#Penal Administration

[pilgrim1975]

Eugene Boyer, AKA 'Andre Baillard.' One of Papillon's more interesting fables.

It’s been a long time since I looked at the truth (and often fiction) peddled by one Henri Charriere, AKA ‘Papillon.’ Charriere’s best-selling account of life and death in the notorious ‘Penal Administration, French Guyana’ has long been celebrated for its storytelling and became the 1973 film starring Steve Mcqueen and Dustin Hoffman. It’s also often debunked by documented fact and historical…

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Nevertheless, the system persisted, and without basic changes. For all the public clamor and widespread dissatisfaction, parole survived relatively unscathed. How could failure and unpopularity have had so little impact on the continuity and structure of policy? The answer is to be found, first, in the functions that the program did fulfill for several types of officials within criminal justice. The day-to-day advantages that they gained from administering the system far outweighed (for them) its apparent defects.

The most vigorous champions of parole, those who gained the most from its operation, were the prison wardens. Their support was critical to the survival of the system and it was unwavering, despite some gradual diminution of their authority over parole decisions. Before 1925, wardens dominated the parole boards. They usually served as one of the three members; the meetings were held on their grounds, at the prison; and at least at the start, the inmate’s record of institutional conduct probably counted for most, if for no other reason than as a carry-over from the time when parole was defined as a reward for the good inmate. After the mid-1920’s, however, the parole system built up its own bureaucracy. It became more independent of the department of corrections and moved away from the warden’s direct control. He no longer served on the committee, the final decisions were more frequently made in the state capital, and institutional behavior ranked well behind an inmate’s prior record in importance as a release consideration.

As Warden Lewis Lawes of Sing Sing told a New York investigatory committee:

‘I have never attended a meeting of the Parole Board. I have never been requested to. . . . I did attempt at first to make a good warden’s report and recommendation; but when I found they didn’t read it or pay any attention to it I will admit my efforts became very perfunctory.’

The Wilcox study in Pennsylvania found that “good conduct in prison does not inevitably lead to parole, nor do minor disciplinary infringements always prevent release. Eighty percent of those paroled at the minimum had perfect prison records. But it is also noteworthy that 80 percent of those refused parole had maintained good conduct in prison.” And the Attorney General’s survey cautioned that

Parole should not be used as a device for solving some of the problems of prison administrators. Prison administrators . . . are liable to employ it as a good time regulation or reward rather than as a correctional device.

Nevertheless, wardens had good reasons to continue to support the program and to resolve in their national meetings that parole was “an essential element in protective penology.” Some of them did manage to keep the boards under their sway: in such states as New Hampshire, Connecticut, and New Jersey, the warden still had the most to say about who went out on parole. In many cases, too, a warden could persuade a board to take into account his own prejudices in any one particular instance. Hence, the following dialogue in the Montana parole board meeting:

Case of Fred Albo, a Mexican, was considered. The Clerk read the history. Governor: Hold him I think. Secretary of State: Go to it. Attorney General: It makes no difference if he is a Mexican. Clerk: The Warden hates Mexicans and recommends him. He must be a good man. Governor: All right, don’t hold him.

(One cannot be certain, of course, whether the warden was very impressed by this inmate or whether he simply wanted to get rid of a noxious Mexican.)

More important, whatever the boards assumptions about the significance of the prior record, the warden could thwart the opportunity for release for any especially troublesome inmate. Boards would not pay attention to minor infractions or necessarily release someone who minded his own business inside. However, the inmate who was far out of line would suffer, and wardens as well as convicts understood this. Wardens, or their principal keepers, were very often present throughout board deliberations; but at any rate it was they who made up the dockets and so they had ample opportunity to tell the board about the bad cases. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the inmate who “carried coffee from the mess hall, cursed an officer, refused to enter his cell, and stole and drank shellac,” did not win release at the minimum. In effect, wardens had a veto power, and their ability to blackball was sufficient to serve their own disciplinary ends well.

“Complex and difficult as is prison management under the best conditions,” insisted one Indiana official, “it would be immediately more difficult without the parole law. The prisoner looks upon the parole as the reward for good conduct and steady industry and does his best to earn it.” Or, as Pennsylvania’s Wilcox concluded: “The power possessed by the state under parole laws . . . provides penal administrators with a club which is even more effective than the old ‘good time’ laws in inducing internal discipline. Prison managers generally favor parole for this reasons.

Moreover, wardens found themselves locked into the system once it was in operation. They were compelled to favor its perpetuation for the critical reason that any talk of a diminution in the availability of parole (let alone its outright abolition) provoked substantial inmate hostility - and wardens did not enjoy suppressing riots. Under indeterminate sentences, any effort to restrict parole had to mean significant increases in time served. Almost invariably, then, wardens were eager to see more and more paroles granted to keep peace among the inmates. Joseph Moore, chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, complained that wardens were directing inmates’ anger at parole boards and away from themselves. “The Parole Board finds it advisable to hold a large percentage of prisoners beyond their eligibility for release and we have abundant evidence that prison officials disapprove of this. Unfortunately, this feeling whether purposely or not is conveyed to the prisoners and it is permitted to be a general idea among them that so far as the prisons are concerned they would be glad to release them but the hard-boiled Parole Board holds them up.”

In much the same way, the warden of the penitentiary in Washington State kept up a running battle with parole board members. Because they were (in his view) too strict about release, his own job of preserving good order was more difficult. In fact, the warden “usually placed about five or ten men on the Docket who had served a long time, but who had no present chance for release. Why? Because when a ‘con’ has put in a lot of time and is denied any chance for a hearing before the Board, resentment occurs, and if there is enough of that, trouble occurs inside.” That same warden resisted all efforts to abolish parole for three-time losers: “Such prisoners could not be controlled . . . [and prison administration would be impossible.” The warden of the Illinois State Penitentiary at Stateville, to choose one case from many, knew the truth of that argument first-hand: in 1937, responding to a newspaper crusade, the parole board cut back on releases (granting only 3 from 274 applications), and in short order the warden had to contend with a hunger strike. Or, to turn the point around, the warden at Charlestown, Massachusetts, consistently recommended parole “because he expected it to improve discipline. He proved correct in his anticipation as there has not been a riot or outbreak in State Prison since parole went into effect.” In sum, the wardens were parole’s warmest friends. They supported the system and were eager to keep the numbers granted parole as high as possible - always excepting that cult case which had to be made into an object lesson.

Legislative committees investigating parole found the wardens’ conclusions not only well-taken but almost unanswerable. No matter how critical they were of one or another part of the system, they were reluctant to restrict release procedures for fear of undercutting prison officials’ power. The New York Crime Commission, a tough group with little good to say for parole, moved very cautiously for fear of disturbing the wardens’ authority. Not only the wardens but representatives of the state parole board took pains to inform the Commission just how critical parole was to discipline. “It is your opinion,” Senator Caleb Baumes, the chairman of the Commission, asked the head of the parole board, “that you create and maintain a better morale, if you please, amongst the prisoners generally, if they know that system is in vogue?” To which the chairman replied: “Absolutely.” The Commission accepted the argument, and as eager as some of its members were to abrogate the board’s right to release inmates immediately at the minimum, they did not dare do so. “If you tell 3,000 men in the prison,” concluded one of the most law-and-order-minded members of the Commission,

that they are likely to be held from months to five or six years more, you will make a hell on earth of every prison in the State. . . .3000 men expect . . . from all the years of practice by the Parole Board . . . that they will be released at the end of the minimum, and if you tell them that now it is likely or probable that their time will be extended beyond the minimum . . . they are going to insurge and feel vicious, and you can not blame them, no matter how heinous was their original offense.

His conclusion was clear: “If we are to go ahead on any rough and ready method of extending sentences and taking that definite hope away from them, the consequences will be extreme.” True, public opinion (and his own instincts as well) would prefer to “make them serve indefinitely.” But “we cannot do it without smashing prison discipline.” It was this kind of reasoning that helped to preserve parole, no matter how poor its reputation or inadequate its practice.

- David J. Rothman, Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alternatives in Progressive America. Revised Edition. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2002 (1980), p. 183-187.

Image is from the Handbook of the New York Reformatory at Elmira, showing the parole board finishing a meeting and releasing an inmate - on the left hand side. c. 1916.

[fatehbaz]

was thinking about this

To be in "public", you must be a consumer or a laborer.

About control of peoples' movement in space/place. Since the beginning.

"Vagrancy" of 1830s-onward Britain, people criminalized for being outside without being a laborer.

Breaking laws resulted in being sentenced to coerced debtor/convict labor. Coinciding with the 1830-ish climax of the Industrial Revolution and the land enclosure acts (factory labor, poverty, etc., increase), the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 establishes full-time police institution(s) in London. The "Workhouse Act" aka "Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834" forced poor people to work for a minimum number of hours every day. The Irish Constabulary of 1837 sets up a national policing force and the County Police Act of 1839 allows justices of the peace across England to establish policing institutions in their counties (New York City gets a police department in 1844). The major expansion of the "Vagrancy Act" of 1838 made "joblessness" a crime and enhanced its punishment. (Coincidentally, the law's date of royal assent was 27 July 1838, just 5 days before the British government was scheduled to allow fuller emancipation of its technical legal abolition of slavery in the British Caribbean on 1 August 1838.)

---

"Vagrancy" of 1860s-onward United States, people criminalized for being outside while Black.

Widespread emancipation after slavery abolition in 1865 rapidly followed by the outlawing of loitering which de facto outlawed existing as Black in public. Inability to afford fines results in being sentenced to forced labor by working on chain gangs or prisons farms, some built atop plantations.

---

"Vagrancy" of 1870s-onward across empires, people criminalized for being outside while being "foreign" and also being poor generally.

Especially from 1880-ish to 1918-ish, this was an age of widespread mass movement of peoples due to the land dispossession, poverty, and famine induced by global colonial extraction and "market expansion" (Scramble for Africa, US "American West", nation-building, conquering "frontiers"), as agricultural "revolutions" of imperial monoculture cash crop extraction resulted in ecological degradation, and as major imperial infrastructure building projects required a lot of vulnerable "mobile" labor. This coincides with and is facilitated by new railroad networks and telegraphs, leading to imperial implementation or expansion of identity documents, strict work contracts, passports, immigration surveillance, and border checkpoints.

All of this in just a few short years: In 1877, British administrators in India develop what would become the Henry Classification System of taking and keeping fingerprints for use in binding colonial Indians to legal contracts. That same year during the 1877 Great Railroad Strike, and in response to white anxiety about Black residents coming to the city during Great Migration, Chicago's policing institutions exponentially expand surveillance and pioneer "intelligence card" registers for tracking labor union organizing and Black movement, as Chicago's experiments become adopted by US military and expanded nationwide, later used by US forces monitoring dissent in colonial Philippines and Cuba. Japan based its 1880 Penal Code anti-vagrancy statutes on French models, and introduced "koseki" register to track poor/vagrant domestic citizens as Tokyo's Governor Matsuda segregates classes, and the nation introduces "modern police forces". In 1882, the United States passes the Chinese Exclusion Act. In 1884, the Ottoman government enacts major "Passport Nizamnamesi" legislation requiring passports. In 1885, the racist expulsion of the "Tacoma riot".

Punished for being Algerian in France. Punished for being Chinese in San Francisco. Punished for being Korean in Japan. Punished for crossing Ottoman borders without correct paperwork. Arrested for whatever, then sent to do convict labor. A poor person in the Punjab, starving during a catastrophic famine, might be coerced into a work contract by British authorities. They will have to travel, shipped off to build a railroad. But now they have to work. Now they are bound. They will be punished for being Punjabi and trying to walk away from Britain's tea plantations in Assam or Britain's rubber plantations in Malaya.

Mobility and confinement, the empire manipulates each.

---

"Vagrancy" amidst all of this, people also criminalized for being outside while "unsightly" and merely even superficially appearing to be poor. San Francisco introduced the notorious "ugly law" in 1867, making it illegal for "any person, who is diseased, maimed, mutilated or deformed in any way, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object, to expose himself or herself to public view". Today, if you walk into a building looking a little "weird" (poor, Black, ill, disabled, etc.), you are given seething spiteful glares and asked to leave. De facto criminalized for simply going for a stroll without downloading the coffee shop's exclusive menu app.

Too ill, too poor, too exhausted, too indebted to move, you are trapped. Physical barriers (borders), legal barriers (identity documents), financial barriers (debt). "Vagrancy" everywhere in the United States, a combination of all of the above. "Vagrancy" since at least early nineteenth century Europe. About the control of movement through and access to space/place. Concretizing and weaponizing caste, corralling people, anchoring them in place, extracting their wealth and labor.

You are permitted to exist only as a paying customer or an employee.

[batboyblog]

Things Biden and the Democrats did, this week #24

June 21-28 2024

The US Surgeon General declared for the first time ever, firearm violence a public health crisis. The nation's top doctor recommended the banning of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, the introduce universal background checks for purchasing guns, regulate the industry, pass laws that would restrict their use in public spaces and penalize people who fail to safely store their weapons. President Trump dismissed Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy in 2017 in part for his criticism of guns before his time in government, he was renominated for his post by President Biden in 2021. While the Surgeon General's reconstructions aren't binding a similar report on the risks of smoking in 1964 was the start of a national shift toward regulation of tobacco.

Vice-President Harris announced the first grants to be awarded through a ground breaking program to remove barriers to building more housing. Under President Biden more housing units are under construction than at any time in the last 50 years. Vice President Harris was announcing 85 million dollars in grants giving to communities in 21 states through the  Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO) program. The administration plans another 100 million in PRO grants at the end of the summer and has requested 100 million more for next year. The Treasury also announced it'll moved 100 million of left over Covid funds toward housing. All of this is part of plans to build 2 million affordable housing units and invest $258 billion in housing overall.

President Biden pardoned all former US service members convicted under the US Military's ban on gay sex. The pardon is believed to cover 2,000 veterans convicted of "consensual sodomy". Consensual sodomy was banned and a felony offense under the Uniform Code of Justice from 1951 till 2013. The Pardon will wipe clean those felony records and allow veterans to apply to change their discharge status.

The Department of Transportation announced $1.8 Billion in new infrastructure building across all 50 states, 4 territories and Washington DC. The program focuses on smaller, often community-oriented projects that span jurisdictions. This award saw a number of projects focused on climate and energy, like $25 million to help repair damage caused by permafrost melting amid higher temperatures in Alaska, or $23 million to help electrify the Downeast bus fleet in Maine.

The Department of Energy announced $2.7 billion to support domestic sources of nuclear fuel. The Biden administration hopes to build up America's domestic nuclear fuel to allow for greater stability and lower costs. Currently Russia is the world's top exporter of enriched uranium, supplying 24% of US nuclear fuel.

The Department of Interior awarded $127 million to 6 states to help clean up legacy pollution from orphaned oil and gas wells. The funding will help cap 600 wells in Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, New York and Ohio. So far thanks to administration efforts over 7,000 orphaned wells across the country have been capped, reduced approximately 11,530 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions

HUD announced $469 million to help remove dangerous lead from older homes. This program will focus on helping homeowners particularly low income ones remove lead paint and replace lead pipes in homes built before 1978. This represents one of the largest investments by the federal government to help private homeowners deal with a health and safety hazard.

Bonus: President Biden's efforts to forgive more student debt through his administration's SAVE plan hit a snag this week when federal courts in Kansas and Missouri blocked elements the Administration also suffered a set back at the Supreme Court as its efforts to regular smog causing pollution was rejected by the conservative majority in a 5-4 ruling that saw Amy Coney Barrett join the 3 liberals against the conservatives. This week's legal setbacks underline the importance of courts and the ability to nominate judges and Justices over the next 4 years.

[komsomolka]

In the 1970s, the GDR undertook a complete re-writing of the country’s Civil Code. The previous Civil Code of justice had been in place for over a hundred years and indeed some laws went back a lot further. Apart from hardly being appropriate for a modern state, the laws were couched in such archaic language that few ordinary people could understand them. It was decided to rewrite the Code and make it ‘citizen friendly’, i.e. comprehensible without the requirement of a degree in jurisprudence or recourse to a lawyer. Even today this Civil Code retains validity and relevance in terms of its innovative approach and the effective removal of layers of dusty, archaic jurisprudence: it re-empowered citizens to be in a position in which they could undertake much of their own legal administration. Yet, like all other GDR legislation, this Civil Code was rejected after unification and the old, complex and archaic (West) German one was re-imposed.

The GDR Code incorporated a system that provided citizens with the means of making complaints to local, regional and national authorities if they felt they had been unjustly treated or that things that had happened to them were perceived as unfair. [...]

Interestingly, as early as 1956, the GDR had abolished paragraph 175 of the German penal code which outlawed homosexuality, but even beforehand the law had been largely ignored. This was undoubtedly facilitated by the fact that the GDR was an overwhelmingly atheistic state. In the Federal Republic, between 1945 and 1969, around 50,000 men were convicted of homosexual practice. It was not until 1969 that the FRG eventually abolished the persecution of homosexuals.

Stasi State or Socialist Paradise? The German Democratic Republic and What Became of It by Bruni de la Motte & John Green with Seumas Milne (Contributor), 2015.

[anamericangirl]

I have to rant to someone who will understand how egregious and obnoxious this is because my friends are sick of me. The reaction to rural NC in this hurricane? This will be the norm if Tim Walz is VP. Walz has been dismissive, insulting, and malicious towards rural Minnesota. He said that there's nothing of value, nothing but rocks and cows. He has very clearly expressed antagonism towards rural values and culture. Tim Walz will brag about his education bills, yet he tracks down rural schools with high native populations and penalizes their funding and burdens their staff with unnecessary training and even legal threats because they punish "too high" a number of native students compared to white. I work among schools that are 99% native and they every year have mandated training to address their racial bias and face harsh penalties from the state for punishing too many native kids. They have to adapt to the loss of funding. Despite the rez saying they want to set a standard of excellence and they are proud to be breaking generational curses, Walz denies them crucial funding and punishes them for trying to help their kids learn to make the right choices. He recently signed in a bill requiring free lunches, and knowingly and purposefully did not modify the paperwork process many rural schools rely on to make up the missing our districts desperately need, which relies on students signing up for free and reduced lunches. This bill has devastated funding and left many rural schools scrambling. In addition, he continues to refuse to provide rural schools with more support to bus students, knowing that they cannot afford the costs of bussing over so many miles. Instead, he continues to pour funding into transportation for students in the cities. He has implemented bloated and wasteful mentor programs for teachers yet refuses to allow schools to take disciplinary action against students who directly threaten the lives and wellbeing of teachers. We had a gun threat at our school and the district did not expel the student who made the threat to shoot up the school because he was native and Walz's administration was likely to sue. He also refuses to do anything about our shitty retirement. We have the top (or did before he fucked us over) educators in the nation, and yet are ranked among the bottom 5 for benefits and retirement. But he refuses to fix retirement because nobody wants to teach in his schools, and if he actually fixes retirement, there will be almost no teachers left.

Walz is wrathful and vindictive to rural communities because they don't vote for him or like his policies, and he purposefully makes our lives harder. As his records show, he is a liar and a braggart. In true Minnesotan fashion, he'll underhandedly cut you while he smiles and calls you his neighbor. That man is a snake, and if you despise what you see with the hurricane response, know that he will never pass up an opportunity to make the lives of those who didn't and wouldn't vote for him a living hell, and this level of abuse of rural communities and vulnerable poor populations will get worse.

I’m obviously a little late to this but man it’s always worse than I think!

The only thing good people ever had to say about Walz was “free lunches 😍” but even that was shit when you actually look at what the policy was and the impact it had.

And instead of treating rural areas like trash because they don’t vote the right way maybe he should have been treating them better if he wanted the votes.

The response from him and Harris to the hurricane over here was abysmal and of course that just speaks to what kind of people they are and their treatment of us after that storm definitely lost them North Carolina.

Sorry you’re stuck with him over there, though.

[whatwooshkai]

URM checks notes NUMBER NINETEEN

"Oh." Chase stops walking, doorwings springing to attention. "I didn't realize we'd gone this far."

Blades turns around as soon as he realizes Chase has stopped, and jogs back over to meet him. "Wassup?" he asks around the silica wafers he's crunching on.

Chase frowns and takes a step away so he doesn't get any crumbs on him. "Don't talk while you're eating," he reflexively chastises, before gazing back up at the building he'd stopped in front of. "I just... I used to live here."

"Here?" Blades swallows and narrows his optics incredulously at the industrial building. It's not much of a home, gray and imposing with very few windows, but then again, the buildings like this scattered through the city were all he knew up until recently.

It's as home as he'll ever get, he supposes. But home is a place you're supposed to be able to return to, right?

"Well, that makes two of us," Blades says nonchalantly. "We didn't have any windows, though."

Chase turns to face him very slowly. Blades is usually so tight-lipped about his past, they all know next to nothing about his life before the academy. But he's opening up... because Chase is?

Oh, yes, that makes sense. Heatwave likes to do this too, right? Trading secrets. Tell me about you, and I'll tell you about me.

Chase can play this game.

"This was the last one," he continues softly, doorwings dropping a little, reflexively measuring the air currents around them. "Where I failed my final exams. I grew up in several facilities just like this around Iacon."

"Oh." Blades has one hand hovering, like he wants to touch Chase but isn't sure if he should. "How'd you fail?"

Blades isn't playing the game correctly. He's pushing further before he's giving back. Chase looks up at the building again, and suddenly feels a deep and oppressive longing for his batch.

But they're not in this building. They've moved on to a precinct by now, and likely have their own apartment or apartments. They're living their lives now. They're not here.

"I did well on my written exams," Chase says, mostly to distract himself. "But I kept failing my practical exams."

"How?"

Blades isn't playing right. This isn't fair, Chase is giving far too much and Blades is giving too little.

Chase stares at the building a little more, and feels an odd emotion swirling in his tanks. He's... angry?

He's angry. At this stupid building, at Ultra Magnus, at the enforcers, at Blades for asking questions.

"They said I was too strict on the law," Chase murmurs. His wings snap out when Blades steps closer, and thankfully he gets the message and keeps his distance.

"Well, I mean, I guess that's a little fair," Blades says, and Chase's finials pin back. "You have to make the punishment fit the crime. If something's unusually harsh-"

"No one should get away with any crime," Chase growls. "I agree, there is nuance to situation, but you have to penalize mechs." His wings ruffle.

Being angry is uncomfortable. It simmers under his plating and demands all his attention. He squeezes his hands into fists. "Including those in the administration. They kept asking questions, about what if it affected our jobs, or the way society works, or if it endangered those in power would it even be worth it?" Chase squeezes his optics shut, letting out a harsh vent and hoping the crawling feeling of needing to do something leaves with the air. "I was upset with the curriculum, so I tried to uncover the source."

"Oh." Blades' tone has turned dark, his field curious, and also frustrated. But he's doing something odd with it, as if trying to communicate that the anger is not focused on Chase. It isn't quite clear, but he appreciates it regardless. "Is that why they failed you?"

"No." Chase looks back up at the building. "They gave me one more chance after finding me looking into... them. But I was never allowed to be alone after that. But, my final exam..."

Chase shutters his optics again. Backtalking is not an enforcer trait! the voice of one of his instructors screams in his audials. You're nothing but an insolent little brat who thinks you're better than the rest of us-

"Chase?"

Chase vents harshly and shoves the memories away. Talking about it is good, right? Besides, it's all over.

They can't touch him now.

"I'm okay." Chase turns back to Blades. "They simulated someone breaking into the building and attacking us without telling us what was happening." He vents harshly again. "I thought he was going to kill my batchmates. He had taken a few down, and a vibroknife to one's neck, and it was just me pointing my gun at him.

"They were shouting at me to kill him." Chase blindly reaches out and Blades grabs his hand, squeezing it tight. "I tried to shoot his knee, incapacitate him so he could face justice. But... the gun was empty. They gave me an empty gun. And they were not happy with me."

Cohort above all else! the voice screams in his helm. You should NEVER risk your cohort for justice. If they threaten a life, take theirs.

But-

But NOTHING. This was your last chance. When push comes to shove, you've proven you're WEAK.

The enforcers do not tolerate weakness.

"Oh." Blades says. "And now you're here."

"I don't understand," Chase growls. "What I did was perfectly acceptable, even in regards to the curriculum-"

"Oh, Chase," Blades says, soft and almost mournful. Chase falls silent. "I think they just wanted you to follow orders."

"Oh."

Why can't you just follow orders?

"I don't want to keep talking about this," Chase says suddenly, pulling away from Blades.

"Yeah, of course," Blades says softly. "Let's go back."

"Right."

They've just started walking when an achingly familiar voice reaches Chase's audials. "Chase! Chase, is that you?"

Blades' optics narrow. "Is he one of your-"

"No. Just a friend." Chase takes a deep vent, steels his field into a neutral state, and turns to face the approaching mech.

Smokescreen scoops Chase up into a hug that's just a little too tight. "How're you doing, buddy?" he asks, cupping Chase's face. "Oh man, it's been too long! I heard you got shifted to the Rescue Bots, but man, I didn't think they'd put you through the works like this. I mean, the optics are cool, but they aren't, well, you."

"It is nice to see you too, Smokescreen," Chase murmurs, fluttering his wings to return the greeting Smokescreen's are flapping. "How have you been?"

"I've been doing great!" Smokescreen's wings flutters excitedly, and he moves his hands from Chase's face to his shoulders. "Your batch is doing good too, they're great kids." His face pulls into a frown. "I know the policies and you can't talk to them. But I thought you might like to know."

"Yes, that is... nice to hear." Chase's frame might be overheating.

"Oh, but who's this?" Smokescreen asks, gesturing to Blades with a wing.

"Blades," Blades introduces himself. He doesn't offer a hand, and has begun crunching on his silica wafers again. "A friend."

"Oh, that reminds me!" Smokescreen lets go of Chase and starts tapping on his comm. "Prowl's a few blocks over, I gotta tell him you're here! He'd love to see you!"

Chase's tanks drop to his pedes. "That really isn't necessary-"

"He's on his way." Smokescreen tucks his comm away and turns back to Chase with another grin. "But you're making friends! I'm real proud of you, kiddo," he admonishes, petting between his finials.

Blades is watching the two of them, tensed, like he's ready to fight at a moment's notice. Not for the first time, Chase wonders if he carries weapons.

Tires squeal as an enforcer rounds the corner, before transforming with a bounce and landing right in front of them. Prowl's face doesn't match his driving, nor his field, flitting with carefully contained excitement. "Chase," he says, with a soft and professional smile, "it's good to see you."

"It is good to see you too," Chase says, accepting and clasping Prowl's outstretched hands.

Prowl's gaze drifts behind Chase, and his optics widen a modicum. He's shocked. "Oh," he says. "Hello."

Blades field is tucked tight to his frame, but his rotors are flared in a clear show of hostility. Both Smokescreen and Prowl's wings drop into a position of do-not-worry-I-am-not-a-threat.

"Do you know him?" Chase asks Blades, now almost worrying about potential weapons on Blades' frame.

Blades doesn't answer. "We have met," Prowl says vaguely. "I am glad to see you are doing well."

Blades' rotors hike up higher. .:We should go. Now:.

.:Only if you tell me why:. Chase challenges. It's only fair, he thinks.

"We should probably go," Smokescreen says, but whether it's for a legitimate reason or he can sense the tension in the air is unclear. "We can't be seen slacking off."

He pushes past Prowl to rub his chevron to the crest of Chase's helm. "Keep out of trouble, alright? And don't be a stranger! They never said you couldn't talk to us."

"Of course," Chase says, letting Prowl rub his chevron against him next. He's pinged twice not a moment later.

Blades tugs insistently at a wing, which Chase flicks out of his grip. He turns to face him, wings flaring up in anger. "Why-"

"Alright, stay safe!" With another quick hug from Smokescreen, the two enforcers speed off together.

"Ugh, finally," Blades growls. "Let's go."

"I don't understand what your problem is," Chase says, flicking his wing to try and get rid of the phantom sensation of a hand on it. "And do not touch my wings ever again."

"Noted," Blades says. "Sorry. I didn't mean- I just wanted to get out of there."

"Why?"

"Because... they let one of them practice questioning with me," Blades says softly. "Regarding my brothers' murders. I'm sure he's nice, but..."

Chase patiently waits for Blades to continue, but he trails off into silence.

It's nothing compared to what Chase told him, but it's something. Brothers, interrogations, murder?

Chase doesn't like not knowing. But Blades likes not telling. So here they are, at a standstill.

"Okay," Chase says softly. He reaches for Blades' hand, and the helicopter takes it.

They walk home in silence.

[afeelgoodblog]

The Best News of Last Week - March 27, 2023

🐢 - Why did the 90-year-old tortoise become a father? Because he finally came out of his shell!

1. New Mexico governor signs bill ending juvenile life sentences without parole

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has signed a bill into law that prevents juvenile offenders from receiving life sentences without eligibility for parole. The bill, known as the No Life Sentences for Juveniles Act, allows offenders who committed crimes under the age of 18 and received life sentences to be eligible for parole hearings 15 to 25 years into their sentences.

This legislation also applies to juveniles found guilty of first-degree murder, even if they were tried as adults. The move puts New Mexico in a group of at least 24 other states and Washington, DC, that have enacted similar measures following a 2021 Supreme Court ruling.

2. Promising pill completely eliminates cancer in 18 leukaemia patients

An experimental pill called revumenib has shown promise in curing terminal leukemia patients who were not responding to treatment in a long-awaited clinical trial in the United States. The drug works by inhibiting a specific protein called menin, which is involved in the machinery that gets hijacked by leukemia cells and causes normal blood cells to turn into cancerous ones.

The pill targets the most common mutation in acute myeloid leukemia, a gene called NPM1, and a less common fusion called KMT2A. The US Food and Drug Administration granted revumenib "breakthrough therapy designation" to fast-track its development and regulatory review based on the promising results of the trial.

3. Spain passes law against domestic animal abuse

Spain has passed a new law on animal welfare, accompanied by a reform of the penal code that increases prison sentences for those mistreating animals. The law will make compulsory training for dog owners, and will prohibit them from leaving their dogs alone for more than 24 hours.

It also mandates the sterilisation of cats, with exceptions for farms, and increases the penalties for mistreatment of animals to up to two years in prison, or three years in the event of aggravating circumstances.

4. Bravery medals for women who raced into 'rough, crazy' surf to save drowning girls

Elyse Partridge (far left) and Bella Broadley (far right) raced into dangerous surf to save Chloe and Violet from drowning.(ABC North Coast: Hannah Ross)

Bella Broadley and Elyse Partridge saved two 11-year-old girls from drowning at Angels Beach near Ballina, an unpatrolled beach in Australia. The younger girls, Chloe and Violet, became trapped in a rip and overwhelmed by waves and the current. Bella and Elyse jumped into action, using an esky lid as a flotation device to help them swim to the girls. Elyse helped Chloe back to shore while Bella swam further out to help Violet.

Elyse and Bella were on Wednesday named on the Governor General's Australian Bravery Decorations Honours List, which recognised 66 Australians for acts of bravery.

5. Almost every cat featured in viral Tik Tok posted by Kansas City animal shelter adopted

Let's find homes for the rest

6. A 90-year-old tortoise named Mr. Pickles just became a father of 3. It's a big 'dill'

These critically endangered tortoises are native to Madagascar and have seen their numbers decline due to over-collection for illegal sales on the black market. Captive breeding programs have helped produce new radiated tortoises, but the species still faces extinction in the wild.

That's why the arrival of these hatchlings, born to 90-year-old Mr. Pickles and his 53-year-old partner Mrs. Pickles, is such great news. Mr. Pickles is considered the most genetically valuable radiated tortoise in the Association of Zoos and Aquariums' Species Survival Plan, and the births represent a significant contribution to the survival of the species.

7. EU strikes ‘ground-breaking’ deal to cut maritime emissions

The European Parliament and EU ministers have agreed on a new law to cut emissions in the maritime sector. The law aims to reduce ship emissions by 2% as of 2025 and 80% as of 2050, covering greenhouse gas, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions.

The European Commission will review the law in 2028 and will decide whether to place carbon-cutting requirements on smaller ships. The agreement will also require containerships and passenger ships docking at major EU ports to plug into the on-shore power supply as of 2030. Penalties collected from those that fail to meet the targets will be allocated to projects focused on decarbonising the maritime sector.

- - - -

That's it for this week :)

This newsletter will always be free. If you liked this post you can support me with a small kofi donation:

Buy me a coffee ❤️

Also don’t forget to share this post with your friends.

[thedystopianexperiance]

A short introduction to the goals of project 2025

Project 2025 aims to radically transform the federal government and advance a conservative political agenda. Some of its primary goals include:

1. Reorganization of Federal Agencies

- Eliminating the Department of Education: The project calls for transferring educational authority to states and removing federal influence, asserting that it promotes "left-wing" ideologies like critical race theory and gender policies.

- Reducing Environmental Regulations: Plans include disbanding climate change research programs, downsizing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and promoting fossil fuels over renewable energy.

2. Promoting Conservative Social Policies

- Traditional Family Values: The initiative seeks to reinforce the nuclear family structure, opposing gender ideology, and restricting reproductive rights, including banning certain forms of research using embryonic stem cells.

- Restrictions on LGBTQ+ Rights: Proposals include limiting the recognition of transgender identities in schools and workplaces and opposing policies like allowing trans women to compete in women's sports.

3. Centralizing Executive Power

- Advocates for the 'unitary executive theory', which would grant the president more direct control over the federal government, including the ability to replace civil servants with political appointees loyal to the administration.

4. Economic Policies

- Tax Reform: Supporting pro-family tax cuts and eliminating taxes perceived to penalize marriage or large families.

- Medicare and Medicaid: Proposals suggest reducing the scope of these programs, emphasizing privatization over federal involvement.

5. Dismantling Bureaucracy

- Aims to significantly reduce the size of the federal government, decentralizing power to states and increasing accountability through stricter oversight of agencies.

These goals have sparked significant debate. Supporters view them as a return to limited government and traditional values, while critics argue the plan undermines democratic institutions, civil rights, and environmental protections.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

By  Kassy Dillon

A group of Jewish Harvard University students filed a lawsuit on Wednesday accusing it of enabling anti-Semitism and selectively enforcing its own policies to avoid protecting Jews from harassment.

“Harvard permits students and faculty to advocate, without consequence, the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish country in the world,” the lawsuit by student Alexander Kestenbaum states. “Meanwhile, Harvard requires students to take a training class that warns that they will be disciplined if they engage in sizeism, fatphobia, racism, transphobia, or other disfavored behavior.”

Kestenbaum’s lawsuit, filed jointly with the group Students Against Antisemitism (SAA), accuses Harvard of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and comes amid mounting criticism for its response to Hamas’ deadly October 7 massacre of Israeli citizens. Kestenbaum, a Jewish student at the Harvard Divinity School, is joined by five other unnamed students who are members of SAA in the lawsuit.

“Harvard, America’s leading university, has become a bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment,” the lawsuit states. “Mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty have marched by the hundreds through Harvard’s campus, shouting vile antisemitic slogans and calling for death to Jews and Israel.”

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the lawsuit references mobs occupying campus buildings, promoting violence, and assaulting Jews on campus. It also accuses administrators and professors of promulgating anti-Semitism and dismissing students who object.

“What is most striking about all of this is Harvard’s abject failure and refusal to lift a finger to stop and deter this outrageous antisemitic conduct and penalize the students and faculty who perpetrate it,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit argues that anti-Semitism has been a campus problem at Harvard for years, but claims Harvard is now enabling it. 

[crossdreamers]

Donald Trump's horrific plan for transgender people

Warning: The content of this article may be traumatizing for trans people living in the US.

Now that Trump as won the US presidential election as well as the Senate, LGBTQ people around the country need to prepare for a long and painful battle.

During the campaign Trump made it perfectly clear what he wants to as far as transgender protections and health services are concerned.

The following summary is based on a presentation made by the Trump Vance campaign. We have rewritten the most offensive language.

The new Trump administration will:

Revoke current policies that support gender-affirming treatments for minors, including puberty blockers and surgeries.

Issue an executive order to end federal agency support for programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age.

Prohibit the use of federal funds to promote or cover the cost of gender-affirming procedures.

Introduce legislation to ban gender affirming procedures on children nationwide.

Penalize healthcare providers involved in these procedures by removing them from Medicaid and Medicare compliance.

Support legal avenues for individuals to sue medical professionals who have performed gender-affirming procedures on minors.

Mandate investigations into pharmaceutical companies and hospital networks for potentially concealing negative side effects and marketing unapproved drugs.

Direct the Department of Education to ensure school personnel do not encourage discussions about gender identity without repercussions, and punish those that do.

Promote education that emphasizes traditional gender roles and the nuclear family.

Request a law to formally recognize only male and female genders assigned at birth.

Ban transgender women from taking part in women's sport.

Uphold parental rights concerning their children's gender identity decisions.

Will they do all of this?

There is no reason to believe that Trump will not follow up on this. To what extent the new administration will be able to implement these policies, will depend on several factors, including:

The outcome of legal processes in courts.

Public outrage.

Whether the Republicans take the House of Representatives.

To change federal legislation in this area, the Republicans need to control both houses of Congress.

A war on transgender people

This list proves that the Republican Party has now declared war on transgender people. This is a policy aimed at erasing trans people from society.

It is true that some of the proposals are aimed at children only, but we will not be surprised if that approach is extended to adults as well later on. In any case the message that gender incongruence in children is "not real" carries the message that this applies to adult identities too.

Note that the Republicans want to scare and numb people and institutions from supporting trans people. Out of fear of legal action individuals, companies and institutions may avoid giving trans people any support, even if it is legal on paper.

The public policy of the Trump administration will also encourage transphobes to attack trans people both in public and in private spaces.

Trans people and their allies inside and outside the US will have to plan for the worst. We have to do everything we can to unmask the cruelty of Trump and his Fascists. We need to make sure that the Republicans are not able to normalize this kind of cruelty.

See our article "Trump and the transphobes won in the US. But there are still ways trans people can win" for more on what we can do.

Free hotlines for gender & sexual identity, LGBTQ+ in the United States.

Photo: Boogich

[pilgrim1975]

Isidore Hespel, the Jackal finally tamed.

Executioners are, by nature, a divisive group of people. Some people admire what they do and see a useful social purpose in their doing it. Others look down on people prepared to kill in cold blood, seeing them as Society’s assassins or the ultimate expression of tyranny, the State presuming the right to kill its own citizens. In their own way they are perhaps as divisive as the penalty they…

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"PRAISES PENITENTIARY," Daily British Whig (Kingston, Ontario). September 20, 1920. Page 2. --- Gen. W. S. Hughes Addresses Club Meeting At Ottawa. ---- Ottawa Journal. Brig. Gen. W. St. Pierre Hughes, superintendent of penitentiaries, raised the curtain on various penitentiary features, and, incidentally, made vigorous dénial of several statements regarding prison matters, in a most interesting address before members of The Kiwanis Club, of Ottawa, at Friday's luncheon of the club in the Chateau Laurier. General Hughes gave vivid comparisons between prison life of years ago and conditions now to be found in institutions of this type, particularly the one at Kingston, where he had spent twenty-two of his twenty-nine years as a penitentiary official. The consideration that is now extended to the in- mates was described by the speaker, and his remarks drew enthusiastic applause from the Kiwanians.

General Hughes took occasion to deny the allegation of a Montreal newspaper that prisoners were released from the Kingston institution in clothing that stamped them as ex-convicts.

General Hughes remarked that soldiers on active service during the recent war were well fed, but their rations were not so good as those the prisoners at Kingston enjoyed. The cells of Kingston penitentiary had all been remodelled, however, and the dungeons have been abolished. There is not a cell in the institution which the sun's rays do not reach at some portion of the day. General Hughes described the larger cells as nice bedrooms, and he went into details regarding their fittings

General Hughes told of the development in prison work since Kingston penitentiary was built by the British Government in 1833, when it was considered the greatest structure of its kind in the whole world. The plan of the building had actually been adopted in many countries since that time.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Judd Legum and Rebecca Crosby at Popular Information:

This November, Florida residents will decide whether to amend their state constitution to protect reproductive rights, overturning the state's near-total abortion ban after six weeks of pregnancy. If Amendment 4 passes, the following text would be added to the Florida Constitution: "No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider."  The primary group supporting Amendment 4, Floridians Protecting Freedom, is running television ads supporting its passage. One such ad is a first-personal narrative of a woman named Caroline who was diagnosed with brain cancer while pregnant with her second child. "The doctors knew that if I did not end my pregnancy, I would lose my baby, I would lose my life, and my daughter would lose her mom," Caroline says in the ad. "Florida has now banned abortion, even in cases like mine." Caroline urges voters to support Amendment 4 to "protect women like me." 

On October 3, the Florida Department of Health sent a letter to Mark Higgins, the General Manager of WFLA, Tampa's NBC affiliate. The letter, sent by Florida Department of Health General Counsel John Wilson, claimed that airing the ad violates Florida law. Wilson cites Florida's law against "sanitary nuisance," which prohibits "the commission of any act… by which… the health and lives of individuals… may be endangered." Wilson argues that WFLA's decision to air the ad could "threaten or impair the health and lives of women." Wilson advised Higgins that, now that he has been notified that the ad is creating a "sanitary nuisance," WFLA must stop airing it within 24 hours. Failure to do so, Wilson writes, would be a crime punishable by up to 60 days in prison under Florida law. The letter was first reported by investigative reporter Jason Garcia. 

Aaron Terr, Director of Public Advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a non-profit dedicated to preserving free speech, told Popular Information that the Florida Department of Health letter stretches "the meaning of sanitary nuisance beyond recognition." The statute deals with issues like "untreated or improperly treated human waste," "[t]he keeping of diseased animals," and the "causing of any condition capable of breeding flies, mosquitoes, or other arthropods capable of transmitting diseases." While the statute includes a catch-all for "any other condition determined to be a sanitary nuisance," there is no mention of political ads.

Floridians Protecting Freedom, in an October 4 letter to WFLA, rejects the Florida Department of Health's contention that the ad is false. In the letter, Floridians Protecting Freedom notes that Caroline "was diagnosed with Stage 4 brain cancer at 20 weeks pregnant" and "the diagnosis was terminal." Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) has advised that abortion is permitted after six weeks of pregnancy only if there is "an immediate threat to the pregnant person's life." The AHCA has said that premature rupture of membranes, ectopic pregnancy, and molar pregnancy meet that standard. None of those exceptions applied to Caroline. 

Fascist bully Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his regime are threatening arrests of TV executives that dare to air the “Caroline” ad from pro-Amendment 4 group Floridians Protecting Freedom. This is all part of DeSantis’s war on freedom of speech and abortion rights.

[stephensmithuk]

The Sign of the Four: The Statement of the Case

CW for the end of this as it includes discussions of child murder and detailed discussions of capital punishment.

Turbans have never been particularly common in the United Kingdom; these days, they are most likely to be worn by West African women or those who are undergoing chemotherapy.

It was the norm for a married woman to be referred to as "Mrs. [husband's name]", especially on something like a dinner invite. Historically, in the English common law system the United States also uses, a woman's legal identity was subsumed by her husband on marriage, in something called coverture. In some cases, a woman who ran her own business could be treated as legally single (a femme sole) and so sue someone - or be sued. This practice was gradually abolished, but did fully end until the 1970s.

@myemuisemo has excellently covered the reasons why Mary would have been sent back to the UK.

As you were looking at a rather long trip to and from India, even with the Suez Canal open by 1878, long leave like this would have been commonplace.

The Andaman Islands are an archipelago SW of what is now Myanmar and was then called Burma. The indigenous Andamanese lived pretty much an isolated experience until the late 19th century when the British showed up. The locals were pretty hostile to outsiders; shipwrecked crews were often attacked and killed in the 1830s and 1840s, the place getting a reputation for cannibalism.

The British eventually managed to conquer the place and combine its administration with the Nicobar Islands. Most of the native population would be wiped out via outside disease and loss of territory; they now number around 500 people. The Indian government, who took over the area on independence, now legally protect the remaining tribespeople, restricting or banning access to much of the area.

Of particular note are the Sentinelese of North Sentinel Island, who have made abundantly clear that they do not want outside contact. This is probably due to the British in the late 1800s, who kidnapped some of them and took them to Port Blair. The adults died of disease and the children were returned with gifts... possibly of the deadly sort. Various attempts by the Indian government (who legally claimed the island in 1970 via dropping a marker off) and anthropologists to contact them have generally not gone well, with the islanders' response frequently being of the arrow-firing variety. Eventually, via this and NGO pressure, most people got the hint and the Indian government outright banned visits to the island.

In 2004, after the Asian tsunami that killed over 2,000 people in the archipelago, the Indian Coast Guard sent over a helicopter to check the inhabitants were OK. They made clear they were via - guess what - firing arrows at the helicopter. Most of the people killed were locals and tourists; the indigenous tribes knew "earthquake equals possible tsunami" and had headed for higher ground.

In 2006, an Indian crab harvesting boat drifted onto the island; both of the crew were killed and buried.

In 2018, an American evangelical missionary called John Allen Chau illegally went to the island, aiming to convert the locals to Christianity. He ended up as a Darwin Award winner and the Indians gave up attempts to recover his body.

The first British penal colony in the area was established in 1789 by the Bengalese but shut down in 1796 due to a high rate of disease and death. The second was set up in 1857 and remained in operation until 1947.

People poisoning children for the insurance money was a sadly rather common occurrence in the Victorian era to the point that people cracked jokes about it if a child was enrolled in a burial society i.e. where people paid in money to cover funeral expenses and to pay out on someone's death.

The most infamous of these was Mary Ann Cotton from Durham, who is believed to have murdered 21 people, including three of her four husbands and 11 of her 13 children so she could get the payouts. She was arrested in July 1872 and charged with the murder of her stepson, Charles Edward Cotton, who had been exhumed after his attending doctor kept bodily samples and found traces of arsenic. After a delay for her to give birth to her final child in prison and a row in London over the choice the Attorney General (legally responsible for the prosecution of poisoning cases) had made for the prosecuting counsel, she was convicted in March 1973 of the murder and sentenced to death, the jury coming back after just 90 minutes. The standard Victorian practice was for any further legal action to be dropped after a capital conviction, as hanging would come pretty quickly.

Cotton was hanged at Durham County Goal that same month. Instead of her neck being broken, she slowly strangled to death as the rope had been made too short, possibly deliberately.

Then again, the hangman was William Calcraft, who had started off flogging juvenille offenders at Newgate Prison. Calcraft hanged an estimated 450 people over a 45-year career and developed quite a reputation for incompetence or sadism (historians debate this) due to his use of short drops. On several occasions, he would have to go down into the pit and pull on the condemned person's legs to speed up their death. In a triple hanging in 1867 of three Fenian who had murdered a police officer, one died instantly but the other two didn't. Calcraft went down and finished one of them off to the horror of officiating priest Father Gadd, who refused to let him do the same to the third and held the man's hand for 45 minutes until it was over. There was also his very public 1856 botch that led to the pinioning of the condemned's legs to become standard practice.

Calcraft also engaged in the then-common and legal practice of selling off the rope and the condemned person's clothing to make extra money. The latter would got straight to Madame Tussaud's for the latest addition to the Chamber of Horrors. Eventually, he would be pensioned off in 1874 aged 73 after increasingly negative press comment.

The Martyrdom of Man was a secular "universal" history of the Western World, published in 1872.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Better for Brazil to be ignored by Trump’s incoming administration

According to a study by Global Trade Alert, Brazil ranks among the 14 economies most at risk of U.S. investigations into alleged unfair trade practices out of 173 analyzed

During his first term, Donald Trump did not hesitate to use import tariffs to penalize both rivals and allies, pushing companies to manufacture their products in the U.S. Returning to the White House, Mr. Trump is now expected to pursue an even more aggressive plan, proposing a “universal tariff” of 10% to 20% on most imports and as high as 60% on China, seen as the top adversary.

Economists cited by The New York Times compare Mr. Trump’s likely trade barriers—unprecedented in recent generations—to a grenade thrown at the heart of the rules-based international trade system.

Based on the current landscape in Washington, Brazil is one of the countries most vulnerable to facing trade tensions with the incoming Trump administration, according to a study by Global Trade Alert (GTA), which monitors trade policy developments. Out of 173 economies, Brazil is among the 14 most at risk of U.S. investigations into alleged unfair trade practices in the coming years.

The GTA identifies five common complaints from Washington and assesses each trade partner’s performance based on these criteria, issuing red flags for countries that perform “poorly” on predefined measures. In the analysis, 14 economies received between three and five red flags. South Korea, with five red flags, tops the list, rather than China, which has four. Brazil has three red flags due to concerns over exchange rate policies, measures that could benefit Brazilian firms at the expense of U.S. exports, and issues highlighted in the U.S. Trade Representative’s National Trade Estimate report.

Continue reading.