.

I was willing to give Spider-Man: Homecoming a pass. Despite being relatively shallow, it’s light on its feet, has a great villain in Michael Keaton’s Vulture and contains a strong emotional beat for Spidey near the film’s climax. Far From Home has none of this. In fact, Far From Home is one of the blandest entries Marvel Studios has yet released. Instead of seeking out opportunities to deepen Peter Parker’s character, Marvel Studios has relegated him to cleaning up the mess Avengers: Endgame left behind.  When a Spider-Man film makes you long for the emotional depth of Spider-Man 3, you know there’s a problem.

Following the shenanigans of Infinity War and Endgame, Peter is understandably ready for a vacation. His upcoming summer class trip is the perfect opportunity to do so. Not only will he and his best bud Ned get to take in a number of scenic European views, but Peter will get a chance to spend quality time with his crush MJ. And maybe, just maybe, he’ll finally get the chance to tell her how he feels. Peter even goes so far as to leave his Spider suit behind, determined to enjoy this time off to the fullest. 

Naturally, things don’t work out that way. Before long, Nick Fury arrives to pull Peter off of the sidelines and back into the superhero-ing world. Quentin Beck, a superhero claiming to be from another dimension, has arrived in the midst of a number of Elemental monster attacks. These Elementals, comprising of - you guessed it - water, fire and earth, destroyed Beck’s Earth. Beck is now determined to protect Peter’s Earth at all costs, but he and Fury will need Peter’s help to do so. That is, if Peter is up for the task.

Right from the get-go, Far From Home casually dismisses Endgame’s dramatic heft in favor of a quick laugh. While I understand the need to establish a different tone from Endgame, the offhand way Far From Home makes light of Endgame’s superb conclusion further emphasizes how little director Jon Watts and this creative team cares about making anything that happens here feel significant in any way. At every turn, Far From Home attempts to distract the audience from its glaring insignificance by going the route of comedy. Every action sequence is punctuated by some half-assed punchline or an overriding sense of artificiality - Flash Thompson live-blogging on his phone; the teachers making some kooky comments about how they’re all going to die. There’s no sense of danger. No suspense. No stakes. None of it feels remotely believable. 

To be fair, the emphasis on humor is a common complaint lobbied at the MCU. Here’s the thing, though: while humor plays a large role in these films, the humor enriches the already present emotional stakes and characters. For the most part, we’re laughing with our heroes, not at them. (Thor: Ragnarok is the argument to the contrary, but the big difference between that film and this one is that Thor: Ragnarok is actually funny.) Far From Home can’t seem to differentiate between those two things. Maybe it wouldn’t have been so bad if the jokes didn’t feel so forced and awkward.

And, hey, speaking of forced and awkward, how ‘bout those action sequences? With the exception of one genuinely impressive Mysterio-inspired acid trip, every action scene feels lackluster and uninspired. It’s like the studio handed director Jon Watts a shot list and storyboards without taking any input from him. “All you need to do is show up on set and say, ‘Action!’ Whatever unique sensibilities or voice Watts brought to the table with Homecoming have all but vanished in Far From Home. 

Actually, you know what it reminds me of? Marc Webb’s short-lived Amazing Spider-Man series. No, hear me out real quick. Neither of those movies are particularly good, but which one feels more like the product of the 500 Days of Summer director? The first one, right? And which one feels more like a studio-mandated, computer-generated crapshoot? (There’s only one guess left here, people. You can’t go wrong) 

Far From Home is the MCU’s equivalent of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. It’s louder, more colorful and ultimately emptier than its immediate predecessor. I guess it’s fitting that Mysterio would be Far From Home’s main villain. A character that specializes in crafting intricate illusions to hide how insignificant everything is? Sounds about right, doesn’t it? Jake Gyllenaal takes on the role with manic enthusiasm, but the character’s motivations are flimsy and dull. Once again, we have a villain hellbent on getting revenge on Tony Stark, and once again, we have Spider-Man cleaning up a mess Tony Stark left behind. 

Great.

Things don’t fare much better with Peter’s personal relationships either, in particular, the romance between Peter and MJ. The two of them are all awkward pauses and nervous tics. It’s adorable, make no mistake, but like most of Far From Home, it feels artificial. We never get the sense that there’s a real connection between these two because Watts and screenwriters Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers (the same writing pair behind the dull beyond all reason Ant-Man and the Wasp) never take a break from telling jokes to offer up a single moment of sincerity. Tom Holland and Zendaya have great chemistry, but there’s no substance to their interactions. The rest of the supporting cast are simplistic types, barely memorable. Even Ned, one of Homecoming’s highlights, is left on the sidelines with little to do.

What’s really disappointing is that Far From Home contains the set up for what could have been really great Spider-Man story. I love the idea that Peter just wants a break from all the crazy superhero duties. He just wants a vacation with his friends; he wants to spend time with the girl he’s crushing on. Doesn’t he deserve a break? It’s in the execution that this film fails.

Many of Spidey’s best tales deal with Peter’s struggle to balance his personal life - money woes, girl troubles, job issues, etc. - with the responsibility of being a superhero. It’s what makes this character so special. He carries a significant weight and the responsibility of being Spider-Man puts a damper on everything in his life. Sam Raimi’s trilogy understood this perfectly. It’s why those films still hold up so well. Even Spider-Man 3, as stupid as it is, had its heart in the right place.

The problem with the MCU’s version of Spider-Man is that it seems to ignore the emotional depth of the character in favor of a quick laugh and light-hearted adventures. Peter’s struggles never evolve beyond the surface level. There’s no sense of responsibility or obligation, nothing personal that seems to motivate Peter’s decision to be a hero. Marvel Studios is so concerned with making Spider-Man light and fun, they’ve forgotten to provide any meaningful emotional stakes or the slightest bit of complexity to the character. Other than a brief conversation in ‘Captain America: Civil War’ (which, by the way, remains the MCU’s best interpretation of this character to date and ISN’T EVEN A SPIDER-MAN MOVIE), we don’t have a strong sense of who Peter is or why he does what he does. As far as I can tell, Peter wants to be Spider-Man because he wants to live up to Tony Stark’s legacy. His entire motivation is reliant on another character. This robs Peter of a personal motivation and, as a direct result, reduces the character to a pale imitation of his true potential. 

And, look, I get it. The Uncle Ben stuff is well-tread territory. I’m not saying I need the same angsty overtones provided by the Raimi/Maguire trilogy, but the way these films bend over backwards to not mention Uncle Ben is borderline parodic. Here’s the thing: you don’t have to show Uncle Ben’s death or have it take precedent over the story to show its impact in Peter and Aunt May’s life. 

Instead of taking advantage of the chance to deepen the relationship between these two, to show how they’ve tried to move on in the wake of Ben’s passing, life seems pretty peachy-keen for the Parkers. They don’t seem to struggle with any money woes, illnesses or anything else that could potentially offer these films an ounce of significance. Uncle Ben provides the core motivation for why Spider-Man does what he does. When you take that out of the picture, what else is left? I mean, they don’t even acknowledge the fact that Peter has had two, count ‘em, TWO, father figures taken from him in the span of, like, a year. Come on, people!

And at the center of all of this, fighting to overcome the film’s lack of identity and overarching blandness, is Tom Holland. Holland is a remarkable, gifted young actor. He’s nailed this character and has proven time and time again he has the chops to pull off a far more meaningful interpretation. I wish the studio was willing to meet him halfway. To watch him give his all in a film that doesn’t remotely deserve his talents is a depressing experience. 

That’s really the best way to describe this film. ‘Depressing.’ Far From Home reduces Spidey to a C-list member of the MCU’s expansive ensemble. His entries in this franchise feel more like financial obligations than attempts to tell meaningful stories. I wouldn’t care as much if it was another character getting lost in the corporate chaos, but this is SPIDER-MAN we’re talking about. He’s one of the most complex and beloved characters in the history of storytelling. The source material is overflowing with great stories that have meaningful emotions and stakes and this is the best Marvel Studios can come up with? As portrayed here, Spider-Man is no longer a character that can stand on his own. He’s just a fly trapped in someone else’s web. 

FINAL RATING: 2 out of 5

[howwelldoyouknowyourmoon]

An Oakland church member jumped out of car going 60 after going through an inner struggle whether Moon had lied

Onni Durst petitioned the court to be appointed conservator over the woman and to be in charge of her money, as well as guardian over her children.

The following are excerpts from a hearing held on October 27, 1999 in Oakland, California, in the conservatorship of an adult Moonie woman who jumped out of car going 60 on the freeway after going through an inner struggle whether Moon had lied to her about what to expect from Moonie life. Kristina Morrison (Seher) was is the car. The woman has been in a coma ever since. When Onni Durst petitioned the court to be appointed conservator over the woman and to be in charge of her money, as well as guardian over her children, Durst lied to the court. The lie was that Durst did not know how to reach any of the woman’s relatives even though two of them lived in the Bay Area. This is what the court said:

THE COURT: Mr. Greene, I have objections that have been filed on behalf of [moonie woman’s sister] to the petition for fees in the conservatorship. . . .

THE COURT:  Okay.  I, at the beginning of this hearing, explained to Mr. Goorjian what is troubling me about the petition for fees — and I want to say parenthetically, that I am not assessing any blame in this matter on Mr. Goorjian; that I’ve looked at this purely in terms of what information Mr. Goorjian has given by his client, Ms. Durst.

But as I stated earlier — and Mr. Goorjian, I don’t think you’ve convinced me to the contrary – I have real concerns about those statements that Ms. Durst made in verified declarations that she – and I’ll quote it from her declaration of, executed May 6th, 1999.

She said, “I was told by [Moonie woman] that both of her parents are dead.  I also believe that [Moonie woman] has siblings residing in China; however, I do not know the names and addresses of those siblings.”

And I’ll be very honest with you.  I have real problems with the credibility of that statement.  And I just cannot accept that statement, based on all the other information that’s been presented to me, which includes the declaration of [moonie woman’s daughter], the letters with the return addresses of [moonie woman’s sister] that have been presented, the information that’s been presented [moonie woman’s brother] and the information that’s been presented by [moonie woman’s sister].

And I understand the point that you’re making that, regardless of whether [moonie woman’s sister] of Ms. Durst had presented the existence of [moonie woman’s sister]  and [moonie woman’s brother] to the Court, she still would have gone ahead with the petition for guardianship.  However, as I’ve stated previously, if Ms. Durst had presented the information regarding the existence of [moonie woman’s sister] and [moonie woman’s brother] in her declarations, I certainly would be more inclined to grant fees in this matter.

And as I said, I’m not faulting you.  I’m faulting Ms. Durst for not giving you information that I believe she knew, and I believe she was aware of the existence of [moonie woman’s sister] and [moonie woman’s brother]. So – the request for fees in both matters, for Mr. Goorjian’s fees to be paid out of the conservatorship estate, both of the guardianship matter and the conservatorship matter, is denied.  And the reason is, I’ve stated, that I’m denying the request, is because I believe that Ms. Durst misrepresented information to the Court regarding the existence of [moonie woman’s sister] and [moonie woman’s brother], and I believe it’s her responsibility to pay Mr. Goorjian’s fees and not the conservator’s responsibility.

I want to add, again, that if Ms. Durst had been more forthcoming with the Court regarding the existence of [moonie woman’s sister] and [moonie woman’s brother] and explained the issue of the estrangement and explained the issue of their existence and why she was petitioning, I certainly would be inclined to grant fees.  But I don’t think she was forthcoming with the Court. . . .

I understand that this is a difficult pill to swallow.  However, when I believe that someone is being less that forthright with the Court in a verified declaration, I think that pill needs to be swallowed. . . .

MR. GREENE: Your honor, I would just — the argument that I would make against you issuing that order [allowing reimbursement of a babysitter] is that you have made a finding with respect to a lack of candor and credibility.

THE COURT:  I agree.

Tilman: “I do not understand all, i.e. what this petition for fees is about. And how is this going? Has the criminal cult succeeded getting a conservatorship?”

Ford Greene: “No. They tried. In the process Onni Durst got caught lying.”

Sunny: “Mrs. Durst shouldn’t have lied if she actually did. The judge felt she did. I suspect that her motive is to care for this woman who gave her life to Unificationism and see to it that her children would be raised in the same environment, values, morals and religion that the mother would desire. I do wonder where the father/husband is. Mrs. Durst, in her mind, is acting in the capacity of God Parent in this case, desiring to protect the children and the woman who is in a coma. But she shouldn’t have lied. The truth probably would have accomplished more.

I do not suggest anyone use Heavenly Deception in a court of law. If your neighbor is wearing a new hat which you really hate, you have my permission to use heavenly deception, setting your own personal taste aside, in telling her she looks lovely today. But when it comes down to a situation like this, either use complete honesty or say you cannot answer and plead the 5th.

Not even a saint like Onni Durst isn’t immune from making a bad decision. Unificationists are human, not robots.” Sunny

Glenn:

To Sunny Perhaps, dear sister Sunny, you’d be willing to go to jail and pay the fine on behalf of the sainted Mrs. Durst, since you seem so willing to rationalize her actions as somehow erring for the greater good. This is, I believe, the first time you’ve acknowledged the imaginary moral ground you stand upon. I see that as a glimmer of hope you’ll find more secure footing some day. Though I’m not holding my breath.

Lying must comes very easily to Onni after so many years. It was the entire modus operandi in Oakland, and the secret of its success. In many ways Onni was far more successful that SMM in creating a movement in America. The Oakland “family,” as all good Moonies know, was really a cult within a cult. For years and years, while other church centers struggled to gain even one member, the Oakland church, in its many disguises (it was Creative Community Project when I joined in ’75), was wildly successful at attracting and recruiting hoards of young, idealistic members. Most of whom were fed unawares like innocent lambs into the gaping maw of the MFT meat grinder.

And it was all based on “heavenly deception.” SMM’s name was never mentioned; his picture never displayed publicly. Calling DP by its name was discouraged and never done in front of guests. Direct questions from newcomers never received direct responses. People who “knew too much” were invited to leave. Only the young and gullible and naive were wanted.

To illustrate how complete this deception was, I thought Dr. Durst was the messiah at the conclusion of my first 7-day workshop up in Boonville. For THREE weeks no one said anything to discourage this view. Instead, I just got knowing winks and nods from the “older” members. When Jennifer Morrison finally broached the topic of SMM, I was flabbergasted. I’d never heard the man’s name before in my life, and I was so “negged out” I nearly left.

But you know, by that time the indoctrination was full-blown and I managed to “overcome Satan” (resist the urge to leave). But just for good measure, my “spiritual father” had the audacity to tell me that if I left, I’d probably be killed in an accident. Or Satan would attack my family. Yes, he really said those things, and with great conviction. He scared me to death. When you’re only 21 and suddenly have your head full of God and Satan, “heavenly deception” like that is extremely powerful. And it wasn’t an aberration. It was SOP–standard operating procedure.

Now, it has been argued that SMM did not approve of Onni’s methods and after a decade or so (gee, why he’d wait so long?) he decided to rope her in by bringing her and the good doctor to New York. I don’t buy for a second that SMM didn’t approve. I was there, and as I recall it, the Dursts came to New York with a mandate to duplicate the success of the Oakland model. And I believe they did. The workshops I attended in the Catskills were carbon-copies of Boonville, just in a different location. Most of Onni’s most trusted lieutenants were there, doing exactly what they had done in California, and once they got acclimated to the East Coast, it was business as usual. Suddenly the New York church was gaining members in droves. Even I managed to bring in a spiritual child or two.

One other thing about Onni, she was more secretive than SMM and every bit as inaccessible to all except her closest aides. In the four or five months I was in Oakland, I only saw her once. She was so mysterious and aloof (unlike her goofball husband, who seemed to be everywhere), I wasn’t even sure what she looked like. No one ever spoke about SMM. It was ALWAYS Onni this and Onni that. Onni, Onni, Onni. It was a cult of personality and she was it. The Morrison “triplets,” with their folksy American ways, gave her credibility.

One time we got word that Onni was coming over to the center (Washington St.) and you’d have thought Jesus Christ himself was on the way. You never saw such a beehive of anticipation and activity, cleaning and cleaning and cleaning. Older members spoke of her in the most reverential and awestruck tones, as if she was some sort of divine being who could levitate her way across the Bay. I was impressed. Exactly as scripted. Of course Onni didn’t come and had never intended to come. It was just part of her elaborate power trip. Exactly as scripted.

Am I surprised Onni lied in a court of law? Hell no. She’s probably couldn’t help it. What would have surprised me is if she had told the truth. Now THAT would have been a revelation.

Ford Greene:

To Glenn I left the Oakland “church” in late July 1975.  Did you and I ever meet?  I can personally confirm everything you say except as to the east coast stuff because I stayed on the west coast.  Your recollection is spot-on.

Glenn:

To Ford We just missed each other. I joined in Oakland in August ’75.

LINK to source

Creative Community Project brochure

Moonwebs: Journey into the Mind of a Cult by Josh Freed

Crazy for God: The nightmare of cult life by Christopher Edwards

Mitchell was lucky – he got away from the Unification Church

Life Among the Moonies – Deanna Durham

My Time with the Oakland Family – the Moonies

UC leaders stole passports from guests at California workshops

Recruitment – The Boonville Chicken Palace by David Frank Taylor, M.A., July 1978, Sociology

[khalilhumam]

The case for rethinking the politicization of the military

Register at https://mignation.com The Only Social Network for Migrants. #Immigration, #Migration, #Mignation ---

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/the-case-for-rethinking-the-politicization-of-the-military/

The case for rethinking the politicization of the military

By Jim Golby, Mara Karlin Every smart defense strategist learns early in their career the wise words of Carl von Clausewitz, “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” And yet, military leaders are constantly fearful that they will be labeled with that scarlet word, “political.” To some degree, this fear is well-founded; it is also profoundly problematic. The terms “political,” “apolitical,” and “politicization” are applied and misapplied across a wide range of issues, and understanding the military’s relationship to politics deserves serious reconsideration. Claiming that the military is, or should be, apolitical is both confusing and counterproductive. The military itself is, of course, an intensely political institution. Military leaders need to be able to engage on political issues with their troops and with the public, and they shouldn’t shy away from a topic simply for fear of being labeled “political.” Instead, they should actively tackle what it means to do so in an appropriate and responsible manner. In practice, that looks like retiring the military’s ambiguous “apolitical norm” and replacing it with new practical rules of thumb about what topics are off-limits for those in uniform. We don’t want a military that is “apolitical”; we instead want a military that avoids partisanship, institutional endorsements, and electoral influence. Those topics should stay off-limits, but politics are too critical to be entirely ignored by the military. The military is a political creature — it’s time for it to consider what that means in a more practical and appropriate manner.

The US military isn’t apolitical and it shouldn’t try to be

On June 6, New Jersey Congressman Tom Malinowski posted a picture of a young man at a rally in a Marine Corps uniform. The image shot around the internet, particularly among military accounts, garnering dramatically different responses. Some praised the Marine, asserting that he was standing up for human dignity, while others roundly criticized him for violating the military’s “apolitical” norm by protesting in the garb of the institution he ostensibly represents. Standing up for the values of the military is critical and the affirmation of the oath on the Marine’s sign — “I swore an oath to defend the people” — is not a political act in and of itself. Wearing his uniform while doing so at a rally, however, demonstrates the tension between holding up that apolitical mantle while maintaining one’s role as an engaged citizen. And according to the Defense Department’s instruction on political activities, it is not permitted to do so in uniform. But there is a bigger problem: whether or not his actions are political is simply the wrong question to ask.

The military is not apolitical. It never has been, and it should not try to be.

That’s because the military is not apolitical. It never has been, and it should not try to be. The military is an instrument of policy, and there are always tensions between our security and our values; politics is the process we use to choose between competing tradeoffs that can advance our values and our interests, or both. Use of that term “apolitical” not only makes it harder for military officers to fulfill their responsibilities and maintain the trust of the American people, but confuses service members and the public alike when they see military leaders saying or doing things that have clear political consequences.

The military’s political nature

Military actions always happen in a political context, and military advice — intentionally or not — always has political implications. A senior military leader can claim she is giving “apolitical” advice when she asks Congress to appropriate certain funds to the procurement of a given weapon system, but before deciding whether to grant her request, legislators have to consider whether doing so would come at a cost to other military or non-military programs, how it might help or hurt employment in their district, the potential environmental impacts of the program, or whether they might need to raise taxes to pay for the system, among a host of other factors. Officers can claim their advice is “apolitical,” but it is simply not true. As scholar Risa Brooks has argued, lip service to an apolitical norm also can blind officers to their own biases or hinder them from understanding the political implications of their actions or advice, ultimately enabling the types of behaviors the norm was intended to prevent. Similarly, fears of becoming a meme or political poster child also can cause military officers to refrain from talking about important issues in public or with their personnel. Their silence itself can sometimes be interpreted as a political message. Indeed, following the death of George Floyd, it took nearly a week before any of the service chiefs released statements to their service members about the killing or the unrest that had consumed the nation — although for at least a few of them, that silence was almost surely informed by heavy pressure from Secretary of Defense Esper to refrain from commenting on these issues at that moment. In fact, it wasn’t until after Kaleth O. Wright — in his own words “a black man who happens to be Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force” — posted a powerful Twitter thread on June 1st that they did so. Since then, a flood of senior military officers have released statements and videos to their units, affirming the core values of the military, condemning racism, and promoting diversity and inclusion both in the military and in society — issues that, we hasten to add, should not be seen as political and instead rather as the ultimate comparative advantage of a capable U.S. military and society.

Better rules of thumb for political activity

Given the military’s inherent political nature, the Defense Department issued two regulations to try and outline parameters for individual service member involvement in political activities. The regulations, issued in 2005 and 2008 list dozens of both authorized and prohibited activities that, taken with several other relevant statutes and at least one executive order, apply in various contexts. Together, they prohibit members of the military from attending events like speeches, rallies, marches, debates, or any public demonstration while wearing their uniform, unless they receive approval by one of only a handful of generals or admirals listed in the document. This step is to ensure that individual military personnel do not give the appearance that the military institution supports the person, group, or cause at hand, while still allowing military personnel to represent their personal opinions as active and interested citizens. The regulations also mandate that members of the military must remain non-partisan and refrain from using their official position or authority to influence a campaign or election. If the “apolitical norm” is confusing, how can we expect service members or political leaders to make sense of what behavior is acceptable and what isn’t? And why should we be surprised when service members are confused about whether the Marine at the rally or their own senior leaders are engaging in political activity? Fortunately, the main provisions in these documents boil down to three rules of thumb, which we suggest can be communicated in one hokey acronym: avoid giving or taking a piece of the military’s PIE. In other words: avoid Partisan behavior; avoid Institutional endorsement; and avoid Electoral influence. First, avoiding partisan behavior seems straightforward, but it can be difficult in practice in a nation that is polarized along partisan lines. Still, those in uniform — and senior leaders, in particular — most avoid creating the impression they are aligned with a political party. They must be aware of their own biases and of the perceptions they may convey. Second, the military has been the nation’s most-admired institution for decades now, and everyone knows it. This fact creates strong incentives for individuals, groups, candidates, or causes to try to create the impression that the military supports them. Aligning themselves with those in uniform can seem an easy way to legitimize themselves or their goals or to shield them from opposition. But those in the military must avoid situations where their presence, especially in uniform, creates the impression that the military is granting its institutional endorsement. And third, those in uniform should not use their official position or authority to interfere in — or to try to influence — elections. Even in cases where party is not the central fault line in a campaign, it is dangerous for democracy when those in uniform try to position themselves as the arbiter of political legitimacy. This has happened in places like Egypt — with dangerous, authoritarian results. None of these rules of thumb keep service members from expressing their own political opinions or exercising their individual rights, but they should reshape how they exercise those rights and draw a boundary between their personal behavior and their professional behavior. As individual responsibility and rank increase, the lines between personal and professional may become harder — or impossible — to draw. Indeed, the more senior you become, the less you can ever truly speak for yourself and the more you have no choice but to speak for the institution. Political pressures on the military have always existed, and it is hard for service members, and their leaders, to avoid giving away a piece of the military’s PIE, when political leaders, candidates, and groups are always trying to take a piece of the military’s PIE. As a powerful instrument of statecraft, political leaders of both parties have tried to wield the military or use it to garner greater domestic support by wrapping themselves in the veil of military prestige. On June 1st, for example, President Trump asked Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley to join him in his combat uniform for a photo op on his walk across Lafayette Square to Saint John’s Church. In a powerful commencement speech to the National Defense University, Milley apologized for participating and stated, “I should not have been there.” Others may want the military to take political positions to harm their opponents or to weaken the commander-in-chief, such as when Sen. John McCain tried to pressure Gen. Martin Dempsey to state that President Barack Obama’s Syria policy was not in the national security interest of the United States during his 2013 re-confirmation hearing. Growing political polarization and increased confidence in the military has only exacerbated these pressures, but this temptation has existed since time immemorial. Nevertheless, its character in recent years has broadened and deepened. Under President Trump, the military has experienced heavy external political pressure, like the president signing a temporary travel ban on Muslim-majority countries inside the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes; regaling troops at CENTCOM and SOCOM about how much political support he commanded in the election because of them; urging sailors to lobby members of Congress on the defense budget; and his granting of clemency to convicted war criminals and then bringing them onstage during a political fundraiser. The military has also experienced heavy internal political pressure, such as when service members decided to cover up the USS John McCain out of fear that the president would be perturbed to see a ship named after his nemesis or when troops brought red MAGA hats and a Trump campaign banner to his visit at Ramstein Air Base. Ideally, the secretary of defense and other senior civilian defense leaders should do their utmost to minimize these pressures on the military. It is incumbent on them to insulate the military from politicization to the extent possible. Likewise, senior military leaders should acknowledge to their troops that these pressures exist in the national security ecosystem. The challenge for them to consider is how and in what ways they can foment a command climate that does so in a professional and appropriate manner. Military officers, at all levels, need to be more comfortable talking about politics the right way instead of avoiding the topic altogether.

Military officers, at all levels, need to be more comfortable talking about politics the right way instead of avoiding the topic altogether.

What military leaders can — and should — do now

Rather than let Clausewitz spin in his grave, military leaders at varying levels can take three key steps to help educate their troops and alleviate concerns of partisanship across the ranks, particularly at this delicate moment. First, they should reaffirm their commitment to avoid giving anyone a piece of the military’s PIE: avoid partisanship; avoid institutional endorsement; and avoid elections. This acronym is admittedly hokey, but it needs to be memorable to supplant use of the ubiquitous and ultimately confusing “apolitical norm.” Focusing on these three elements will result in a richer discussion and clearer rules of thumb for troops and the public than simply tossing about glib warnings on politicization. And using them will help military leaders — and the troops they lead — draw clearer lines around inappropriate behavior. Second, they should acknowledge that although the military is inherently political as a tool of statecraft, the use of the military as a symbol to legitimize political decisions can have harmful effects on the public’s trust in the military and in the military’s ability to provide expert advice. By reminding themselves and their subordinates that the military’s high domestic support can plummet — with catastrophic consequences — service members may internalize why a cautious approach is the right one. Third, they should not become too cautious, avoiding all talk of these hard issues out of fear of stumbling or saying the wrong thing. Instead, they should foster critical conversations on topics like the perniciousness of political activity on social media, in line with Heidi Urben’s scholarship which finds that it is common for active-duty members of the military to make highly inappropriate statements on social media — even directed against elected leaders. They should debate thorny case studies in professional military education programs and senior leader sessions, such as partisan endorsements, what appears to be increased wariness on exercising the right to vote among military leaders, and both positive and negative examples of stepping over what often feels like an invisible line. Our efforts to further refine and develop the notion of politicization in the military represent a step forward in an urgent conversation. The military is far too important in American society for it to be apolitical.

[welikeitspicyreviews-blog]

Auteur Theory using the films of Lino Brocka ‘s Maynila sa Mga Kuko ng Liwanag and Insiang.

Auteur Theory is a method for mainly focusing at movies that express that the director is the "author" of a film. The Auteur theory contends that a movie is an impression of the director’s creative vision; thus, a movie directed by a given filmmaker will have familiar, repeating concepts and visual lines that illuminate that allows its viewers to recognize who the director is and demonstrates a certain signature style all through that director’s filmography. This theory started when Andre Bazin proposed the idea. Andre Bazin is an eminent French Film Critic, who had a great influence on the film industry. Bazin accepted and supported movies having Realism contents. He has been considered as probably one of the best critics; it is likewise viewed as that the founder of “Cahiers du cinema”. Andre Bazin opened the way for an achievement in traditional filmmaking to French New Wave. He had led the way of Auteur theory into use that said directors are the makers of the film. Creating the director’s own style just makes the film remarkable and imaginative. After the idea of the Auteur theory that says the directors as authors of the film was expressed coherently, following directors oftentimes started to make progressively and self-referential works. So basically, if anyone ask who made the film, it is the director. It often comes down to the director because he will be the one helping each department execute the script. Auteur theory is a substandard way for envisioning film that as often as possible neglects to perceive the commitments of the various individuals who take an interest during the time spent making a film. In any case, the possibility of a single imaginative shaping of a film gave the youthful art of film another sheen of masterful authenticity and decency. It likewise enables us to make a well-ordered story of true to life history and to watch the manners by which the thoughts and obsessions of an incredible director (especially one who controls different parts of the filmmaking process) do shape a film. Whatever its inadequacies, auteur theory is an essential apparatus of literacy in the film world. 

Lino Brocka is a prominent filmmaker who is known for his socially conscious films that still remain a masterpiece until today. Maynila sa Mga Kuko ng Liwanag and Insiang are two of his works which were always about societal issues tackled in the most subtle, but powerful way. Being a thorough filmmaker, Brocka mostly ponders on topics that are the predicament of the overlooked and ignored sectors of Filipino society. With his socially conscious films, Brocka likewise talked about subjects of sexuality, which directors during his time would in general maintain a strategic distance from. Amplifying the oppression and disregard of the common masses, Brocka's movies are also very character driven where the poor scarcely rejecting by while fending off maltreatment from the administration. He frequently cast obscure actors to concentrate more on the story and not on the big name. On-screen characters, for example, Bembol Roco, Hilda Koronel and Laurice Guillen are among the obscure actors that worked with him more than once for quite a long time, and after some time getting to be stars in their very own right. Lino Brocka is arguably the Philippines' most recognizable director. Aside from the widely released. The usual suspects are Insiang (1976), Bona (1980), and Maynila: Sa Mga Kuko ng Liwanag (Manila in the Claws of Neon), Brocka's arguably most complicated work which landed in some international critics' lists as one of the most important films ever made.

MAYNILA SA MGA KUKO NG LIWANAG 

As the film starts,  we see still shots of  Manila in black and white, first in quite a while calm state, at that point bit by bit transforming into a swarmed, occupied city. Just sounds from the genuine scene were being appeared, which rapidly sets up the truth of Manila and demonstrates the obvious feeling of authenticity by the director, Lino Brocka. It has a series of well formed images captured raw and genuine. The pictures are accused of an earnestness, a quickness particularly Brocka's- - as though Brocka had shot the image directly outside the theater where it's screening, built up the surges, and hustled inside to spool the print into the projector, new and smoking hot. From its opening shot of littered walkways, The scene backs off at seeing Julio's face falling down at the base of an impasse rear entryway. This scene also showed the capacities of Brocka to depict the spinning feelings of the executive and the entertainer, which is a blend of dread, outrage, and distress. Basically, the story’s plot is a love that is lost and the protagonist ventures out to find the love of his life after receiving a letter that his lover is lost at the city she went to. Amidst finding his lover, he had experienced the very different lifestyle he was familiar with. There he learned the streets of Manila being vicious and unpredictable. While in Manila, he had experienced different types of jobs that portrayed the problem of wages here in the Philippines and other social issues that were often overlooked.  Julio, the protagonist, experienced a series of unfortunate events where he became homeless and met a man in the streets of Manila. Due to a desperate need of means to live in Manila and to earn fast money, he became a prostitute. The film closes with a huge crowd chasing after Julio because he had just killed who he believed to be Ligaya’s Chinese husband, or oppressor, as he is portrayed.  In the end, Julio is trapped in a dead end right after committing murder and being chased by a mob ready to beat him up in all probability to death. Lino Brocka didn’t show Julio’s violent last dying breath but centers on his face instead. Trapped and wide-eyed, flashback to the moment he landed a foot in Manila, Julio had no clue whether he’ll ever find Ligaya, or what would eventually happen to him. But in his last moments, you can tell that he knew very well that was the last of his breath.

In spite of the way this is a film done in 1975, the social conditions stay unaltered, if not more awful, in the present-day Philippines. The issue of wages for those with members of the working class, the human trafficking for men and women alike, and every one of these issues are present in the film. It depicts the few disorders the nation was and is confronting. Watching it in the present modern times would even indicate its influence, since it stays to be relevant in spite of decades after its release. These things happened as a result of Brocka's creation. The mind reels at what Brocka would have made all things considered. Offering life to the authenticity, obviously, is Brocka's melodramatic energy. In the event that the characters in Maynila don't profit by the three-dimensionality of the best screenwriting, they- - the leads down to the overflowing additional items - are honored with that intense, Brocka-mandated character of individuals battling angrily to live, to clutch each hopeless urge of life. You understand that the figures, the outlines you have glimpsed on screen that adamantly decline to determine into conspicuous people are quite outlines. You quit searching for the mental profundity that isn't there and rather recline to savor the general terms, the all encompassing perspective. The protagonist of the film, notably, isn't Julio, or Ligaya, or the different other supporting characters; it's simply the city. The significance of Maynila: sa Mga Kuko ng Liwanag as a Filipino film shines even up to this date. It is Filipino auteur Lino Brocka's showstopper—one that underlines his political activism and affinity for utilizing mistreated characters who steadily arrive at an awakening. This film was created during Martial Law, when the Marcos system was advancing Manila as a city filled with dreams and all things fantasy. Their image of progress, however, was to disregard the wild neediness in the city. Brocka's vision, in this manner, is a courageous one. The film demonstrates what the Marcos system needed to stow away: Manila's poor living in frail conditions, compelled to work in exploitative occupations that neglect to pay a living salary, and now and again in any event, depending on prostitution to endure. This vision is the thing that makes Maynila: sa mga Kuko ng Liwanag applicable decades later. The issues it brought up in 1975 are as yet present even up to now—Manila's rural still live in alternative houses adjacent to streams, steady employments are still rare, many still work in prostitution so as to eat.

Maynila: sa mga Kuko ng Liwanag is the only Filipino film to make it to be included in the film anthology 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die. This only shows Lino Brocka’s effectiveness as a director. 

INSIANG 

Brocka is known for his capability to consolidate imagery with the real world, and this is very noticeable in Insiang, which was one of the Filipino movies to be presented in Cannes. By turns expressive and rough, laid-back and incoherently overheated, Lino Brocka's "Insiang" that was released in 1976 is without a moment's delay unique but so natural that you may end up commenting on it with true to life commentaries as the story unfurls. The director, Lino Brocka, portrayed the house with a blend of metal, wood and cardboard, an early point of convergence, transforming it into a little community of the spread and a very unfortunate condition that encompasses it. As Mr. Brocka plays with his encircling, going from tight to wide, placing the scene's instability into distinct visual terms, he changes this one family into something that is bluntly pungent for a city. The exaggerated hardware kicks in after Mr. Brocka oils it with some horrid scene-setting, beginning with the terrible picture of a pig being gutted in a slaughterhouse loaded up with shouting, biting the dust creatures that prompts a narrative arrangement of human lack of sanitization — this ends up being a get ready for the brutalization of Insiang, the protagonist, including by Tonya, the protagonist’s mother. All throughout, Mr. Brocka, working with his remarkable chief of photography, Conrado Baltazar, makes pictures of astonishing force, similar to that of vicious hands gripping in the void. Insiang's obstinate measures give the film a role as a shocking tribute to feminist self-completion. However, with his torment fashioned finale, and its tangled bunch of unwavering, unpredictable, unfulfilled sentiments and wants, Brocka guarantees that any minor triumph appreciated by his ethically and sincerely distorted protagonist is tempered by an revoking portion of mixed distress and hopelessness. The first Philippine film ever displayed at Cannes, Brocka's portrayal of familial betrayal form and societal deserting channels its drama through the channel of neorealism, its story's elevated feelings kept at a stew by a simmer.

In Brocka's film, the ruinous mother - daughter relationship is odd even by the gauges of the maternal acting. Regularly, in Hollywood and European exposition, maternal drama sees at any rate one of the ladies leaving with some proportion of joy. The threatening vibe among Tonia and Insiang got under the skin of Marcos-time controls, who dismissed a situation that closures with the daughter revel on over her vengeance and communicating total scorn of her mom. Brocka surrendered by taping a compromise endeavor however punctuated it with a chilling response to quietness. There is no illuminating exercise toward the finish of this fearless film in light of the fact that Insiang is, as Brocka portrayed it, an "immorality tale." As the characters start to perceive their essential sadness, they go to damaging acts that cut out their specialties in damnation. Without the standard reclamation account, the plot pursues an alternate direction. It starts with stupendous theatricality and finishes in absolute quietness. This inversion of sensational develop powers the film to wander in the center, investigating fringe characters and building a detailed cosmology of the ghettos before continuing its course toward the savage peak foreshadowed toward the beginning.

In the event that inside workmanship in the category of film, there comes the moment inclination toward less the film than the name — the almighty auteur that probably doesn't need to bow down to corporate experts — at that point even with a film as promptly striking as 1976's Insiang, we start with its creator, Lino Brocka. Indeed, even in a real existence cut heartbreakingly off, he left a sufficient imprint to in any case be viewed as the Philippines' most noteworthy director, among his shrubs being the country's first director to play in competition at Cannes. A specific affiliation made with him was a frank analysis of the dictatorship reign of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines during that time. It additionally straightaway gives the audience a sample of Brocka's figurative nature.

LINO BROCKA AS A DIRECTOR

Brocka's films feature the  predicament of the overlooked and ignored sectors of Filipino society: the slum occupants, prostitution, road hawkers, just as the individuals who were victimized essentially in light of sex or sexuality – subjects that no other director set out to focus on, particularly while under the Marcos tyranny. The bold brutalness and unquenchable absence of morals in his movies can be overpowering, yet it evokes a specific good reaction from his viewers that makes them mindful of the discouraging situation in the general public. Under the Marco tyranny, exacting restriction was authorized in the media and Brocka had to carry his films out of the nation for screenings to maintain a strategic distance from overwhelming cuts. Lino Brocka is like a giant in a world with individuals who overlooked issues that really matter and relevant with films filled with remarkable bravery and powerful experiences. Through Lino Brocka’s qualities, the auteur theory is being discussed. By his cinematic style, we can distinguish the films that were being produced as his masterpiece.

[sewingscars]

Diversion!!!

To all the trans military and veterans who have fought for our freedom, WE SEE YOU AND WE THANK YOU!!! . 

We will NOT be posting any articles about the Anus-Mouthed-Leathery-Tangerine's tweets from his shitter. This is not to devalue or distract from this mornings news. On the contrary, it is simply a reminder.

 This piece of shit H.R.2796 - Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2017 was introduced into Congress on 6-7-2017. 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2796 

.Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2017 

This bill prohibits the word "sex" or "gender" from being interpreted to mean "gender identity," and requires "man" or "woman" to be interpreted to refer exclusively to a person's genetic sex, for purposes determining the meaning of federal civil rights laws or related federal administrative agency regulations or guidance. 

No federal civil rights law shall be interpreted to treat gender identity or transgender status as a protected class unless it expressly designates "gender identity" or "transgender status" as a protected class. 

. 

YESTERDAY DAY 187- 1/ Senate Republicans secured the 51 votes needed to advance their health care bill after Pence cast the tie-breaking vote. The Senate will now begin debating, amending, and ultimately voting in the coming days on the future of Obamacare. The vote was too close to call until the last moments, when several Republican holdouts announced their support, including Rand Paul, Dean Heller, Rob Portman, and Shelley Moore Capito. Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski both voted against the motion to proceed. (New York Times / Washington Post / CNN)

 .

 2/ The Senate will now have 20 hours of debate the health care bill, evenly split between the two sides. Senators can bring up and debate an unlimited number of amendments to the bill as long as they are “germane” to the bill and would not add to the budget deficit. Then a period known as vote-a-rama happens, where Senators votes on the amendments. The first amendment will be the Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act, which repeals most of the Affordable Care Act without a replacement. If that fails (as is expected), Senators will then vote on the Better Care Reconciliation Act, which cuts massive portions of the ACA. Because of reconciliation rules, these amendments would require 60 votes to pass. If BCRA fails, Senators will consider what is being called a “skinny repeal,” which repeals the individual mandate penalty, the employer mandate penalty, and the tax on medical devices. (New York Times / Vox / Time / NBC News) John McCain returned to the Senate for the health care vote after being diagnosed with brain cancer last week. McCain’s vote is critical to today’s procedural vote. His absence would have left Senate Republicans with no margin of error. (Washington Post / Politico) Senate Republicans don’t know what’s in their health care plan, but they voted anyway on the motion to proceed. About a half-dozen senators were publicly undecided about whether to start debate on rolling back the Affordable Care Act. Several senators have said they want a “replace” plan ready to go before voting “yes.” An agreed upon replace plan is not in place. The bill will have to pass the House before making its way to Trump’s desk. McConnell forced the procedural vote to put every senator on record. (Politico / Vox / CNN). 

.

 3/ Trump ripped Jeff Sessions on Twitter, calling him “very weak” when it comes to investigating Hillary Clinton. Trump has repeatedly taken aim at Sessions in recent days, leading to speculation that it’s just a matter of time before the attorney general resigns or is fired. The recent tweets come a day after Trump publicly described Sessions as “beleaguered.” (NBC News / CNN) 

.

 4/ Later in the day, Trump added that he is “very disappointed in Jeff Sessions” but won’t say if he’ll fire him. Trump has previously discussed replacing Jeff Sessions in a move viewed by some of Trump’s advisors as part of a strategy for firing special counsel Robert Mueller in order to end his investigation into the campaign’s efforts to coordinate with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election. Sessions recently asked White House staff how he could patch up relations with Trump, but that went nowhere. Instead, Trump floated longtime ally Rudy Giuliani as a possible replacement for Sessions. (Wall Street Journal / Washington Post / Associated Press)

 .

 5/ Sessions is “pissed” at Trump for the attacks, but doesn’t plan to quit. Senate Republicans have said that attacks on Sessions, who spent 20 years in the Senate, strain their relationship with Trump. Many GOP senators have expressed annoyance with Trump’s tweets, saying “I really have a hard time with this” and "I’d prefer that he didn’t do that. We’d like Jeff to be treated fairly.” Senators have also been nonplussed by Trump’s criticism of Sessions’ decision to recuse himself, saying “Jeff made the right decision. It’s not only a legal decision, but it’s the right decision.“ Trump’s senior policy adviser Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon also support Sessions. (The Daily Beast / McClatchy DC)

 .

 6/ Anthony Scaramucci says it’s "probably” correct that Trump wants Sessions gone. The new White House communications director didn’t want to speak for the president, but said he thinks Trump has a “certain style” and he is “obviously frustrated.” (The Hill)

 .

 7/ Senate Democrats are planning a procedural move to prevent Trump from making recess appointments by forcing the Senate to hold “pro forma” sessions – brief meetings, often only a few minutes. Democrats are worried Trump could attempt to bypass Congress and appoint a new attorney general and undermine special counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing probe into alleged Russian meddling in the US election during the planned August recess. (CNN / Reuters) 

.

 8/ The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Paul Manafort to testify in its Russia probe. Manafort had agreed to provide notes of the meeting at Trump Tower last year with the Russian lawyer, according to a person close to the investigation. Committee chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking member Dianne Feinstein said they had been “unable to reach an agreement for a voluntary transcribed interview with the Judiciary Committee” with Manafort. (ABC News / Politico) . UPDATE: **The Senate Judiciary Committee has dropped the subpoena against Paul Manafort **and plans are underway for the former Trump campaign chairman to speak to investigators. (Politico) 

. 

9/ Parents are angry after Trump delivered a politicized speech to tens of thousands of boy scouts. Over 35 minutes, Trump threatened to fire one of his Cabinet members, attacked Obama, dissed Hillary Clinton, marveled at the size of the crowd, warned the boys about the “fake media,” mocked the polls, and said more people would say “Merry Christmas.“ Responding to criticism, the Boy Scouts of America insisted it was "wholly non-partisan and does not promote any one position, product, service, political candidate or philosophy.” (Washington Post / BBC) Trump joked he would fire Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price if the health care bill doesn’t pass. “Hopefully he’s going to get the votes tomorrow to start on the path to kill this thing called ObamaCare that’s really hurting us,” Trump said during a speech to Boy Scouts at the 2017 National Jamboree. “He better get them, otherwise I’ll say, ‘Tom, you’re fired.’” (The Hill) 

. 

10/ Trump confirmed a covert CIA program while tweeting that the Washington Post had “fabricated the facts” about his decision to end a program aiding Syrian rebels fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Trump was referring to a story about ending an Obama program where the CIA armed and trained moderate Syrian rebels, a move long sought by the Russian government. (Washington Post / Politico) 

.

 11/ A federal judge ruled that Trump’s voter fraud commission may request voter roll data from states. Opponents contend the effort could infringe on privacy rights. The judge said the lawsuit did not have grounds for an injunction because the commission was not technically an action by a government agency – the commission is an advisory body that does not have legal authority to compel states to hand over the data. (Reuters) 

. 

12/ Jared Kushner bought real estate from an oligarch’s firm represented by the Russian lawyer. Lev Leviev was a business partner at Prevezon Holdings, where Natalia Veselnitskaya acted as legal counsel. Prevezon was being investigated by Preet Bharara for money laundering before he was fired by Trump in March. Prevezon Holdings attempted to use Manhattan real estate deals to launder money stolen from the Russian treasury. In 2015, Kushner paid $295m to acquire several floors of the old New York Times building at 43rd street in Manhattan from the US branch of Leviev’s company. The Prevezon case was abruptly settled two days before it was due in open court in May for $6 million with no admission of guilt on the part of the defendants. (The Guardian) 

. 

13/ A White House press aide resigned after Anthony Scaramucci said he planned to fire him over alleged leaks. Michael Short is the first to leave after Scaramucci promised all aides “a clean slate” and “amnesty” to prove that they were not leaking. “This is the problem with the leaking,” Scaramucci told reporters outside the White House. “This is actually a terrible thing. Let’s say I’m firing Michael Short today. The fact that you guys know about it before he does really upsets me as a human being and as a Roman Catholic.” Short, who initially said Tuesday that he hadn’t yet been informed of any decision, resigned Tuesday afternoon. (Washington Post / Politico / The Hill) 

. 

DAY188 - Trump TWEETS ( NO official report, NO press release, NO executive order) that trans people are banned from the military. The Internet explodes. Everything that has been happening is no longer discussed. His diversion has been executed perfectly. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. #lightingahellfiretocoverashitstorm

[opioid0]

via Opioid,

Racism is a chronic, generational, lifelong trauma that pervades and invades the daily lives of Black Americans.  Acute traumas like the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks lay on top of the chronic trauma, reactivating emotional wounds that constantly lurk under the surface.  The last eight weeks have been an emotional whirlwind for Black Americans, fraught with the lowest lows as we watched George Floyd’s life fade away under the police officer’s knee, yet sprinkled with hope as we watch white America undergo what genuinely seems to be a mass awakening to the pervasive and devastating effects of racism on our lives.  

As a Black woman, and Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer of Eleanor Health, a company that cares deeply for our people, I find myself in dual positions.  One as a Black wife, mother, daughter and sister, navigating the pain and anger of acute racist trauma; the other as a healthcare executive leading our company’s corporate anti-racism response.  I feel deep gratitude to my fellow Co-Founders and Leadership Team who showed up as staunch allies, enthusiastically jumping in to the movement with two feet.  We acted quickly.  Within a few days, we crafted our Black Lives Matter Anti-Racism Statement.  The message to our team members was simple:  We care too much about you to ask you to pretend you’re ok just because you’re at work.  A few days later, we held a company-wide town hall meeting after which we quickly conceptualized a framework for our anti-racism work going forward. A book club sprang up organically and chatter began about what book the club would read first.  We released an application for the Black Lives Matter committee – designed to hold us accountable for an ongoing, sustained anti-racism response that would persist beyond current tensions.  Galvanized by the opportunity to raise our voices against injustice, we acted quickly, and as a unified force.  Honestly, it felt good – or so we thought.  

I was admittedly surprised to receive a hesitant instant message from one of our Black women team members.  She tested the waters – “Wanted to shoot you an article that I came across last night and get your thoughts on it.” I said, “Of course. Send it on over.”  As a Psychiatrist, I recognized something heavy about her message.  She sent over an article titled “When Black People are in Pain, White People Just Join Book Clubs.”  Shortly, thereafter, I received an email from another one of our Black women staff.  It started with “I wrote and deleted this message 50-11 times,” a colloquialism meant to reflect just how unsure she was about raising her voice, as a result of how dangerous doing so had been at past companies. 

I realized, despite knowing that racism is an ongoing trauma, and despite being a victim and survivor of the trauma of racism myself, and despite being in the middle of my own emotional storm (perhaps as a result of being in the middle of my own emotional storm), I had forgotten SAMHSA’s 4Rs of a trauma-informed organization: Realize, Recognize, Respond and Resist.  

I realized that we were falling short on the 4th R.  Despite best intentions, we were re-traumatizing many of our Black team members by moving too quickly without first providing a safe space to process the acute trauma they were experiencing.    As a leadership team, we recognized we needed to take a step back, and listen.  We created Black Eleanor, a support group for those of our team members who identify as Black.  We put every other initiative on hold.  During our first Black Eleanor meeting, as Chief Medical Officer, I listened.  As a Black woman, I realized just how much I was in need of that safe space. 

After our first Black Eleanor meeting, it hit me like a ton of bricks.  I’m a psychiatrist for goodness sakes!  When caring for individuals who have experienced trauma, we take an approach that, for this purpose, I’ve simplified to three steps.  First, create a safe space.  Second, allow time for intense emotions physiological responses caused by acute trauma to settle down.  Lastly, spring into action, empowering the survivor’s voice and engaging allies.   As a company, we had made the mistake of skipping over the first two steps, and springing directly into action.  In doing so, we had unintentionally marginalized the very people we needed to support, embrace and empower during a time of acute trauma.  

As we were learning these lessons at Eleanor, several friends and colleagues were reaching out to me about their experiences at other companies.  One story in particular stood out to me.   A fellow Black female physician shared that her job was holding company-wide conversations on race. She and a group of her Black colleagues took the risk of raising their voices to say it may be too painful for some to be mandated into race listening sessions for all.   Their clinical expertise was discounted. They felt compelled to attend in solidarity and in support of others who were not comfortable raising their voices.  Inadvertently, just as we had at Eleanor Health, her company skipped over the critically important first two stages, and as a result had thrust their Black employees into emotionally unsafe, traumatizing spaces. I can only believe this was not their intention.  

And so that brings me to the 3 step guide for safely launching an affirming corporate anti-racism program.  

Step 1: Create safe spaces.  Importantly, Black people are not monolithic. Rather, we are a diverse group of people with varied life experiences – some born and raised in America, others born and raised in other countries; some raised in suburban communities and others in urban cities or rural farmlands; some identifying as cis-gendered heterosexual and others identifying on the LGBTQ+ spectrum; some Republican, some Democrat and others Independent.  In short, the diversity among Black people is infinite.   However, during periods of acute trauma, for many Black people, for whom code-switching and moderating our Blackness are required survival skills that we’ve developed in response to implicit and explicit racism and discrimination throughout our professional experiences, mixed-race spaces by definition are not safe spaces.  Though a difficult metaphor, imagine asking a woman who was recently assaulted by a man to join a mix-gendered support group.  Though the men in the support group are not the man who assaulted her, their very presence is triggering.  To avoid violating the 4th R, dedicate time during the work day for safe spaces. 

Step 2: Allow time and support grounding.   During our first Black Eleanor meeting, several of our Black team members shared that they felt their voices had been co-opted.  They described being injured by what felt like a race to get to the finish line of a 100yd dash, when in actuality, we were just suiting up for the swim leg of an Iron Man.  It seemed that, as a leadership team, we believed a few rapidly-implemented initiatives could fix the wounds of generational injustice, with one of our strategies being an anti-racist book club. Instead, what our Black team members needed from us was time and support to engage their grounding processes – physical, mental and soothing techniques designed to reduce the negative emotions associated with trauma.   My counsel here is that there is no need to rush your organizational initiative – this is a long game, and your employees need time. 

Step 3: Spring into action.  The most important part of Step 3 is empowering the voices of survivors.  That empowerment must reach beyond the executive level to ensure a diversity of Black voices are leading the company’s anti-racism program.  Companies must strike the balance of engaging and galvanizing allies to lift the burden of this work off the backs of Black colleagues, while ensuring Black voices remain at the very core of all initiatives.  You definitely need expert support to successfully strike this balance.  Hire a consultant.  

We are in the midst of what feels like the most unified anti-racism movement I have experienced in my lifetime.  It is my hope that those of us in leadership positions, regardless of race or ethnicity, embrace the responsibility not only to create anti-racism programs, but to do so in a way that is affirming and safe for the very employees on whose behalf we are advocating.  

Nzinga Harrison, MD is Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer of Eleanor Health,  an innovative network of physician clinics that cares for individuals affected by addiction and Host of In Recovery, a podcast dedicated to changing the conversation around addiction.

from https://www.eleanorhealth.com/blog/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black-employees-a-three-step-guide-to-safely-launching-an-affirming-corporate-anti-racism-program

from Eleanor Health Durham https://eleanorhealthdurham.blogspot.com/2020/08/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black.html via IFTTT

from Eleanor Health Durham https://eleanorhealthdurham.wordpress.com/2020/08/20/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black-employees-a-three-step-guide-to-safely-launching-an-affirming-corporate-anti-racism-program/ via IFTTT

from Drug Rehab https://drugrehab8.blogspot.com/2020/08/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black.html via IFTTT

from Drug Rehab https://drugrehab88.wordpress.com/2020/08/20/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black-employees-a-three-step-guide-to-safely-launching-an-affirming-corporate-anti-racism-program/ via IFTTT

from Opioid https://opioid0.blogspot.com/2020/08/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black.html via IFTTT

[detox0000]

Avoid Re-Traumatizing Your Black Employees: A Three Step Guide to Safely Launching An Affirming Corporate Anti-Racism Program

Racism is a chronic, generational, lifelong trauma that pervades and invades the daily lives of Black Americans.  Acute traumas like the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks lay on top of the chronic trauma, reactivating emotional wounds that constantly lurk under the surface.  The last eight weeks have been an emotional whirlwind for Black Americans, fraught with the lowest lows as we watched George Floyd’s life fade away under the police officer’s knee, yet sprinkled with hope as we watch white America undergo what genuinely seems to be a mass awakening to the pervasive and devastating effects of racism on our lives.  

As a Black woman, and Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer of Eleanor Health, a company that cares deeply for our people, I find myself in dual positions.  One as a Black wife, mother, daughter and sister, navigating the pain and anger of acute racist trauma; the other as a healthcare executive leading our company’s corporate anti-racism response.  I feel deep gratitude to my fellow Co-Founders and Leadership Team who showed up as staunch allies, enthusiastically jumping in to the movement with two feet.  We acted quickly.  Within a few days, we crafted our Black Lives Matter Anti-Racism Statement.  The message to our team members was simple:  We care too much about you to ask you to pretend you’re ok just because you’re at work.  A few days later, we held a company-wide town hall meeting after which we quickly conceptualized a framework for our anti-racism work going forward. A book club sprang up organically and chatter began about what book the club would read first.  We released an application for the Black Lives Matter committee – designed to hold us accountable for an ongoing, sustained anti-racism response that would persist beyond current tensions.  Galvanized by the opportunity to raise our voices against injustice, we acted quickly, and as a unified force.  Honestly, it felt good – or so we thought.  

I was admittedly surprised to receive a hesitant instant message from one of our Black women team members.  She tested the waters – “Wanted to shoot you an article that I came across last night and get your thoughts on it.” I said, “Of course. Send it on over.”  As a Psychiatrist, I recognized something heavy about her message.  She sent over an article titled “When Black People are in Pain, White People Just Join Book Clubs.”  Shortly, thereafter, I received an email from another one of our Black women staff.  It started with “I wrote and deleted this message 50-11 times,” a colloquialism meant to reflect just how unsure she was about raising her voice, as a result of how dangerous doing so had been at past companies. 

I realized, despite knowing that racism is an ongoing trauma, and despite being a victim and survivor of the trauma of racism myself, and despite being in the middle of my own emotional storm (perhaps as a result of being in the middle of my own emotional storm), I had forgotten SAMHSA’s 4Rs of a trauma-informed organization: Realize, Recognize, Respond and Resist.  

I realized that we were falling short on the 4th R.  Despite best intentions, we were re-traumatizing many of our Black team members by moving too quickly without first providing a safe space to process the acute trauma they were experiencing.    As a leadership team, we recognized we needed to take a step back, and listen.  We created Black Eleanor, a support group for those of our team members who identify as Black.  We put every other initiative on hold.  During our first Black Eleanor meeting, as Chief Medical Officer, I listened.  As a Black woman, I realized just how much I was in need of that safe space. 

After our first Black Eleanor meeting, it hit me like a ton of bricks.  I’m a psychiatrist for goodness sakes!  When caring for individuals who have experienced trauma, we take an approach that, for this purpose, I’ve simplified to three steps.  First, create a safe space.  Second, allow time for intense emotions physiological responses caused by acute trauma to settle down.  Lastly, spring into action, empowering the survivor’s voice and engaging allies.   As a company, we had made the mistake of skipping over the first two steps, and springing directly into action.  In doing so, we had unintentionally marginalized the very people we needed to support, embrace and empower during a time of acute trauma.  

As we were learning these lessons at Eleanor, several friends and colleagues were reaching out to me about their experiences at other companies.  One story in particular stood out to me.   A fellow Black female physician shared that her job was holding company-wide conversations on race. She and a group of her Black colleagues took the risk of raising their voices to say it may be too painful for some to be mandated into race listening sessions for all.   Their clinical expertise was discounted. They felt compelled to attend in solidarity and in support of others who were not comfortable raising their voices.  Inadvertently, just as we had at Eleanor Health, her company skipped over the critically important first two stages, and as a result had thrust their Black employees into emotionally unsafe, traumatizing spaces. I can only believe this was not their intention.  

And so that brings me to the 3 step guide for safely launching an affirming corporate anti-racism program.  

Step 1: Create safe spaces.  Importantly, Black people are not monolithic. Rather, we are a diverse group of people with varied life experiences – some born and raised in America, others born and raised in other countries; some raised in suburban communities and others in urban cities or rural farmlands; some identifying as cis-gendered heterosexual and others identifying on the LGBTQ+ spectrum; some Republican, some Democrat and others Independent.  In short, the diversity among Black people is infinite.   However, during periods of acute trauma, for many Black people, for whom code-switching and moderating our Blackness are required survival skills that we’ve developed in response to implicit and explicit racism and discrimination throughout our professional experiences, mixed-race spaces by definition are not safe spaces.  Though a difficult metaphor, imagine asking a woman who was recently assaulted by a man to join a mix-gendered support group.  Though the men in the support group are not the man who assaulted her, their very presence is triggering.  To avoid violating the 4th R, dedicate time during the work day for safe spaces. 

Step 2: Allow time and support grounding.   During our first Black Eleanor meeting, several of our Black team members shared that they felt their voices had been co-opted.  They described being injured by what felt like a race to get to the finish line of a 100yd dash, when in actuality, we were just suiting up for the swim leg of an Iron Man.  It seemed that, as a leadership team, we believed a few rapidly-implemented initiatives could fix the wounds of generational injustice, with one of our strategies being an anti-racist book club. Instead, what our Black team members needed from us was time and support to engage their grounding processes – physical, mental and soothing techniques designed to reduce the negative emotions associated with trauma.   My counsel here is that there is no need to rush your organizational initiative – this is a long game, and your employees need time. 

Step 3: Spring into action.  The most important part of Step 3 is empowering the voices of survivors.  That empowerment must reach beyond the executive level to ensure a diversity of Black voices are leading the company’s anti-racism program.  Companies must strike the balance of engaging and galvanizing allies to lift the burden of this work off the backs of Black colleagues, while ensuring Black voices remain at the very core of all initiatives.  You definitely need expert support to successfully strike this balance.  Hire a consultant.  

We are in the midst of what feels like the most unified anti-racism movement I have experienced in my lifetime.  It is my hope that those of us in leadership positions, regardless of race or ethnicity, embrace the responsibility not only to create anti-racism programs, but to do so in a way that is affirming and safe for the very employees on whose behalf we are advocating.  

Nzinga Harrison, MD is Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer of Eleanor Health,  an innovative network of physician clinics that cares for individuals affected by addiction and Host of In Recovery, a podcast dedicated to changing the conversation around addiction.

from https://www.eleanorhealth.com/blog/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black-employees-a-three-step-guide-to-safely-launching-an-affirming-corporate-anti-racism-program

from Eleanor Health Durham https://eleanorhealthdurham.blogspot.com/2020/08/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black.html via IFTTT

from Eleanor Health Durham https://eleanorhealthdurham.wordpress.com/2020/08/20/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black-employees-a-three-step-guide-to-safely-launching-an-affirming-corporate-anti-racism-program/ via IFTTT

from Rehab https://rehab06.blogspot.com/2020/08/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black.html via IFTTT

from Rehab https://rehab06.wordpress.com/2020/08/20/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black-employees-a-three-step-guide-to-safely-launching-an-affirming-corporate-anti-racism-program/ via IFTTT

from Detox https://detox000.blogspot.com/2020/08/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black.html via IFTTT

from Detox https://detox000.wordpress.com/2020/08/21/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black-employees-a-three-step-guide-to-safely-launching-an-affirming-corporate-anti-racism-program/ via IFTTT

[rehab006]

via Rehab,

Racism is a chronic, generational, lifelong trauma that pervades and invades the daily lives of Black Americans.  Acute traumas like the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks lay on top of the chronic trauma, reactivating emotional wounds that constantly lurk under the surface.  The last eight weeks have been an emotional whirlwind for Black Americans, fraught with the lowest lows as we watched George Floyd’s life fade away under the police officer’s knee, yet sprinkled with hope as we watch white America undergo what genuinely seems to be a mass awakening to the pervasive and devastating effects of racism on our lives.  

As a Black woman, and Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer of Eleanor Health, a company that cares deeply for our people, I find myself in dual positions.  One as a Black wife, mother, daughter and sister, navigating the pain and anger of acute racist trauma; the other as a healthcare executive leading our company’s corporate anti-racism response.  I feel deep gratitude to my fellow Co-Founders and Leadership Team who showed up as staunch allies, enthusiastically jumping in to the movement with two feet.  We acted quickly.  Within a few days, we crafted our Black Lives Matter Anti-Racism Statement.  The message to our team members was simple:  We care too much about you to ask you to pretend you’re ok just because you’re at work.  A few days later, we held a company-wide town hall meeting after which we quickly conceptualized a framework for our anti-racism work going forward. A book club sprang up organically and chatter began about what book the club would read first.  We released an application for the Black Lives Matter committee – designed to hold us accountable for an ongoing, sustained anti-racism response that would persist beyond current tensions.  Galvanized by the opportunity to raise our voices against injustice, we acted quickly, and as a unified force.  Honestly, it felt good – or so we thought.  

I was admittedly surprised to receive a hesitant instant message from one of our Black women team members.  She tested the waters – “Wanted to shoot you an article that I came across last night and get your thoughts on it.” I said, “Of course. Send it on over.”  As a Psychiatrist, I recognized something heavy about her message.  She sent over an article titled “When Black People are in Pain, White People Just Join Book Clubs.”  Shortly, thereafter, I received an email from another one of our Black women staff.  It started with “I wrote and deleted this message 50-11 times,” a colloquialism meant to reflect just how unsure she was about raising her voice, as a result of how dangerous doing so had been at past companies. 

I realized, despite knowing that racism is an ongoing trauma, and despite being a victim and survivor of the trauma of racism myself, and despite being in the middle of my own emotional storm (perhaps as a result of being in the middle of my own emotional storm), I had forgotten SAMHSA’s 4Rs of a trauma-informed organization: Realize, Recognize, Respond and Resist.  

I realized that we were falling short on the 4th R.  Despite best intentions, we were re-traumatizing many of our Black team members by moving too quickly without first providing a safe space to process the acute trauma they were experiencing.    As a leadership team, we recognized we needed to take a step back, and listen.  We created Black Eleanor, a support group for those of our team members who identify as Black.  We put every other initiative on hold.  During our first Black Eleanor meeting, as Chief Medical Officer, I listened.  As a Black woman, I realized just how much I was in need of that safe space. 

After our first Black Eleanor meeting, it hit me like a ton of bricks.  I’m a psychiatrist for goodness sakes!  When caring for individuals who have experienced trauma, we take an approach that, for this purpose, I’ve simplified to three steps.  First, create a safe space.  Second, allow time for intense emotions physiological responses caused by acute trauma to settle down.  Lastly, spring into action, empowering the survivor’s voice and engaging allies.   As a company, we had made the mistake of skipping over the first two steps, and springing directly into action.  In doing so, we had unintentionally marginalized the very people we needed to support, embrace and empower during a time of acute trauma.  

As we were learning these lessons at Eleanor, several friends and colleagues were reaching out to me about their experiences at other companies.  One story in particular stood out to me.   A fellow Black female physician shared that her job was holding company-wide conversations on race. She and a group of her Black colleagues took the risk of raising their voices to say it may be too painful for some to be mandated into race listening sessions for all.   Their clinical expertise was discounted. They felt compelled to attend in solidarity and in support of others who were not comfortable raising their voices.  Inadvertently, just as we had at Eleanor Health, her company skipped over the critically important first two stages, and as a result had thrust their Black employees into emotionally unsafe, traumatizing spaces. I can only believe this was not their intention.  

And so that brings me to the 3 step guide for safely launching an affirming corporate anti-racism program.  

Step 1: Create safe spaces.  Importantly, Black people are not monolithic. Rather, we are a diverse group of people with varied life experiences – some born and raised in America, others born and raised in other countries; some raised in suburban communities and others in urban cities or rural farmlands; some identifying as cis-gendered heterosexual and others identifying on the LGBTQ+ spectrum; some Republican, some Democrat and others Independent.  In short, the diversity among Black people is infinite.   However, during periods of acute trauma, for many Black people, for whom code-switching and moderating our Blackness are required survival skills that we’ve developed in response to implicit and explicit racism and discrimination throughout our professional experiences, mixed-race spaces by definition are not safe spaces.  Though a difficult metaphor, imagine asking a woman who was recently assaulted by a man to join a mix-gendered support group.  Though the men in the support group are not the man who assaulted her, their very presence is triggering.  To avoid violating the 4th R, dedicate time during the work day for safe spaces. 

Step 2: Allow time and support grounding.   During our first Black Eleanor meeting, several of our Black team members shared that they felt their voices had been co-opted.  They described being injured by what felt like a race to get to the finish line of a 100yd dash, when in actuality, we were just suiting up for the swim leg of an Iron Man.  It seemed that, as a leadership team, we believed a few rapidly-implemented initiatives could fix the wounds of generational injustice, with one of our strategies being an anti-racist book club. Instead, what our Black team members needed from us was time and support to engage their grounding processes – physical, mental and soothing techniques designed to reduce the negative emotions associated with trauma.   My counsel here is that there is no need to rush your organizational initiative – this is a long game, and your employees need time. 

Step 3: Spring into action.  The most important part of Step 3 is empowering the voices of survivors.  That empowerment must reach beyond the executive level to ensure a diversity of Black voices are leading the company’s anti-racism program.  Companies must strike the balance of engaging and galvanizing allies to lift the burden of this work off the backs of Black colleagues, while ensuring Black voices remain at the very core of all initiatives.  You definitely need expert support to successfully strike this balance.  Hire a consultant.  

We are in the midst of what feels like the most unified anti-racism movement I have experienced in my lifetime.  It is my hope that those of us in leadership positions, regardless of race or ethnicity, embrace the responsibility not only to create anti-racism programs, but to do so in a way that is affirming and safe for the very employees on whose behalf we are advocating.  

Nzinga Harrison, MD is Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer of Eleanor Health,  an innovative network of physician clinics that cares for individuals affected by addiction and Host of In Recovery, a podcast dedicated to changing the conversation around addiction.

from https://www.eleanorhealth.com/blog/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black-employees-a-three-step-guide-to-safely-launching-an-affirming-corporate-anti-racism-program

from Eleanor Health Durham https://eleanorhealthdurham.blogspot.com/2020/08/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black.html via IFTTT

from Eleanor Health Durham https://eleanorhealthdurham.wordpress.com/2020/08/20/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black-employees-a-three-step-guide-to-safely-launching-an-affirming-corporate-anti-racism-program/ via IFTTT

from Rehab https://rehab06.blogspot.com/2020/08/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black.html via IFTTT

[livinginlandmarketing]

George Floyd spurred Peter Sisson to hit the books — the budget books, to be exact.

The Riverside resident read municipal budgets to see if taxpayer dollars for law enforcement could go elsewhere. “I was aware of the issues, but didn’t have a lot that I was doing outside other than being aware,” Sisson said.

“(Floyd’s death) was kind of a real wake-up call. I kind of pushed myself to get more involved (and) do more.”

Sisson is among those who, in recent months, have spoken at Riverside County Board of Supervisors meetings about the Sheriff’s Department finances. They argue money allocated to public safety agencies is better spent helping those victimized by poverty and systemic racism, especially in the criminal justice system.

Related Articles

Moreno Valley man dies when personal watercraft explodes

Fallen San Bernardino County sheriff’s Sgt. Dominic Vaca honored for his ‘heart of gold’

Man accused of impersonating firefighter at Farm Fire arrested

CHP arrests man accused of impersonating a police officer in French Valley traffic stop

Trailblazing female helicopter pilot fired by OCFA alleges sexual discrimination, sues to get her job back

“It’s not that we hate the police,” said Avalon Edwards, a policy associate with Starting Over, Inc. “It’s that we deserve better. (People of color, low-income families, the LGBTQ community, undocumented immigrants and sex workers) deserve more.”

A jury in April convicted former Minneapolis, Minnesota police Officer Derek Chauvin of second-degree murder and other charges after a bystander videotaped Chauvin, who is White, kneeling on the neck of Floyd, who was Black, for almost nine minutes in May 2020. Following Floyd-inspired protests last summer, activists nationwide and in Riverside County made a push to “defund” the police.

The five county supervisors — two Republicans, two Democrats and a Libertarian — have repeatedly rebuffed calls to cut public safety, instead heeding Sheriff Chad Bianco’s and District Attorney Mike Hestrin’s requests for more money.

Supervisors on Monday, June 14, will hold a public hearing on the $6.9 billion budget for the fiscal year starting July 1. The board directly controls less than $1 billion of the budget; most of the rest is state and federal money automatically ticketed for specific programs.

The draft budget gives the sheriff $372.2 million in county funds, accounting for about 42% of the department’s budget, while the DA would get about $85.3 million from the county, which would fund 54% of his budget, according to county executive office figures.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. (File photo by Watchara Phomicinda, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG)

Those figures show that from fiscal 2017-18 to the current fiscal year, “net county cost”– the bottom line total of what the county pays after other funding sources are factored in — devoted to the sheriff and DA rose by 27% and 23%, respectively.

In the next budget, 2021-22, 48% of the county’s discretionary funding is slated to go to the sheriff and DA; it was 43% in fiscal 2017-18. Hestrin would get a 6.4% increase in county funds while Bianco stands to get a 5.9% increase.

Bianco and Hestrin, both elected officials who can’t be fired, typically ask for more than what’s recommended and sometimes warn of layoffs or cuts to services if they don’t get it. It puts pressure on supervisors who have to balance public safety with limited revenues and demands for more spending on roads, parks, code enforcement and other services.

In an emailed statement, Undersheriff Dennis Vrooman said his department’s budget “reflects the operational costs and personnel needed to fulfill our primary mission to protect and serve the public by reducing and solving crime, particularly violent crime.”

New state laws and training requirements are an unfunded mandate for the department, which also has to cover higher costs outside of its control and meet a growing county’s expectations for service, Vrooman said.

With more than 3,000 personnel, the Sheriff’s Department is the largest law enforcement agency in America’s 10th most populated county — 2.4 million residents. It protects 16 cities and several tribal territories through contracts, patrols unincorporated areas, runs five jails and provides courthouse security and civil court procedures; the sheriff also serves as county coroner.

Through a spokesman, Hestrin, whose office helps crime victims and files about 60,000 criminal cases a year, said he would be addressing questions about his office’s funding in comments to supervisors.

Last June, Bianco and Hestrin addressed criticism of their funding at a board meeting.

“It’s very hard to sit and listen to the same people over and over say how horrible we are — whether we’re racist or whether we’re over-funded,” Bianco said then. “At the same time, they’re saying we don’t respond fast enough because there’s not enough deputies out there.”

Hestrin said: “You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say ‘We want the police to do better. We want the police to do a better job deescalating. We want the police to solve mental health problems. And yet we’re going to take away funding.’”

Riverside All of Us or None, a local chapter of a national criminal justice reform movement, is among the groups seeking a change in county spending. Through social media, the group asks the public to go to supervisors’ meetings and speak out against sheriff-related budget items.

Its members include Redd Martinez of Riverside, who said jail funding can be better used to help inmates, especially to understand their COVID-19 vaccine options.

“We have people in jail who haven’t heard anything about the vaccine,” he said.

Martinez said he’s spoken at board meetings 13 times, but he’s frustrated. “The Board of Supervisors is not listening to any of our suggestions.”

Edwards of Starting Over Inc., a Corona-based nonprofit that helps the recently incarcerated reenter society, also regularly speaks at board meetings. “We get painted out to be this anti-police movement and that’s not the focus at all,” she said.

“We’re pro-community. A further investment in policing and incarceration to answer these social ills … is never going to address these root causes.”

The safest communities, Edwards said, have a wealth of resources. That includes a focus on supportive housing and other homeless services, money for education and job training, wireless Internet access, libraries and cultural activities, alternatives to jail and a system that sends mental health experts, not cops, to mental health crises, she said.

“We have great programs (in the county) but they need funding,” she said. “Part of it is investing, part of it is getting imaginative … We can get creative with these solutions, but we don’t have to start from scratch.”

While Edwards and others don’t see more cops as the answer, many do. A recent survey of residents in unincorporated communities found strong support for more deputy patrols.

Related links

5 takeaways from Riverside County’s $6.9 billion budget

Riverside County supervisors OK $6.5 billion budget, won’t defund Sheriff’s Department

Riverside County supervisors asked to defund Sheriff’s Department

Riverside County expects a $7 million budget surplus

Help could be coming for Riverside County’s unincorporated communities

“The RSA agrees with these residents and trusts the supervisors will craft a budget that reflects the stated wishes of Riverside County residents,” Bill Young, president of the Riverside Sheriffs’ Association, the union representing deputies, said via email.

Unincorporated communities “are not the only ones affected by the Sheriff’s Department,” Edwards said, adding that people who spoke at board listening sessions last year wanted less funding for the Sheriff’s Department.

Edwards said she isn’t optimistic she’ll convince supervisors.

“It’s this inertia that we’re in right now. The board is going to do what the sheriff and DA ask them to do,” she said. “It’s a people power building opportunity and that education opportunity at this rate is the key priority for me. This is not a one-time fight, clearly.”

IF YOU GO

Riverside County supervisors will hold a public hearing on the fiscal 2021-22 budget. The meeting will feature presentations from the Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney’s Office and other departments, and starting around 3 p.m. — it could be earlier or later — members of the public will have up to three minutes each to speak.

Depending on what happens Monday, the Board of Supervisors might resume budget discussions Tuesday afternoon. The board has until June 30 to pass the budget.

When: 9:30 a.m. Monday, June 14

Where: First floor board chambers, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside

Livestream: rivcotv.org/BOS

-on June 12, 2021 at 06:28AM by Jeff Horseman

[drugrehb9]

via Drug Rehab,

Racism is a chronic, generational, lifelong trauma that pervades and invades the daily lives of Black Americans.  Acute traumas like the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks lay on top of the chronic trauma, reactivating emotional wounds that constantly lurk under the surface.  The last eight weeks have been an emotional whirlwind for Black Americans, fraught with the lowest lows as we watched George Floyd’s life fade away under the police officer’s knee, yet sprinkled with hope as we watch white America undergo what genuinely seems to be a mass awakening to the pervasive and devastating effects of racism on our lives.  

As a Black woman, and Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer of Eleanor Health, a company that cares deeply for our people, I find myself in dual positions.  One as a Black wife, mother, daughter and sister, navigating the pain and anger of acute racist trauma; the other as a healthcare executive leading our company’s corporate anti-racism response.  I feel deep gratitude to my fellow Co-Founders and Leadership Team who showed up as staunch allies, enthusiastically jumping in to the movement with two feet.  We acted quickly.  Within a few days, we crafted our Black Lives Matter Anti-Racism Statement.  The message to our team members was simple:  We care too much about you to ask you to pretend you’re ok just because you’re at work.  A few days later, we held a company-wide town hall meeting after which we quickly conceptualized a framework for our anti-racism work going forward. A book club sprang up organically and chatter began about what book the club would read first.  We released an application for the Black Lives Matter committee – designed to hold us accountable for an ongoing, sustained anti-racism response that would persist beyond current tensions.  Galvanized by the opportunity to raise our voices against injustice, we acted quickly, and as a unified force.  Honestly, it felt good – or so we thought.  

I was admittedly surprised to receive a hesitant instant message from one of our Black women team members.  She tested the waters – “Wanted to shoot you an article that I came across last night and get your thoughts on it.” I said, “Of course. Send it on over.”  As a Psychiatrist, I recognized something heavy about her message.  She sent over an article titled “When Black People are in Pain, White People Just Join Book Clubs.”  Shortly, thereafter, I received an email from another one of our Black women staff.  It started with “I wrote and deleted this message 50-11 times,” a colloquialism meant to reflect just how unsure she was about raising her voice, as a result of how dangerous doing so had been at past companies. 

I realized, despite knowing that racism is an ongoing trauma, and despite being a victim and survivor of the trauma of racism myself, and despite being in the middle of my own emotional storm (perhaps as a result of being in the middle of my own emotional storm), I had forgotten SAMHSA’s 4Rs of a trauma-informed organization: Realize, Recognize, Respond and Resist.  

I realized that we were falling short on the 4th R.  Despite best intentions, we were re-traumatizing many of our Black team members by moving too quickly without first providing a safe space to process the acute trauma they were experiencing.    As a leadership team, we recognized we needed to take a step back, and listen.  We created Black Eleanor, a support group for those of our team members who identify as Black.  We put every other initiative on hold.  During our first Black Eleanor meeting, as Chief Medical Officer, I listened.  As a Black woman, I realized just how much I was in need of that safe space. 

After our first Black Eleanor meeting, it hit me like a ton of bricks.  I’m a psychiatrist for goodness sakes!  When caring for individuals who have experienced trauma, we take an approach that, for this purpose, I’ve simplified to three steps.  First, create a safe space.  Second, allow time for intense emotions physiological responses caused by acute trauma to settle down.  Lastly, spring into action, empowering the survivor’s voice and engaging allies.   As a company, we had made the mistake of skipping over the first two steps, and springing directly into action.  In doing so, we had unintentionally marginalized the very people we needed to support, embrace and empower during a time of acute trauma.  

As we were learning these lessons at Eleanor, several friends and colleagues were reaching out to me about their experiences at other companies.  One story in particular stood out to me.   A fellow Black female physician shared that her job was holding company-wide conversations on race. She and a group of her Black colleagues took the risk of raising their voices to say it may be too painful for some to be mandated into race listening sessions for all.   Their clinical expertise was discounted. They felt compelled to attend in solidarity and in support of others who were not comfortable raising their voices.  Inadvertently, just as we had at Eleanor Health, her company skipped over the critically important first two stages, and as a result had thrust their Black employees into emotionally unsafe, traumatizing spaces. I can only believe this was not their intention.  

And so that brings me to the 3 step guide for safely launching an affirming corporate anti-racism program.  

Step 1: Create safe spaces.  Importantly, Black people are not monolithic. Rather, we are a diverse group of people with varied life experiences – some born and raised in America, others born and raised in other countries; some raised in suburban communities and others in urban cities or rural farmlands; some identifying as cis-gendered heterosexual and others identifying on the LGBTQ+ spectrum; some Republican, some Democrat and others Independent.  In short, the diversity among Black people is infinite.   However, during periods of acute trauma, for many Black people, for whom code-switching and moderating our Blackness are required survival skills that we’ve developed in response to implicit and explicit racism and discrimination throughout our professional experiences, mixed-race spaces by definition are not safe spaces.  Though a difficult metaphor, imagine asking a woman who was recently assaulted by a man to join a mix-gendered support group.  Though the men in the support group are not the man who assaulted her, their very presence is triggering.  To avoid violating the 4th R, dedicate time during the work day for safe spaces. 

Step 2: Allow time and support grounding.   During our first Black Eleanor meeting, several of our Black team members shared that they felt their voices had been co-opted.  They described being injured by what felt like a race to get to the finish line of a 100yd dash, when in actuality, we were just suiting up for the swim leg of an Iron Man.  It seemed that, as a leadership team, we believed a few rapidly-implemented initiatives could fix the wounds of generational injustice, with one of our strategies being an anti-racist book club. Instead, what our Black team members needed from us was time and support to engage their grounding processes – physical, mental and soothing techniques designed to reduce the negative emotions associated with trauma.   My counsel here is that there is no need to rush your organizational initiative – this is a long game, and your employees need time. 

Step 3: Spring into action.  The most important part of Step 3 is empowering the voices of survivors.  That empowerment must reach beyond the executive level to ensure a diversity of Black voices are leading the company’s anti-racism program.  Companies must strike the balance of engaging and galvanizing allies to lift the burden of this work off the backs of Black colleagues, while ensuring Black voices remain at the very core of all initiatives.  You definitely need expert support to successfully strike this balance.  Hire a consultant.  

We are in the midst of what feels like the most unified anti-racism movement I have experienced in my lifetime.  It is my hope that those of us in leadership positions, regardless of race or ethnicity, embrace the responsibility not only to create anti-racism programs, but to do so in a way that is affirming and safe for the very employees on whose behalf we are advocating.  

Nzinga Harrison, MD is Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer of Eleanor Health,  an innovative network of physician clinics that cares for individuals affected by addiction and Host of In Recovery, a podcast dedicated to changing the conversation around addiction.

from https://www.eleanorhealth.com/blog/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black-employees-a-three-step-guide-to-safely-launching-an-affirming-corporate-anti-racism-program

from Eleanor Health Durham https://eleanorhealthdurham.blogspot.com/2020/08/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black.html via IFTTT

from Eleanor Health Durham https://eleanorhealthdurham.wordpress.com/2020/08/20/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black-employees-a-three-step-guide-to-safely-launching-an-affirming-corporate-anti-racism-program/ via IFTTT

from Drug Rehab https://drugrehab8.blogspot.com/2020/08/avoid-re-traumatizing-your-black.html via IFTTT

[jobsearchtips02]

Coronavirus live updates: European nations sign deal with AstraZeneca for 400 million vaccine doses

As many U.S. states continue to lift coronavirus lockdown restrictions, some are pausing their reopenings in the face of worrisome data around new cases and hospitalizations. States like Texas, Arizona and Arkansas have seen a surge in infections, calling into question aggressive reopening strategies. 

Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday additional lockdowns may be needed if rising infection data doesn’t improve, and some researchers are warning the resurgences in some states isn’t even the “second wave” that many feared — it’s still just the first. 

This is CNBC’s live blog covering all the latest news on the coronavirus outbreak. This blog will be updated throughout the day as the news breaks. 

Global cases: More than 7.7 million

Global deaths: At least 427,400

U.S. cases: More than 2.05 million

U.S. deaths: At least 114,875

The data above was compiled by Johns Hopkins University.

Trump addresses West Point grads at socially distanced ceremony

Cadets march into their commencement ceremony on June 13, 2020 in West Point, New York.

David Dee Delgado

2: 50 p.m. ET — Despite the coronavirus pandemic, the United States Military Academy at West Point graduated more than 1,000 cadets in an in-person ceremony, adapted with social distancing measures aimed at preventing transmission of the disease.

Cadets left the academy on March 6 when the pandemic hit and only the graduating seniors were allowed to return for Saturday’s event. The cadets, informally referred to as members of “The Long Gray Line,” took their oath at the Plain at West Point instead of Michie Stadium, the usual venue.

Their families and other guests were not allowed to attend. Trump’s speech to the Army’s new second lieutenants comes at a particularly tumultuous time, which the president appeared to acknowledge in his address.

“When times are turbulent, when the road is rough, what matters most is that which is permanent, timeless, enduring and eternal,” Trump said. —Amanda Macias

AstraZeneca CEO says in talks with Japan, Russia, Brazil and China on vaccine supplies

12: 41 p.m. ET — AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot told reporters the drugmaker is in talks with Japan, Russia, Brazil and China on eventual supplies of the company’s Covid-19 vaccine, Reuters reported. 

Earlier in the day, Italy’s health minister announced a deal between AstraZeneca and that country as well as Germany, France and the Netherlands. The company’s vaccine candidate will soon move into phase 3 trials having already met benchmarks for efficacy and safety, according to the Reuters report. 

Brazil and Russia are among the hardest hit nations amid the coronavirus pandemic, trailing on the U.S. in total infections, based on data from Johns Hopkins University. —Sara Salinas

NY Gov. Cuomo: ‘The signs across the country are frightening’

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo speaks inside of the New York Stock Exchange after earlier ringing the opening bell as the building opens for the first time since March while the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) continues in New York, May 26, 2020.

Lucas Jackson | Reuters

12: 03 p.m. ET — New York has reached the lowest number of coronavirus hospitalizations and deaths since the start of the outbreak in March, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said.

Cuomo warned that New York is an anomaly in the country because the state’s numbers continue to drop during a gradual reopening, which is not the case in other states that lifted restrictions and saw a spike in virus cases. Fourteen states have seen a surge in cases of more than 25% in the past week.

“Look around the nation and look what’s going on,” Cuomo said at a press conference. “The signs across the country are frightening … The beast is rearing its ugly head. Be careful.”

New York currently has the lowest rate of transmission in the country. Thirty-two people died on Friday from the virus, the governor said. —Emma Newburger

Expiring $600 unemployment benefits are essential for some workers

We don’t know how protests are being surveilled. Here’s why that’s a problem 

10: 15 a.m. ET — As activists bring their phones to the streets to document widespread protests for racial justice, some are beginning to fear how they, too, are being documented.

Dozens of lawmakers have called on government agency heads to reveal how they are using technology to track and surveil the protests that have followed the death of George Floyd, a Black man who died after a white police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes during an arrest. And a sweeping police reform proposal places restrictions on body camera usage and data retention.

Privacy researchers say a lack of regulation requiring transparency around law enforcement’s use surveillance and facial recognition technology makes it difficult for citizens to know what they’re up against. Combined with the digital contact tracing efforts being pushed by public health officials to combat the Covid-19 pandemic, privacy advocates fear a slippery slope into further surveillance that could stifle speech.

In the interim, tech companies that supply location data and facial recognition have taken it upon themselves to stop supplying their technology to law enforcement officials. IBM, Amazon and Microsoft all have taken steps to cut off law enforcement use of their facial recognition tools, citing a lack of robust ground rules. And Foursquare has decided not to make analytics on protest data available to its clients. —Lauren Feiner

Italy, Germany, France and Netherlands sign contract with AstraZeneca for Covid-19 vaccine

The molecular biology laboratory of Cannizzaro Hospital in Catania during the analysis of biological samples to detect the presence of Covid-19 on May 22, 2020 in Catania, Italy.

Fabrizio Villa

9: 21 a.m. ET — Italy, Germany, France and the Netherlands have signed a contract with AstraZeneca to provide European citizens with a coronavirus vaccine, Italy’s health minister Roberto Speranza said, according to a Reuters report. The contract will supply 400 million doses of the vaccine.

AstraZeneca’s vaccine is currently in development with the University of Oxford and its experimentation phase is expected to be completed in the fall. Speranza said the first batch of doses would be available at the end of the year, Reuters reported.

EU governments issued a mandate on Friday instructing the European Commission to negotiate advance purchases of promising Covid-19 vaccines. However, it’s unclear if there would be enough money available for these purchases. —Sarah Whitten

San Francisco doctors, back from volunteering in NY, issue a warning

9: 15 a.m. ET — San Francisco doctors who risked their lives and volunteered to help coronavirus patients in New York have now returned home – and they are urging people to follow public safety guidelines, CNBC’s Christina Farr reports.

“A lot of people are feeling done with this pandemic,” said Dr. Ethan Weiss, a cardiologist based in San Francisco. “They don’t understand this is how it is going to be for a while.”

As states begin to re-open, people are itching to resume life after months of lockdowns. However, the virus is still spreading across the country and public health experts are concerned about the reported increase in diagnosed cases and hospitalizations in some states. —Emma Newburger

Your guide to coronavirus testing

Shalonda Williams-Hampton, 32, has her blood taken by Northwell Health medical workers for the antibody tests that detect whether a person has developed immunity to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) at the First Baptist Cathedral of Westbury in Westbury, New York, May 13, 2020.

Shannon Stapleton | Reuters

How one New Jersey Main St. is preparing to reopen

Village Brewing in Somerville, New Jersey, closed on March 16. Since then it’s been surviving on takeout and delivery orders, which are about 10% of usual business.

Will Feuer

9: 04 a.m. ET — With New Jersey set to shift into its next phase of reopening on Monday, business owners in Somerville are getting ready to salvage what remains of the usually bustling summer season.

Businesses on Somerville’s popular Main St. like Village Brewing and Verve Restaurant have endured more than 12 weeks of closure already, but on Monday, they’ll be able to partially open for outdoor service. Town officials and business owners are petitioning the state to close Main St., a state highway, to traffic so that retailers and restaurants can bring their business entirely outdoors, where the virus appears to spread less easily.

For Somerville, the pandemic hit right in the middle of something of an upswing for the town, which was attracting new businesses and younger residents in recent years. Depending on the severity of the pandemic’s economic impact and the speed of the rebound, the threat could be existential for many on Main St.

“We would be naive to think that any of us, or any district, no matter where you are in the country, is going to come out of this situation completely unscathed,” Natalie Pinero, executive director of the Downtown Somerville Alliance, said. “I think that there is a genuine concern for our businesses.” —Will Feuer

Small town businesses face uncertain restarts

8: 31 a.m. ET — As local economies reopen and lockdown restrictions lift, small town businesses face uncertainty around a restart to operations. 

The pandemic issued a swift, clean halt to business for many. But returning isn’t as cleanly laid out for business owners like Russ Loub, who runs a steakhouse in the college town of Manhattan, Kansas. Loub estimates coronavirus shutdowns resulted in 4,000 canceled reservations almost instantaneously, and he now wonders what the fall football season will look like with a modified college semester. 

“There’s so much unknown. That’s really the most difficult part of it,” Loub told CNBC’s Jesse Pound. “I’m sure if you talk to anyone else, they’ll tell you the same thing. It’s the unknown things that are the scariest.” —Sara Salinas

India reports record daily new cases

A medical worker in PPE coveralls seen outside the emergency ward at AIIMS, on June 11, 2020 in New Delhi, India.

Sanjeev Verma | Hindustan Times | Getty Images

8: 07 a.m. ET — India reported 11,458 new cases of the coronavirus on Saturday, the highest single-day increase for the country to date, the Associated Press reports. The jump pushes the nation’s total infections past 300,000 to 308,993. 

The Health Ministry recorded 386 coronavirus-related deaths, bringing the total to 8,884, according to the AP. 

The nation of 1.3 billion people instituted a strict lockdown in late March, but last week began reopening shopping malls, houses of worship and restaurants, the AP reports. Since reopening, the country has recorded close to 100,000 new cases of Covid-19.

India now holds the fourth highest infection total in the world, behind the U.S., Brazil and Russia, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University. —Sara Salinas

Read CNBC’s previous coronavirus live coverage here: Food market shut in Beijing after 45 cases; hospitalizations rise in some U.S. states

%

from Job Search Tips https://jobsearchtips.net/coronavirus-live-updates-european-nations-sign-deal-with-astrazeneca-for-400-million-vaccine-doses/

[ladystylestores]

Trump Quits the World Health Organization. The Victim Is the United States.

Denis Balibouse

This article was published originally by PassBlue, a partner of The Daily Beast which provides independent coverage of the United Nations. It was written by Barbara Crossette.

Two weeks after President Trump fired off a characteristically intemperate letter to the director-general of the World Health Organization, accusing him of incompetence in dealing with the COVID-19 crisis, the reputation of the agency has been damaged far less than the image of the United States. That is, to judge by the reaction of global public health specialists.

Billionaire Couple Showered GOP With Money. Now They Need a Coronavirus Lifeline.

In the days that followed, the four-page, prosecutorial-sounding letter to Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus created shockwaves. The letter ended with the charge that WHO’s “repeated missteps” in handling the response to the COVID-19 outbreak “have been extremely costly for the world.” It gave Tedros 30 days to reform the body.

Then Trump, increasingly cornered politically, didn’t even get to halftime. On Friday, May 29, he did the unimaginable: withdraw the U.S. from the world’s most important health organization.

Why? It was a Friday afternoon, when Washington swamp creatures think no one is paying attention. Minneapolis was on fire after the murder of a black man by white police, and all Trump could do was fan the flames. Twitter had to moderate his rant—“when the looting starts, the shooting starts”—which so many people interpreted as racist.

More than 102,000 Americans are now dead in a COVID-19 pandemic that history will record as the result of a lack of planning, denial and finally the “open up” America push. The U.S. now has the highest rate of unemployment in its history, and new COVID-19 cases are beginning to spike.

A few of Trump’s pals and his political advisers with their eye on the next presidential election are telling the media that they could see he will be in trouble, as polls were starting to show.

Story continues

Trump’s big moment in space travel, the launching of the first “private enterprise” rocket to the intranational space station, was canceled by bad weather. What did he do next for a distraction?

Trump had long been demeaning and threatening the WHO with the permanent loss of U.S. dues and donations. The U.S. total in dues and voluntary contributions would normally contribute about 22 percent to the entire WHO program budget (currently set at about $4 billion a year), but Trump withheld U.S. funds in 2019 and 2020.

Until now, the U.S. government and its Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been leaders in global public health, and direct threats to the WHO, crowned by the precipitous withdrawal from the organization, were stunning and worrying.

David Nabarro, a British health and development expert whom Tedros appointed as special envoy on COVID-19 in February, said last week, before Trump’s impulsive action on Friday:

“Suddenly, we’re told, Sorry, we have to have a 20 percent cash cut,” Nabarro said in a virtual conversation event for the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. “We’re messing up. We haven’t done anything good.”

Nabarro had been the most formidable opponent to Tedros in 2017, when the 194 governments represented in the World Health Organization elected Tedros director-general for a five-year term.

“You wonder,” Nabarro said. “What could possibly lead a country which has been such an important leader in global health on so many issues to just say, We’re out.

“I want to be told what we could have done better,” Nabarro said, “but not right in the  middle of this extraordinary, dangerous, damaging crisis.”

Fact-checkers have shredded Trump’s letter, including in The Lancet, an international professional medical journal. By now, a widely accepted analysis of the missive and the action that followed is that it was intended as much to castigate China as attack the WHO under Tedros. He is a former Ethiopian health minister from a continent that the American president has dismissed in scatological terms.

Tedros was caught in the crossfire as Trump moved targets, searching for scapegoats for a burgeoning American health catastrophe. Tedros, Trump said, was working too closely with the Chinese at the expense of transparency about the early progression of the disease, which originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan.

Forgotten was the praise Trump heaped on Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, for his managing of COVID-19 in those early days of the pandemic—or Trump’s own negligence in preparing the U.S. for it. With his popularity slipping, Trump may think he can ride anti-Chinese attacks to re-election victory in November, and Republican politicians are falling into line, as Dana Milbank reported recently in The Washington Post.

A lot has happened since Trump blasted Tedros, and the story is not ending well for Washington. On May 19, a day after the letter was dispatched, the World Health Assembly, the governing body of member nations that decides the rules for the WHO officials, adopted as part of its final agreement a long list of actions that member governments could take in dealing with the COVID-19 case.

The agreement also said “to initiate, at the earliest appropriate moment, and in consultation with Member States . . . a stepwise process of impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation” of the organization’s handling of the crisis. (Trump said he would have an independent American “review.”)

The U.S. delegation to the assembly, led by Alex Azar, the secretary of health and human services, did not oppose the conclusions of the Assembly, apart from deleting two items that Trump’s anti-abortion advocates considered Trojan horses.

On May 26, the WHO halted trials of hydroxychloroquine, a drug touted and claimed to be taken by Trump against the virus that some studies have found to be potentially dangerous.

Michael Ryan, the organization’s chief of emergency responses, said in a briefing at the headquarters in Geneva that there was no indication of safety problems so far with hydroxychloroquine in trials being done for the WHO. He added, however, “We’re just acting on an abundance of caution based on the recent results of all the studies to ensure that we can continue safely.”

The next day, May 27, Thomas Zeltner, a former secretary of health of Switzerland and the director-general of the Swiss National Health Authority, announced the formation of an independent WHO Foundation, which will raise funds for the agency from the public.

Private sector and philanthropic foundations have been major supporters of United Nations work in many areas, so much that critics fear that these outsiders are holding certain positions to set agendas. Business Insider reported in 2018 that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has been a leading backer of global health projects, spent $4.78 billion on charity in 2017—the year Tedros became head of the WHO—and that most of the money went to projects run by the Gates.

Around the world, this is not just a story about Trump and Tedros.

In Singapore, Noeleen Heyzer, a former United Nations under secretary-general and the first woman to lead the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific as its executive secretary, said in a memo to PassBlue that broader issues are at stake. The UN Security Council is failing in its duties, she said.

“Leaders in South East Asia,” she wrote,”were hoping for stronger U.S. leadership in global health security at this historical moment, as they had seen in prior epidemics discussed by the Security Council like Ebola and HIV/AIDS.”

Instead, the Trump administration blocked a Security Council draft resolution calling for “an end to hostilities worldwide so that there could be a full focus on fighting COVID-19, a once -in-a-century pandemic,” Heyzer wrote. “Agreement could not be reached because of President Trump’s . . . objecting to the reference to ‘the urgent need to support . . . all relevant entities of the United Nations system, including specialized health agencies’ in the fight against the pandemic.”

The U.S. also wanted China named as the source of the virus.

“The failure to reach agreement undermines the urgent need for a coordinated global response at a time our world faces an unprecedented crisis and is entering an extremely dangerous period,” Heyzer added. “This is the time for responsible multilateral leadership. The Security Council should be able to do its job and not be hampered by big-power rivalry and politics.”

In the U.S., numerous nongovernmental organizations have challenged assertions and data used by Trump in his letter to Tedros. A concise fact sheet, titled “Coronavirus Disinformation to Defund the World Health Organization,” has just been published jointly by Ipas and the International Women’s Health Coalition. It covers the mandate and scope of the WHO and its role in emergencies as well as Trump’s history of complaints about its work.

In London, the Science Media Center, which collects and disseminates relevant expert quotes, analyses and fact sheets on topical issues, recently published references to the COVID-19 crisis and the Trump letter to Tedros at the WHO.

Some recent postings on the site from specialists in public health and infectious diseases, often from researchers at leading British universities, illustrate that that there is scant credence given to key points in Trump’s letter to Tedros. Experts also explain rules imposed on the WHO officials by governments, including limits on access to national research facilities—and sometimes on country visits without invitations.

Almost universally, contributors to the site, while acknowledging criticisms that can be made about the WHO, see Trump’s actions as political and not in the interest of public health.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!

Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/2Mdcymi

[thisdaynews]

12 people and things that ruined British politics

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/12-people-and-things-that-ruined-british-politics/

12 people and things that ruined British politics

Tunku Varadarajan is executive editor at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is a contributing editor at POLITICO Europe.

On December 12, the United Kingdom will conclude the tawdriest election in memory — which is saying a lot, given how inglorious the last one was in 2017.

That election confirmed Theresa May as prime minister — arguably Britain’s second-worst leader since Lord North, the man who lost America in the 18th century. (The worst PM since North is agreed to be David Cameron, for his decision to have a Brexit referendum in 2016, the results of which have poisoned British politics ever since.)

Looking at Boris Johnson, the prime minister, and at Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition, one is hard-pressed to find in history a less edifying pair of party leaders in competition for No. 10 Downing Street.

How did we get here? What follows is a list of a dozen people, institutions or ideas that have turned British politics into an emetic farce.

1. Winston Churchill & Charles de Gaulle

Central Press/Getty Images

The toxic twins on whose bygone fumes Britain chokes today. Churchill’s cherished myth — of a people standing alone in the face of peril from the Continent — entrenched the view that Britain is at its best when on its own.

That imperious ingrate De Gaulle played his part by confirming to Britons that a European compact was a French project. Twice he vetoed Britain’s application to join the European Economic Community, in 1963 and 1967, delivering a resoundingnonto Harold Macmillan and his successor, Ted Heath.

“The French always betray you in the end,” Macmillan wrote in his diary after the first betrayal. Brexit is the much-delayed fruit of those inauspicious beginnings.

2. The National Health Service

Graeme Robertson/Getty Images

Created in 1948 by Aneurin “Nye” Bevan, minister of health in the postwar government of Clement Attlee, the NHS is as much a political shibboleth as it is an institution cherished for giving Britain a veneer of socioeconomic equality.

The NHS has not only distorted rational debate about health and social care, it has become the institution by which a delusional Britain sees itself as a cut above the United States, its free-market fellow traveler. Not surprisingly, politics in recent days has been dominated by fears that the NHS will unravel in any future trade deal with the U.S., as Donald Trump’s barbarians arrive to carve up this sacred cow.

3. Oxford University

William Edwards/AFP via Getty Images

Britain’s oldest — and most worldly — university is the womb of conservative anti-Europeanism.

The Oxford Campaign for an Independent Britain was hatched in 1990 in a High Street coffee shop — in opposition to the Maastricht Treaty, which turned the European Community into the European Union in 1992. Founder members included Tories (or ex-Tories) Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mark Reckless and Daniel Hannan, the primordial ideologues of Brexit long before the likes of Nigel Farage erupted on the scene.

Modern British politics might, in fact, be seen as an extended spat between Oxford adversaries. These include George Osborne (Cameron’s former No. 2 and would-be successor, now a newspaper editor, who encouraged the demented plan for a referendum); Rory Stewart (a prominent Remainer who ran against Boris, himself an Oxford man and former president of the Oxford Union Society); and Nicky Morgan (a Remainer and Cabinet minister). All of them were members of the Oxford Union and the Oxford University Conservative Association, whose diaper politics in the early 1990s foreshadowed national politics two decades later.

4. The U.K. Supreme Court

Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Had the Brexit referendum not bagged first place, the abolition of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and its replacement by a U.K. Supreme Court would be regarded as the worst political misjudgment by a modern British prime minister.

Created by Tony Blair and his former flatmate-cum-lord chancellor, Charles Falconer, in 2009, the court has an implicit mandate to wade into constitutional questions from which the House of Lords, by demure but wise convention, had always shied away.

Blair shredded centuries of legal and constitutional history with his curial “reform.” The consequences were evident in the court’s recent ruling, in which it found that Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament was unlawful because he didn’t provide adequate reasons for prorogation. This was a ruling without precedent on a matter that the old House of Lords would have regarded as beyond the scope of a court of law.

The court’s chief justice, Baroness Hale, is an unapologetic progressive in the Ruth Bader Ginsburg mold, and it will not be long before the U.K. court is beset by the same problems of partisanship that ail the Supreme Court in the U.S.

5. John Bercow

Hollie Adams/Getty Images

Among the institutional actors that abdicated their responsibility to remain neutral is John Bercow, the former speaker of the House of Commons. Bercow bears a good deal of the responsibility for a poisoned atmosphere in the House of Commons by abandoning his role as referee and, instead, choosing to become a partisan goal-scorer for the Remain side in the Brexit debate.

As speaker, he (with the help of some others in the House) twisted parliamentary conventions to block “no deal” as a position the prime minister could take, thus robbing the government of leverage in its negotiations with the EU. Immodest to a fault, his actions have enraged many voters and corroded popular trust in parliament.

6. ‘The Stalinists’

Will Oliver/EPA

A dark trio of Stalinists steers a course for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. In 1976, Andrew Murray, a privately educated young Englishman, joined the British Communist Party. He associated himself with Straight Left, a monthly run by Seamus Milne, above, another posh young Englishman. Fellow Communists knew them as “super tankies” — not just pro-Soviet but Stalinist. Four decades later, they are two of the three people thought to be the inner sanctum around Corbyn, the other being the dauntingly leftist trade union leader Len McCluskey.

Together, they’ve brought Stalinist sectarianism to the running of the Labour Party, once a social-democratic Big Tent but now a body where power is hoarded in closed meetings and loyalty to the leader is all.

7. Anti-Semitism

Oli Scarff/AFP via Getty Images

Transparent anti-Semitism in the Labour Party has contributed to the ugliness of British politics since Corbyn became leader in 2015, when hard-left extremists joined the party in droves. “The vast majority of British Jews,” wrote the Jewish Chronicle in a recent front-page editorial, “consider Jeremy Corbyn to be an anti-Semite.” (The newspaper conducted a poll which found this majority to be 87 percent of all British Jews.)

Corbyn has not only refused to address the problem adequately, he has contributed to it by failing to dispel the belief that he is anti-Semitic himself. The Labour Party is also under investigation for anti-Semitism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Only one other party has been investigated by the EHRC for racism: the nakedly nativist British National Party.

8. Priti Patel

Pool photo by Hannah McKay/Getty Images

One of the more incongruous — her critics would say distasteful — sights in British politics this year has been that of Patel, Britain’s first home secretary of Indian origin, telling the Conservative Party conference that she will “end the free movement of people once and for all.”

Patel’s parents are Gujarati immigrants from Uganda who left a few years before Idi Amin stripped all Ugandan Asians of citizenship and expelled them from the country in 1972. Almost all of these refugees were taken in by Britain. Under the strict immigration rules Patel favors, her kith and kin would not have been able to resettle in the U.K. That irony notwithstanding, this Gujarati version of Norman Tebbit says that she, a “daughter of immigrants, needs no lectures from the north London metropolitan, liberal elite.”

9. Bien-Pensant Bubbles

Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

It is a truth universally acknowledged that the British media and educational elites reside in a bubble — or, better put, in a fortress that excludes the entry of inconvenient opinions.

The BBC has displayed a notably monolithic Remain bias, as has Channel 4. And if the print media offers a more varied ideological menu, it is counterbalanced by an enormous anti-Brexit prejudice in the academy — compounded by the modern tendency to favor senior editors with plum jobs as heads of colleges and universities (Will Hutton as principal of Hertford College, Oxford, is one example; Alan Rusbridger at Oxford’s Lady Margaret Hall another).

The bias in universities ranges from individual cases — such as that of A.C. Grayling, a philosopher driven mad by Brexit, who embodies the refusal of extremist Remainers to compromise with the will of the electorate — to entire faculties of EU law at universities. This last group of scholars is a bastion of inflexible Remainer resistance, making Brexit much harder than it otherwise would have been.

10. The Democratic Unionist Party

Charles McQuillan/Getty Images

This cohort need not detain us, for there is no subtlety or nuance to be explained. Adamant in their adherence to the Orange credo of No Surrender to the Irish backstop, these Ulster loyalists have exploited to the limit the “mathematics of the Commons” — to use the phrase of columnist Daniel Finkelstein.

“We have all been trying to find something in Brexit that can unite us,” Finkelstein wrote recently in the London Times. “I’m excited to say that I think I’ve found a contender: we can all agree that we have had enough of the Democratic Unionist Party.”

11. Ed Miliband

Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP via Getty Images

This is the man — only the second-best politician in his own family — who in 2015 led the Labour Party to its worst general election defeat since 1987. He had shifted the party well to the left, making it sweetly unnecessary for Corbyn, his successor, to have to make a case against centrism and compromise.

More helpful to Corbyn than Labour’s prevailing ideological current were its rules to elect the party leader, which Miliband had changed in 2014 to one-member-one-vote. Members of the public could vote for Corbyn on payment of a mere £3.

This led to a wave of what Trotskyists called “entryism” on the left — with new hardline Corbyn voters flooding the zone — and the rest is history. Labour became unelectable.

12. Michel Barnier & Sabine Weyand

John Thys/AFP via Getty Images

This is the EU’s Brexit negotiating team, a Frenchman and a German woman whom the Brits just could not budge. They’re on this list not because they are malign, but because theirs was a job superbly done. And if the result of their labors was great pain in Britain, it might be said that much of that pain resulted from the Brits shooting not merely their own foot, but also at each other.

UK NATIONAL PARLIAMENT ELECTION POLL OF POLLS

For more polling data from across Europe visitPOLITICOPoll of Polls.

Read More

[howwelldoyouknowyourmoon]

Statement by Fraser Committee Staff Director Robert Boettcher on 15 November, 1979

The United States Congress asked the Fraser Committee on International Organizations to investigate Korean-American relations. The following statement by the Committee’s Staff Director Robert Boettcher was made on November 15, 1979:

The ritual death of more than nine hundred Americans in Guyana last year unfortunately did not lead to an awakened national concern about destructive religious cults. Instead the tragedy came and went as just a media event. Its place in the public consciousness today seems mainly to be as one of the ‘big stories’ of 1978. Americans seem unprepared to come to grips with the possibility that there are other Jim Joneses whose words are absolute to large followings, and who operate as if above the law and with frightening potential for violence and death.

Our institutions, such as the mental health establishment and law enforcement agencies, fail to address seriously the phenomenon revealed by the People’s Temple. Yet it is still with us. The cults are flourishing. The one I know best. . . the organization of Sun Myung Moon . . . has in the past two years expanded its business empire with fishing industries in five states and the backing of a movie starring Laurence Olivier and Jacqueline Bisset. Only three months ago, two Moonies were charged with firing shots into an occupied car, an act of violence defended by a Unification Church spokesperson. And next week in Los Angeles, Moon will hold his annual International Conference for the Unity of the Sciences. Each year, hundreds of scientists and scholars, some of them Nobel laureates, attend the conference, even knowing that Moon intends to use them for his own propaganda, that he tells his obedient followers, ‘I am your brain,’ and that former members of the cult say Moon preaches and teaches suicide.

The people are entitled to an active interest in the cult phenomenon by mental health and behavioral professionals. One Harvard psychiatrist has said cult indoctrination techniques are ‘direct assaults on sanity.’ Ex-Moonies have said they felt capable of killing their parents and old friends while in the cult. But there are very few professionals studying cult mind control. They seem unprepared to deal with the concept, and the National Institute of Mental Health has been deterred even from discussing it by angry objections from the cults themselves:

An important legal question is also being ignored. There are compelling arguments that cult mind control violates the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which outlaws involuntary servitude.

As long as there is no accepted definition, scientific or legal, of mind control, cult leaders can continue to do their worst to recruits, efforts to free persons from cults will stay mired in legal controversy, and constructive treatment of former members will be hard to come by.

Inaction by the Justice Department has been characterised by confusion, caution, and neglect. For confusion, we have Attorney General Bell’s comment after the Guyana tragedy: ‘I don’t know what a cult is. I’m a Baptist. Maybe I’m a member of a cult.’ Then two months later Bell said he believed Patty Hearst had been brainwashed, but did nothing to suggest he thought brainwashing was possible by anyone other than Patty Hearst’s captors.

For caution, there is a letter to a Congressman by Benjamin Civiletti before he became Attorney General. On behalf of the Justice Department, he refused to look into the coercive effects of brainwashing because, he said, to do so ‘would seem to require a finding that the members’ religious beliefs were false.’ Earlier, during the Ford administration, the Justice Department turned down a State Department request to investigate Moon’s Unification Church for the reason that there was no prima facie evidence that it was not a bona fide church.

All of these attitudes play into the hands of the Moon cult which, for convenience sake, began calling itself a church about ten years ago and, ever since, has been insisting deceitfully and successfully that it is really no different from the established churches and therefore must have full First Amendment protection.

For neglect, we have the Justice Department ignoring the evidence and recommendations of the Fraser subcommittee, of which Congressman Leo Ryan, slain in Guyana, was a member. As stated in the final report of its Investigation of Korean-American Relations in 1978, the subcommittee found evidence that the Moon Organization had systematically violated US laws governing taxes, immigration, banking, currency, and foreign agents registration, and had at least attempted to violate the Arms Export Control Act in connection with Moon’s manufacture of M-16 rifles at his armaments plant in Korea.

Since the subcommittee’s mandate had expired and it had no law enforcement authority, it recommended that the executive branch of the federal government form an interagency task force to examine the evidence and conduct further investigation to determine whether formal charges should be brought by the appropriate agencies. A year later the Justice Department, whose role would be central in such a task force, has taken no action other than to decide against the task force proposal.

Some specifics on the Justice Department’s neglect:

The subcommittee found evidence that the Moon Organization had acted as an unregistered agent of the South Korean government by organizing political demonstrations for the Korean CIA, collecting money in the United States to support a radio service controlled by the Korean CIA, and negotiating with Americans for renewal of a Korean government contract to make M-16 rifles.

The only action known to have been taken by the Justice Department was in 1971 when it conducted one interview with Bo Hi Pak, Moon’s chief minion in Washington. Pak was asked if he was a Korean agent, said he was not, and Justice closed the case.

The Immigration and Naturalisation Service, which is subordinate to Justice, apparently has done nothing with evidence that Moon and his wife may be illegal aliens. There is a strong indication that they obtained their immigrant visas by making false statements.

The FBI, also in Justice’s domain, could be expected to investigate thoroughly and make findings about an organization operating throughout the country whose leader’s speeches are replete with exhortations of death and violence, and whose members have fermented violence and been reported to have made numerous death threats. There are no indications that the FBI is doing so with respect to the Moonies.

The FBI and Justice Department action which led to convicting nine Scientologists of conspiracy seems only minimally encouraging for the general public and somewhat ironic. In this case, the government did move against cult lawlessness, but it was for the purpose of protecting the government’s own particular interests, since the Scientologists had broken into government offices and planted spies in government agencies.

Moon’s ties with the Korean government having been ignored by the Justice Department, the prospects for his future relations with the Korean government may be brighter than ever. The person emerging as likely to succeed President Park Chung-Hee as the new strong man is Kim Jong-Pil, the founder of the Korean CIA. For the past seventeen years, Kim has been Moon’s most influential political ally.

The former members of Moon’s cult who are here today deserve support for the organization they have founded, Ex-Members Against Moon. I know they have a sincere motivation to help persons still under Moon’s control, who are bright, able young men and women like themselves.

The American people deserve support from the government, mental health professionals, and media. Lawlessness and psychological abuse, whether practiced by the Mafia or self-styled messiahs, should be put down. Jim Jones had his last stand in the Guyana jungle. Moon tells his followers he has an island off the coast of South Korea where he will take them when the world turns against him. One Jonestown tragedy is one too many.

United States Congressional investigation of the Unification Church

Bo Hi Pak and the KCFF scam – and Sun Myung Moon’s ROFA scam

Moonie “Dirty Tricks” against Donald Fraser

The Mysterious Death of Robert Boettcher in 1984

Donald M. Fraser’s house was attacked by an arsonist just after his investigation into the Unification Church. It was only saved by good fortune.

The house of Mr Justice Comyn was destroyed by arsonists just after the UC lost a massive libel case in London…..

Moon sought to influence the American political agenda by pouring more than a billion dollars into media.

Messiah on the Run